democracynow--2020-03-02--Meet the 26-Year-Old Immigration Lawyer Challenging "Trump's Favorite Democrat" in Texas Primary

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Ahead of Super Tuesday , we turn now to look at the wave of young progressives who want to follow in the footsteps of Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the Democratic Socialist who unseated a 10-term incumbent Democrat in New York City two years ago , becoming the youngest woman ever to serve in Congress .
One of the key races that ’ s taking place on Super Tuesday , that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the focus is on the presidential primary , is 26-year-old Jessica Cisneros .
She ’ s running in South Texas to challenge Congressmember Henry Cuellar , one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress .
The 64-year-old centrist is backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi .
Cisneros has branded him “ Trump ’ s favorite Democrat ” because he voted with President Trump nearly 70 % of the time .
In return , Cuellar has run attack ads like this one .
AMY GOODMAN : In fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the contentious race in South Texas has been for Cuellar .
He received at least $ 40,000 to defend his seat from the conservative Koch brothers ’ political action committee and has major support from pharmaceutical companies .
In contrast , Cisneros is an immigration attorney who supports Medicare for All , the Green New Deal and “ creating a humane border and immigration policy.
” She has been endorsed by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
We invited Congressmember Cuellar to join us ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joined by Jessica Cisneros .
She ’ s joining us by Democracy Now !
video stream from the campaign trail .
We welcome you to Democracy Now !
Actually , Jessica Cisneros , you are a former intern for Congressmember Cisneros [ sic ] , who you are challenging ?
JESSICA CISNEROS : Yeah , back in 2014 .
And first of all , thank you so much for having me .
AMY GOODMAN : Rather , former intern of Cuellar ?
JESSICA CISNEROS : But yes , I interned for him back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time .
And I went to Washington .
I was super excited to intern for my member of Congress .
But I was , I guess , shocked by how conservative he was .
And it took me having to go to Washington to figure out his very egregious track record .
So that ’ s something that I think about a lot now as I ’ m hitting the doors , because not a lot of people before this campaign knew what Cuellar was up to and how he wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
AMY GOODMAN : So , you ’ re on the campaign trail now .
Tell us where you are and tell us where — you know , we did invite Congressmember Cuellar to be on the broadcast .
But can you tell us what your main points of contention are with him and why you want to serve your district in Congress ?
JESSICA CISNEROS : Right .
So , right now we ’ re in Mission , Texas .
It ’ s the part of the most southern tip of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s almost the same size as the state of New Jersey .
So , it goes all the way up to my hometown of Laredo , Texas , and then up to San Antonio , which takes us about six hours just to drive through it .
I think one of the biggest distinctions between me and Cuellar is who we ’ re serving .
And you can tell who we ’ re serving because of how we finance our campaigns .
As was mentioned , I am not taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I do not think that corporate money has a place or a role in electoral politics , and it shouldn ’ t .
So we ’ ve been able to amass more than $ 1.5 million with just an average contribution of $ 32 , which is incredible .
And here you have somebody who ’ s taking money from the Koch brothers , or the Koch family .
They ’ re taking money from other outside groups , taking money from the NRA , you know , the private prison industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial backers of Cuellar .
And that ’ s why we believe that there are so many issues , whether it be healthcare , whether it be immigration , whether it be education or infrastructure down here , that are going unaddressed , because while he ’ s trying to cater to outside corporate interests , we ’ re out here trying to make sure that our voices are being heard .
AMY GOODMAN : If you can talk about the main issues that Congressmember Cuellar is attacking you on .
I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You ’ re saying he ’ s “ Trump ’ s favorite Democrat.
” What does it mean to say he has sided with the president 70 % of the time ?
I mean , this is a very serious issue , as you ’ re along the southern border .
Even in the last few days , President Trump , when being asked if he ’ s going to close the southern border entirely because of coronavirus , he said these are the issues that he ’ s looking at right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I haven ’ t heard anything from the congressman , you know , trying to make sure that we ’ re not caught in the middle of this , because , yes , we are right on the U.S.-Mexico border .
And I think that , for example , some of the votes that he ’ s taken are about immigration — right ?
— that he sided with President Trump .
He ’ s voted to fund the wall twice , once in 2018 , the most recent in 2019 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ district where the wall is being built .
And it ’ s upsetting for us to see .
First of all , this is an area that has a huge immigrant population .
My parents are from Mexico .
Cuellar ’ s parents and his family have Mexican roots , as well .
To see him kind of turn his back on our community , and then do it in a very expensive way — the wall is costing about tens of millions of dollars per mile .
And then you turn around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a 24 % poverty rate — our home town has a 30 % poverty rate .
All that money could actually be used to invest in our communities .
But that ’ s not what he ’ s been fighting for .
He ’ s basically been throwing our community under the bus .
And there ’ s so much potential in this area .
The two South Texan values are familia and hard work .
All we ask for is the opportunity and the investment , and we rise up to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t seem to think that way .
AMY GOODMAN : So , can you tell us what ’ s happening on the border ?
Just the headlines that we had at the top of the show , so many of these headlines relate directly to your neck of the woods — right ?
— to southern Texas and to the whole border area .
Asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border were left confused and frustrated after a federal appeals court Friday ruled that Trump ’ s so-called Remain in Mexico policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ later , stayed its own decision to allow the Trump administration to continue it .
And then they ruled that the appointment of Ken Cuccinelli as immigration czar — this was another federal judge — was completely illegal , and so whatever policies he put into place should not be in effect .
JESSICA CISNEROS : Exactly .
So , I ’ ve been doing immigrants ’ rights work since 2012 , the most recent of which has been representing folks in immigration court under the Trump administration .
And I can tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coaster right now .
And when you have — when you ’ re talking about families being caught in the middle of this , it ’ s unacceptable , right ?
Like , we were just — like you mentioned , just a few days ago , like , this decision was passed , everyone was really excited , then , a few hours later , it ’ s like , “ No , you know , we were just kidding.
” You know , these are people ’ s lives on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
My parents were beneficiaries of immigration reform themselves .
I know what the American dream means to families , because that ’ s how my family was able to have the life that we have now .
And we want that for our many neighbors , who unfortunately right now have mixed-status families .
One of the things that we ’ re trying to focus on with this campaign is paint an accurate — or , paint an accurate picture of what life on the border is like .
I think it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stereotype that this is a very lawless area of the country , because it really isn ’ t .
And for us , it ’ s like , instead of spending money on us , trying to increase the overmilitarization or trying to increase border security , what we ’ re asking for here is to invest that money in our communities .
And again , like , there ’ s areas here called colonias where a lot of families live , where they don ’ t even have basic infrastructure like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , right ?
And we want for the government to invest in us in a different way , instead of trying to police us .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , you talked about your opponent , Congressmember Cuellar , being “ Trump ’ s favorite Democrat.
” But his reputation goes way back .
Is it true that he endorsed George W. Bush for president over Al Gore ?
He ’ s a Democratic congressmember .
JESSICA CISNEROS : Yes , he did .
If you google image his search — or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you ’ ll see a picture of George W. Bush basically coddling his face at the State of the Union one year .
He also used to be Rick Perry ’ s secretary of state here in Texas .
And as recently as the last election cycle , he has fundraised and endorsed tea party Republicans in the state .
So we know — again , this is a district that went to Hillary Clinton by 20 points in the last presidential election .
This is a district where Beto O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Senate race .
We actually believe in strong democratic values .
But for more than a decade , Henry Cuellar has been the only option on the ballot .
So there ’ s a lot of momentum and a lot of excitement right now , because for the first time in over a decade we have another choice .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we ’ re sorry that Congressmember Cuellar wasn ’ t able to join us today , but , Jessica Cisneros , thank you so much for joining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress along the border in South Texas in a district that Hillary Clinton won by 20 points .
Jessica Cisneros has been endorsed by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren .
This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
Tomorrow night , Super Tuesday night , we ’ ll be on the air from 7:00 Eastern to midnight in a joint broadcast with The Intercept following all of the primaries throughout the state , throughout the United States .
We hope you ’ ll join us then @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. Ahead of Super Tuesday, we turn now to look at the wave of young progressives who want to follow in the footsteps of Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic Socialist who unseated a 10-term incumbent Democrat in New York City two years ago, becoming the youngest woman ever to serve in Congress. One of the key races that’s taking place on Super Tuesday, that is not being paid attention to as all the focus is on the presidential primary, is 26-year-old Jessica Cisneros. She’s running in South Texas to challenge Congressmember Henry Cuellar, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress. The 64-year-old centrist is backed by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Cisneros has branded him “Trump’s favorite Democrat” because he voted with President Trump nearly 70% of the time. In return, Cuellar has run attack ads like this one.
