theintercept--2020-07-24--Meat Industry Campaign Cash Flows to Officials Seeking to Quash Covid-19 Lawsuits

, facing potential legal risks for allegedly failing to protect workers from coronavirus-related risks , are among the many business interests now backing efforts to obtain special immunity from legal liability .
In April , as meat supply chains came under enormous pressure to continue producing food during the pandemic , factory farms became some of the first hot spots for the rampant spread of the coronavirus .
Nearly 100 workers at a variety of meat-processing plants across the country have died of Covid-19 and several thousand have been infected across the industry , a crisis that has spurred lawsuits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect workers .
The legal threat could be undone by new liability waiver laws , a legislative priority for Republicans in both the House and Senate that has received political support from the industry and influential think tanks .
Smithfield Foods , the world ’ s largest pork processor , and Mountaire Farms , a major poultry producer , have come under fire in recent months for reportedly pressuring employees to crowd into plants with minimal safety precautions .
Smithfield Foods has cut campaign checks to the Republican attorneys general seeking civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the pandemic , and has dispatched company lobbyists to press lawmakers on the issue .
Smithfield Foods , which donates small amounts to dozens of lawmakers on a regular basis , made its first significant donation to the Republican Attorneys General Association in over six years two months ago .
The company made a $ 25,000 donation to RAGA just three days before members of the association sent a letter to Congress demanding broad business immunity from civil claims holding companies responsible for coronavirus infections due to working conditions .
Later that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Smithfield Foods followed up with another $ 25,000 contribution to RAGA .
“ The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to create a surge in civil litigation targeting well-intentioned businesses for taking pandemic mitigation measures , ” the letter , led by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr , warned .
The letter noted that 23 states have signed liability limits over the coronavirus , and urged Congress to swiftly enact a federal waiver .
Ron Cameron , the billionaire chair of Mountaire Farms , has similarly showered officials backing a broad push for legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The American Farm Bureau Federation , which represents a range of animal agriculture interests , has also pushed Congress to include liability waivers in the next round of legislative relief for the current crisis .
Mountaire Farms and Smithfield Foods did not respond to a request for comment .
The centralized nature of the factory farm industry , with massive plants employing workers often huddled shoulder to shoulder , deboning chickens , or packaging beef , along with meager paid sick leave and the declining rates of federal safety inspectors , made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crisis .
Several major meat companies coerced sick employees to continue working with promises of bonuses , and in many plants workers claimed that they faced hostility when requesting hygiene equipment such as face masks .
In one Texas plant owned by JBS , a Brazil-based meat conglomerate , workers were enticed to continue working through the pandemic with the promise of a free Angus rib-eye , which retails at nearly half a day ’ s wages .
The industry ’ s immigrant-heavy workforce cited fear of retribution for speaking out on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump issued an executive order compelling meatpacking plants to stay open , exacerbating the rapid spread of the virus .
Earlier that month , one Smithfield Foods plant in South Dakota briefly gained international attention as the nation ’ s largest coronavirus outbreak .
Smithfield Foods has faced at least one federal lawsuit over its handling of the crisis .
The Rural Community Workers Alliance , a group that organizes meatpacking workers in rural Missouri , claimed that the company violated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines at its Milan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plant , the complaint charged , were crowded into close proximity with insufficient safety equipment .
The lawsuit , however , was dismissed , partially on jurisdictional grounds .
“ We are pleased with the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to dismiss the complaint made against our company , ” the company said in a statement .
“ From the start , we stated that this lawsuit was frivolous , full of specious allegations that were without factual or legal merit and that the assertions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anonymous declarations and outdated information.
” In South Dakota , Smithfield Foods asked a federal judge to block federal regulators from obtaining Covid-19 outbreak data in the state .
“ Smithfield ’ s employees have legitimate privacy interests in this information , and Smithfield and DOH [ South Dakota Department of Health ] are legally obligated to protect it , ” the company ’ s attorneys claimed .
Mountaire Farms has also faced claims that the company has placed workers in harm ’ s way .
A recent investigation in the New Yorker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of infection at its chicken-processing plants in North Carolina .
The United Food & Commercial Workers , a labor union representing Mountaire Farms workers , filed a federal claim in May charging that the company coerced employees at a Delaware plant to attend anti-union in-person meetings during the pandemic in violation of CDC guidelines .
JBS , Tyson Foods , and other meat industry giants are facing wrongful death lawsuits over claims that the firms engaged in gross negligence over protecting workers from coronavirus .
It ’ s not just animal agriculture interests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic .
The unprecedented crisis has rippled through the economy , raising questions over whether a range of businesses may face serious legal judgments over how they may have exposed workers and customers to the virus .
Many firms of all stripes have expressed concern that a tidal wave of lawsuits over coronavirus risk could bog down any hope of a recovery , and that plaintiff attorneys are attempting to exploit the crisis .
Labor activists and consumer rights advocates counter that companies have ignored procedures that could have saved lives .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which serves as counsel to Smithfield Foods for the company ’ s coronavirus-related cases , has compiled 3,649 overall coronavirus-related legal claims across a variety of issues and industries as of July 21 .
Against this backdrop of legal liability , over 200 industry associations have petitioned for special legal immunity for coronavirus-related suits .
Influential industry-backed think tanks , such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation , have demanded civil lawsuit immunity as part of any coronavirus legislative fix .
The American Legislative Exchange Council , a business-friendly nonprofit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help shape state policy , released template legislation on Monday that calls for civil liability immunity for actions arising out of a national emergency or disaster .
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , has also demanded that the next phase of economic relief contain civil liability immunity .
The Congressional Leadership Fund , a Super PAC associated with McCarthy ’ s aides , notably received $ 250,000 from Mountaire Farms ’ Cameron in May .
( Cameron is a routine donor to GOP causes and is one of the largest donors in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Super PACs . )
Factory farm interests , behind the scenes , have also directly shaped the policy process .
Smithfield Foods , records show , maintains a team of federal and state lobbyists deployed to promote liability concerns around Covid-19 .
Federal records show that Smithfield Foods contracts with Holland & Knight , a national law firm , to lobby on the issue in Congress .
The same firm also operates on behalf of Smithfield Foods in North Carolina , a state that passed a partial liability limit in June .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cooper , D-N.C. , grants individuals and business liability from claims relating to contraction of the coronavirus , except in cases of gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing .
Iowa , a state that has one of the highest concentrations of pork production plants , including several Smithfield Foods facilities , also passed liability waiver legislation last month .
The bill , Senate File 2338 , signed by Gov .
Kim Reynolds , R-Iowa , provides sweeping immunity businesses for coronavirus-related lawsuits except in cases of intentional malice .
Lobbying records in Iowa show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporting passage of the bill , including Koch Industries , Iowa Restaurant Association , AT & T , and the Iowa Grocery Industry Association .
Smithfield Foods dispatched at least one lobbyist in Des Moines to press officials to pass the legislation .

