theintercept--2020-03-15--Amid Coronavirus Chaos, U.S. and Iran Edge Closer to War

closely this week , behind the terrifying clamor of Covid-19 sweeping across the planet , you might ’ ve heard the sound of war nearly breaking out again between the United States and Iran .
On Wednesday , the birthday of assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani , a barrage of rockets slammed into the Camp Taji airbase north of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad .
The attack killed two Americans and a Briton , while wounding 14 others .
A day later , U.S. forces in Iraq hit back , carrying out airstrikes against Kata ’ ib Hezbollah , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the attack .
It is a safe bet that the violence between the United States and Iran will not stop there .
Already on Saturday morning , reports emerged of another attack at the same base that wounded three more U.S. service members .
Despite a terrifying pandemic that has overwhelmed entire cities in Iran and now looms over the United States , the crisis between the two countries that began when the Trump administration exited the 2015 Iran nuclear deal shows no sign of abating .
The possibility of war in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , to put it mildly , outrageous .
Iranians are believed to be among the most numerous victims of the Covid-19 pandemic .
Their government ’ s decision to risk a conflict at this moment is both mystifying and galling .
But Iran ’ s grim determination to hit back against the United States regardless of its people ’ s suffering does illustrate an important point .
It puts paid to a major Trump administration justification for the controversial assassination of Suleimani in a January drone : deterrence .
In the immediate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation ” that “ the entire strategy has been one of deterrence , ” claiming that the drone strike against the general had sent a decisive message to the Iranian government that would force it to refrain from future acts of aggression .
But if deterrence really was the strategy , it ’ s been a resounding failure .
Even before this week ’ s deadly attacks , rockets have continued to periodically rain down on U.S. bases in Iraq , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Baghdad .
Iran has indicated in public statements that it plans to take what it views as a full revenge for the killing of Quds Force chief Suleimani at a time of its choosing .
The deadly attack on Camp Taji suggests that they are not bluffing .
There is historical context to consider as well .
Since the 1979 revolution that brought the current government to power , Iran has shown that it is willing to endure a tremendous amount of punishment to achieve its strategic goals .
During Iran ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then-Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini continued to battle Saddam Hussein long after his attempted invasion of Iran had been repelled .
Hundreds of thousands on both sides were killed over years of grueling World War I-style trench warfare , all in dogged pursuit of Khomeini ’ s goal of forcing the Baathists from power and placing an Iran-friendly government in Baghdad .
( The Iranians would have to wait until 2003 , when the United States graciously accomplished this goal for them . )
Today , even amid a cataclysmic public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of Iranians , including several top political and military leaders , the Iranians show no sign of relenting on what they view as their primary geopolitical interests .
Their continued attacks on American targets in Iraq suggest that they are pushing forward toward their main strategic goal : ejecting American troops from Iraq .
In an article about the recent violence , Afshon Ostovar , a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and author of “ Vanguard of the Imam : Religion , Politics , and Iran ’ s Revolutionary Guards , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Camp Taji and the U.S. military response “ fits right into the aims of Kata ’ ib Hezbollah and Iran.
” The attacks by U.S. aircraft help increase public anger in Iraq against U.S. military activity there and lay the groundwork for a broader confrontation that might force the United States to leave for good .
Iran and its Iraqi allies “ have more Iraqi deaths and destruction to fuel their effort to expel U.S. forces from the country , ” Ostovar wrote .
“ They also have cause to respond further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bait the U.S. into additional aggressive acts on Iraqi soil .
Yet , doing so would compel the U.S. to respond in kind , and the cycle of escalation would continue toward certain conflict.
” Despite its overwhelming military advantages , that would be a conflict the United States would be poorly positioned to win .
The U.S. public is already exhausted and disillusioned with years of seemingly pointless fighting in the Middle East .
Most Americans are also anxious over the impact of Covid-19 at home and unlikely to be thrilled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting another war with no clear end goals .
Unlike Iran , where the government wields authoritarian and sometimes brutal power to quell public dissent , the U.S. is constrained in its capacity to ignore the wishes of its own people .
That ’ s why U.S. officials like Pompeo have insistently portrayed Suleimani ’ s killing as a way of tamping down violence in Iraq rather than escalating it .
It ’ s a disingenuous claim that is getting harder to defend .
The proxy war between the United States and Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that not even a global health crisis can stop it .
One thing is clear however : Ordinary Iranians , Iraqis , and Americans can ill-afford this kind of violence right now .
Even before the devastation wrought by Covid-19 , Iran was struggling to cope with the consequences of American sanctions .
It is in even worse shape today .
The United States under Donald Trump , meanwhile , seems ill-prepared for the social and economic upheaval that will accompany a major pandemic on U.S. soil .
It doesn ’ t seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iranian leaders postpone their score-settling until the pandemic threat that faces us all can be brought under control .
But even that modest hope may be out of reach .

If you listened closely this week, behind the terrifying clamor of Covid-19 sweeping across the planet, you might’ve heard the sound of war nearly breaking out again between the United States and Iran.
On Wednesday, the birthday of assassinated Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani, a barrage of rockets slammed into the Camp Taji airbase north of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. The attack killed two Americans and a Briton, while wounding 14 others. A day later, U.S. forces in Iraq hit back, carrying out airstrikes against Kata’ib Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia that it blamed for the attack. It is a safe bet that the violence between the United States and Iran will not stop there. Already on Saturday morning, reports emerged of another attack at the same base that wounded three more U.S. service members.
Despite a terrifying pandemic that has overwhelmed entire cities in Iran and now looms over the United States, the crisis between the two countries that began when the Trump administration exited the 2015 Iran nuclear deal shows no sign of abating. The possibility of war in the midst of a global public health crisis is, to put it mildly, outrageous. Iranians are believed to be among the most numerous victims of the Covid-19 pandemic. Their government’s decision to risk a conflict at this moment is both mystifying and galling.
But Iran’s grim determination to hit back against the United States regardless of its people’s suffering does illustrate an important point. It puts paid to a major Trump administration justification for the controversial assassination of Suleimani in a January drone: deterrence.
In the immediate aftermath of Suleimani’s killing, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “the entire strategy has been one of deterrence,” claiming that the drone strike against the general had sent a decisive message to the Iranian government that would force it to refrain from future acts of aggression.
But if deterrence really was the strategy, it’s been a resounding failure. Even before this week’s deadly attacks, rockets have continued to periodically rain down on U.S. bases in Iraq, as well as the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Iran has indicated in public statements that it plans to take what it views as a full revenge for the killing of Quds Force chief Suleimani at a time of its choosing. The deadly attack on Camp Taji suggests that they are not bluffing.
There is historical context to consider as well. Since the 1979 revolution that brought the current government to power, Iran has shown that it is willing to endure a tremendous amount of punishment to achieve its strategic goals.
During Iran’s war with Iraq in the 1980s, then-Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini continued to battle Saddam Hussein long after his attempted invasion of Iran had been repelled. Hundreds of thousands on both sides were killed over years of grueling World War I-style trench warfare, all in dogged pursuit of Khomeini’s goal of forcing the Baathists from power and placing an Iran-friendly government in Baghdad. (The Iranians would have to wait until 2003, when the United States graciously accomplished this goal for them.)
Today, even amid a cataclysmic public health crisis that is said to have killed hundreds of Iranians, including several top political and military leaders, the Iranians show no sign of relenting on what they view as their primary geopolitical interests. Their continued attacks on American targets in Iraq suggest that they are pushing forward toward their main strategic goal: ejecting American troops from Iraq.
In an article about the recent violence, Afshon Ostovar, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and author of “Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards,” wrote that the Iranian-backed militia attack on Camp Taji and the U.S. military response “fits right into the aims of Kata’ib Hezbollah and Iran.” The attacks by U.S. aircraft help increase public anger in Iraq against U.S. military activity there and lay the groundwork for a broader confrontation that might force the United States to leave for good.
Iran and its Iraqi allies “have more Iraqi deaths and destruction to fuel their effort to expel U.S. forces from the country,” Ostovar wrote. “They also have cause to respond further, if they wish, in order bait the U.S. into additional aggressive acts on Iraqi soil. Yet, doing so would compel the U.S. to respond in kind, and the cycle of escalation would continue toward certain conflict.”
Despite its overwhelming military advantages, that would be a conflict the United States would be poorly positioned to win. The U.S. public is already exhausted and disillusioned with years of seemingly pointless fighting in the Middle East. Most Americans are also anxious over the impact of Covid-19 at home and unlikely to be thrilled with the idea of diverting more resources to fighting another war with no clear end goals.
Read Our Complete Coverage Targeting Iran
Unlike Iran, where the government wields authoritarian and sometimes brutal power to quell public dissent, the U.S. is constrained in its capacity to ignore the wishes of its own people. That’s why U.S. officials like Pompeo have insistently portrayed Suleimani’s killing as a way of tamping down violence in Iraq rather than escalating it. It’s a disingenuous claim that is getting harder to defend.
The proxy war between the United States and Iran looks certain to continue. It seems that not even a global health crisis can stop it. One thing is clear however: Ordinary Iranians, Iraqis, and Americans can ill-afford this kind of violence right now.
Even before the devastation wrought by Covid-19, Iran was struggling to cope with the consequences of American sanctions. It is in even worse shape today. The United States under Donald Trump, meanwhile, seems ill-prepared for the social and economic upheaval that will accompany a major pandemic on U.S. soil. It doesn’t seem like much to ask that U.S. and Iranian leaders postpone their score-settling until the pandemic threat that faces us all can be brought under control. But even that modest hope may be out of reach.


theintercept--2020-03-15--A Biden-Sanders Ticket: The Unthinkable May Be the Only Path Forward