CUELLAR AD: Two candidates for Congress. One stands with families; one supports allowing minors to have an abortion without parents’ knowledge. One who is raising money for our community and spent his life here; one who gets her money from outsiders.
AMY GOODMAN: In fact, much of the outsider support pouring into the contentious race in South Texas has been for Cuellar. He received at least $40,000 to defend his seat from the conservative Koch brothers’ political action committee and has major support from pharmaceutical companies. In contrast, Cisneros is an immigration attorney who supports Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and “creating a humane border and immigration policy.” She has been endorsed by presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. We invited Congressmember Cuellar to join us; he declined.
For more, we are joined by Jessica Cisneros. She’s joining us by Democracy Now! video stream from the campaign trail.
We welcome you to Democracy Now! Actually, Jessica Cisneros, you are a former intern for Congressmember Cisneros [sic], who you are challenging?
JESSICA CISNEROS: Yeah, back in 2014. And first of all, thank you so much for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: Rather, former intern of Cuellar?
JESSICA CISNEROS: But yes, I interned for him back in 2014. I was an undergrad at the time. And I went to Washington. I was super excited to intern for my member of Congress. But I was, I guess, shocked by how conservative he was. And it took me having to go to Washington to figure out his very egregious track record. So that’s something that I think about a lot now as I’m hitting the doors, because not a lot of people before this campaign knew what Cuellar was up to and how he wasn’t really representing us in Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re on the campaign trail now. Tell us where you are and tell us where — you know, we did invite Congressmember Cuellar to be on the broadcast. But can you tell us what your main points of contention are with him and why you want to serve your district in Congress?
JESSICA CISNEROS: Right. So, right now we’re in Mission, Texas. It’s the part of the most southern tip of our district. Our district is pretty big. It’s almost the same size as the state of New Jersey. So, it goes all the way up to my hometown of Laredo, Texas, and then up to San Antonio, which takes us about six hours just to drive through it.
I think one of the biggest distinctions between me and Cuellar is who we’re serving. And you can tell who we’re serving because of how we finance our campaigns. As was mentioned, I am not taking a single cent of corporate PAC money. I do not think that corporate money has a place or a role in electoral politics, and it shouldn’t. So we’ve been able to amass more than $1.5 million with just an average contribution of $32, which is incredible. And here you have somebody who’s taking money from the Koch brothers, or the Koch family. They’re taking money from other outside groups, taking money from the NRA, you know, the private prison industry, which is one of the huge financial backers of Cuellar. And that’s why we believe that there are so many issues, whether it be healthcare, whether it be immigration, whether it be education or infrastructure down here, that are going unaddressed, because while he’s trying to cater to outside corporate interests, we’re out here trying to make sure that our voices are being heard.
AMY GOODMAN: If you can talk about the main issues that Congressmember Cuellar is attacking you on. I mean, your language against him is strong. You’re saying he’s “Trump’s favorite Democrat.” What does it mean to say he has sided with the president 70% of the time? I mean, this is a very serious issue, as you’re along the southern border. Even in the last few days, President Trump, when being asked if he’s going to close the southern border entirely because of coronavirus, he said these are the issues that he’s looking at right now.
JESSICA CISNEROS: Exactly. And I haven’t heard anything from the congressman, you know, trying to make sure that we’re not caught in the middle of this, because, yes, we are right on the U.S.-Mexico border. And I think that, for example, some of the votes that he’s taken are about immigration — right? — that he sided with President Trump. He’s voted to fund the wall twice, once in 2018, the most recent in 2019. There’s already areas in our district where the wall is being built. And it’s upsetting for us to see. First of all, this is an area that has a huge immigrant population. My parents are from Mexico. Cuellar’s parents and his family have Mexican roots, as well. To see him kind of turn his back on our community, and then do it in a very expensive way — the wall is costing about tens of millions of dollars per mile. And then you turn around and see our district, which has a 24% poverty rate — our home town has a 30% poverty rate. All that money could actually be used to invest in our communities. But that’s not what he’s been fighting for. He’s basically been throwing our community under the bus. And there’s so much potential in this area. The two South Texan values are familia and hard work. All we ask for is the opportunity and the investment, and we rise up to the challenge. But, unfortunately, Cuellar doesn’t seem to think that way.
AMY GOODMAN: So, can you tell us what’s happening on the border? Just the headlines that we had at the top of the show, so many of these headlines relate directly to your neck of the woods — right? — to southern Texas and to the whole border area. Asylum seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border were left confused and frustrated after a federal appeals court Friday ruled that Trump’s so-called Remain in Mexico policy was invalid, but, just hours later, stayed its own decision to allow the Trump administration to continue it. And then they ruled that the appointment of Ken Cuccinelli as immigration czar — this was another federal judge — was completely illegal, and so whatever policies he put into place should not be in effect.
JESSICA CISNEROS: Exactly. So, I’ve been doing immigrants’ rights work since 2012, the most recent of which has been representing folks in immigration court under the Trump administration. And I can tell you immigration law is such a roller coaster right now. And when you have — when you’re talking about families being caught in the middle of this, it’s unacceptable, right? Like, we were just — like you mentioned, just a few days ago, like, this decision was passed, everyone was really excited, then, a few hours later, it’s like, “No, you know, we were just kidding.” You know, these are people’s lives on the line. It’s their livelihoods. My parents were beneficiaries of immigration reform themselves. I know what the American dream means to families, because that’s how my family was able to have the life that we have now. And we want that for our many neighbors, who unfortunately right now have mixed-status families.
One of the things that we’re trying to focus on with this campaign is paint an accurate — or, paint an accurate picture of what life on the border is like. I think it’s very harmful to keep perpetuating the stereotype that this is a very lawless area of the country, because it really isn’t. And for us, it’s like, instead of spending money on us, trying to increase the overmilitarization or trying to increase border security, what we’re asking for here is to invest that money in our communities. And again, like, there’s areas here called colonias where a lot of families live, where they don’t even have basic infrastructure like paved roads or running water or streetlights, right? And we want for the government to invest in us in a different way, instead of trying to police us.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, you talked about your opponent, Congressmember Cuellar, being “Trump’s favorite Democrat.” But his reputation goes way back. Is it true that he endorsed George W. Bush for president over Al Gore? He’s a Democratic congressmember.
JESSICA CISNEROS: Yes, he did. If you google image his search — or, search on Google Images for his picture, you’ll see a picture of George W. Bush basically coddling his face at the State of the Union one year. He also used to be Rick Perry’s secretary of state here in Texas. And as recently as the last election cycle, he has fundraised and endorsed tea party Republicans in the state. So we know — again, this is a district that went to Hillary Clinton by 20 points in the last presidential election. This is a district where Beto O’Rourke wiped the floor with Ted Cruz in the Senate race. We actually believe in strong democratic values. But for more than a decade, Henry Cuellar has been the only option on the ballot. So there’s a lot of momentum and a lot of excitement right now, because for the first time in over a decade we have another choice.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re sorry that Congressmember Cuellar wasn’t able to join us today, but, Jessica Cisneros, thank you so much for joining us, 26-year-old immigration attorney running for Congress along the border in South Texas in a district that Hillary Clinton won by 20 points. Jessica Cisneros has been endorsed by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Tomorrow night, Super Tuesday night, we’ll be on the air from 7:00 Eastern to midnight in a joint broadcast with The Intercept following all of the primaries throughout the state, throughout the United States. We hope you’ll join us then.


democracynow--2020-03-02--Julian Assange Lawyer: What's at Stake in Extradition Case Is Freedom of the Press

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , as we turn now to the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange , which a British judge has suspended after four days of intense deliberations last week between Assange ’ s lawyers and attorneys representing the U.S. government .
Assange faces 18 charges of attempted hacking and breaches of the Espionage Act for his role in publishing classified documents exposing U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He could be sentenced to up to 175 years in prison .
Judge Vanessa Baraitser ordered the legal teams to reconvene in the middle of May for the remainder of the extradition hearing , where witnesses will be cross-examined .
This is Julian Assange ’ s father , John Shipton , outside Woolwich Crown Court last week .