Factory farming interests , facing potential legal risks for allegedly failing to protect workers from coronavirus-related risks, are among the many business interests now backing efforts to obtain special immunity from legal liability.
In April, as meat supply chains came under enormous pressure to continue producing food during the pandemic, factory farms became some of the first hot spots for the rampant spread of the coronavirus. Nearly 100 workers at a variety of meat-processing plants across the country have died of Covid-19 and several thousand have been infected across the industry, a crisis that has spurred lawsuits alleging that the meat industry has failed to protect workers.
The legal threat could be undone by new liability waiver laws, a legislative priority for Republicans in both the House and Senate that has received political support from the industry and influential think tanks.
Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork processor, and Mountaire Farms, a major poultry producer, have come under fire in recent months for reportedly pressuring employees to crowd into plants with minimal safety precautions.
Smithfield Foods has cut campaign checks to the Republican attorneys general seeking civil liability protections for businesses that remained open during the pandemic, and has dispatched company lobbyists to press lawmakers on the issue.
Smithfield Foods, which donates small amounts to dozens of lawmakers on a regular basis, made its first significant donation to the Republican Attorneys General Association in over six years two months ago. The company made a $25,000 donation to RAGA just three days before members of the association sent a letter to Congress demanding broad business immunity from civil claims holding companies responsible for coronavirus infections due to working conditions. Later that month, after the letter was sent, Smithfield Foods followed up with another $25,000 contribution to RAGA.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to create a surge in civil litigation targeting well-intentioned businesses for taking pandemic mitigation measures,” the letter, led by Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, warned. The letter noted that 23 states have signed liability limits over the coronavirus, and urged Congress to swiftly enact a federal waiver.
Ron Cameron, the billionaire chair of Mountaire Farms, has similarly showered officials backing a broad push for legal immunity for coronavirus-related claims with campaign donations.
The American Farm Bureau Federation, which represents a range of animal agriculture interests, has also pushed Congress to include liability waivers in the next round of legislative relief for the current crisis.
Mountaire Farms and Smithfield Foods did not respond to a request for comment.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
The centralized nature of the factory farm industry, with massive plants employing workers often huddled shoulder to shoulder, deboning chickens, or packaging beef, along with meager paid sick leave and the declining rates of federal safety inspectors, made the industry an early focal point of the crisis.
Several major meat companies coerced sick employees to continue working with promises of bonuses, and in many plants workers claimed that they faced hostility when requesting hygiene equipment such as face masks.
In one Texas plant owned by JBS, a Brazil-based meat conglomerate, workers were enticed to continue working through the pandemic with the promise of a free Angus rib-eye, which retails at nearly half a day’s wages. The industry’s immigrant-heavy workforce cited fear of retribution for speaking out on the dangerous conditions.
In April, President Donald Trump issued an executive order compelling meatpacking plants to stay open, exacerbating the rapid spread of the virus. Earlier that month, one Smithfield Foods plant in South Dakota briefly gained international attention as the nation’s largest coronavirus outbreak.
Smithfield Foods has faced at least one federal lawsuit over its handling of the crisis. The Rural Community Workers Alliance, a group that organizes meatpacking workers in rural Missouri, claimed that the company violated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines at its Milan, Missouri plant. Employees at the plant, the complaint charged, were crowded into close proximity with insufficient safety equipment. The lawsuit, however, was dismissed, partially on jurisdictional grounds.
“We are pleased with the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to dismiss the complaint made against our company,” the company said in a statement. “From the start, we stated that this lawsuit was frivolous, full of specious allegations that were without factual or legal merit and that the assertions were based on speculation, hearsay, anonymous declarations and outdated information.”
In South Dakota, Smithfield Foods asked a federal judge to block federal regulators from obtaining Covid-19 outbreak data in the state. “Smithfield’s employees have legitimate privacy interests in this information, and Smithfield and DOH [South Dakota Department of Health] are legally obligated to protect it,” the company’s attorneys claimed.
Mountaire Farms has also faced claims that the company has placed workers in harm’s way. A recent investigation in the New Yorker charged that the company concealed the rate of infection at its chicken-processing plants in North Carolina.
The United Food & Commercial Workers, a labor union representing Mountaire Farms workers, filed a federal claim in May charging that the company coerced employees at a Delaware plant to attend anti-union in-person meetings during the pandemic in violation of CDC guidelines.
JBS, Tyson Foods, and other meat industry giants are facing wrongful death lawsuits over claims that the firms engaged in gross negligence over protecting workers from coronavirus.
Do you have a coronavirus story you want to share? Email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com or use one of these secure methods to contact a reporter.
It’s not just animal agriculture interests that have faced legal liability over the pandemic. The unprecedented crisis has rippled through the economy, raising questions over whether a range of businesses may face serious legal judgments over how they may have exposed workers and customers to the virus.
Many firms of all stripes have expressed concern that a tidal wave of lawsuits over coronavirus risk could bog down any hope of a recovery, and that plaintiff attorneys are attempting to exploit the crisis. Labor activists and consumer rights advocates counter that companies have ignored procedures that could have saved lives.
The Virginia-based law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, which serves as counsel to Smithfield Foods for the company’s coronavirus-related cases, has compiled 3,649 overall coronavirus-related legal claims across a variety of issues and industries as of July 21. Against this backdrop of legal liability, over 200 industry associations have petitioned for special legal immunity for coronavirus-related suits.
Influential industry-backed think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, have demanded civil lawsuit immunity as part of any coronavirus legislative fix. The American Legislative Exchange Council, a business-friendly nonprofit that produces “model” legislation to help shape state policy, released template legislation on Monday that calls for civil liability immunity for actions arising out of a national emergency or disaster.
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has also demanded that the next phase of economic relief contain civil liability immunity. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a Super PAC associated with McCarthy’s aides, notably received $250,000 from Mountaire Farms’ Cameron in May. (Cameron is a routine donor to GOP causes and is one of the largest donors in recent cycles to Trump and congressional Republican Super PACs.)
Factory farm interests, behind the scenes, have also directly shaped the policy process. Smithfield Foods, records show, maintains a team of federal and state lobbyists deployed to promote liability concerns around Covid-19.
Federal records show that Smithfield Foods contracts with Holland & Knight, a national law firm, to lobby on the issue in Congress. The same firm also operates on behalf of Smithfield Foods in North Carolina, a state that passed a partial liability limit in June. The law, signed by Gov. Roy Cooper, D-N.C., grants individuals and business liability from claims relating to contraction of the coronavirus, except in cases of gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing.
Iowa, a state that has one of the highest concentrations of pork production plants, including several Smithfield Foods facilities, also passed liability waiver legislation last month. The bill, Senate File 2338, signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds, R-Iowa, provides sweeping immunity businesses for coronavirus-related lawsuits except in cases of intentional malice.
Lobbying records in Iowa show a range of business interests involved in supporting passage of the bill, including Koch Industries, Iowa Restaurant Association, AT&T, and the Iowa Grocery Industry Association. Smithfield Foods dispatched at least one lobbyist in Des Moines to press officials to pass the legislation.


theintercept--2020-07-24--In Portland, Questions Swirl Around Local Police's Coordination With Federal Officers