Joe Biden posted a message on Twitter encouraging people to get out and vote in the upcoming primaries next week .
“ If you are feeling healthy , not showing symptoms , and not at risk of being exposed to COVID-19 : please vote on Tuesday , ” he urged .
He was rightly eviscerated , as it was public health misinformation : everyone is at risk , and people without symptoms may still be contagious .
It was a deeply irresponsible thing to post .
But the criticism raises an uncomfortable set of questions .
If it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public , and states are refusing to get serious about mail-in voting , is it irresponsible to vote ?
Should the primaries be canceled ?
Those questions may sound extreme today , but within just a few weeks the answer may be an obvious yes .
To avoid a scenario in which Trump uses the pandemic to his advantage , while risking the lives of millions of Americans , the Biden and Bernie Sanders campaigns could broker a split ticket of Biden-Sanders with a clear , publicly announced , historically powerful role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Treasury .
Such an arrangement would be infuriating to vast numbers of people in all three camps .
It would anger the authors of this very article .
It is abundantly clear that the Trump administration can not be trusted to handle the coronavirus pandemic .
Its lies and incompetence are already responsible for endangering countless lives .
That this pandemic is hitting in the midst of voting in the Democratic presidential primary is concerning on multiple levels , among them the risk to individual voters who need to physically go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in line for hours .
This scenario then opens up a broader risk of spread , including through asymptomatic carriers who believe that , because they are not exhibiting symptoms , it is safe for them to go to such gatherings .
The Democratic National Committee is going to be facing some gravely serious decisions on how to proceed and whether to even hold a convention .
Many of Joe Biden ’ s supporters believe that Biden already has the nomination sewn up and some have suggested that Bernie Sanders should drop out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has run for five years on the central issue of Medicare for All and radically addressing the climate crisis , clearly believes that the coronavirus pandemic is a powerful illustration of why we need radical change in order to protect public health and the planet .
With most delegates remaining to be won , the vast numbers of voters who have not yet cast their ballots deserve to be counted .
The DNC has already been roundly criticized by Sanders and his supporters for how it handled the 2016 primary and , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governed the 2020 process .
If the DNC were to take action to cancel the primaries and crown Biden with most states ’ voters disenfranchised , it would shatter the party ’ s credibility and give concrete justification to voters who believe their votes were stolen by the DNC to do any number of things in November , including not voting for the Democratic nominee .
There are some obviously terrible dimensions to this plan .
The idea of two old , straight , white men on the ticket is absurd ( as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if not quite as old — straight , white men floating it ) .
Many supporters of both Sanders and Biden have been pushing for the vice presidential slot to be filled by a person who is not an elderly , straight , white man .
But perhaps the unprecedented moment we are living in requires us to think differently : Biden represents a large coalition within the Democratic Party base , has wide support from the African American community , and appeals to some traditional Republicans .
Bernie Sanders represents a young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside the Democratic Party , he is powered by real social movements and has a large base of support among Latino voters , the fastest growing segment of the U.S. electorate .
He would also be the first Jewish vice president .
Neither Biden ’ s campaign , nor Sanders ’ s , is simply about these men .
It is about the people and institutions their platforms represent .
From Sanders ’ s perspective , he is at a moment of maximum leverage , but realistically has little path to the nomination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Biden ’ s clear cognitive decline .
The reality is that despite those concerns , many Democratic voters have made clear they want him as the nominee .
If Biden continues to win primaries , he ’ s the nominee .
If Sanders starts to upset Biden in low-turnout primaries , the party leadership will almost assuredly cry foul and move to invalidate the primaries .
Sanders would lose even if he wins .
And along the way , the curve of the pandemic would be ratcheted ever steeper , potentially adding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if not more .
To make it work this could not simply be a symbolic offering of the vice presidential nomination in an effort to placate Sanders supporters .
There would need to be an agreement more akin to a parliamentary power sharing agreement among Biden , Sanders , and Warren .
Biden simply pledging to adopt some of Sanders ’ s and Warren ’ s plans carries far less weight .
At a minimum , Sanders ’ s plans on health care , the climate crisis , workers rights , immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepted as the official platform of the ticket .
Already , public opinion is swinging wildly toward a stronger government role in funding health care , guaranteeing sick leave , and broadly creating a more safe and secure society .
It is encouraging that Biden recently stated that he was adopting Warren ’ s financial plan , however serious that support may be .
Warren could play a central role in the brokering process .
It is clear from the states that have voted and many national polls that Biden choosing Warren as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same impact as choosing Sanders , given the overlapping coalitions of Warren and Biden .
None of this makes it right , but it is empirically evident .
It has become clear that many of Sanders supporters believe that , as events have evolved since Super Tuesday , Sanders has a real chance at doing what most analysts believe is impossible : winning the nomination outright .
That may well be true , but it seems unlikely .
Progressives in the U.S. have not held this type of influence in an electoral campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most left-wing members of the cabinet , was named Franklin Delano Roosevelt ’ s vice president for the 1940 election .
In 1944 , with Roosevelt in declining health , party leaders managed to shunt Wallace aside for Harry Truman , expecting ( correctly ) that whoever became vice president would rise to president .
( Truman later fired Wallace for being a pacifist . )
Impolite as it may be to say , the prospect of Biden , Sanders , and Trump , all in their 70s , campaigning for the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the dice .
They are all in the high risk category , and Trump appears unwilling to take even the most basic precautions .
Nobody is safe from the virus entirely , but that reality doesn ’ t mean Biden and Sanders can ’ t run together .
It means they should work to stay safe , and if they don ’ t , the party will need a new alternative .
For Sanders to sacrifice the possibility , however remote , of the nomination for the sake of public health would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrast to the narcissistic negligence on display from the current occupant of the White House .
For Sanders supporters , entering a coalition with Biden would be a viciously bitter pill to swallow .
In the absence of the coronavirus crisis and the nature of the current president , we have a hard time imagining this proposal ourselves .
But the reality is that Trump has to go .
The reality is that millions of people in this country are in dire condition and were long before this virus hit us .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public health by forcing people to stand in lines waiting to vote .
The passionate debates about the nature and future of the Democratic Party will not go away any time soon .
It is , in fact , in its own crisis .
But a Biden-Sanders administration would provide for a much safer environment to have this fight .
This article represents the views of the authors and not those of The Intercept .

Photo Illustration: Elise Swain/The Intercept; Photo: Getty Images
On Sunday, Joe Biden posted a message on Twitter encouraging people to get out and vote in the upcoming primaries next week. “If you are feeling healthy, not showing symptoms, and not at risk of being exposed to COVID-19: please vote on Tuesday,” he urged.
He was rightly eviscerated, as it was public health misinformation: Everyone is at risk, and people without symptoms may still be contagious. It was a deeply irresponsible thing to post. But the criticism raises an uncomfortable set of questions. If it’s a risk to public health to vote in public, and states are refusing to get serious about mail-in voting, is it irresponsible to vote? Should the primaries be canceled?
Those questions may sound extreme today, but within just a few weeks, the answer may be an obvious yes. To avoid a scenario in which President Donald Trump uses the pandemic to his advantage, while risking the lives of millions of Americans, the Biden and Bernie Sanders campaigns could broker a split ticket of Biden-Sanders with a clear, publicly announced, historically powerful role for Elizabeth Warren — presumably secretary of the treasury. Such an arrangement would be infuriating to vast numbers of people in all three camps. It would anger the authors of this very article.
It is abundantly clear that the Trump administration cannot be trusted to handle the coronavirus pandemic. Its lies and incompetence are already responsible for endangering countless lives. That this pandemic is hitting in the midst of voting in the Democratic presidential primary is concerning on multiple levels, among them the risk to individual voters who need to physically go to places of large congregation and potentially stand in line for hours. This scenario then opens up a broader risk of spread, including through asymptomatic carriers who believe that, because they are not exhibiting symptoms, it is safe for them to go to such gatherings. The Democratic National Committee is going to be facing some gravely serious decisions on how to proceed and whether to even hold a convention.
Many of Joe Biden’s supporters believe that Biden already has the nomination sewn up, and some have suggested that Bernie Sanders should drop out of the race. Sanders, who has run for five years on the central issue of Medicare for All and radically addressing the climate crisis, clearly believes that the coronavirus pandemic is a powerful illustration of why we need radical change in order to protect public health and the planet. With most delegates remaining to be won, the vast numbers of voters who have not yet cast their ballots deserve to be counted. The DNC has already been roundly criticized by Sanders and his supporters for how it handled the 2016 primary and, to an extent, the way it has governed the 2020 process. If the DNC were to take action to cancel the primaries and crown Biden with most states’ voters disenfranchised, it would shatter the party’s credibility and give concrete justification to voters who believe their votes were stolen by the DNC to do any number of things in November, including not voting for the Democratic nominee.
If the DNC were to take action to cancel the primaries and crown Biden with most states’ voters disenfranchised, it would shatter the party’s credibility.
There are some obviously terrible dimensions to this plan. The idea of two old, straight, white men on the ticket is absurd (as is the idea of two old — if not quite as old — straight, white men floating it). Many supporters of both Sanders and Biden have been pushing for the vice presidential slot to be filled by a person who is not an elderly, straight, white man.
But perhaps the unprecedented moment we are living in requires us to think differently: Biden represents a large coalition within the Democratic Party base, has wide support from the African American community, and appeals to some traditional Republicans. Bernie Sanders represents a young, diverse coalition of voters inside and outside the Democratic Party; he is powered by real social movements, and has a large base of support among Latino voters, the fastest growing segment of the U.S. electorate. He would also be the first Jewish vice president. Neither Biden’s campaign, nor Sanders’s, is simply about these men. It is about the people and institutions their platforms represent.
From Sanders’s perspective, he is at a moment of maximum leverage, but realistically has little path to the nomination. Many Sanders supporters have expressed concerns about Biden’s clear cognitive decline. The reality is that despite those concerns, many Democratic voters have made clear they want him as the nominee. If Biden continues to win primaries, he’s the nominee. If Sanders starts to upset Biden in low-turnout primaries, the party leadership will almost assuredly cry foul and move to invalidate the primaries; Sanders would lose even if he wins. And along the way, the curve of the pandemic would be ratcheted ever steeper, potentially adding hundreds of thousands to the death toll, if not more.
To make it work, this could not simply be a symbolic offering of the vice presidential nomination in an effort to placate Sanders supporters. There would need to be an agreement more akin to a parliamentary power sharing agreement among Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Biden simply pledging to adopt some of Sanders’s and Warren’s plans carries far less weight. At a minimum, Sanders’s plans on health care, the climate crisis, workers rights, immigration, and criminal justice ought to be accepted as the official platform of the ticket. Already, public opinion is swinging wildly toward a stronger government role in funding health care, guaranteeing sick leave, and broadly creating a more safe and secure society. It is encouraging that Biden recently stated that he was adopting Warren’s financial plan, however serious that support may be; Warren could play a central role in the brokering process. It is clear from the states that have voted and many national polls that Biden choosing Warren as his running mate would not have the same impact as choosing Sanders, given the overlapping coalitions of Warren and Biden. None of this makes it right, but it is empirically evident.
For Sanders to sacrifice the possibility of the nomination for the sake of public health would be a portrait of leadership in stark contrast to the current occupant of the White House.
It has become clear that many of Sanders’s supporters believe that, as events have evolved since Super Tuesday, Sanders has a real chance at doing what most analysts believe is impossible: winning the nomination outright. That may well be true, but it seems unlikely. Progressives in the U.S. have not held this type of influence in an electoral campaign since Henry Wallace, one of the most left-wing members of the cabinet, was named Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vice president for the 1940 election. In 1944, with Roosevelt in declining health, party leaders managed to shunt Wallace aside for Harry Truman, expecting (correctly) that whoever became vice president would rise to president. (Truman later fired Wallace for being a pacifist.)
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Impolite as it may be to say, the prospect of Biden, Sanders, and Trump, all in their 70s, campaigning for the next seven months, is a major roll of the dice. They are all in the high-risk category, and Trump appears unwilling to take even the most basic precautions. Nobody is safe from the virus entirely, but that reality doesn’t mean Biden and Sanders can’t run together. It means they should work to stay safe, and if they don’t, the party will need a new alternative. For Sanders to sacrifice the possibility, however remote, of the nomination for the sake of public health would be a portrait of leadership in stark contrast to the narcissistic negligence on display from the current occupant of the White House.
For Sanders supporters, entering a coalition with Biden would be a viciously bitter pill to swallow. In the absence of the novel coronavirus crisis and the nature of the current president, we have a hard time imagining this proposal ourselves. But the reality is that Trump has to go. The reality is that millions of people in this country are in dire condition, long before this virus hit us. The reality is that we cannot risk public health by forcing people to stand in lines waiting to vote. The passionate debates about the nature and future of the Democratic Party will not go away any time soon. It is, in fact, in its own crisis. But a Biden-Sanders administration would provide for a much safer environment to have this fight.
This article represents the views of the authors and not those of The Intercept.