AMY GOODMAN : That was Julian Assange ’ s father , John Shipton .
Julian Assange has been incarcerated in London ’ s Belmarsh prison since last April .
Since 2012 , he had taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations , which he denied and which the Swedish government ultimately dropped .
Assange even then wasn ’ t as concerned about being extradited to Sweden , but that Sweden would then send him to the United States .
During his time in political exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy , Assange was reportedly spied on by a Spanish security firm .
Julian Assange says the CIA was behind the illegal 24/7 surveillance .
For more , we ’ re joined by , well , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jennifer Robinson , the human rights attorney who ’ s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010 .
Jen Robinson , welcome back to Democracy Now !
Thanks for joining us from London .
Can you describe the four days of hearings , just physically in the courtroom in London , and what Julian Assange faces ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Obviously , we ’ ve just had a week of hearings .
Julian Assange faces , as you said , 175 years in prison for publications back in 2010 that were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I think it ’ s important to remember what this case is really about and the publications for which he ’ s being prosecuted and sought for extradition .
That includes Iraq War Logs , the Afghan War Diaries , showing civilian casualties and abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan , war crimes , human rights abuse .
The same with Cablegate — war crimes , human rights abuse , corruption the world over .
So , for four days last week , there was a packed-out courtroom filled with — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journalist section was packed — to finally hear , after 10 years of the U.S. preparing this case against WikiLeaks , a grand jury investigation that was opened under the Obama administration and an indictment pursued now by the Trump administration .
We finally heard the U.S. case .
And , of course , we heard nothing new , nothing new since Chelsea Manning ’ s prosecution back in 2012 .
What is important , though , is that what the court finally heard is the defense case .
And a number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the Espionage Act .
This is an unprecedented use of the Espionage Act against a publisher , which is , of course , a political offense and ought to be barred from — under the terms of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty .
There should be — extradition should be barred on that basis .
We also heard evidence about the grave threat that this poses to press freedom , not just for journalists inside the United States , but for journalists everywhere around the world , because of the precedent this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could seek to extradite and prosecute journalists and publishers from around the world for publishing truthful information about the United States .
We also heard evidence about how the United States ’ indictment has misrepresented the facts , including making the false allegation that Julian Assange had recklessly and deliberately put lives at risk .
And we heard evidence in the court this week about the technological security measures that WikiLeaks imposed upon their media partners and the redaction processes that were undertaken to protect anyone at risk in those publications .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And I think it ’ s important that people start to see the true facts of this .
Of course , Chelsea Manning remains in prison in the United States right now , but we heard evidence from her prosecution , in these proceedings , demonstrating that Chelsea Manning had in fact provided this information to WikiLeaks based on her own conscience , having seen war crimes , the murder of civilians , the murder of journalists by United States forces , which is what drove her to release the material to WikiLeaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week of hearings , an important one for Julian .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Jennifer Robinson , can you describe the courtroom where — Julian Assange was held at the back of the courtroom , as is the custom ?
Was he in a cage ?
Was he able to hear the proceedings , consult ?
Were you in the front with the other lawyers ?
You ’ re his legal adviser .
JENNIFER ROBINSON : That ’ s correct .
So , throughout the hearings , Julian was sat at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind where we sit as his legal counsel , in , effectively , a glass box , in the dock .
Now , this creates significant amount of difficulties for us as his legal team in communicating with him during the course of the proceedings , which was raised as a concern on the final day of the hearing .
He sits behind us , which means while we ’ re paying attention to the judge and submissions in front , we can ’ t see when he ’ s raising concern or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about what he ’ s hearing in court .
The entire courtroom , including the public gallery and journalists , were alerted to the fact whenever he wants to raise a question with us .
And , of course , if he ’ s whispering to us or trying to get our attention in the court , the U.S. prosecutors sitting right next to us in court can hear everything .
So we made an application at the end of the week in order to allow him to leave the dock .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viewers , it would seem strange that a defendant who does not pose any security risk would not be permitted to sit next to their defense counsel , which is standard practice in the United States .
But the judge refused our application .
We also heard evidence of the mistreatment that Julian suffered , not just the difficulties he has in court in communicating with us in a secure and confidential manner , but also the treatment that he ’ s been receiving from prison authorities .
Just on the first day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was handcuffed 11 times , strip-searched twice and had his legal papers interfered with and taken away from him .
This is indicative of the kinds of treatment that he ’ s been suffering , and is , of course , the most recent in a long history of difficulties that we ’ ve been having in preparing his case , with difficulties of access to him in the prison , difficulties in getting him — getting sufficient time with him to review and take his instructions of the very complex evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court .
And it goes to show , I think , the obstacles and the challenges that we face and that he faces in properly defending himself in these proceedings .
AMY GOODMAN : He said Wednesday , “ I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am watching Wimbledon , ” again , complaining that he could not communicate with you , with the lawyers overall .
Now , the U.S. attorneys argue that his case is not political .
Explain what you think are the most significant war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it means if he came to this country .
How is it possible he , an Australian citizen , faces 175 years for treason in the United States ?
JENNIFER ROBINSON : Of course this case is inherently political , whether you look at the terms — the offenses for which he ’ s been charged , including numerous offenses under the Espionage Act , which encapsulate and capture traditional journalistic activities .
The Espionage Act itself as an offense is a political offense in substance .
But we also need to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this prosecution and extradition request comes .
This is , of course , in the context of the Trump administration , a president who calls the media the enemy of the people .
We have learnt , since Julian was arrested and this extradition request and superceding indictment came through , that the Obama administration had taken a decision not to prosecute under the Espionage Act because of what — the so-called New York Times problem — that is , that you can not distinguish between the actions of WikiLeaks and The New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information .
We also say that beyond the political nature of the offense and the political context in which he would be charged , the U.S. prosecution seemed to — tried to argue this week , this past week , that what WikiLeaks did and Julian did in publishing this information was not a political act .
And , of course , we heard evidence in the court about Julian ’ s very well-known political views , that we heard with respect to WikiLeaks and the aims and why WikiLeaks was created by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Iraq War Logs , WikiLeaks — Julian saying , with the release , “ If lies can start a war , then the truth can stop them.
” And we heard evidence about how the publication of evidence of war crimes , in the context of the Iraq War , both with respect to , for example , “ Collateral Murder , ” which was evidence of a war crime and U.S. troops killing journalists and civilians , but also , more broadly , about torture of detainees — how evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraqi government withdrawing the immunity for U.S. troops and the ultimate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq .
So , of course , what we ’ re seeing is that WikiLeaks not only published information of important human rights abuse — it was certainly in the public interest , and for which they ’ ve won journalism awards the world over — but that in fact resulted in a change in U.S. policy .
And we say that that makes it a political offense .
JENNIFER ROBINSON : We remain very concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had more than seven years inside the Ecuadorian Embassy without access to healthcare , because the U.K. government refused to recognize his asylum , an asylum that was granted to him by Ecuador , not to hide from Sweden , as your introduction suggested , but to protect him from U.S. extradition , the very outcome that he ’ s facing right now .
Inside prison , he is in difficult conditions .
This is a high-security prison .
He ’ s been in effective isolation for much of the time he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you heard me earlier explain the treatment he ’ s been suffering between the prison and the court each time for his hearing , including being handcuffed numerous times , strip searches and the like .
This is , of course , compounding our existing concerns about his health .
And we heard in court , too , psychiatric evidence that ’ s being put before the court about concerns about his ability to withstand the sorts of treatment he will suffer in U.S. prisons under special administrative measures if he was returned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a very serious situation and one that is under constant monitoring at our end .
AMY GOODMAN : Jen Robinson , I want to thank you for being with us , human rights attorney .
She is legal adviser for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010 .
When we come back , tomorrow is Super Tuesday .
We go to Texas to speak with a candidate who ’ s running in a primary race .
That ’ s Jessica Cisneros , a 26-year-old immigration lawyer who ’ s challenging Congressmember Henry Cuellar @ @ @ @ @

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we turn now to the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which a British judge has suspended after four days of intense deliberations last week between Assange’s lawyers and attorneys representing the U.S. government. Assange faces 18 charges of attempted hacking and breaches of the Espionage Act for his role in publishing classified documents exposing U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. He could be sentenced to up to 175 years in prison. Judge Vanessa Baraitser ordered the legal teams to reconvene in the middle of May for the remainder of the extradition hearing, where witnesses will be cross-examined. This is Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton, outside Woolwich Crown Court last week.