Jo Ann Hardesty agrees with other elected officials in Oregon who say federal police dispatched to the city by President Donald Trump are an “ occupying army , ” represent “ a blatant abuse of power , ” and are “ shadowy forces ” that have been “ escalating , not preventing , violence.
” Hardesty , though , stands nearly alone in saying local officials should share blame for the nightly violence engulfing the streets around the federal courthouse in downtown Portland , where the federal cops are deployed .
Mayor Ted Wheeler and Police Chief Chuck Lovell gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ secret police , ” she told The Intercept .
For more than a month before the federal forces came , local police had already been clashing with protesters .
“ Portland police overreacted at people throwing bottles at them , ” Hardesty said .
“ They started gassing whole neighborhoods .
They were doing that long before the feds showed up.
” Violence by city police motivated many protesters to stay in the streets , but by July , the protests had dwindled to a couple hundred people .
The federal assault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , when federal agents began openly targeting Black Lives Matter supporters .
Their presence became national news following a U.S .
Marshal shooting a nonaggressive protester in the face with less-lethal munitions on July 12 and , days later , reports and videos of unidentified Border Patrol agents in camouflage grabbing people off the street , stuffing them into unmarked vehicles , and driving off .
News coverage of the federal agents ’ tactics led to a boom in protests : Thousands now show up nightly to the courthouse to demonstrate , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The federal moves into Portland are an apparent part of Trump ’ s plan to “ take over cities ” where he says crime is surging .
His dispatching of 114 federal police to the city sprang from an executive order signed on June 26 to protect “ Federal monuments , memorials , statues , or property.
” Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad Wolf assembled a task force — made up of the Border Patrol , Coast Guard , U.S .
Marshals , and other agencies — and reportedly dispatched 200 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Pennsylvania ; Seattle ; and Portland before July 4 .
The details of some of the moves have been murky .
Typical of Trump ’ s improvisational chaos , White House officials scramble to engineer his impetuous decisions to look like developed policies .
At least three different initiatives compromise Trump ’ s push to send federal police to cities : Wolf ’ s “ Protecting Americans Communities Task Force ” ; the Department of Justice ’ s crime-fighting “ Operation Legend ” announced on July 8 ; and “ Operation Diligent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police mission .
In Portland , however , the feds are only part of the story .
There is mounting evidence that , despite across-the-board condemnation from the city ’ s politicians , Portland ’ s own police force has coordinated closely with federal police in attacking protests .
For Hardesty , the mayor ’ s focus on Trump as the sole cause of the chaos distracts from his inability to control local police , who she says are acting in concert with the federal agents .
“ We know that Portland Police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Chad Wolf , ” Hardesty wrote on Twitter last weekend .
“ We know Portland Police are collaborating with this federal occupying force.
” Other local politicians , like City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly , have echoed Hardesty ’ s allegation that local cops are working with the feds , calling for the collaboration to end .
Out of the locales that have already seen federal police involvement — with Trump vowing to send more into new cities — only in Portland has the conflict devolved into captivating and terrifying medieval-style battles .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ are widely seen as a sign of Trump ’ s descent into violent authoritarianism .
Portland is no stranger to far-right violence .
In 2017 , the city became a hotbed for extremist rallies , one of which attracted a neo-Nazi who later committed a double murder .
The next year , the extreme right used the city , with evidence of police complicity , to stage riots against anti-fascists .
Now , Trump is using Portland — and the federal cops — as a testing ground to energize his base .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boogeyman ” during the Trump years ?
The answer starts with Oregon ’ s creation as a “ white utopia ” in 1859 , where Black and mixed-race people were barred from living in the state .
That shaped Oregon as a center of Ku Klux Klan activity in the 1920s , and there were harsh Jim Crow laws in the state .
To this day , 2 percent of Oregon ’ s population is Black .
Portland itself is often called “ the whitest big city ” in America , owing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming white makeup of the city and state — the legacy of white supremacy — can make politicians see taking on racist policies as a liability .
“ Politicians are reluctant to challenge racist policing for fear of being tarnished as anti-cop and losing support of white voters , ” said Joseph Lowndes , professor of political science at the University of Oregon .
Lovell , the police chief , said that Portland police communicate with federal officers because they operate “ within a city block ” of each other .
He added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions .
They do not control ours .
We don ’ t direct their uses of force , anything like that.
” The next day , Portland Police said that federal police would no longer work “ in the Portland Police incident command center ” — surprising observers who didn ’ t realize the feds were there in the first place .
“ It ’ s inevitable there ’ s some coordination , ” said Independent Police Review Director Ross Caldwell .
“ They can hear each other on the radio , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Media reports , footage , and eyewitnesses all point to close coordination .
“ Federal law enforcement officers , along with the Portland police and Multnomah County Sheriff ’ s deputies , used tear gas and impact munitions to disperse hundreds of protesters from downtown , ” reported Oregon Public Broadcasting , of an incident blocks away from the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse on July 4 .
The same night , Alex Milan Tracy , an independent photojournalist , filmed Portland police in vehicles ordering the streets cleared while federal officers nearby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was one of three times Tracy said he has witnessed a “ coordinated response ” between Portland and federal police “ systematically clearing the streets around the federal courthouse.
” Robert Evans , who reports for Bellingcat and is one of the most prominent livestreamers of “ The Battle of Portland , ” said he has seen federal police and Portland police working together “ multiple times ” to clear the streets and assault protesters .
On July 12 , videographer Garrison Davis documented dozens of federal police and Portland police mixed together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Portland police vehicles issuing warnings to leave the area .
The Oregonian described the scene : “ Portland police and federal officers marched shoulder-to-shoulder.
” At 1:31 a.m. on June 18 , The Intercept heard Portland police warn force would be used , including crowd-control munitions , in five minutes .
Six minutes later , federal police attacked a few hundred protesters with tear gas and pepper balls .
“ Evidence shows Portland police working with federal officers at protests , contradicting city officials , ” The Oregonian reported .
It described a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and local officers emerged at the same time to advance on protesters.
” Court documents also show Portland police making a July 11 arrest of a man named Edward William Carubis on assault charges at the behest of the Federal Protective Services , a uniformed police division of the Department of Homeland Security .
The apparent coordination has raised the possibility for police critics that local police are using the federal forces to evade accountability .
Portland police have received assistance from at least 11 different area law enforcement agencies , where these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caldwell , the Independent Police Review director , the agency has forwarded as many as a “ few dozen cases ” of claims of excessive force to these other agencies , adding , “ I highly doubt they would ever tell us the result.
” What ’ s more , courts have intervened to place limits on the Portland police — limits that do not apply to federal agents .
So far , courts have sided with petitioners in issuing two sets of restraints .
In one case filed by the ACLU of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from arresting , threatening to arrest , or using physical force ” against journalists and legal observers .
In another , the local police forces ’ use of tear gas was limited .
City Council officials said they are being kept in the dark about the coordination .
Hardesty said she is “ appalled ” that the mayor and police chief “ lied to the public for the entire time the protests have been taking place .
They all said , ‘ Oh no , no cooperation at all.
’ ” Nonetheless , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to break up the coordination .
On July 22 , the City Council acted , unanimously banning Portland police from working with federal law enforcement .
That night , though , the federal police did something local cops no longer can : unleashed “ massive ” clouds of tear gas on hundreds of protesters .