theintercept--2020-03-15--African Nations Turn the Tables, Imposing Travel Restrictions Against U.S., Europe, and China to Sta

African Nations Turn the Tables, Imposing Travel Restrictions Against U.S., Europe, and China to Stave Off Coronavirus

In a dramatic shift in fortunes , African countries — whose citizens often have to prove their health status to even get a visa to travel to Europe — have moved swiftly to control arrivals from European countries .
Ghana and Kenya announced new measures prohibiting travelers from countries affected by Covid-19 , the first two African nations to put in place blanket travel bans , while Senegal and Kenya also announced school closures .
The Democratic Republic of Congo imposed quarantine measures on travelers from Italy , France , China and Germany .
After restricting travelers from high-risk countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tourists and Tunisia deported 30 other Italians for violating theirs .
Rwanda , Uganda , Mali , and others have imposed similar quarantine measure for European travelers , while across the continent , passengers are screened for their temperature at international airports .
A Cameroonian news outlet reported higher arrivals from Italy due to people trying escape their coronavirus-infected country .
The pandemic is exposing major flaws in higher income countries ’ health systems and turning the tables on decades of travel restrictions targeting Africans .
When West Africa suffered from the Ebola @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often painted as a weak link in the global health system , and many airlines cut flights to Guinea , Liberia , and Sierra Leone .
Four years later , Africa is at risk of contamination primarily from Europe , China , and the U.S .
Besides Egypt , nearly all the continent ’ s confirmed cases have come from travelers from European or east Asian countries , though that looks likely to change soon as cases rise rapidly across the continent and community transmission becomes more likely .
Health officials say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far been spared major outbreaks is due to the infrastructure set up during the Ebola epidemic that is still in place , and lower overall international air travel rates .
At the same time , they acknowledge that the picture is not all sunny — the virus in some countries is likely spreading unchecked .
But in Nigeria , the continent ’ s largest country by population , investments in lab capacity and coordination with the World Health Organization ( WHO ) for testing have paid dividends .
“ Over the last three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our National Reference Laboratory to provide molecular diagnosis for all epidemic prone diseases and highly infectious pathogens , ” Chikwe Ihekweazu , the director of Nigeria ’ s Center for Disease Control , told The Conversation .
As the novel coronavirus rages through the world and spreads rapidly in the U.S. , Africa is the least-affected continent at the moment , with less than 300 reported cases in roughly half of its 54 countries so far .
A number of media outlets have reacted with a confounded tone , surprised that Africa does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the low numbers are due to a lack of testing .
Dr. Craig Spencer , the American doctor who contracted the Ebola virus while providing emergency medical relief in Guinea in 2014 , agrees the Ebola experience left many African countries better prepared .
“ There ’ s been a substantial increase in both the human resource capacity , the financial investment , and really , the logistical strengthening of public health and epidemic response capacity in sub-Saharan Africa , ” Dr. Spencer , who is the Director of Global Health in Emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told The Intercept .
Affected countries like Senegal and Nigeria are not reporting shortages of tests at this time , though testing labs are mainly located in large cities and are not necessarily equipped to scale to test thousands of people a day across the country and in more rural areas .
Yet unlike the U.S. , where the CDC reportedly blocked coronavirus testing as the virus was first spreading at a nursing home in Washington state , and has struggled to provide an adequate response across the nation , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure that concerned citizens have access to tests .
Senegal , which is currently getting test kits from the WHO , plans to manufacture their own tests with support from the UK , which will be ready by June .
Dr. Amadou Sall , the director of Senegal ’ s Institut Pasteur , which has been responsible for testing in the country , told Africanews , “ I ’ m happy and proud [ about ] what Africa has done this time because usually we spend time running after epidemics when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have been prepared.
” African countries are working closely with the WHO , a global body from which the Trump administration has tried to cut $ 65 million .
The U.S. decided not to use the WHO ’ s kits , according to Dr. Ashish Jha , a director of Harvard University ’ s Global Health Institute .
The U.S. ’ s failure to prepare adequately for the spread of coronavirus , and the confused messaging from President Trump , has meant the U.S. is a weak link in the world health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight the disease globally .
“ I expected America to stand strong against this pandemic , but they failed the world — that ’ s my clear assessment , ” an Ethiopian health official , who asked not to be named , told The Intercept .
“ The international community should stand in solidarity ” but instead the pandemic was viewed initially as China ’ s loss and America ’ s gain , he added .
Africa ’ s strong response might not be able to hold on for much longer , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Ghana , Gabon , Guinea , Rwanda , and Kenya .
Sudan ’ s first case was tested positive posthumously , indicating that the disease was already there and spreading unchecked for multiple weeks .
Ethiopia ’ s first case , confirmed Friday , was a Japanese man coming from Burkina Faso , making it the first case of cross-continent transmission .
It also means there ’ s likely more unreported cases in Burkina Faso , which does not have the resources that Senegal has and is fighting an insurgency that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now working under the assumption that it ’ s already here , ” the Ethiopian health official said .
Although Ethiopia has up to 10 laboratories capable of testing for coronavirus , the official said , “ the number of tests we have is very , very disappointing .
It ’ s maybe 40 or 50.
” There are only 200 intensive care units in the capital , Addis Ababa , he added .
Most countries ’ monitoring of temperatures has been limited to airports .
Higher rates of auto-immune conditions like HIV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk , while overall , health systems on the continent remain fragile .
A serious outbreak will be a major challenge because of a likely difficulty in scaling up intensive care units and ventilators ; countries in Africa will likely look to China , the U.S. , and the WHO for help .
“ Whether it ’ s Nigeria or New England , without resources already in place , it ’ s really , really hard to scale up quickly , ” Dr. Spencer explained .
“ Despite the compounding inequalities between global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a lot of commonalities in that there are gaps in our preparedness and weaknesses in our health systems that pandemics can take advantage of .
”