JOHN SHIPTON: The oppression of journalism; the ceaseless malice directed against Julian Assange by the authorities; the 10-year-long arbitrary detention of Julian, as witnessed by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the torture of Julian, as witnessed by Nils Melzer, the United Nations rapporteur on torture — all of those reports are available. That is what will happen to journalists, publishers and publications, if this extradition, this political extradition, of Julian Assange is successful.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Julian Assange’s father, John Shipton. Julian Assange has been incarcerated in London’s Belmarsh prison since last April. Since 2012, he had taken refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden over sexual assault allegations, which he denied and which the Swedish government ultimately dropped. Assange even then wasn’t as concerned about being extradited to Sweden, but that Sweden would then send him to the United States. During his time in political exile in the Ecuadorian Embassy, Assange was reportedly spied on by a Spanish security firm. Julian Assange says the CIA was behind the illegal 24/7 surveillance.
For more, we’re joined by, well, one of the people who was spied on, Jennifer Robinson, the human rights attorney who’s been advising Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010.
Jen Robinson, welcome back to Democracy Now! Thanks for joining us from London. Can you describe the four days of hearings, just physically in the courtroom in London, and what Julian Assange faces?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Obviously, we’ve just had a week of hearings. Julian Assange faces, as you said, 175 years in prison for publications back in 2010 that were released to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning. And I think it’s important to remember what this case is really about and the publications for which he’s being prosecuted and sought for extradition. That includes Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Diaries, showing civilian casualties and abuse of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, war crimes, human rights abuse. The same with Cablegate — war crimes, human rights abuse, corruption the world over.
So, for four days last week, there was a packed-out courtroom filled with — the public gallery was packed, the journalist section was packed — to finally hear, after 10 years of the U.S. preparing this case against WikiLeaks, a grand jury investigation that was opened under the Obama administration and an indictment pursued now by the Trump administration. We finally heard the U.S. case. And, of course, we heard nothing new, nothing new since Chelsea Manning’s prosecution back in 2012.
What is important, though, is that what the court finally heard is the defense case. And a number of arguments were put forward by our team, including the Espionage Act. This is an unprecedented use of the Espionage Act against a publisher, which is, of course, a political offense and ought to be barred from — under the terms of the U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty. There should be — extradition should be barred on that basis.
We also heard evidence about the grave threat that this poses to press freedom, not just for journalists inside the United States, but for journalists everywhere around the world, because of the precedent this case sets, that the United States could seek to extradite and prosecute journalists and publishers from around the world for publishing truthful information about the United States.
We also heard evidence about how the United States’ indictment has misrepresented the facts, including making the false allegation that Julian Assange had recklessly and deliberately put lives at risk. And we heard evidence in the court this week about the technological security measures that WikiLeaks imposed upon their media partners and the redaction processes that were undertaken to protect anyone at risk in those publications.
It was a long week of hearings. And I think it’s important that people start to see the true facts of this. Of course, Chelsea Manning remains in prison in the United States right now, but we heard evidence from her prosecution, in these proceedings, demonstrating that Chelsea Manning had in fact provided this information to WikiLeaks based on her own conscience, having seen war crimes, the murder of civilians, the murder of journalists by United States forces, which is what drove her to release the material to WikiLeaks. So, it was a long week of hearings, an important one for Julian.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Jennifer Robinson, can you describe the courtroom where — Julian Assange was held at the back of the courtroom, as is the custom? Was he in a cage? Was he able to hear the proceedings, consult? Were you in the front with the other lawyers? You’re his legal adviser.
JENNIFER ROBINSON: That’s correct. So, throughout the hearings, Julian was sat at the back of the courtroom, which is behind where we sit as his legal counsel, in, effectively, a glass box, in the dock. Now, this creates significant amount of difficulties for us as his legal team in communicating with him during the course of the proceedings, which was raised as a concern on the final day of the hearing. He sits behind us, which means while we’re paying attention to the judge and submissions in front, we can’t see when he’s raising concern or seeking clarification or offering information to us about what he’s hearing in court. The entire courtroom, including the public gallery and journalists, were alerted to the fact whenever he wants to raise a question with us. And, of course, if he’s whispering to us or trying to get our attention in the court, the U.S. prosecutors sitting right next to us in court can hear everything. So we made an application at the end of the week in order to allow him to leave the dock. And, of course, for your U.S. viewers, it would seem strange that a defendant who does not pose any security risk would not be permitted to sit next to their defense counsel, which is standard practice in the United States. But the judge refused our application.
We also heard evidence of the mistreatment that Julian suffered, not just the difficulties he has in court in communicating with us in a secure and confidential manner, but also the treatment that he’s been receiving from prison authorities. Just on the first day of the hearing, we heard that he was handcuffed 11 times, strip-searched twice and had his legal papers interfered with and taken away from him. This is indicative of the kinds of treatment that he’s been suffering, and is, of course, the most recent in a long history of difficulties that we’ve been having in preparing his case, with difficulties of access to him in the prison, difficulties in getting him — getting sufficient time with him to review and take his instructions of the very complex evidence that needs to be presented in the court. And it goes to show, I think, the obstacles and the challenges that we face and that he faces in properly defending himself in these proceedings.
AMY GOODMAN: He said Wednesday, “I am as much a participant in these proceedings as I am watching Wimbledon,” again, complaining that he could not communicate with you, with the lawyers overall. Now, the U.S. attorneys argue that his case is not political. Explain what you think are the most significant war crimes that he provided evidence of and what it means if he came to this country. How is it possible he, an Australian citizen, faces 175 years for treason in the United States?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: Of course this case is inherently political, whether you look at the terms — the offenses for which he’s been charged, including numerous offenses under the Espionage Act, which encapsulate and capture traditional journalistic activities. The Espionage Act itself as an offense is a political offense in substance. But we also need to look at the political context in which this prosecution and extradition request comes. This is, of course, in the context of the Trump administration, a president who calls the media the enemy of the people. We have learnt, since Julian was arrested and this extradition request and superceding indictment came through, that the Obama administration had taken a decision not to prosecute under the Espionage Act because of what — the so-called New York Times problem — that is, that you cannot distinguish between the actions of WikiLeaks and The New York Times in receiving and publishing this information.
We also say that beyond the political nature of the offense and the political context in which he would be charged, the U.S. prosecution seemed to — tried to argue this week, this past week, that what WikiLeaks did and Julian did in publishing this information was not a political act. And, of course, we heard evidence in the court about Julian’s very well-known political views, that we heard with respect to WikiLeaks and the aims and why WikiLeaks was created by him. We heard, with respect to the Iraq War Logs, WikiLeaks — Julian saying, with the release, “If lies can start a war, then the truth can stop them.” And we heard evidence about how the publication of evidence of war crimes, in the context of the Iraq War, both with respect to, for example, “Collateral Murder,” which was evidence of a war crime and U.S. troops killing journalists and civilians, but also, more broadly, about torture of detainees — how evidence of that in fact led to the Iraqi government withdrawing the immunity for U.S. troops and the ultimate withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. So, of course, what we’re seeing is that WikiLeaks not only published information of important human rights abuse — it was certainly in the public interest, and for which they’ve won journalism awards the world over — but that in fact resulted in a change in U.S. policy. And we say that that makes it a political offense.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Jen Robinson, how is Julian Assange’s health?
JENNIFER ROBINSON: We remain very concerned about his health. Of course, he had more than seven years inside the Ecuadorian Embassy without access to healthcare, because the U.K. government refused to recognize his asylum, an asylum that was granted to him by Ecuador, not to hide from Sweden, as your introduction suggested, but to protect him from U.S. extradition, the very outcome that he’s facing right now.
Inside prison, he is in difficult conditions. This is a high-security prison. He’s been in effective isolation for much of the time he’s been inside the prison. And you heard me earlier explain the treatment he’s been suffering between the prison and the court each time for his hearing, including being handcuffed numerous times, strip searches and the like. This is, of course, compounding our existing concerns about his health. And we heard in court, too, psychiatric evidence that’s being put before the court about concerns about his ability to withstand the sorts of treatment he will suffer in U.S. prisons under special administrative measures if he was returned to the United States. So it is a very serious situation and one that is under constant monitoring at our end.
AMY GOODMAN: Jen Robinson, I want to thank you for being with us, human rights attorney. She is legal adviser for Julian Assange and WikiLeaks since 2010.