Portland City Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty agrees with other elected officials in Oregon who say federal police dispatched to the city by President Donald Trump are an “occupying army,” represent “a blatant abuse of power,” and are “shadowy forces” that have been “escalating, not preventing, violence.”
Hardesty, though, stands nearly alone in saying local officials should share blame for the nightly violence engulfing the streets around the federal courthouse in downtown Portland, where the federal cops are deployed. Mayor Ted Wheeler and Police Chief Chuck Lovell gave Trump the opportunity to send in the “secret police,” she told The Intercept. For more than a month before the federal forces came, local police had already been clashing with protesters. “Portland police overreacted at people throwing bottles at them,” Hardesty said. “They started gassing whole neighborhoods. They were doing that long before the feds showed up.”
“Portland police overreacted at people throwing bottles at them. They started gassing whole neighborhoods. They were doing that long before the feds showed up.”
Violence by city police motivated many protesters to stay in the streets, but by July, the protests had dwindled to a couple hundred people.
The federal assault on the city began on July 1, when federal agents began openly targeting Black Lives Matter supporters. Their presence became national news following a U.S. Marshal shooting a nonaggressive protester in the face with less-lethal munitions on July 12 and, days later, reports and videos of unidentified Border Patrol agents in camouflage grabbing people off the street, stuffing them into unmarked vehicles, and driving off. News coverage of the federal agents’ tactics led to a boom in protests: Thousands now show up nightly to the courthouse to demonstrate, this time against the federal police presence.
The federal moves into Portland are an apparent part of Trump’s plan to “take over cities” where he says crime is surging. His dispatching of 114 federal police to the city sprang from an executive order signed on June 26 to protect “Federal monuments, memorials, statues, or property.” Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad Wolf assembled a task force — made up of the Border Patrol, Coast Guard, U.S. Marshals, and other agencies — and reportedly dispatched 200 police to Washington, D.C.; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Seattle; and Portland before July 4.
The details of some of the moves have been murky. Typical of Trump’s improvisational chaos, White House officials scramble to engineer his impetuous decisions to look like developed policies. At least three different initiatives compromise Trump’s push to send federal police to cities: Wolf’s “Protecting Americans Communities Task Force”; the Department of Justice’s crime-fighting “Operation Legend” announced on July 8; and “Operation Diligent Valor,” which includes the Portland police mission.
In Portland, however, the feds are only part of the story. There is mounting evidence that, despite across-the-board condemnation from the city’s politicians, Portland’s own police force has coordinated closely with federal police in attacking protests. For Hardesty, the mayor’s focus on Trump as the sole cause of the chaos distracts from his inability to control local police, who she says are acting in concert with the federal agents.
“We know that Portland Police Association President Daryl Turner met with DHS Secretary Chad Wolf,” Hardesty wrote on Twitter last weekend. “We know Portland Police are collaborating with this federal occupying force.”
Other local politicians, like City Commissioner Chloe Eudaly, have echoed Hardesty’s allegation that local cops are working with the feds, calling for the collaboration to end.
Out of the locales that have already seen federal police involvement — with Trump vowing to send more into new cities — only in Portland has the conflict devolved into captivating and terrifying medieval-style battles. The assaults by federal agents on protesters are widely seen as a sign of Trump’s descent into violent authoritarianism.
Portland is no stranger to far-right violence. In 2017, the city became a hotbed for extremist rallies, one of which attracted a neo-Nazi who later committed a double murder. The next year, the extreme right used the city, with evidence of police complicity, to stage riots against anti-fascists. Now, Trump is using Portland — and the federal cops — as a testing ground to energize his base.
So why has Portland become a “right-wing boogeyman” during the Trump years? The answer starts with Oregon’s creation as a “white utopia” in 1859, where Black and mixed-race people were barred from living in the state. That shaped Oregon as a center of Ku Klux Klan activity in the 1920s, and there were harsh Jim Crow laws in the state. To this day, 2 percent of Oregon’s population is Black. Portland itself is often called “the whitest big city” in America, owing to its 77 percent white population.
The overwhelming white makeup of the city and state — the legacy of white supremacy — can make politicians see taking on racist policies as a liability. “Politicians are reluctant to challenge racist policing for fear of being tarnished as anti-cop and losing support of white voters,” said Joseph Lowndes, professor of political science at the University of Oregon.
Enter Jo Ann Hardesty. In 2018, she was elected as the first Black woman to the Portland City Council on a platform of reining in police violence. Having advocated for police reforms since she moved to Portland 30 years ago, observers and journalists have described Hardesty as the first politician in the city to forcefully oppose racist policing.
The lack of establishment opposition to police power sets Portland apart from other cities where Trump has said or hinted he will dispatch federal police. The Portland Police Association has bulldozed elected officials for decades. One police union president would put his gun on the table when meeting with the mayor. Their contract protects racist cops. The Independent Police Review, which handles complaints about the cops, is widely viewed as toothless. And it’s hard to fire cops who’ve used deadly force.
In 2016, organizers had gathered demonstrators at City Hall to protest as the police union negotiated a new contract. Activists claim the police rioted, forcing protesters out of City Hall. Police in riot gear then surrounded the building while city officials approved their union contract. That would be the incident which convinced Hardesty to run for office.
In other cities, opposition to unaccountable police is stronger. In Seattle, a veto-proof majority of the council supports halving the police budget. In Philadelphia, the district attorney has vowed to prosecute any federal police who “unlawfully assaults and kidnaps people.” In Minneapolis, the city council has taken steps to dismantle the entire police department.
The big questions in Portland right now revolve around the relationship between the feds and Portland police.
“I believe police union president Daryl Turner requested the federal police presence,” Hardesty told The Intercept. “We are starting to learn that is how they are getting into other cities at the request of the police.” She pointed to the Chicago police union writing to Trump on July 18, asking “for help from the federal government … to bring civility back to the streets of Chicago.” Days later, Trump said federal police were headed to Chicago.
When DHS’s Wolf met with Turner, the police union chief said the main objective of the meeting was to have the feds “working alongside PPB Chief Lovell in conjunction with and communicating with him and his command staff.”
The Portland police have been cagey about how they work with the feds. Deputy Chief Chris Davis has said Portland police offered “suggestions” to the federal forces and coordinated efforts with them.
“It’s inevitable there’s some coordination. They can hear each other on the radio, they see each other on the street.”
Lovell, the police chief, said that Portland police communicate with federal officers because they operate “within a city block” of each other. He added, “We do not control their actions. They do not control ours. We don’t direct their uses of force, anything like that.” The next day, Portland Police said that federal police would no longer work “in the Portland Police incident command center” — surprising observers who didn’t realize the feds were there in the first place.
“It’s inevitable there’s some coordination,” said Independent Police Review Director Ross Caldwell. “They can hear each other on the radio, they see each other on the street.”
Media reports, footage, and eyewitnesses all point to close coordination.
“Federal law enforcement officers, along with the Portland police and Multnomah County Sheriff’s deputies, used tear gas and impact munitions to disperse hundreds of protesters from downtown,” reported Oregon Public Broadcasting, of an incident blocks away from the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse on July 4.
The same night, Alex Milan Tracy, an independent photojournalist, filmed Portland police in vehicles ordering the streets cleared while federal officers nearby on foot enforced the sweeps. It was one of three times Tracy said he has witnessed a “coordinated response” between Portland and federal police “systematically clearing the streets around the federal courthouse.”
Robert Evans, who reports for Bellingcat and is one of the most prominent livestreamers of “The Battle of Portland,” said he has seen federal police and Portland police working together “multiple times” to clear the streets and assault protesters.
On July 12, videographer Garrison Davis documented dozens of federal police and Portland police mixed together pushing protesters away from the park and Portland police vehicles issuing warnings to leave the area. The Oregonian described the scene: “Portland police and federal officers marched shoulder-to-shoulder.”
At 1:31 a.m. on June 18, The Intercept heard Portland police warn force would be used, including crowd-control munitions, in five minutes. Six minutes later, federal police attacked a few hundred protesters with tear gas and pepper balls. “Evidence shows Portland police working with federal officers at protests, contradicting city officials,” The Oregonian reported. It described a “tandem force” of “federal and local officers emerged at the same time to advance on protesters.”
Court documents also show Portland police making a July 11 arrest of a man named Edward William Carubis on assault charges at the behest of the Federal Protective Services, a uniformed police division of the Department of Homeland Security.
The apparent coordination has raised the possibility for police critics that local police are using the federal forces to evade accountability. Portland police have received assistance from at least 11 different area law enforcement agencies, where these issues have already surfaced. According to Caldwell, the Independent Police Review director, the agency has forwarded as many as a “few dozen cases” of claims of excessive force to these other agencies, adding, “I highly doubt they would ever tell us the result.”
What’s more, courts have intervened to place limits on the Portland police — limits that do not apply to federal agents. So far, courts have sided with petitioners in issuing two sets of restraints. In one case filed by the ACLU of Oregon, Portland police were barred “from arresting, threatening to arrest, or using physical force” against journalists and legal observers. In another, the local police forces’ use of tear gas was limited.
City Council officials said they are being kept in the dark about the coordination. Hardesty said she is “appalled” that the mayor and police chief “lied to the public for the entire time the protests have been taking place. They all said, ‘Oh no, no cooperation at all.’” Nonetheless, local politicians are trying to undertake measures to break up the coordination. On July 22, the City Council acted, unanimously banning Portland police from working with federal law enforcement.
That night, though, the federal police did something local cops no longer can: unleashed “massive” clouds of tear gas on hundreds of protesters.


theintercept--2020-07-24--Inside the ACLU’s Fight for Civil Rights in the Trump Era

taking the oath of office , President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of legislative attacks on marginalized communities : ripping @ @ @ @ @ access to abortion , and banning transgender people from military service .
While protesters took @ @ @ @ @ their outrage , the legal team at the American Civil Liberties Union launched a flurry @ @ @ @ @ , filing more than 150 lawsuits to protect American ’ s civil rights and liberties @ @ @ @ @ July 29 , Intercept Editor-in-Chief Betsy Reed will host a virtual conversation on the current @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s America with three ACLU lawyers at the center of these fights : @ @ @ @ @ at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project ; Lee Gelernt , deputy director of the ACLU @ @ @ @ @ ; and Chase Strangio , deputy director for Transgender Justice with the ACLU LGBT & @ @ @