As the novel coronavirus rages through the world and spreads rapidly in the U.S., Africa is the least-affected continent at the moment, with less than 300 reported cases in roughly half of its 54 countries so far. A number of media outlets have reacted with a confounded tone, surprised that Africa does not have more cases and wondering if the low numbers are due to a lack of testing.
Health officials say that the main reason the continent has thus far been spared major outbreaks is due to the infrastructure set up during the Ebola epidemic that is still in place, as well as lower overall international air travel rates. At the same time, they acknowledge that the picture is not all sunny — the virus in some countries is likely spreading unchecked. But in Nigeria, the continent’s largest country by population, investments in lab capacity and coordination with the World Health Organization for testing have paid dividends. “Over the last three years, we have strengthened capacity at our National Reference Laboratory to provide molecular diagnosis for all epidemic prone diseases and highly infectious pathogens,” Chikwe Ihekweazu, director of Nigeria’s Center for Disease Control, told The Conversation.
The pandemic is exposing major flaws in higher-income countries’ health systems and turning the tables on decades of travel restrictions targeting Africans. When West Africa suffered from the Ebola crisis from 2014 to 2016, the region was often painted as a weak link in the global health system, and many airlines cut flights to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Four years later, Africa is at risk of contamination primarily from Europe, China, and the U.S. Besides Egypt, nearly all the continent’s confirmed cases have come from travelers from European or East Asian countries, though that looks likely to change soon as cases rise rapidly across the continent and community transmission becomes more likely.
In a dramatic shift in fortunes, African countries — whose citizens often have to prove their health status to even get a visa to travel to Europe — have moved swiftly to control arrivals from European countries. Ghana and Kenya announced new measures prohibiting travelers from countries affected by Covid-19, the first two African nations to put in place blanket travel bans, while Senegal and Kenya also announced school closures. The Democratic Republic of Congo imposed quarantine measures on travelers from Italy, France, China, and Germany. After restricting travelers from high-risk countries to quarantine, Mauritania deported 15 Italian tourists and Tunisia deported 30 other Italians for violating theirs. Rwanda, Uganda, Mali, and others have imposed similar quarantine measure for European travelers, while across the continent, passengers are screened for their temperature at international airports. A Cameroonian news outlet reported higher arrivals from Italy due to people trying escape their coronavirus-infected country.
Craig Spencer, the American doctor who contracted the Ebola virus while providing emergency medical relief in Guinea in 2014, agrees that the Ebola experience left many African countries better prepared. “There’s been a substantial increase in both the human resource capacity, the financial investment, and really, the logistical strengthening of public health and epidemic response capacity in sub-Saharan Africa,” Spencer, who is the director of global health in emergency medicine at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center, told The Intercept.
Affected countries like Senegal and Nigeria are not reporting shortages of tests at this time, though testing labs are mainly located in large cities and are not necessarily equipped to scale to test thousands of people a day across the country and in more rural areas. Yet unlike the U.S., where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reportedly blocked coronavirus testing as the virus was first spreading at a nursing home in Washington state, and has struggled to provide an adequate response across the nation, there is strong political will from countries like Senegal to ensure that concerned citizens have access to tests.
Senegal, which is currently getting test kits from WHO, plans to manufacture its own tests with support from the U.K., which will be ready by June. Dr. Amadou Sall, the director of Senegal’s Institut Pasteur, which has been responsible for testing in the country, told Africanews, “I’m happy and proud [about] what Africa has done this time because usually we spend time running after epidemics when it is there, but in this time we have been prepared.” African countries are working closely with WHO, a global body from which the Trump administration has tried to cut $65 million. The U.S. decided not to use WHO’s kits, according to Dr. Ashish Jha, a director of Harvard University’s Global Health Institute.
The U.S.’s failure to prepare adequately for the spread of Covid-19, and the confused messaging from Donald Trump, has meant the U.S. is a weak link in the world health system, making it more difficult to fight the disease globally. “I expected America to stand strong against this pandemic, but they failed the world — that’s my clear assessment,” an Ethiopian health official, who asked not to be named, told The Intercept. “The international community should stand in solidarity” but instead the pandemic was viewed initially as China’s loss and America’s gain, he added.
Africa’s strong response might not be able to hold on for much longer, however, as new cases have shown up in Ghana, Gabon, Guinea, Rwanda, and Kenya. Sudan’s first case was tested positive posthumously, indicating that the disease was already there and spreading unchecked for multiple weeks. Ethiopia’s first case, confirmed Friday, was a Japanese man coming from Burkina Faso, making it the first case of cross-continental transmission. It also means there’s likely more unreported cases in Burkina Faso, which does not have the resources that Senegal has and is fighting an insurgency that has crippled its state.
“We are now working under the assumption that it’s already here,” the Ethiopian health official said. Although Ethiopia has up to 10 laboratories capable of testing for coronavirus, the official said, “the number of tests we have is very, very disappointing. It’s maybe 40 or 50.” There are only 200 intensive care units in the capital, Addis Ababa, he added.
Most countries’ monitoring of temperatures has been limited to airports. Higher rates of autoimmune conditions like HIV in southern Africa will put many at risk, while overall, health systems on the continent remain fragile. A serious outbreak will be a major challenge because of a likely difficulty in scaling up intensive care units and ventilators; countries in Africa will likely look to China, the U.S., and WHO for help.
“Whether it’s Nigeria or New England, without resources already in place, it’s really, really hard to scale up quickly,” Spencer explained. “Despite the compounding inequalities between global north and global south, we still have a lot of commonalities in that there are gaps in our preparedness and weaknesses in our health systems that pandemics can take advantage of.”


theintercept--2020-03-15--A Cleveland Prosecutor Swept a Wrongful Conviction Under the Rug. Now He’s Running for Judge.