When we come back, tomorrow is Super Tuesday. We go to Texas to speak with a candidate who’s running in a primary race. That’s Jessica Cisneros, a 26-year-old immigration lawyer who’s challenging Congressmember Henry Cuellar. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-03-02--Breakthrough U.S.-Taliban Deal Signed, But Airstrikes Likely to Continue & Mercenaries to Remain

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : The U.S. has signed a deal with the Taliban aimed at drawing down its military presence and ending its 18-year war in Afghanistan .
The long-anticipated deal comes after a year and a half of negotiations and following a week-long partial truce .
Just one day after the accord was hailed as a major step in ending the longest war in U.S. history , it hit a roadblock Sunday when President Ashraf Ghani rejected a key stipulation that the Afghan government release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of many conditions in a deal the United States and the Taliban signed Saturday in Doha , Qatar .
Officials hope the accord sets the stage for a more detailed peace plan that creates a power-sharing arrangement and lasting ceasefire , but the deal did not include a key player : the American-backed Afghanistan government .
Intra-Afghan talks had been set for March 10th , but a Taliban spokesperson said Monday the Taliban refuse to participate unless the Afghan government releases the 5,000 Taliban prisoners outlined in the agreement .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government , calling it a “ puppet regime.
” More than 12,000 U.S. troops are still stationed in Afghanistan .
Under the deal , nearly 5,000 of them will leave Afghanistan in 135 days .
The rest will withdraw 14 months later , if the Taliban complies with the terms of the agreement .
The deal also calls for the Taliban to cut ties with radical groups such as al-Qaeda and prevent them from launching attacks from Afghanistan .
In turn , the United States will advocate for removing Taliban leaders from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the agreement , the Taliban refused to accept the description of al-Qaeda as a terrorist , but committed to helping prevent future attacks .
President Trump said Saturday the Taliban could be America ’ s newest partner in the so-called global war on terror .
AMY GOODMAN : Since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan nearly two decades ago , the U.N. estimates over 10,000 civilians were killed or injured from the ongoing conflict in 2019 alone .
More than 100,000 civilians have been killed or injured over the past decade .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain largely unmet .
For more , we ’ re joined by Azmat Khan , an award-winning investigative reporter , New York Times Magazine contributing writer and a Future of War fellow at New America .
Her investigations into U.S. wars have taken her to Iraq , Afghanistan , Pakistan and Syria .
She ’ s currently writing a book about America ’ s so-called precision airstrikes .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
It ’ s great to have you with us , Azmat .
So , talk about this deal that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it surprised many when President Trump came out to hold a coronavirus news conference but first began by revealing that this deal was being signed .
AZMAT KHAN : Well , 18 years into this war , this deal is clearly a breakthrough .
It is something also that can and should have been done a long time ago , if you look at not just the lives lost in this war and you look at some of these things that happened .
In 2001 , for example , in October , before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mullah Omar and some of the Taliban leadership had offered to turn over bin Laden to a third-party country , thereby averting this war altogether , and the Bush administration rejected that offer .
Two months later into the bombing campaign , when the Taliban offered some kind of a negotiated settlement in which Mullah Omar would retain some sort of leadership in Kandahar and work out a negotiated settlement with the man who would become president , Karzai , Rumsfeld rejected it .
There were several more times in which there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are far better than the deal we have today .
But 18 years into this war , this is the best the United States could get , and it took it .
It ’ s not perfect .
There are ambiguities in the plan .
There are things that are not clearly spelled out .
And it doesn ’ t mean that it will also ensure an end to violence .
We ’ re likely to see — as long as the United States keeps funding the other side , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and shift into new patterns .
And so , it ’ s no guarantee by any means .
And at the same time , we have to look closely at what the U.S. is agreeing to .
You know , they have made these claims that they ’ re going to withdraw American troops over time .
And you really need to look at what the United States has done when faced with troop limits in this war and in other wars , is that they ’ ve often resorted to contractors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would otherwise be carried out by the U.S. military .
One of the things that I ’ ve been looking at in recent years is the outsourcing of contracting , the outsourcing of airstrikes when it comes to contracting , the outsourcing of intelligence , things that allow the United States to continue the war while reducing its overt troop levels and sustaining that war with a sort of invisible army .
And so , while there are about 12,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now , there are also 26,000 contractors .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap here that people need to watch .
AMY GOODMAN : So , what happens to those contractors ?
AZMAT KHAN : It ’ s unclear .
This deal doesn ’ t address that .
It just addresses — AMY GOODMAN : So , say the number of troops again .
AZMAT KHAN : There are 12,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan .
AZMAT KHAN : Yes .
Yes , there are more than that .
And not only that , there are — 10,000 of those are Americans .
Some are third-country nationals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those are just the ones that are in country , that 26,000 .
There are many other contractors sitting in U.S. bases here , as well as in other bases across the world , who are involved in this war from abroad .
AMY GOODMAN : I don ’ t mean to sound cynical , but could this mean simply a 100 % mercenary army left in Afghanistan ?
AZMAT KHAN : It ’ s unclear if they ’ ll necessarily be on the ground in the ways that they were , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ functioned in the past .
What I think is more likely is that you ’ re likely to see the continued use of air power and contractors facilitating that .
They ’ re already doing that right now .
There are screeners on U.S. bases .
And these are contractors who are doing this work , who are watching drone footage to basically give the calls for airstrikes .
So , this is happening right now .
And as troop levels decrease , you ’ re going to see a shift towards expanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there are probably defense contractors who are salivating at the prospects for this right now .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to turn to the Afghan journalist Nargiss Hurakhsh , who is reacting to the news of the U.S.-Taliban accord .
AMY GOODMAN : So what about this ?
What about what will happen to women now ?
AZMAT KHAN : So this question has been an enduring part of this war .
In the lead-up to the War in Afghanistan , U.S. leaders used it as a rationale to build support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful in doing that .
But at the same time , it also manipulated this cause .
You ’ ve seen the exploitation of women ’ s rights as a rationale for continuing and sustaining this war , this question of “ What happens if we leave ?
” The Taliban has not made significant gestures that show that it would take any — you know , as of today at least , they have not made any significant gestures that would show that they would allow for mass education for girls across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any — there hasn ’ t been any clear guarantees , but it ’ s also not something that we ’ ve seen worked out publicly , either .
So , you know , there are many women and girls in urban centers who have a lot to lose , and then there are many people in rural areas who basically fare the brunt of this war , who are basically trying to keep alive every day , who are victims of not just night raids and airstrikes , but also of Taliban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to see some kind of a peaceful end .
So , you need to take the gender issue into account , certainly , but to mistake the idea that the United States has used that as an explicit military goal , that there are military officials sitting in a room arguing that this is why we ’ re at war , is really the exploitation of the women ’ s issue .
This is not a real consideration when you ’ re looking at the military ambitions in Afghanistan .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump saying the Taliban will be left to kill the terrorists .
AZMAT KHAN : This is related to the sort of question of the rise of ISIS in Afghanistan and of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan , these sort of affiliates that have emerged .
And it ’ s fascinating , because you ’ ve essentially seen a fracturing of the Taliban and people who have splintered off into these other groups , which makes it a lot harder to negotiate across the board .
And now you have groups that once you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Taliban , that you could have negotiated with at once , that are now all of these different kinds of factions .
The United States is struggling to try to figure out who to work with , who to talk to , how to go about even pursuing a deal like this , whether or not the people they ’ re talking to have the ability to carry out the agreements that are made , if that will filter down .
And so , there are a lot of questions about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll see the United States try to create the idea of the good Taliban and the bad Taliban and foment those fissures further .
AMY GOODMAN : And who actually negotiated this deal in Doha , Qatar , for the United States and for the Taliban ?
And what does it mean that the Afghan government was not involved ?
AZMAT KHAN : So , the main envoy here was — in these negotiations over the last year and a half has been Zalmay Khalilzad .
And the Afghan government has been quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because they — AMY GOODMAN : Zalmay Khalilzad , the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan , who is an Afghan American .
AZMAT KHAN : Absolutely , yes .
He ’ s been involved in this war from very early on , on the American side .
He is somebody who has pursued these negotiations much to the Afghan government ’ s chagrin .
They are quite upset at their lack of involvement .
There have been some extreme tensions between Khalilzad and the Afghan government , specifically over the deal struck .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question of detainees .
And so , you know , there really needs to be some kind of a conversation between these negotiators , the Taliban and the Afghan government .