Just days after taking the oath of office, President Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of legislative attacks on marginalized communities: ripping immigrant families apart, blocking access to abortion, and banning transgender people from military service.
While protesters took to the streets to voice their outrage, the legal team at the American Civil Liberties Union launched a flurry of counterattacks in federal court, filing more than 150 lawsuits to protect American’s civil rights and liberties from encroaching authoritarianism.
On July 29, Intercept Editor-in-Chief Betsy Reed hosted a virtual conversation on the current state of civil rights in Trump’s America with three ACLU lawyers at the center of these fights: Brigitte Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project; Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU national Immigrants’ Rights Project; and Chase Strangio, deputy director for Transgender Justice with the ACLU LGBT & HIV Project.
This virtual conversation was streamed live on The Intercept, as well as on The Intercept’s official YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter pages.
The conversation coincides with the launch of a new documentary called “The Fight” — an inside look at four high-profile ACLU lawsuits that attempt to block the Trump administration’s efforts to target immigrants, women, and the LGBTQ community. The film is being released by First Look Media’s Topic Studios and Magnolia Pictures and opens in virtual theaters nationwide on July 31.


theintercept--2020-07-23--Immigrants at Privately Run ICE Detention Center Were Thrown Out of Wheelchairs When They Asked for

Immigrants at Privately Run ICE Detention Center Were Thrown Out of Wheelchairs When They Asked for Medical Help

started feeling sick in early April .
His skin was hot to the touch , he lost his sense of taste , and he vomited continually , unable to keep any food down .
Blanco was terrified .
He had been held at the Stewart Detention Center , a privately run U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement jail in rural Georgia , for more than a month .
It was possible he had come down with the coronavirus , and if he had , it was all but guaranteed that guards in the ICE detention center , operated by private prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ solitary confinement .
After two weeks of submitting requests for medical attention that went ignored , Blanco staged a one-man protest , sitting at a table in his unit and refusing to follow guards ’ orders to go back to his cell .
He said a guard approached him and told him that he should either return to his cell “ or go die with the sick ones in the hole.
” The guard wrote Blanco up for “ refusing to obey staff , ” according to disciplinary documents provided to The Intercept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : He was taken to Stewart ’ s clinic and given pills for his stomach pain .
When four guards came to get him from the clinic around 30 minutes later , they told him that he ’ d be going to solitary confinement — not because he was sick , but as punishment for having protested .
Blanco refused .
According to the disciplinary records , “ force was used to secure the detainee after he charged in an attempt to break away from the emergency response team.
” But Blanco ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They grabbed me , they hugged me , and they slammed me to the ground , ” Blanco said .
His head hit the floor and a guard pressed his foot down onto it .
The impact of his head slamming the floor damaged Blanco ’ s right eye .
More than two months after the incident , Blanco said he still has a blood clot in that eye and his vision is still blurry .
Although officials told him that he would see an eye specialist prior to deportation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was diagnosed with Covid-19 on arrival in El Salvador in late May .
Blanco is one of three medically vulnerable immigrants held at Stewart who say they were subject to excessive force by guards amid the coronavirus pandemic .
All three incidents follow a pattern : After detainees demanded medical attention , guards threw them to the floor .
Two of the immigrants were using wheelchairs at the time , and guards hurled them out of the chairs nonetheless .
“ When immigrants use their voice to advocate for themselves , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of force , ” said Priyanka Bhatt , a staff attorney with the advocacy organization Project South , which has chronicled years of problems at Stewart .
As The Intercept previously reported , during April , a SWAT-like unit of CoreCivic officers twice pepper-sprayed immigrants and shot pepper-ball ammunition in response to protests for better conditions .
ICE has reported 116 cases of Covid-19 among people incarcerated at Stewart , and one Stewart detainee died of the disease in May .
In a statement , CoreCivic spokesperson Ryan Gustin said the prison company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all of those entrusted to our care at Stewart Detention Center , ” but declined to comment on any specific allegations , citing privacy regulations .
“ The claim that detainees are forced to wait to receive medical attention is patently false , ” Gustin said .
An ICE spokesperson said “ all persons in ICE custody receive all appropriate medical treatment , ” adding , “ we generally can not discuss specific medical treatment of any person in custody absent their consent.
” Salvadoran immigrant , arrived at Stewart earlier this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in bad shape .
“ [ PATIENT ] NEEDS INCISIONAL VENTRAL HERNIA REPAIR URGENTLY , ” reads a November doctor ’ s assessment , which Miguel shared with The Intercept .
“ [ PATIENT ] IS HAVING PAIN … .
WILL ATTEMPT AGAIN TO GET APPROVAL FROM ICE.
” ( Miguel is a pseudonym ; he asked to remain anonymous to protect him from harassment in El Salvador . )
After at least two requests , ICE finally approved Miguel for surgery , and he had the operation in March .
But shortly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seemed something had gone wrong during the surgery .
Rather than treating Miguel again , ICE decided to deport him .
On April 8 , detention staff told Miguel to prepare for his deportation flight .
“ Three guards came over and brutally tried to force me into a wheelchair , ” he told The Intercept .
“ I kept yelling that I was in pain .
I almost fell out of the wheelchair because I couldn ’ t even sit ; I had to lie flat.
” That ’ s when Miguel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collar “ practically strangling me , ” he recalled , and made him fall on to the ground .
“ I told them , ‘ You ’ re hurting me , you ’ re hurting me .
You can not wait ?
Just deport me another day , ’ ” he said .
The guards grabbed his arms and legs and carried him away .
Even before the coronavirus made its way to Georgia , immigrants and advocates criticized conditions in Stewart , one of the largest ICE facilities in the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 , two by suicide after spending prolonged periods in solitary confinement .
ICE previously said it is looking into recent use-of-force incidents .
ICE ’ s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation after the incidents in which correctional staff used pepper spray and pepper-ball ammunition on immigrants .
After both incidents , The Intercept and the advocacy coalition Georgia Detention Watch found social media posts in which members of a special unit of CoreCivic guards — called SORT , for Special Operations Response Team — joked about the use of force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer joked that detainees were so hungry , they were “ eating that spray.
” As a result of The Intercept ’ s reporting , four staff members were fired from the facility and four others remain on administrative leave as ICE continues its investigation .
While testifying before Congress earlier this month , CoreCivic ’ s CEO Damon Hininger denied that pepper spray was used at the company ’ s facilities .
He later retracted his statement , claiming that he misunderstood the question , but noted only one instance in New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from April described a man in a wheelchair being hit by pepper-ball ammunition .
He “ felt them mfs , ” the officer wrote .
“ He grabbed his face.
” That detainee was Hugh Tinarwo , a 33-year-old immigrant from Zimbabwe who has been held in Stewart since last October .
According to court filings , guards shot him in the back more than 60 times with the pepper-ball ammunition .
Other court records say he urinated blood after the incident .
Less than two months later , correctional officers at Stewart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him after he protested for more medical attention , further injuring his back .
“ I constantly fear for my life in here , ” Tinarwo told The Intercept from within the detention center .
Tinarwo has a history of medical problems prior to entering Stewart — a previously ruptured spinal disc , paralysis in his legs , hypertension , and an enlarged heart .
He lost his ability to walk after a surgery before entering ICE custody and is using a wheelchair .
After the pepper spray incident in April , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On June 18 , due to the pain from the herniated disc , Tinarwo requested medical attention but was denied .
Frustrated , he made a cynical comment to staff .
“ I was like , ‘ Do I have to say that I am going to kill myself to get medical attention around here ?
’ ” Tinarwo recalled .
Officers rolled him to the medical unit , where a nurse checked his blood pressure , then sent him to the waiting room .
Because of the comment about killing himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , three guards arrived to take him to suicide watch .
At Stewart , that means solitary confinement .
Tinarwo resisted .
According to Tinarwo , he held tight to the wheelchair , so one guard tried to flip him off , while another tried to drag him from the waiting room .
“ My legs was going one way , my body was going the other way , and I started yelling , ‘ My back !
My back !
My back !
” Tinarwo said .
Thrown to the ground , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guards could not cuff him .
One of the officers pressed his head onto the ground , with another pressing on his neck .
They handcuffed Tinarwo , with the cuffs scratching his arm , he said , and took him to solitary confinement for suicide watch for some days .
“ [ My back is ] much worse now , ” Tinarwo said .
The pain is so bad that he has to ask others to push his wheelchair : “ Every time I push myself , I can feel the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Tinarwo is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Asian Americans Advancing Justice demanding the release of medically vulnerable immigrants detained in Stewart .
“ It ’ s a failure of Stewart Detention Center , ” said Erin Argueta , a Southern Poverty Law Center attorney who represents immigrants detained at Stewart .
Argueta said detention center staff don ’ t take requests for medical care seriously enough : “ To respond to that with violence is so sad , and wrong , and scary .
@