with the Cleveland Plain Dealer on February 19 was just winding down when a reporter asked veteran prosecutor Richard Bell , running in the Democratic primary for a seat on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas , about a case he tried almost 20 years ago .
Angela Garcia , put on trial three times for a fire that killed her two children , was convicted and given two life sentences in 2001 .
Bell was the lead prosecutor at the third trial and the case was a big win , highlighted for years on the website of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Garcia and her family had always insisted on her innocence .
Although her appeals culminated in a guilty plea arranged by Bell in 2016 , there were good reasons to believe she had been telling the truth all along .
Garcia was accused of a double arson murder after escaping a fire on Cleveland ’ s east side in November 1999 .
The blaze killed Garcia ’ s daughters , 2-year-old Nyeemah and 3-year-old Nijah .
Garcia told investigators that she was in a bathroom upstairs while scented candles burned downstairs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Moments later , she was coughing , the lights had gone out , and the hallway was filled with smoke .
Garcia tried unsuccessfully to gather the children in her bedroom , “ then broke the glass from the window and exited out into the porch roof , ” one investigator would write in his report .
“ She slid out of the roof and fell to the ground , ” then ran next door for help .
But rescue workers were unable to reach the children in time .
Investigators first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accident .
An accelerant-detecting dog failed to alert to any signs of an ignitable liquid .
The most likely cause , they decided , was a large candle in the dining room .
But they later changed their minds based on circumstantial evidence and Garcia ’ s demeanor after the fire , which struck them as unemotional .
Members of the community were appalled that she survived the fire while her children perished , sparking suspicions about insurance policies Garcia had purchased several months before .
The suspicions deepened after investigators discovered that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blaze .
Evidence of insurance fraud became the basis for a much more sinister theory : that Garcia , a single mother living in a poor neighborhood , had murdered her little girls in exchange for money and freedom .
Garcia ’ s case was the subject of a lengthy investigation published by The Intercept in March 2017 .
It described how Cleveland prosecutors built a murder case against Garcia despite a total lack of physical evidence and used dubious trial tactics , including the unreliable testimony of a jailhouse snitch .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in decades past , all three trials were rooted in junk science .
State experts pointed to unusual burn patterns as proof that a liquid accelerant had been used to set the fire .
But such indicators had long since been debunked as scientifically unsupportable .
Today ’ s fire experts warn against drawing conclusions based on burn patterns without further testing .
No testing took place in Garcia ’ s case .
The house was demolished soon after the fire .
After two hung juries , Bell took over in 2001 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claimed that the fire began in the dining room , the state now pointed to a second point of origin based on the same kind of junk science used at the first trials : photographs showing a suspicious burn pattern on the staircase .
Calling a slew of new witnesses and relying on racist stereotypes , Bell cast Garcia as a bad mother whose financial behavior was so out of control it was akin to a drug addiction — she “ needed another score , ” Bell said .
His fellow prosecutor Aaron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ especially merciless during closing arguments , telling the jury , “ She ’ s not a mother .
She is not a human being .
She is a predator.
” But the question raised at the Plain Dealer offices last month was not about Bell ’ s trial tactics .
Instead , Bell was asked to respond to The Intercept ’ s allegation that the 2016 plea deal — a sudden , unexpected offer by Bell on the morning of an evidentiary hearing that could have led to a new trial — appeared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had convicted an innocent woman .
There was damning evidence that he was well aware of the fatal flaws with his case before he offered the deal , which required Garcia to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence .
Although it would not be revealed for months after the plea , Bell had attended a fire seminar the previous fall that debunked the kind of junk science underpinning Garcia ’ s conviction .
Yet rather than drop the arson charge or exonerate Garcia , he sought to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At the newspaper ’ s office , the questioner asked Bell if he could respond to the contention that “ the state knew that its original theory didn ’ t hold up … but still pushed for a plea to save the conviction.
” What followed was a series of statements by Bell that were self-serving , misleading , and at times blatantly false .
Audio of the meeting , available on the Plain Dealer ’ s website , captures Bell flagrantly distorting the circumstances that led to the plea deal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been thoroughly discredited .
Bell described the fire evidence as “ right for the time , and then also it was right currently , ” when in fact the opposite is true .
Bell ’ s own expert , hired in advance of the 2016 hearing , reported “ significant deficiencies in the scene investigation by the Cleveland Fire Investigation Unit.
” Bell also invoked an unnamed Bureau of Alcohol , Tobacco , Firearms , and Explosives expert who “ did not use any type of old arson evidence ” on the stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free of discredited fire analysis .
It was not clear who Bell was referring to , since he called two ATF witnesses at trial .
One was a forensic auditor whose testimony was later deemed improper by the 8th District Court of Appeals .
The other was ATF Agent Lance Kimmell , who repeatedly stated that deep charring known as “ alligatoring ” at the scene of the fire was proof of an ignitable liquid — a textbook example of old , discredited arson evidence .
As a man who has been lauded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the head of the unit that supervises the Internet Crimes Against Children ’ s Task Force — Bell has campaigned as a crusader for women and children .
In the meeting with the editorial board , Bell emphasized his belief in transparency and the need to respect defendants and victims alike .
Yet his handling of Garcia ’ s case raises serious questions about whether his actions meet his rhetoric — and whether he would be a fair arbiter of the cases that would come before him as judge .
Perhaps the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plain Dealer was that the 2016 plea deal was what Garcia had wanted all along .
“ Ms .
Garcia wanted to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter ” after the fire , he told the Plain Dealer ’ s editorial board , but that offer was “ rejected by our office.
” In reality , as I wrote in my 2017 story , Garcia had rejected a plea deal years earlier because she refused to say she killed her children .
The transcript from the third trial shows clearly that Bell himself understood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presiding judge on April 11 , 2001 , Bell acknowledged that the plea offer had come from his office .
“ I know that before the second trial , Mr. Glickman , who was formerly counsel for the state , had entered — made a plea offer but at this point in time the state has no offer on the table , ” the judge said .
“ Is that correct ?
” “ That ’ s correct , your Honor , ” Bell replied .
Yet not only did Bell tell the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garcia , he insinuated that she wanted to plead guilty because she had admitted her guilt to her defense attorneys .
“ They have the discussions with the client privately and they can ’ t tell you everything that they ’ re admitting to them , ” he said .
The plea deal stemmed from “ whatever conversations they had privately about her unfortunately making a terrible decision as a 24-year-old to burn down her home [ which ] led to the death of her two children.
” In a statement , Garcia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defender Joanna Sanchez , described Bell ’ s implication as “ both unfounded and reckless.
” Contrary to his claims , “ Angela never offered a plea to the prosecutor , ” she wrote .
“ Angela rejected the prosecutor ’ s offer before trial.
” Nor was the outcome in any way what Garcia had wanted all along , she said .
“ In 2016 , after spending nearly 17 years incarcerated for a crime she did not commit , she accepted a plea offer made by Mr. Bell .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plea on Angela making certain statements in court .
Had Angela not entered the plea and made those statements , she risked spending the rest of her life in a cage for a crime she did not commit.
” On this last point , at least , Bell was slightly more forthcoming .
Asked if he believed people sometimes plead guilty despite being innocent , Bell emphasized the statements made by Garcia at the 2016 hearing .
Through tears , she had answered a series of questions asked by the judge .
Was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ daughter Nyeemah ?
Yes , Garcia said .
Was she responsible for the death of her daughter Nijah ?
Yes .
Was she guilty of arson ?
Yes .
These answers , Bell insisted , proved the outcome was just .
“ We wanted to make sure that it was a guilty plea that was righteous , ” he said.
“ And that she would allocute to that.
” If Garcia was unwilling to do so , he said , “ then we wouldn ’ t have taken the plea.
” the Plain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As the Ohio primary approaches on March 17 , he is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination .
For his progressive challenger Jennifer O ’ Donnell , Garcia ’ s case represents a problem that is all too common .
“ As a career public defender , I am running on a platform of criminal justice reform and transparency , ” she said in an email .
“ What happened in the case of Angela Garcia is sadly not unique to her situation .
Coercive pleas of this nature are happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a degree that the Innocence Project has featured Angela ’ s case and others in their series ‘ The Guilty Plea Problem.
’ It must stop .
Dangling the keys to freedom in front of Angela Garcia and others when they have no leverage or power to negotiate is an abuse of power .
Judges need to do the right thing and not allow pleas of this nature to happen.
” It is particularly ironic that the seat at the heart of the race previously belonged to Mike Donnelly , who is now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court .
Donnelly , an outspoken advocate for transparency in plea deals , was deeply disturbed by the outcome in Garcia ’ s case back in 2016 .
In a meeting the day after the hearing , he told me that prosecutors are not obligated to protect their convictions , they are obligated to do justice .
“ The question needs to be asked of the state in this case : Why did you do what you did ?
Why ?
” I have never been able to ask Bell that question .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that The Intercept never reached out for comment back in 2017 , in reality he simply ignored numerous emails and phone calls to his office .
He continued to ignore messages left last week , as well as an emailed list of questions that his constituents deserve to have answered : Why did he claim Garcia wanted to plead guilty when the opposite was true ?
Why did he claim that an ATF expert did not use discredited arson evidence when Kimmell absolutely did ?
And why , more than 20 years after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call Garcia a murderer when there is no reliable evidence that she set the fire that killed her children ?
As Cleveland voters cast their ballots on primary day , it seems unlikely that very many will be thinking of an arson conviction from 2001 .
And with Ohio and the rest of the country increasingly shut down in the face of the novel coronavirus , turnout is certain to be low .
Still , if Bell wins the primary as expected , Garcia ’ s case and his statements to the editorial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ After all , while he has been free to further build his career , Garcia has languished in prison .
“ Since Angela agreed to the prosecutor ’ s offer , ” Sanchez says , “ time has moved increasingly slower , as she counts the days until she is free and can be reunited with her family and friends .
”