And it will be interesting to see how that plays out over the next week .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , what about that , the 5,000-prisoner swap ?
The Afghan government says they are not agreeing to this .
The Taliban says that they will not negotiate with the Afghan government if that prisoner swap doesn ’ t happen first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been at the forefront of the Taliban ’ s agenda .
And if you look at the history of this war and detention and the role it ’ s played , we ’ ve seen so many who have been detained , not just in Guantánamo and elsewhere , but Bagram , in these bases .
They ’ re still being held today , and the Taliban would like to see these people returned .
It ’ s been a critical point of issue .
They struck some kind of — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agreement , and there ’ s even been arguments over what Khalilzad and U.S. representatives had said that they would negotiate with respect to detainees , saying that this would never be — a prisoner swap would never be on the table , and yet it materialized in this agreement .
And so there are questions of how much buy-in there really is and whether something like that was — you know , if the Afghan government will match — will reciprocate that .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally , when is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is going to have ?
The last one was called off .
It was around September 11th .
It was going to be at Camp David .
What do you understand is happening now ?
AZMAT KHAN : It ’ s unclear right now , in large part because of the fact that the Afghan government has responded in this way , which has really raised questions about what still needs to be worked out between the Taliban and the Afghan government .
And so , it ’ s unclear exactly when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but we do know that there ’ s a conversation that ’ s still out to happen .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Azmat Khan , I want to thank you so much for being with us , award-winning investigative reporter , New York Times Magazine contributing writer , Future of War fellow at New America .
Her investigations have led her to Iraq , Afghanistan , Pakistan and Syria , currently writing a book on the so-called U.S. precision airstrikes .
When we come back , we go to London .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange ’ s attorney .
The judge has suspended extradition hearings of the WikiLeaks founder .
He faces 175 years in prison in the United States if he ’ s sent here here , for exposing war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: The U.S. has signed a deal with the Taliban aimed at drawing down its military presence and ending its 18-year war in Afghanistan. The long-anticipated deal comes after a year and a half of negotiations and following a week-long partial truce. Just one day after the accord was hailed as a major step in ending the longest war in U.S. history, it hit a roadblock Sunday when President Ashraf Ghani rejected a key stipulation that the Afghan government release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. The prison release is one of many conditions in a deal the United States and the Taliban signed Saturday in Doha, Qatar.
Officials hope the accord sets the stage for a more detailed peace plan that creates a power-sharing arrangement and lasting ceasefire, but the deal did not include a key player: the American-backed Afghanistan government. Intra-Afghan talks had been set for March 10th, but a Taliban spokesperson said Monday the Taliban refuse to participate unless the Afghan government releases the 5,000 Taliban prisoners outlined in the agreement. The Taliban has long refused to speak to the government, calling it a “puppet regime.”
More than 12,000 U.S. troops are still stationed in Afghanistan. Under the deal, nearly 5,000 of them will leave Afghanistan in 135 days. The rest will withdraw 14 months later, if the Taliban complies with the terms of the agreement. The deal also calls for the Taliban to cut ties with radical groups such as al-Qaeda and prevent them from launching attacks from Afghanistan. In turn, the United States will advocate for removing Taliban leaders from both U.S. and United Nations sanctions blacklists. In the agreement, the Taliban refused to accept the description of al-Qaeda as a terrorist, but committed to helping prevent future attacks. President Trump said Saturday the Taliban could be America’s newest partner in the so-called global war on terror.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I’ll be meeting personally with Taliban leaders in the not-too-distant future and will be very much hoping that they will be doing what they say they’re going to be doing. They will be killing terrorists. They will be killing some very bad people. They will keep that fight going. We’ve had tremendous success in Afghanistan in the killing of terrorists, but it’s time, after all these years, to go and to bring our people back home. We want to bring our people back home.
AMY GOODMAN: Since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan nearly two decades ago, the U.N. estimates over 10,000 civilians were killed or injured from the ongoing conflict in 2019 alone. More than 100,000 civilians have been killed or injured over the past decade. Meanwhile, the United States’ stated goals remain largely unmet.
For more, we’re joined by Azmat Khan, an award-winning investigative reporter, New York Times Magazine contributing writer and a Future of War fellow at New America. Her investigations into U.S. wars have taken her to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. She’s currently writing a book about America’s so-called precision airstrikes.
Welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us, Azmat. So, talk about this deal that has just been brokered. I think it surprised many when President Trump came out to hold a coronavirus news conference but first began by revealing that this deal was being signed.
AZMAT KHAN: Well, 18 years into this war, this deal is clearly a breakthrough. It is something also that can and should have been done a long time ago, if you look at not just the lives lost in this war and you look at some of these things that happened. In 2001, for example, in October, before the United States had launched its invasion, Mullah Omar and some of the Taliban leadership had offered to turn over bin Laden to a third-party country, thereby averting this war altogether, and the Bush administration rejected that offer. Two months later into the bombing campaign, when the Taliban offered some kind of a negotiated settlement in which Mullah Omar would retain some sort of leadership in Kandahar and work out a negotiated settlement with the man who would become president, Karzai, Rumsfeld rejected it. There were several more times in which there were clear paths to a negotiated settlement that are far better than the deal we have today. But 18 years into this war, this is the best the United States could get, and it took it.
It’s not perfect. There are ambiguities in the plan. There are things that are not clearly spelled out. And it doesn’t mean that it will also ensure an end to violence. We’re likely to see — as long as the United States keeps funding the other side, we’re likely to see this violence continue and shift into new patterns. And so, it’s no guarantee by any means.
And at the same time, we have to look closely at what the U.S. is agreeing to. You know, they have made these claims that they’re going to withdraw American troops over time. And you really need to look at what the United States has done when faced with troop limits in this war and in other wars, is that they’ve often resorted to contractors to take up some of those roles that would otherwise be carried out by the U.S. military. One of the things that I’ve been looking at in recent years is the outsourcing of contracting, the outsourcing of airstrikes when it comes to contracting, the outsourcing of intelligence, things that allow the United States to continue the war while reducing its overt troop levels and sustaining that war with a sort of invisible army. And so, while there are about 12,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now, there are also 26,000 contractors. So there’s a really big gap here that people need to watch.
AMY GOODMAN: So, what happens to those contractors?
AZMAT KHAN: It’s unclear. This deal doesn’t address that. It just addresses —
AMY GOODMAN: So, say the number of troops again.
AZMAT KHAN: There are 12,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
AMY GOODMAN: And contractors?
AZMAT KHAN: Twenty-six thousand.
AMY GOODMAN: More than double.
AZMAT KHAN: Yes. Yes, there are more than that. And not only that, there are — 10,000 of those are Americans. Some are third-country nationals. Some are Afghan locals. But those are just the ones that are in country, that 26,000. There are many other contractors sitting in U.S. bases here, as well as in other bases across the world, who are involved in this war from abroad.
AMY GOODMAN: I don’t mean to sound cynical, but could this mean simply a 100% mercenary army left in Afghanistan?
AZMAT KHAN: It’s unclear if they’ll necessarily be on the ground in the ways that they were, that these sort of mercenaries, these contractors functioned in the past. What I think is more likely is that you’re likely to see the continued use of air power and contractors facilitating that. They’re already doing that right now. There are screeners on U.S. bases. And these are contractors who are doing this work, who are watching drone footage to basically give the calls for airstrikes. So, this is happening right now. And as troop levels decrease, you’re going to see a shift towards expanding that. So, in many ways, there are probably defense contractors who are salivating at the prospects for this right now.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to the Afghan journalist Nargiss Hurakhsh, who is reacting to the news of the U.S.-Taliban accord.
NARGISS HURAKHSH: [translated] During the period of negotiations, the Taliban have repeatedly shown that their views on women have not changed, and this is a concern to us. We call on the Afghan government and the team who will negotiate with the Taliban to consider the freedom and achievements of all Afghans, especially women, as the bottom line.
AMY GOODMAN: So what about this? What about what will happen to women now?
AZMAT KHAN: So this question has been an enduring part of this war. In the lead-up to the War in Afghanistan, U.S. leaders used it as a rationale to build support for the war. And it was successful in doing that. But at the same time, it also manipulated this cause. You’ve seen the exploitation of women’s rights as a rationale for continuing and sustaining this war, this question of “What happens if we leave?”