Roberto Blanco-Gonzalez started feeling sick in early April. His skin was hot to the touch, he lost his sense of taste, and he vomited continually, unable to keep any food down. Blanco was terrified. He had been held at the Stewart Detention Center, a privately run U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement jail in rural Georgia, for more than a month.
It was possible he had come down with the coronavirus, and if he had, it was all but guaranteed that guards in the ICE detention center, operated by private prison company CoreCivic, would place him in solitary confinement.
After two weeks of submitting requests for medical attention that went ignored, Blanco staged a one-man protest, sitting at a table in his unit and refusing to follow guards’ orders to go back to his cell. He said a guard approached him and told him that he should either return to his cell “or go die with the sick ones in the hole.”
The guard wrote Blanco up for “refusing to obey staff,” according to disciplinary documents provided to The Intercept. Still, his protest was successful: He was taken to Stewart’s clinic and given pills for his stomach pain.
When four guards came to get him from the clinic around 30 minutes later, they told him that he’d be going to solitary confinement — not because he was sick, but as punishment for having protested. Blanco refused. According to the disciplinary records, “force was used to secure the detainee after he charged in an attempt to break away from the emergency response team.” But Blanco’s account paints a more graphic picture.
“They grabbed me, they hugged me, and they slammed me to the ground,” Blanco said. His head hit the floor and a guard pressed his foot down onto it. The impact of his head slamming the floor damaged Blanco’s right eye.
More than two months after the incident, Blanco said he still has a blood clot in that eye and his vision is still blurry. Although officials told him that he would see an eye specialist prior to deportation, he never saw the doctor. Blanco was diagnosed with Covid-19 on arrival in El Salvador in late May.
Blanco is one of three medically vulnerable immigrants held at Stewart who say they were subject to excessive force by guards amid the coronavirus pandemic. All three incidents follow a pattern: After detainees demanded medical attention, guards threw them to the floor. Two of the immigrants were using wheelchairs at the time, and guards hurled them out of the chairs nonetheless.
“When immigrants use their voice to advocate for themselves, they’re always met with intimidation and use of force,” said Priyanka Bhatt, a staff attorney with the advocacy organization Project South, which has chronicled years of problems at Stewart.
Related As Coronavirus Surges in ICE Detention, a Message in the Skies Says “RELEASE”
As The Intercept previously reported, during April, a SWAT-like unit of CoreCivic officers twice pepper-sprayed immigrants and shot pepper-ball ammunition in response to protests for better conditions. ICE has reported 116 cases of Covid-19 among people incarcerated at Stewart, and one Stewart detainee died of the disease in May.
In a statement, CoreCivic spokesperson Ryan Gustin said the prison company is “committed to providing high-quality healthcare to all of those entrusted to our care at Stewart Detention Center,” but declined to comment on any specific allegations, citing privacy regulations. “The claim that detainees are forced to wait to receive medical attention is patently false,” Gustin said. An ICE spokesperson said “all persons in ICE custody receive all appropriate medical treatment,” adding, “we generally cannot discuss specific medical treatment of any person in custody absent their consent.”
Miguel, a recently deported Salvadoran immigrant, arrived at Stewart earlier this year from another Georgia detention center already in bad shape. “[PATIENT] NEEDS INCISIONAL VENTRAL HERNIA REPAIR URGENTLY,” reads a November doctor’s assessment, which Miguel shared with The Intercept. “[PATIENT] IS HAVING PAIN …. WILL ATTEMPT AGAIN TO GET APPROVAL FROM ICE.” (Miguel is a pseudonym; he asked to remain anonymous to protect him from harassment in El Salvador.)
After at least two requests, ICE finally approved Miguel for surgery, and he had the operation in March. But shortly afterward, the pain returned; it seemed something had gone wrong during the surgery. Rather than treating Miguel again, ICE decided to deport him.
On April 8, detention staff told Miguel to prepare for his deportation flight. “Three guards came over and brutally tried to force me into a wheelchair,” he told The Intercept. “I kept yelling that I was in pain. I almost fell out of the wheelchair because I couldn’t even sit; I had to lie flat.”
“I kept yelling that I was in pain. I almost fell out of the wheelchair because I couldn’t even sit.”
That’s when Miguel says a guard grabbed him by the collar “practically strangling me,” he recalled, and made him fall on to the ground. “I told them, ‘You’re hurting me, you’re hurting me. You cannot wait? Just deport me another day,’” he said. The guards grabbed his arms and legs and carried him away.
Even before the coronavirus made its way to Georgia, immigrants and advocates criticized conditions in Stewart, one of the largest ICE facilities in the country. Four Stewart detainees died between 2016 and 2019, two by suicide after spending prolonged periods in solitary confinement.
ICE previously said it is looking into recent use-of-force incidents. ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation after the incidents in which correctional staff used pepper spray and pepper-ball ammunition on immigrants.
After both incidents, The Intercept and the advocacy coalition Georgia Detention Watch found social media posts in which members of a special unit of CoreCivic guards — called SORT, for Special Operations Response Team — joked about the use of force. In one post, a SORT officer joked that detainees were so hungry, they were “eating that spray.” As a result of The Intercept’s reporting, four staff members were fired from the facility and four others remain on administrative leave as ICE continues its investigation. While testifying before Congress earlier this month, CoreCivic’s CEO Damon Hininger denied that pepper spray was used at the company’s facilities. He later retracted his statement, claiming that he misunderstood the question, but noted only one instance in New Mexico.
Read Our Complete Coverage The War on Immigrants
One of the Facebook posts from April described a man in a wheelchair being hit by pepper-ball ammunition. He “felt them mfs,” the officer wrote. “He grabbed his face.”
That detainee was Hugh Tinarwo, a 33-year-old immigrant from Zimbabwe who has been held in Stewart since last October. According to court filings, guards shot him in the back more than 60 times with the pepper-ball ammunition. Other court records say he urinated blood after the incident.
Less than two months later, correctional officers at Stewart threw him to the ground and pinned him after he protested for more medical attention, further injuring his back.
“I constantly fear for my life in here,” Tinarwo told The Intercept from within the detention center.
Tinarwo has a history of medical problems prior to entering Stewart — a previously ruptured spinal disc, paralysis in his legs, hypertension, and an enlarged heart. He lost his ability to walk after a surgery before entering ICE custody and is using a wheelchair. After the pepper spray incident in April, he was newly diagnosed with a herniated disc.
On June 18, due to the pain from the herniated disc, Tinarwo requested medical attention but was denied. Frustrated, he made a cynical comment to staff.
Three guards arrived to take him to suicide watch. At Stewart, that means solitary confinement.
“I was like, ‘Do I have to say that I am going to kill myself to get medical attention around here?’” Tinarwo recalled. Officers rolled him to the medical unit, where a nurse checked his blood pressure, then sent him to the waiting room.
Because of the comment about killing himself, which he said was meant ironically, three guards arrived to take him to suicide watch. At Stewart, that means solitary confinement.
Tinarwo resisted. According to Tinarwo, he held tight to the wheelchair, so one guard tried to flip him off, while another tried to drag him from the waiting room.
“My legs was going one way, my body was going the other way, and I started yelling, ‘My back! My back! My back!” Tinarwo said.
Thrown to the ground, Tinarwo grabbed onto the chair so that the guards could not cuff him. One of the officers pressed his head onto the ground, with another pressing on his neck. They handcuffed Tinarwo, with the cuffs scratching his arm, he said, and took him to solitary confinement for suicide watch for some days.
“[My back is] much worse now,” Tinarwo said. The pain is so bad that he has to ask others to push his wheelchair: “Every time I push myself, I can feel the disc, like it’s ripping.”
Tinarwo is a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Asian Americans Advancing Justice demanding the release of medically vulnerable immigrants detained in Stewart.
“It’s a failure of Stewart Detention Center,” said Erin Argueta, a Southern Poverty Law Center attorney who represents immigrants detained at Stewart. Argueta said detention center staff don’t take requests for medical care seriously enough: “To respond to that with violence is so sad, and wrong, and scary.”