The candidates’ meeting with the Cleveland Plain Dealer on February 19 was just winding down when a reporter asked veteran prosecutor Richard Bell, running in the Democratic primary for a seat on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, about a case he tried almost 20 years ago. Angela Garcia, put on trial three times for a fire that killed her two children, was convicted and given two life sentences in 2001. Bell was the lead prosecutor at the third trial and the case was a big win, highlighted for years on the website of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office. But Garcia and her family had always insisted on her innocence. Although her appeals culminated in a guilty plea arranged by Bell in 2016, there were good reasons to believe she had been telling the truth all along.
Garcia was accused of a double arson murder after escaping a fire on Cleveland’s east side in November 1999. The blaze killed Garcia’s daughters, 2-year-old Nyeemah and 3-year-old Nijah. Garcia told investigators that she was in a bathroom upstairs while scented candles burned downstairs. The girls were in a spare bedroom. Moments later, she was coughing, the lights had gone out, and the hallway was filled with smoke. Garcia tried unsuccessfully to gather the children in her bedroom, “then broke the glass from the window and exited out into the porch roof,” one investigator would write in his report. “She slid out of the roof and fell to the ground,” then ran next door for help. But rescue workers were unable to reach the children in time.
Investigators first believed the fire had been a tragic accident. An accelerant-detecting dog failed to alert to any signs of an ignitable liquid. The most likely cause, they decided, was a large candle in the dining room. But they later changed their minds based on circumstantial evidence and Garcia’s demeanor after the fire, which struck them as unemotional. Members of the community were appalled that she survived the fire while her children perished, sparking suspicions about insurance policies Garcia had purchased several months before. The suspicions deepened after investigators discovered that Garcia had overvalued belongings lost in the blaze. Evidence of insurance fraud became the basis for a much more sinister theory: that Garcia, a single mother living in a poor neighborhood, had murdered her little girls in exchange for money and freedom.
Garcia’s case was the subject of a lengthy investigation published by The Intercept in March 2017. It described how Cleveland prosecutors built a murder case against Garcia despite a total lack of physical evidence and used dubious trial tactics, including the unreliable testimony of a jailhouse snitch. Most significantly, as in countless arson cases in decades past, all three trials were rooted in junk science. State experts pointed to unusual burn patterns as proof that a liquid accelerant had been used to set the fire. But such indicators had long since been debunked as scientifically unsupportable. Today’s fire experts warn against drawing conclusions based on burn patterns without further testing. No testing took place in Garcia’s case. The house was demolished soon after the fire.
After two hung juries, Bell took over in 2001, completely transforming the case. Having previously claimed that the fire began in the dining room, the state now pointed to a second point of origin based on the same kind of junk science used at the first trials: photographs showing a suspicious burn pattern on the staircase. Calling a slew of new witnesses and relying on racist stereotypes, Bell cast Garcia as a bad mother whose financial behavior was so out of control it was akin to a drug addiction — she “needed another score,” Bell said. His fellow prosecutor Aaron Phillips, who is black, was especially merciless during closing arguments, telling the jury, “She’s not a mother. She is not a human being. She is a predator.”
There was damning evidence that Bell was well aware of the fatal flaws with his case before he offered the deal.
But the question raised at the Plain Dealer offices last month was not about Bell’s trial tactics. Instead, Bell was asked to respond to The Intercept’s allegation that the 2016 plea deal — a sudden, unexpected offer by Bell on the morning of an evidentiary hearing that could have led to a new trial — appeared designed to conceal the possibility that Bell had convicted an innocent woman. There was damning evidence that he was well aware of the fatal flaws with his case before he offered the deal, which required Garcia to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter in exchange for a reduced sentence.
Although it would not be revealed for months after the plea, Bell had attended a fire seminar the previous fall that debunked the kind of junk science underpinning Garcia’s conviction. Yet rather than drop the arson charge or exonerate Garcia, he sought to keep the discredited theory of the fire intact. At the newspaper’s office, the questioner asked Bell if he could respond to the contention that “the state knew that its original theory didn’t hold up … but still pushed for a plea to save the conviction.”
What followed was a series of statements by Bell that were self-serving, misleading, and at times blatantly false. Audio of the meeting, available on the Plain Dealer’s website, captures Bell flagrantly distorting the circumstances that led to the plea deal, while defending a fire theory that has been thoroughly discredited. Bell described the fire evidence as “right for the time, and then also it was right currently,” when in fact the opposite is true. Bell’s own expert, hired in advance of the 2016 hearing, reported “significant deficiencies in the scene investigation by the Cleveland Fire Investigation Unit.”
Bell also invoked an unnamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives expert who “did not use any type of old arson evidence” on the stand, presumably meaning that the testimony was free of discredited fire analysis. It was not clear who Bell was referring to, since he called two ATF witnesses at trial. One was a forensic auditor whose testimony was later deemed improper by the 8th District Court of Appeals. The other was ATF Agent Lance Kimmell, who repeatedly stated that deep charring known as “alligatoring” at the scene of the fire was proof of an ignitable liquid — a textbook example of old, discredited arson evidence.
As a man who has been lauded as a champion for rape survivors — and the head of the unit that supervises the Internet Crimes Against Children’s Task Force — Bell has campaigned as a crusader for women and children. In the meeting with the editorial board, Bell emphasized his belief in transparency and the need to respect defendants and victims alike. Yet his handling of Garcia’s case raises serious questions about whether his actions meet his rhetoric — and whether he would be a fair arbiter of the cases that would come before him as judge.
Perhaps the most egregious claim Bell made to the Plain Dealer was that the 2016 plea deal was what Garcia had wanted all along. “Ms. Garcia wanted to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter” after the fire, he told the Plain Dealer’s editorial board, but that offer was “rejected by our office.” In reality, as I wrote in my 2017 story, Garcia had rejected a plea deal years earlier because she refused to say she killed her children. The transcript from the third trial shows clearly that Bell himself understood this. In an exchange with the presiding judge on April 11, 2001, Bell acknowledged that the plea offer had come from his office. “I know that before the second trial, Mr. Glickman, who was formerly counsel for the state, had entered — made a plea offer but at this point in time the state has no offer on the table,” the judge said. “Is that correct?” “That’s correct, your Honor,” Bell replied.
Yet not only did Bell tell the editorial board that the plea came from Garcia, he insinuated that she wanted to plead guilty because she had admitted her guilt to her defense attorneys. “They have the discussions with the client privately and they can’t tell you everything that they’re admitting to them,” he said. The plea deal stemmed from “whatever conversations they had privately about her unfortunately making a terrible decision as a 24-year-old to burn down her home [which] led to the death of her two children.”
Family photos of Angela Garcia, her sister Judy Nichols, and Garcia’s daughters, Nyeemah and Nijah. Photo: Ross Mantle for The Intercept
In a statement, Garcia’s lawyer, Assistant State Public Defender Joanna Sanchez, described Bell’s implication as “both unfounded and reckless.” Contrary to his claims, “Angela never offered a plea to the prosecutor,” she wrote. “Angela rejected the prosecutor’s offer before trial.” Nor was the outcome in any way what Garcia had wanted all along, she said. “In 2016, after spending nearly 17 years incarcerated for a crime she did not commit, she accepted a plea offer made by Mr. Bell. And the offer made by the prosecutor conditioned the plea on Angela making certain statements in court. Had Angela not entered the plea and made those statements, she risked spending the rest of her life in a cage for a crime she did not commit.”
On this last point, at least, Bell was slightly more forthcoming. Asked if he believed people sometimes plead guilty despite being innocent, Bell emphasized the statements made by Garcia at the 2016 hearing. Through tears, she had answered a series of questions asked by the judge. Was she responsible for the death of her daughter Nyeemah? Yes, Garcia said. Was she responsible for the death of her daughter Nijah? Yes. Was she guilty of arson? Yes. These answers, Bell insisted, proved the outcome was just. “We wanted to make sure that it was a guilty plea that was righteous,” he said.“And that she would allocute to that.” If Garcia was unwilling to do so, he said, “then we wouldn’t have taken the plea.”
On March 6, the Plain Dealer endorsed Bell for Common Pleas judge. He is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. For his progressive challenger Jennifer O’Donnell, Garcia’s case represents a problem that is all too common. “As a career public defender, I am running on a platform of criminal justice reform and transparency,” she said in an email. “What happened in the case of Angela Garcia is sadly not unique to her situation. Coercive pleas of this nature are happening all over the country; to such a degree that the Innocence Project has featured Angela’s case and others in their series ‘The Guilty Plea Problem.’ It must stop. Dangling the keys to freedom in front of Angela Garcia and others when they have no leverage or power to negotiate is an abuse of power. Judges need to do the right thing and not allow pleas of this nature to happen.”
“The question needs to be asked of the state in this case: Why did you do what you did?”
It is particularly ironic that the seat at the heart of the race previously belonged to Mike Donnelly, who is now on the bench of the state Supreme Court. Donnelly, an outspoken advocate for transparency in plea deals, was deeply disturbed by the outcome in Garcia’s case back in 2016. In a meeting the day after the hearing, he told me that prosecutors are not obligated to protect their convictions, they are obligated to do justice. “The question needs to be asked of the state in this case: Why did you do what you did? Why?”
I have never been able to ask Bell that question. Although he implied to the editorial board that The Intercept never reached out for comment back in 2017, in reality he simply ignored numerous emails and phone calls to his office. He continued to ignore messages left last week, as well as an emailed list of questions that his constituents deserve to have answered: Why did he claim Garcia wanted to plead guilty when the opposite was true? Why did he claim that an ATF expert did not use discredited arson evidence when Kimmell absolutely did? And why, more than 20 years after the fire, does he continue to call Garcia a murderer when there is no reliable evidence that she set the fire that killed her children?
When Cleveland voters cast their ballots on primary day, it seems unlikely that very many will be thinking of an arson conviction from 2001. Although Ohio has postponed its primary election until June in response to the novel coronavirus, turnout is likely to remain low. Still, if Bell wins the primary as expected, Garcia’s case and his statements to the editorial board may haunt him until November. After all, while he has been free to further build his career, Garcia has languished in prison. “Since Angela agreed to the prosecutor’s offer,” Sanchez says, “time has moved increasingly slower, as she counts the days until she is free and can be reunited with her family and friends.”
Update: March 17, 2020
This article has been updated to reflect the postponement of Ohio’s primary election.


theintercept--2020-03-15--Newark’s Lead Crisis Isn’t Over: “People Are Still Drinking Water That They Shouldn’t”