The Taliban has not made significant gestures that show that it would take any — you know, as of today at least, they have not made any significant gestures that would show that they would allow for mass education for girls across the country. There isn’t any — there hasn’t been any clear guarantees, but it’s also not something that we’ve seen worked out publicly, either. So, you know, there are many women and girls in urban centers who have a lot to lose, and then there are many people in rural areas who basically fare the brunt of this war, who are basically trying to keep alive every day, who are victims of not just night raids and airstrikes, but also of Taliban attacks and land mines, who simply want to see some kind of a peaceful end.
So, you need to take the gender issue into account, certainly, but to mistake the idea that the United States has used that as an explicit military goal, that there are military officials sitting in a room arguing that this is why we’re at war, is really the exploitation of the women’s issue. This is not a real consideration when you’re looking at the military ambitions in Afghanistan.
AMY GOODMAN: It was quite something to hear President Trump saying the Taliban will be left to kill the terrorists.
AZMAT KHAN: This is related to the sort of question of the rise of ISIS in Afghanistan and of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, these sort of affiliates that have emerged. And it’s fascinating, because you’ve essentially seen a fracturing of the Taliban and people who have splintered off into these other groups, which makes it a lot harder to negotiate across the board. And now you have groups that once you could have — they had been under the Taliban, that you could have negotiated with at once, that are now all of these different kinds of factions. The United States is struggling to try to figure out who to work with, who to talk to, how to go about even pursuing a deal like this, whether or not the people they’re talking to have the ability to carry out the agreements that are made, if that will filter down. And so, there are a lot of questions about the fracturing of this and whether you’ll see the United States try to create the idea of the good Taliban and the bad Taliban and foment those fissures further.
AMY GOODMAN: And who actually negotiated this deal in Doha, Qatar, for the United States and for the Taliban? And what does it mean that the Afghan government was not involved?
AZMAT KHAN: So, the main envoy here was — in these negotiations over the last year and a half has been Zalmay Khalilzad. And the Afghan government has been quite upset during this process, not just because they —
AMY GOODMAN: Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, who is an Afghan American.
AZMAT KHAN: Absolutely, yes. He’s been involved in this war from very early on, on the American side. He is somebody who has pursued these negotiations much to the Afghan government’s chagrin. They are quite upset at their lack of involvement. There have been some extreme tensions between Khalilzad and the Afghan government, specifically over the deal struck. And you saw that most prominently with the question of detainees. And so, you know, there really needs to be some kind of a conversation between these negotiators, the Taliban and the Afghan government. And it will be interesting to see how that plays out over the next week.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, what about that, the 5,000-prisoner swap? The Afghan government says they are not agreeing to this. The Taliban says that they will not negotiate with the Afghan government if that prisoner swap doesn’t happen first.
AZMAT KHAN: That prisoner swap has been at the forefront of the Taliban’s agenda. And if you look at the history of this war and detention and the role it’s played, we’ve seen so many who have been detained, not just in Guantánamo and elsewhere, but Bagram, in these bases. They’re still being held today, and the Taliban would like to see these people returned. It’s been a critical point of issue. They struck some kind of — the language is actually quite vague in the agreement, and there’s even been arguments over what Khalilzad and U.S. representatives had said that they would negotiate with respect to detainees, saying that this would never be — a prisoner swap would never be on the table, and yet it materialized in this agreement. And so there are questions of how much buy-in there really is and whether something like that was — you know, if the Afghan government will match — will reciprocate that.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, when is the ceremony going to take place that President Trump is going to have? The last one was called off. It was around September 11th. It was going to be at Camp David. What do you understand is happening now?
AZMAT KHAN: It’s unclear right now, in large part because of the fact that the Afghan government has responded in this way, which has really raised questions about what still needs to be worked out between the Taliban and the Afghan government. And so, it’s unclear exactly when we’ll see that actually materialize, but we do know that there’s a conversation that’s still out to happen.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Azmat Khan, I want to thank you so much for being with us, award-winning investigative reporter, New York Times Magazine contributing writer, Future of War fellow at New America. Her investigations have led her to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria, currently writing a book on the so-called U.S. precision airstrikes.
When we come back, we go to London. We’ll be joined by Julian Assange’s attorney. The judge has suspended extradition hearings of the WikiLeaks founder. He faces 175 years in prison in the United States if he’s sent here here, for exposing war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-03-02--Headlines for March  2, 2020

Headlines for March  2, 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden won a decisive victory Saturday in the South Carolina Democratic primary , marking his first-ever win in a presidential primary or caucus .
He took over 48 % of the vote — more than double Senator Bernie Sanders , who received just under 20 % , placing second .
Billionaire Tom Steyer placed third with 11 % ; former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg came in fourth with 8 % ; and Senator Elizabeth Warren fifth with 7 % .
As Saturday ’ s results came in , Steyer announced he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg following suit Sunday evening , after making history as the first openly gay major presidential candidate .
While Biden received the majority of black votes in South Carolina , over 100 prominent black writers and academics endorsed Bernie Sanders , writing in an open letter , “ A Sanders presidency would go a long way toward creating a safer and more just world .
The commitment to free college education , the elimination of student debt … and the enfranchisement of incarcerated citizens , are only some of the reasons we have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of mostly black churchgoers in Selma , Alabama , protested billionaire Mike Bloomberg Sunday by standing up and turning their backs to him as he addressed the congregation .
Bloomberg was commemorating the 55th anniversary of “ Bloody Sunday , ” when police attacked civil rights activists as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a march from Selma to Montgomery , Alabama .
While Bloomberg was mayor of New York City , police officers engaged in 5 million stop-and-frisks , which terrorized and criminalized black and brown communities .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who will appear on the ballot for the first time since the primaries started — will compete tomorrow on Super Tuesday , where 14 states will vote and over a third of all Democratic delegates are up for grabs .
Democracy Now !
will be live broadcasting with The Intercept on Super Tuesday from 7 p.m. to midnight at democracynow.org .

Former Vice President Joe Biden won a decisive victory Saturday in the South Carolina Democratic primary, marking his first-ever win in a presidential primary or caucus. He took over 48% of the vote — more than double Senator Bernie Sanders, who received just under 20%, placing second. Billionaire Tom Steyer placed third with 11%; former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg came in fourth with 8%; and Senator Elizabeth Warren fifth with 7%. As Saturday’s results came in, Steyer announced he was dropping out of the race, with Buttigieg following suit Sunday evening, after making history as the first openly gay major presidential candidate.
While Biden received the majority of black votes in South Carolina, over 100 prominent black writers and academics endorsed Bernie Sanders, writing in an open letter, “A Sanders presidency would go a long way toward creating a safer and more just world. The commitment to free college education, the elimination of student debt … and the enfranchisement of incarcerated citizens, are only some of the reasons we have come to this conclusion.”
Meanwhile, a number of mostly black churchgoers in Selma, Alabama, protested billionaire Mike Bloomberg Sunday by standing up and turning their backs to him as he addressed the congregation. Bloomberg was commemorating the 55th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” when police attacked civil rights activists as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. While Bloomberg was mayor of New York City, police officers engaged in 5 million stop-and-frisks, which terrorized and criminalized black and brown communities.
The remaining presidential candidates — including Bloomberg, who will appear on the ballot for the first time since the primaries started — will compete tomorrow on Super Tuesday, where 14 states will vote and over a third of all Democratic delegates are up for grabs. Democracy Now! will be live broadcasting with The Intercept on Super Tuesday from 7 p.m. to midnight at democracynow.org.


democracynow--2020-03-03--Can Joe Biden Stop Bernie Sanders? Establishment Lines Up Behind Former VP, But Is It Too Late?

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
Millions of voters in 14 states and American Samoa head to the polls today for Super Tuesday .
Just ahead of this most decisive day of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary , Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar suspended her campaign and endorsed Biden on Monday .
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race Sunday .
Both joined Biden on the campaign trail in Texas .
AMY GOODMAN : Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded to a reporter who asked if he believed Buttigieg dropped out of the race as part of an effort to stop his path to the nomination .
AMY GOODMAN : This comes as former New York City mayor , billionaire Michael Bloomberg , who has also presented himself as an alternative to Sanders , is on the ballot for the first time today .
Super Tuesday could also prove decisive for Elizabeth Warren , whose home state of Massachusetts heads to the polls today .
For more , we ’ re joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grim , D.C. bureau chief of The Intercept , his recent book titled We ’ ve Got People : From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement .
I guess the question is , Ryan Grim : Do you really think this is going to be the end of big money ?
But I also look forward to having you on our five-hour joint Intercept-Democracy Now !
broadcast tonight , beginning at 7 p.m. Eastern time , right 'til midnight , to talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But now we 're moving into it , although millions have already voted .
Can you talk about the significance of what has taken place over the last 48 , 72 hours , with the Democratic establishment coalescing around Joe Biden ?
RYAN GRIM : Right .
And , you know , putting ” The End of Big Money ” in the subtitle was kind of aspirational , because , obviously , big money is still here .
But this is the first campaign cycle where we ’ ve seen big money create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of the candidates that you talked about were both helped by their ability to raise from millionaires and billionaires , but also hampered .
It hurt them among Democratic primary voters .
And that has never been the case before .
I think all of this consolidation around Joe Biden , this rapid move in his direction , with the supposed shadow work by Obama behind the scenes , is setting up the confrontation perhaps a little bit earlier than the Bernie Sanders campaign thought it was coming , but later than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bernie Sanders has gotten a lucky calendar in a lot of ways , not just the way it went from Iowa , which is stronghold , to New Hampshire , which is next to Vermont , and then over to Nevada , which is a kind of a perfect demographic for his coalition .
He also got lucky in the sense that South Carolina came on a Saturday , and now here we are , just days later , on what Joe Biden called “ Super Thursday.
” And so , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it needed to kind of halt his momentum .
There are already millions of votes that have been cast around the country , but particularly in Texas and California .
And at the same time , you have Michael Bloomberg pulling votes away from Joe Biden .
You know , we ’ ll know a lot more later tonight on the program that we ’ re going to be doing , but I think that pundits might be overestimating by a significant degree just how influenced voters are by what Pete Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rourke tell them .
Their base of voters are highly educated , college degrees and above .
These are people who had a year to study Joe Biden and decided not to support the candidate that the party was putting in front of them , and instead search for somebody else — Buttigieg , Klobuchar , Biden , O ’ Rourke , what have you .
And so , having those candidates tell them , “ Well , no , actually , you should support Biden , ” that ’ s not necessarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And so , if all of this consolidation around Biden happens and Sanders still comes our ahead , that ’ s a devastating blow to the establishment , which doesn ’ t quite realize how much it helps Bernie Sanders every time they do something like this and make it appear like they ’ re trying to stop him .
And it appears that way because they are .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about the significance — I mean , you joked for a minute about Biden calling it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly corrected himself and called it Super Tuesday .
And just last week in South Carolina , he got up , not joking , and said , “ I am Joe Biden .
I ’ m running for the U.S. Senate.
” Can you talk about the significance of this decision to coalesce around him , and also the NBC reporting about the , quote , “ hidden hand ” of Barack Obama in all of this ?
RYAN GRIM : Right .
So , the decision was kind of made early on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden is the Democratic Party ’ s guy , if he can win.
” RYAN GRIM : You know — sure .
It ’ s his to lose .
And if he shows us strength , then the party establishment is going to get behind him .
It was his to lose , and he lost it .
But nobody else on the establishment side could win it .
And so , by default , they ’ re back to him .
And they are forgotten why , over the course of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not beat Trump in the general election .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , to be continued .
Again , Democracy Now !
and The Intercept are teaming up tonight for a five-hour broadcast around the results and analysis of Super Tuesday .
That ’ s 7:00 Eastern time to midnight right here at democracynow.org and on many television and radio stations around the country .
By the way , Democracy Now !
is hiring for a number of positions here in our New York City studio , from our newsroom to our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more information .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. Millions of voters in 14 states and American Samoa head to the polls today for Super Tuesday. Just ahead of this most decisive day of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar suspended her campaign and endorsed Biden on Monday. South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg dropped out of the race Sunday. Both joined Biden on the campaign trail in Texas.
PETE BUTTIGIEG: I’m looking for a leader, I’m looking for a president, who will draw out what is best in each of us. And I’m encouraging everybody who was part of my campaign to join me, because we have found that leader in vice president, soon-to-be-president, Joe Biden.
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR: It is time for a president that will bring decency and dignity back to the White House.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, on Monday, front-runner Bernie Sanders responded to a reporter who asked if he believed Buttigieg dropped out of the race as part of an effort to stop his path to the nomination.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Look, it is no secret — I mean, The Washington Post has 16 articles a day on this — that there is a massive effort trying to stop Bernie Sanders. That’s not a secret to anybody in this room.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as former New York City mayor, billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who has also presented himself as an alternative to Sanders, is on the ballot for the first time today. Super Tuesday could also prove decisive for Elizabeth Warren, whose home state of Massachusetts heads to the polls today.
For more, we’re joined in Washington, D.C., by Ryan Grim, D.C. bureau chief of The Intercept, his recent book titled We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement.
I guess the question is, Ryan Grim: Do you really think this is going to be the end of big money? But I also look forward to having you on our five-hour joint Intercept-Democracy Now! broadcast tonight, beginning at 7 p.m. Eastern time, right 'til midnight, to talk about the results of Super Tuesday. But now we're moving into it, although millions have already voted. Can you talk about the significance of what has taken place over the last 48, 72 hours, with the Democratic establishment coalescing around Joe Biden?
RYAN GRIM: Right. And, you know, putting ”The End of Big Money” in the subtitle was kind of aspirational, because, obviously, big money is still here. But this is the first campaign cycle where we’ve seen big money create not just advantages, but disadvantages. All of the candidates that you talked about were both helped by their ability to raise from millionaires and billionaires, but also hampered. It hurt them among Democratic primary voters. And that has never been the case before.
I think all of this consolidation around Joe Biden, this rapid move in his direction, with the supposed shadow work by Obama behind the scenes, is setting up the confrontation perhaps a little bit earlier than the Bernie Sanders campaign thought it was coming, but later than the establishment really needed it to happen. Bernie Sanders has gotten a lucky calendar in a lot of ways, not just the way it went from Iowa, which is stronghold, to New Hampshire, which is next to Vermont, and then over to Nevada, which is a kind of a perfect demographic for his coalition. He also got lucky in the sense that South Carolina came on a Saturday, and now here we are, just days later, on what Joe Biden called “Super Thursday.” And so, the party didn’t have the time that it needed to kind of halt his momentum. There are already millions of votes that have been cast around the country, but particularly in Texas and California. And at the same time, you have Michael Bloomberg pulling votes away from Joe Biden.
You know, we’ll know a lot more later tonight on the program that we’re going to be doing, but I think that pundits might be overestimating by a significant degree just how influenced voters are by what Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke tell them. Their base of voters are highly educated, college degrees and above. These are people who had a year to study Joe Biden and decided not to support the candidate that the party was putting in front of them, and instead search for somebody else — Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden, O’Rourke, what have you. And so, having those candidates tell them, “Well, no, actually, you should support Biden,” that’s not necessarily going to move them in that direction. And so, if all of this consolidation around Biden happens and Sanders still comes our ahead, that’s a devastating blow to the establishment, which doesn’t quite realize how much it helps Bernie Sanders every time they do something like this and make it appear like they’re trying to stop him. And it appears that way because they are.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance — I mean, you joked for a minute about Biden calling it “Super Thursday.” He did. He quickly corrected himself and called it Super Tuesday. And just last week in South Carolina, he got up, not joking, and said, “I am Joe Biden. I’m running for the U.S. Senate.” Can you talk about the significance of this decision to coalesce around him, and also the NBC reporting about the, quote, “hidden hand” of Barack Obama in all of this?
RYAN GRIM: Right. So, the decision was kind of made early on to say, “OK, Joe Biden is the Democratic Party’s guy, if he can win.”
AMY GOODMAN: We have 20 seconds.
RYAN GRIM: You know — sure. It’s his to lose. And if he shows us strength, then the party establishment is going to get behind him. It was his to lose, and he lost it. But nobody else on the establishment side could win it. And so, by default, they’re back to him. And they are forgotten why, over the course of the last year, everybody decided that he could not beat Trump in the general election.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, to be continued. Again, Democracy Now! and The Intercept are teaming up tonight for a five-hour broadcast around the results and analysis of Super Tuesday. That’s 7:00 Eastern time to midnight right here at democracynow.org and on many television and radio stations around the country.
By the way, Democracy Now! is hiring for a number of positions here in our New York City studio, from our newsroom to our outreach and development. Go to democracynow.org for more information.