theintercept--2020-07-22--NYPD Disappeared Black Lives Matter Protesters Into Detention for Days at a Time. Lawmakers Want to

NYPD Disappeared Black Lives Matter Protesters Into Detention for Days at a Time. Lawmakers Want to End the Practice.

hundreds of Black Lives Matter protesters languished for days in cramped New York City jail cells .
Stuck in holding pens without masks and exposed to soiled conditions amid the coronavirus pandemic , they were unable to reach loved ones or lawyers .
The protesters were effectively disappeared into New York City ’ s detention system .
Attorneys from the Legal Aid Society went to court to demand the protesters ’ immediate release .
In a lawsuit filed against the New York Police Department , attorneys from Legal Aid , a public defense organization , alleged that over 400 individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for more than 24 hours without seeing a judge , in breach of state law and detainees ’ constitutional rights .
The public defenders accused the police department of deliberately slow-rolling standard procedures to keep protesters in jail as payback for demonstrations against police brutality .
Lawyers for the police asserted that the NYPD faced unprecedented challenges with both a pandemic and widespread protests raging .
In a one-line decision , Judge James M. Burke of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan sided with the police .
“ All writs are denied , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Burke accepted the NYPD ’ s rationale that the conditions on the ground should overrule preexisting state law : The 1991 Roundtree v. Brown decision established the 24-hour standard from arrest to arraignment .
Burke ’ s decision set off a firestorm .
Protesters flocked to Manhattan ’ s Foley Square , near the state and federal courthouses , demanding the release of the protesters .
“ The law doesn ’ t have a looter exception , it doesn ’ t have a Covid-19 exception , ” said Russell Novack , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought the suit .
“ This was deliberate , intentional punishment for protesting.
” In the state capital of Albany , a progressive Democrat from Queens said his new bill would ensure that New Yorkers are never again disappeared into detention .
State Sen. Michael Gianaris introduced a bill to codify the Roundtree decision and better track detentions .
On Wednesday afternoon , the bill passed the full New York State Senate , clearing the way for it to appear before the state Assembly as soon as this week .
It is unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in June called on city district attorneys to keep looters in jail for longer than 24 hours , would seek to veto the measure .
Already having pushed the legislation through two committees , Gianaris will bring his bill before the legislature ’ s full upper chamber on Wednesday .
The bill would oblige all police departments in New York State to either bring an arrested individual before a judge within 24 hours or immediately release them upon request .
It would also add a new section to the laws governing habeas corpus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held for more than 24 hours before their arraignment is entitled to release unless the police produce “ clear and convincing evidence that such a delay ” is warranted .
Under the new statute , police departments would have to give an individualized explanation for each person ’ s delay — something the NYPD did not have to do last month .
“ In the United States , we like to fancy ourselves as having a justice system that protects civil liberties , ” Gianaris told The Intercept .
“ An important tenet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be imprisoned without being found guilty of a crime and certainly not without being charged with a crime.
” of the bill , Gianaris said , is that it would force all municipalities in New York state with over a million residents — only New York City would qualify — to create a detained persons registry .
The registry would serve as a database of all arrested individuals and be accessible only to authorized users from public defender organizations — such as the Legal Aid Society and others like the defenders network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the city to represent criminal defendants .
The registry would eliminate the arbitrary power of the police to disappear people in the system , he added .
“ That ’ s a very scary proposition , ” Gianaris said of allowing police to hold individuals over 24 hours without seeing a judge .
The NYPD did not respond to requests for comment on the bill .
The Intercept reached out to several protesters swept up in the mass arrests last month .
All declined to speak on the record , citing ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bill de Blasio ’ s weeklong curfew , which could carry a Class-B misdemeanor charge .
The district attorneys for Manhattan , Brooklyn and the Bronx have publicly stated that they will not prosecute protesters arrested for low-level offenses .
Still , the court cases remain scheduled , in September and October .
Steve Zeidman was a supervisor at the Legal Aid Society on the Roundtree case .
Nearly three decades later , he said the decision has never been properly enforced .
The Gianaris bill , he said , will only be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The court ’ s unwillingness to hold the prosecutors and the police department ’ s feet to the fire rendered the Roundtree decision toothless in many cases , ” said Zeidman , a CUNY Law School professor .
“ The crisis is that this bill is even necessary.
” Update : Wednesday July 22 , 2020 , 7:04 p.m .
This story has been updated to reflect that Gianaris ’ s bill passed the full New York State Senate and will now move on to the state Assembly .