of six goes through about four cases of 24 plastic water bottles a week .
She buys water from the ShopRite and , once a week , picks up more from St. Lucy ’ s Church in Newark , New Jersey , where activists from the Newark Water Coalition have been giving it out to residents for the past nine months , as the city grapples with a lead crisis .
Holloway hasn ’ t had her home tested for lead yet , though she said she ’ d follow the instructions on a flyer handed out at the church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Her new sink faucet can ’ t accommodate a water filter that would reduce the lead in tap water , so her family relies entirely on bottled water to stay safe .
Standing in the church parking lot , two gallons of water at her feet , she said , “ Sometimes it ’ s aggravating when we run out and we don ’ t notice it and we have to run to the store , but I don ’ t let it aggravate me.
” She paused to laugh .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a city of over 282,000 where about half the population is black , one-third Latino , and over one-quarter live in poverty , lead contamination has been on people ’ s minds for far too long .
Since 2015 , the city has been dealing with elevated lead levels in its drinking water , a growing crisis that hit its apex last summer , when the Environmental Protection Agency informed Newark that the filters the city had distributed to address the lead problem weren ’ t working .
City officials gave out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photos of residents sweating in long lines made national news , and comparisons to Flint , Michigan , abounded .
In the months that followed , there was a sense that progress was being made .
In November , a city report found that the water filters the city had distributed were at least 97.5 percent effective at reducing lead , when properly installed .
However , the report also found that one-quarter of filters were not properly installed or maintained — implying that owners of those filters are unknowingly drinking contaminated water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and residents still have questions about the efficacy of the city ’ s work to stem the problem , reflecting concerns about water quality and with educating residents about how to protect themselves .
“ People are still drinking water that they shouldn ’ t be drinking , ” said Anthony Diaz , a Newark resident and co-founder of the Newark Water Coalition , a group formed in December 2018 that organizes free weekly water distribution .
“ People are unaware that there ’ s still a problem in the city of Newark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like , ‘ Hey , it ’ s all good and we ’ ve done all we can.
’ ” In late February , Tiffany Stewart , assistant director for Newark ’ s Water and Sewer Utilities department , told me that the most recent lead level she had seen for the city was “ around 31-32 ” parts per billion , or ppb .
The level above which the federal government requires action to be taken out of concern for residents ’ health is 15 ppb .
There is no safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when plumbing containing lead corrodes , and in 1986 , Congress banned the use of lead in water pipes over concerns about the negative health impacts .
Those impacts are most severe for children , and they include a lower IQ , hyperactivity , slowed growth , hearing problems , and anemia .
For adults , there ’ s cardiovascular effects , increased blood pressure and incidence of hypertension , decreased kidney function , and reproductive problems .
According to the EPA ’ s Lead and Copper Rule , customers have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 percent of tap water samples test over 15 ppb .
In Newark , two different water systems serve the city : the Pequannock in the west and the Wanaque in the east .
Pequannock samples began showing elevated lead levels back in 2015 , but when combined with the Wanaque samples , the city remained under the action level .
In March 2016 , Newark Public Schools shut off 400 sources of drinking water at 30 schools after finding elevated lead levels .
By October 2018 , after a year of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutely safe to drink , ” and getting sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council over alleged violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act , the EPA informed Newark that the corrosion inhibitor it had been using in lead pipes at the Pequannock plant hadn ’ t been working .
Lead levels had reached 47 ppb and been above the action level since early 2017 .
The city started distributing water filters to residents .
But in August 2019 , the EPA sent a letter to the NJ Department of Environmental Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the filters had not worked adequately .
Water samples from the first half of 2019 showed lead levels at 57 ppb .
By September , Essex County , which contains Newark , had created a $ 120 million bond program to help Newark replace its lead service lines , which connect homes to the water main , at no cost to residents .
This was supplemented with federal funds procured with the help of New Jersey Senator and former Newark Mayor Cory Booker .
The state Department of Environmental Protection ( which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committed $ 1 million to help the city with public education .
In October , seemingly through the worst of it , the city reduced its water distribution to cover only pregnant women and families with children under the age of 6 , with filters still available to those with water testing above 15 ppb or living with lead pipes in an impacted area .
Holloway , whose home is served by the Pequannock plant , had to try multiple city distribution locations before eventually getting a filter from her aunt .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give it to us because they would tell us that our water was great , not knowing if it was good or not because they never came to test it , ” she said .
As of mid-March , the city had replaced about 8,300 out of 18,000 lead service lines .
Newark lead levels sat at 31 ppb for the second half of 2019 , while numbers for the first half of 2020 fluctuate as samples are gradually collected .
That Newark still has high levels of lead in certain places does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , associate professor of practice for water , society , and the environment at Rutgers University .
Van Abs previously worked at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and then at the Water Supply Authority .
“ There was never an expectation that the moment they started treatment that it would automatically drop the levels down below the action level , ” he explained .
And yet , he has lingering concerns about public education in Newark because , as the city ’ s recent study illustrated , installation and maintenance are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just have a filter and assume that it ’ s going to last forever and work forever and do the right thing forever , ” he said .
“ They need to be managed properly , and not everybody ’ s going to do that .
So the notion of having a very strong public support system is critical.
” lead levels and fluctuating guidance have left resignation as the overwhelming feeling for some residents ; for others , like members of the Newark Water Coalition , outrage remains at the fore .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ city are over education and reaching every resident with essential instructions , like flushing water before using it and never running hot water through a filter , as well as answering questions about the lead service line replacement process .
“ They ’ d rather keep on saying , ‘ 7,000 , 8,000 , 18,000 , woo !
’ ” argued Awakening , a poet and activist with the coalition , referring to the amount of service lines that have been replaced .
“ But have you gone around to all of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four months we ’ ll be back to retest your water ?
’ That ’ s the question .
If you haven ’ t done that , your job is not complete.
” Sabre Bee , a Newark Water Coalition coalition co-founder and Newark resident , estimates that about 30 people come to the group ’ s meetings .
They get donations to cover water costs from events and online crowdfunding .
“ People are coming to us , and we ’ re giving out water to people that the city is turning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still giving information and education about what the timeline is of this problem , how it ’ s progressed , and what it means for people now , ” said Bee .
The coalition has also branched into advocacy , meeting with members of Booker ’ s staff , as well as with New Jersey Gov .
Phil Murphy ’ s staff , to discuss strengthening the Lead and Copper Rule .
Interactions with Baraka , who was widely supported by community organizers when he ran for mayor and is the son of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been more strained .
In October , activists were escorted out of Baraka ’ s “ State of the Water ” town hall after interrupting him .
( The city ’ s press officers referred me to the Water and Sewer Utilities department for comment . )
The NRDC , whose lawsuit against Newark is ongoing , shares that tension with the city .
Erik Olson , a senior strategic director at NRDC , doesn ’ t believe Newark ’ s response meets the current situation , despite noting positive steps .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ water distribution and lack of transparency around how the city is using the money from the Department of Environmental Protection that was dedicated to education .
Booker , too , has not come out unscathed , despite his welcome help securing funds .
The city has said the Pequannock plant was in “ desperate need ” of improvements and that they “ inherited an ignored infrastructure ” when Baraka replaced Booker in 2014 .
Under Booker ’ s tenure , the now-defunct nonprofit Newark Watershed Conservation and Development Corporation , which operated the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and antiquated technology at the Pequannock plant .
( In a statement , Booker emphasized his work addressing lead contamination in drinking water and helping Newark gain access to federal funds . )
Newark officials often blame the media for any lingering sense of controversy that remains around the water issue .
In January , the city published a glowing report about water infrastructure improvements , with the headline : “ Here ’ s the Newark Water Story You Haven ’ t Heard : City Has Made $ 160 Million in Improvements to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Di Ionno , the public information officer who authored the story , emailed me a copy in February , the headline pasted into the message read , “ Amid media lead hysteria , the story of massive water treatment and quality upgrades is lost.
” Tiffany Stewart , of Newark ’ s Water and Sewer Utilities department , maintains that the city ’ s education program has both breadth and depth — listing community meetings , tele-town halls , Facebook livestreams , door-knocking initiatives , and robocalls , in addition to mailing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media , and offering filter installation assistance , either through demonstrations at meetings or going to residents ’ homes .
On average , Stewart thought community meetings attracted about 40 to 50 people ; she did not have readily available information about the number of residents who ’ ve taken the city up on its installation offer .
“ I don ’ t think at this point that there is a concern with respect to proper installation and maintenance .
I think at this point , the city has been diligent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re educating people on the proper installation and maintenance , ” she said .
When asked if she was confident every household in the city has been reached , regardless of internet savvy and in spite of the November report ’ s findings about improperly installed filters , she gave a resounding yes .
morning in February , just about a mile and a half from where Newark Water Coalition activists were setting up at St. Lucy ’ s , a woman with two young daughters struggled down Williams Street , dragging two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just exited the building for Newark ’ s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women , Infants , and Children , one of the locations where eligible residents can still pick up two cases of bottled water every two weeks .
The woman told me she ’ d been avoiding tap water for about six months and that she buys additional bottles between stops at WIC .
“ This is not enough , ” she said , nodding toward the cases on the sidewalk , her daughters already half a block ahead of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per household every two weeks is based on the city ’ s calculation of average household size and water consumption , but households with extenuating circumstances can request additional water .
“ We don ’ t turn anyone away , but what we have informed the public is that what we intend to give out is two cases , ” she said .
“ We don ’ t have an unlimited amount of water supply , so we want to just make sure that we ’ re giving it to the people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s confusion over city policy and which precautions were necessary was echoed at St. Lucy ’ s , where people said they spend their own money on additional water .
Coalition members asked everyone if they ’ d had their water tested , stressing how simple it was .
Desmond Pittman , in grey sweats with earbuds hanging from the neck of his hoodie and a Styrofoam cup of coffee in hand , lives in a newer building .
But still , his family uses a filter .
“ We have children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he told me .
He gladly took two cases of water bottles from the activists , aware that even though he lives in a building constructed after 1986 , when Congress banned lead pipes , lead contamination can also occur through faucets and fixtures in a home .
“ I just pay attention , do my own observations and research , as well as pay attention to the mass information , ” he said .
“ I kind of treat the water like the bad areas .
So I still buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have the newer pipes .
So we don ’ t run the lead risk , but I know there are other toxins.
” Van Abs , the Rutgers professor , thought precautions taken by people like Pittman were understandable , given the events of the last few years .
“ Once that trust is eroded , it takes a long time to bring it back , ” he said .
“ They should have investigated this way before it had gotten to the point where it is now , which is really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , outside St. Lucy ’ s Church with two gallons of water .
“ I think they could ’ ve handled it better by testing everyone and not sending them away just because they ’ re thinking , ‘ Oh , well , your building ’ s not built in this year , so your pipes are well.
’ I feel like whether your water ’ s tested or not , good or not , you shouldn ’ t turn them away for the water because they don ’ t know .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

Anna Holloway’s family of six goes through about four cases of 24 plastic water bottles a week. She buys water from the ShopRite and, once a week, picks up more from St. Lucy’s Church in Newark, New Jersey, where activists from the Newark Water Coalition have been giving it out to residents for the past nine months, as the city grapples with a lead crisis.
Holloway hasn’t had her home tested for lead yet, though she said she’d follow the instructions on a flyer handed out at the church and bring a sample the next Saturday. Her new sink faucet can’t accommodate a water filter that would reduce the lead in tap water, so her family relies entirely on bottled water to stay safe. Standing in the church parking lot, two gallons of water at her feet, she said, “Sometimes it’s aggravating when we run out and we don’t notice it and we have to run to the store, but I don’t let it aggravate me.” She paused to laugh. “I can’t.”
“People are still drinking water that they shouldn’t be drinking.”
In Newark, a city of over 282,000 where about half the population is black, one-third Latino, and over one-quarter live in poverty, lead contamination has been on people’s minds for far too long. Since 2015, the city has been dealing with elevated lead levels in its drinking water, a growing crisis that hit its apex last summer, when the Environmental Protection Agency informed Newark that the filters the city had distributed to address the lead problem weren’t working. City officials gave out over 70,000 cases of bottled water; photos of residents sweating in long lines made national news, and comparisons to Flint, Michigan, abounded.
In the months that followed, there was a sense that progress was being made. In November, a city report found that the water filters the city had distributed were at least 97.5 percent effective at reducing lead, when properly installed. However, the report also found that one-quarter of filters were not properly installed or maintained — implying that owners of those filters are unknowingly drinking contaminated water, thinking it is safe. Activists and residents still have questions about the efficacy of the city’s work to stem the problem, reflecting concerns about water quality and with educating residents about how to protect themselves.
“People are still drinking water that they shouldn’t be drinking,” said Anthony Diaz, a Newark resident and co-founder of the Newark Water Coalition, a group formed in December 2018 that organizes free weekly water distribution. “People are unaware that there’s still a problem in the city of Newark and the city is maintaining this narrative, like, ‘Hey, it’s all good and we’ve done all we can.’”
In late February, Tiffany Stewart, assistant director for Newark’s Water and Sewer Utilities department, told me that the most recent lead level she had seen for the city was “around 31-32” parts per billion, or ppb. The level above which the federal government requires action to be taken out of concern for residents’ health is 15 ppb.
Volunteers with the Newark Water Coalition stock cases of bottled water to distribute to Newark residents. Photos: Demetrius Freeman for The Intercept
There is no safe level of lead. It enters water when plumbing containing lead corrodes, and in 1986, Congress banned the use of lead in water pipes over concerns about the negative health impacts. Those impacts are most severe for children, and they include a lower IQ, hyperactivity, slowed growth, hearing problems, and anemia. For adults, there’s cardiovascular effects, increased blood pressure and incidence of hypertension, decreased kidney function, and reproductive problems.
According to the EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule, customers have to be notified and action must be taken when 10 percent of tap water samples test over 15 ppb. In Newark, two different water systems serve the city: the Pequannock in the west and the Wanaque in the east. Pequannock samples began showing elevated lead levels back in 2015, but when combined with the Wanaque samples, the city remained under the action level.
In March 2016, Newark Public Schools shut off 400 sources of drinking water at 30 schools after finding elevated lead levels. By October 2018, after a year of the city maintaining that its water was “absolutely safe to drink,” and getting sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council over alleged violations of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA informed Newark that the corrosion inhibitor it had been using in lead pipes at the Pequannock plant hadn’t been working. Lead levels had reached 47 ppb and been above the action level since early 2017. The city started distributing water filters to residents.
“You can’t just have a filter and assume that it’s going to last forever and work forever.”
But in August 2019, the EPA sent a letter to the NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka saying that the filters had not worked adequately. Water samples from the first half of 2019 showed lead levels at 57 ppb.
By September, Essex County, which contains Newark, had created a $120 million bond program to help Newark replace its lead service lines, which connect homes to the water main, at no cost to residents. This was supplemented with federal funds procured with the help of New Jersey Senator and former Newark Mayor Cory Booker. The state Department of Environmental Protection (which is also being sued by the NRDC) committed $1 million to help the city with public education.
Photo: Bryan Anselm/Redux
In October, seemingly through the worst of it, the city reduced its water distribution to cover only pregnant women and families with children under the age of 6, with filters still available to those with water testing above 15 ppb or living with lead pipes in an impacted area. Holloway, whose home is served by the Pequannock plant, had to try multiple city distribution locations before eventually getting a filter from her aunt. “Some places didn’t want to give it to us because they would tell us that our water was great, not knowing if it was good or not because they never came to test it,” she said.
As of mid-March, the city had replaced about 8,300 out of 18,000 lead service lines. Newark lead levels sat at 31 ppb for the second half of 2019, while numbers for the first half of 2020 fluctuate as samples are gradually collected.
That Newark still has high levels of lead in certain places does not shock Daniel J. Van Abs, associate professor of practice for water, society, and the environment at Rutgers University. Van Abs previously worked at the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and then at the Water Supply Authority. “There was never an expectation that the moment they started treatment that it would automatically drop the levels down below the action level,” he explained.
And yet, he has lingering concerns about public education in Newark because, as the city’s recent study illustrated, installation and maintenance are paramount. “You can’t just have a filter and assume that it’s going to last forever and work forever and do the right thing forever,” he said. “They need to be managed properly, and not everybody’s going to do that. So the notion of having a very strong public support system is critical.”
Newark Water Coalition activist Awakening, right, talks to residents about the water shipment schedule during the Coalition’s water distribution on Feb. 22, 2020. Photo: Demetrius Freeman for The Intercept
Years of changing lead levels and fluctuating guidance have left resignation as the overwhelming feeling for some residents; for others, like members of the Newark Water Coalition, outrage remains at the fore. Now their key sticking points with the city are over education and reaching every resident with essential instructions, like flushing water before using it and never running hot water through a filter, as well as answering questions about the lead service line replacement process.
“They’d rather keep on saying, ‘7,000, 8,000, 18,000, woo!’” argued Awakening, a poet and activist with the coalition, referring to the amount of service lines that have been replaced. “But have you gone around to all of those 7,000 homes and said, ‘In four months we’ll be back to retest your water?’ That’s the question. If you haven’t done that, your job is not complete.”
Sabre Bee, a Newark Water Coalition coalition co-founder and Newark resident, estimates that about 30 people come to the group’s meetings. They get donations to cover water costs from events and online crowdfunding.
“People are coming to us, and we’re giving out water to people that the city is turning away — still. We’re still giving information and education about what the timeline is of this problem, how it’s progressed, and what it means for people now,” said Bee. The coalition has also branched into advocacy, meeting with members of Booker’s staff, as well as with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s staff, to discuss strengthening the Lead and Copper Rule.
Interactions with Baraka, who was widely supported by community organizers when he ran for mayor and is the son of renowned poet and activist Amiri Baraka, have been more strained. In October, activists were escorted out of Baraka’s “State of the Water” town hall after interrupting him. (The city’s press officers referred me to the Water and Sewer Utilities department for comment.)
The NRDC, whose lawsuit against Newark is ongoing, shares that tension with the city. Erik Olson, a senior strategic director at NRDC, doesn’t believe Newark’s response meets the current situation, despite noting positive steps. Among his main grievances are the limited water distribution and lack of transparency around how the city is using the money from the Department of Environmental Protection that was dedicated to education.
Booker, too, has not come out unscathed, despite his welcome help securing funds. The city has said the Pequannock plant was in “desperate need” of improvements and that they “inherited an ignored infrastructure” when Baraka replaced Booker in 2014. Under Booker’s tenure, the now-defunct nonprofit Newark Watershed Conservation and Development Corporation, which operated the plant, was repeatedly warned about neglect and antiquated technology at the Pequannock plant. (In a statement, Booker emphasized his work addressing lead contamination in drinking water and helping Newark gain access to federal funds.)
Photo: Bryan Anselm/The New York Times via Redux
Newark officials often blame the media for any lingering sense of controversy that remains around the water issue. In January, the city published a glowing report about water infrastructure improvements, with the headline: “Here’s the Newark Water Story You Haven’t Heard: City Has Made $160 Million in Improvements to Improve Quality and Infrastructure.” When Mark Di Ionno, the public information officer who authored the story, emailed me a copy in February, the headline pasted into the message read, “Amid media lead hysteria, the story of massive water treatment and quality upgrades is lost.”
Tiffany Stewart, of Newark’s Water and Sewer Utilities department, maintains that the city’s education program has both breadth and depth — listing community meetings, tele-town halls, Facebook livestreams, door-knocking initiatives, and robocalls, in addition to mailing out literature, providing information on websites and social media, and offering filter installation assistance, either through demonstrations at meetings or going to residents’ homes. On average, Stewart thought community meetings attracted about 40 to 50 people; she did not have readily available information about the number of residents who’ve taken the city up on its installation offer.
“I don’t think at this point that there is a concern with respect to proper installation and maintenance. I think at this point, the city has been diligent in going and making sure that we’re educating people on the proper installation and maintenance,” she said. When asked if she was confident every household in the city has been reached, regardless of internet savvy and in spite of the November report’s findings about improperly installed filters, she gave a resounding yes.
Residents leave the water distribution center in St. Lucy’s Church in Newark, N.J. Photo: Demetrius Freeman for The Intercept
On that Saturday morning in February, just about a mile and a half from where Newark Water Coalition activists were setting up at St. Lucy’s, a woman with two young daughters struggled down Williams Street, dragging two cases of bottled water. She had just exited the building for Newark’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, one of the locations where eligible residents can still pick up two cases of bottled water every two weeks. The woman told me she’d been avoiding tap water for about six months and that she buys additional bottles between stops at WIC. “This is not enough,” she said, nodding toward the cases on the sidewalk, her daughters already half a block ahead of her.
According to Stewart, two cases per household every two weeks is based on the city’s calculation of average household size and water consumption, but households with extenuating circumstances can request additional water. “We don’t turn anyone away, but what we have informed the public is that what we intend to give out is two cases,” she said. “We don’t have an unlimited amount of water supply, so we want to just make sure that we’re giving it to the people who actually need it.”
“They should have investigated this way before it had gotten to the point where it is now, which is really, really bad.”
But that mother’s confusion over city policy and which precautions were necessary was echoed at St. Lucy’s, where people said they spend their own money on additional water. Coalition members asked everyone if they’d had their water tested, stressing how simple it was.
Desmond Pittman, in grey sweats with earbuds hanging from the neck of his hoodie and a Styrofoam cup of coffee in hand, lives in a newer building. But still, his family uses a filter. “We have children in the house — two young boys,” he told me. He gladly took two cases of water bottles from the activists, aware that even though he lives in a building constructed after 1986, when Congress banned lead pipes, lead contamination can also occur through faucets and fixtures in a home. “I just pay attention, do my own observations and research, as well as pay attention to the mass information,” he said. “I kind of treat the water like the bad areas. So I still buy bottled water even if they say that we have the newer pipes. So we don’t run the lead risk, but I know there are other toxins.”
Photo: Demetrius Freeman for The Intercept
Van Abs, the Rutgers professor, thought precautions taken by people like Pittman were understandable, given the events of the last few years. “Once that trust is eroded, it takes a long time to bring it back,” he said.
“They should have investigated this way before it had gotten to the point where it is now, which is really, really bad,” said Holloway, outside St. Lucy’s Church with two gallons of water. “I think they could’ve handled it better by testing everyone and not sending them away just because they’re thinking, ‘Oh, well, your building’s not built in this year, so your pipes are well.’ I feel like whether your water’s tested or not, good or not, you shouldn’t turn them away for the water because they don’t know. Some people just don’t know.”