In early June, hundreds of Black Lives Matter protesters languished for days in cramped New York City jail cells. Stuck in holding pens without masks and exposed to soiled conditions amid the coronavirus pandemic, they were unable to reach loved ones or lawyers. The protesters were effectively disappeared into New York City’s detention system.
Attorneys from the Legal Aid Society went to court to demand the protesters’ immediate release. In a lawsuit filed against the New York Police Department, attorneys from Legal Aid, a public defense organization, alleged that over 400 individuals in city detention facilities had been held for more than 24 hours without seeing a judge, in breach of state law and detainees’ constitutional rights.
The public defenders accused the police department of deliberately slow-rolling standard procedures to keep protesters in jail as payback for demonstrations against police brutality. Lawyers for the police asserted that the NYPD faced unprecedented challenges with both a pandemic and widespread protests raging.
In a one-line decision, Judge James M. Burke of the State Supreme Court in Manhattan sided with the police. “All writs are denied,” he ruled. In doing so, Burke accepted the NYPD’s rationale that the conditions on the ground should overrule preexisting state law: The 1991 Roundtree v. Brown decision established the 24-hour standard from arrest to arraignment.
Burke’s decision set off a firestorm. Protesters flocked to Manhattan’s Foley Square, near the state and federal courthouses, demanding the release of the protesters.
“The law doesn’t have a looter exception, it doesn’t have a Covid-19 exception,” said Russell Novack, one of the Legal Aid staff attorneys who brought the suit. “This was deliberate, intentional punishment for protesting.”
In the state capital of Albany, a progressive Democrat from Queens said his new bill would ensure that New Yorkers are never again disappeared into detention. State Sen. Michael Gianaris introduced a bill to codify the Roundtree decision and better track detentions.
On Wednesday afternoon, the bill passed the full New York State Senate, clearing the way for it to appear before the state Assembly as soon as this week. It is unclear whether Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who in June called on city district attorneys to keep looters in jail for longer than 24 hours, would seek to veto the measure.
Already having pushed the legislation through two committees, Gianaris will bring his bill before the legislature’s full upper chamber on Wednesday.
“The law doesn’t have a looter exception, it doesn’t have a Covid-19 exception. This was deliberate, intentional punishment for protesting.”
The bill would oblige all police departments in New York State to either bring an arrested individual before a judge within 24 hours or immediately release them upon request.
It would also add a new section to the laws governing habeas corpus in New York, clarifying that anyone held for more than 24 hours before their arraignment is entitled to release unless the police produce “clear and convincing evidence that such a delay” is warranted. Under the new statute, police departments would have to give an individualized explanation for each person’s delay — something the NYPD did not have to do last month.
“In the United States, we like to fancy ourselves as having a justice system that protects civil liberties,” Gianaris told The Intercept. “An important tenet of that is that one shouldn’t be imprisoned without being found guilty of a crime and certainly not without being charged with a crime.”
A key component of the bill, Gianaris said, is that it would force all municipalities in New York state with over a million residents — only New York City would qualify — to create a detained persons registry. The registry would serve as a database of all arrested individuals and be accessible only to authorized users from public defender organizations — such as the Legal Aid Society and others like the defenders network that operates around the city — contracted with the city to represent criminal defendants.
The registry would eliminate the arbitrary power of the police to disappear people in the system, he added. “That’s a very scary proposition,” Gianaris said of allowing police to hold individuals over 24 hours without seeing a judge.
The NYPD did not respond to requests for comment on the bill.
Read Our Complete Coverage Protests for Black Lives
The Intercept reached out to several protesters swept up in the mass arrests last month. All declined to speak on the record, citing ongoing cases against them, including breaking Mayor Bill de Blasio’s weeklong curfew, which could carry a Class-B misdemeanor charge.
The district attorneys for Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx have publicly stated that they will not prosecute protesters arrested for low-level offenses. Still, the court cases remain scheduled, in September and October.
Steve Zeidman was a supervisor at the Legal Aid Society on the Roundtree case. Nearly three decades later, he said the decision has never been properly enforced. The Gianaris bill, he said, will only be successful if judges choose to enforce it.
“The court’s unwillingness to hold the prosecutors and the police department’s feet to the fire rendered the Roundtree decision toothless in many cases,” said Zeidman, a CUNY Law School professor. “The crisis is that this bill is even necessary.”
Update: Wednesday July 22, 2020, 7:04 p.m.
This story has been updated to reflect that Gianaris’s bill passed the full New York State Senate and will now move on to the state Assembly.


theintercept--2020-07-27--The Pentagon Has a New Process for Paying for Civilian Deaths — but Is Still Slow to Acknowledge The

The Pentagon Has a New Process for Paying for Civilian Deaths — but Is Still Slow to Acknowledge Them

overhauling the way it tracks and reports payments to the families of civilians killed or injured in U.S. operations , standardizing a process that has remained secretive and ad hoc for years .
Giving money to the victims of war , commonly called condolence or ex gratia payments , has long been a part of U.S. strategy in places like Afghanistan , where commanders have also used it to compensate local civilians for property destruction .
In 2016 , for example , after the U.S. admitted to bombing a hospital in Kunduz , Afghanistan , military officials on a nearby @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the relatives of some of the 42 people killed .
But in places like Syria and Somalia , where the U.S. has conducted airstrikes with a smaller ground presence , human rights groups have criticized the military for failing to compensate or even properly account for civilians who were killed and injured by American bombs .
In May , the Defense Department sent a first-of-its kind report to Congress that shows the limits of condolence payments .
The report , posted on a department website with little notice , states that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payments in Afghanistan , six in Iraq , and none in any other country .
In the first half of 2019 alone , the monitoring group Airwars tracked 43 separate reports of civilian casualties from the U.S.-led coalition ’ s operations in Syria estimating that between 415 and 1,029 civilians were killed .
The Department of Defense , for the same period in Syria , acknowledged only nine “ credible ” civilian casualty incidents , resulting in 21 civilian deaths .
None of those appear to be reflected in the new report on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fellow with New America and a former senior director for counterterrorism on Barack Obama ’ s National Security Council , told The Intercept that having U.S. troops on the ground made it “ easier to both assess damages and make the payments ” in places like Afghanistan , but added , “ I don ’ t totally buy that rationale for not making any ex gratia payments in other locations.
” Congress authorized money to be used for compensation payments in 2017 in Syria , and in 2018 extended it to Somalia , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month , in response to a law passed by Congress last year , the Defense Department issued “ interim regulations ” meant to create an internal process for gathering reports of the payments and then sending them to Congress .
The regulations — which are expected to be finalized early next year — say that the “ principal goal ” of the payments is to “ help authorized commanders obtain and maintain friendly relations with and the support of local populations where U.S. forces are operating.
” Hartig said that he had hoped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a legal obligation , at least a moral duty to compensate for U.S. errors .
“ Mistakes happen , and part of this is not just to smooth things over but to attempt on its own right to try to make good when we make mistakes , ” he said .
“ I would have expected more moral and ethical culpability in here.
” In a statement to The Intercept , Pentagon spokesperson Michael Howard said that the interim regulations allow “ authorized commanders , at their discretion ” to provide payments as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sympathy or as a goodwill gesture in the event of property damage , personal injury , or death that is incident to the use of force by the U.S. Armed Forces , a coalition that includes the United States , or a military organization supporting the United States or such coalition.
” Internally , the Defense Department refers to condolence payments as a type of “ ex gratia payments ” — Latin for “ from favor ” — meaning that the U.S. government is choosing to make them voluntarily , not from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also uses the term to describe payments made to compensate for property damage or to pay the families of fallen Afghan soldiers or police officers who were working with the U.S. “ Offers of ex gratia payments … are not legally required , nor may they be construed or considered as an admission or an acknowledgment of any legal obligation to provide compensation , payment , or reparations for property , personal injury , or death , ” the interim regulations say .
Daphne Eviatar , director of Amnesty International USA ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Intercept that the regulations made it clear that the military wasn ’ t even attempting to provide the type of legal accountability required by international law .
“ This is designed to serve a short term strategic interest — that the commander on the ground thinks it ’ s helpful to have friendly relations with the people that his troops are interacting with , ” said Eviatar .
“ It ’ s not designed at all to address the interests of the victims of U.S. bombings.
” The vast majority of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are marked as compensation for “ battle damage ” to property , or as so-called “ hero payments , ” for the families of fallen Afghan allies .
The 71 condolence payments in Afghanistan and Iraq ranged in amount from $ 169 to $ 35,000 .
And although human rights advocates described the regulations as a step forward for transparency , Eviatar also expressed dismay with a provision in the regulations that requires that the recipients of compensation be “ friendly ” to American forces .
“ Under the laws of war , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eviatar said .
“ Civilians are civilians .
There are not ‘ friendly ’ or ‘ unfriendly ’ civilians .
Civilians need to be protected , period.
” payments in Afghanistan in the report demonstrates that compensating civilians is a key part of U.S. strategy in that conflict .
In 2019 — the same period in which the U.S. made 65 condolence payments in Afghanistan — the U.S. assessed that 57 “ reports ” of civilian casualties were “ credible , ” according to the Department ’ s most recent annual accounting .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Afghan civilians killed and approximately 91 civilians injured .
Clearly , not each individual death or injury resulted in a payment , although some payments may have covered multiple individuals , and Howard said that “ generally , U.S. military forces operating in Afghanistan offer condolence payments at a relatively high rate.
” But the military has also been heavily criticized for how rarely it assesses that civilian casualties have taken place .
The Defense Department openly admits that it uses a different standard of “ civilian casualty ” than the United Nations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which estimated that in 2019 “ international military forces ” — mostly the United States — were responsible for 559 Afghans killed and 227 injured .
The main reason for the discrepancy , as a recent DOD report on Afghanistan explains , is that the U.S. forces only assess claims as “ credible ” when their own sources of intelligence can verify that civilians were killed .
“ The UNAMA reports rely primarily on human sources and in many cases [ the United States ] can not verify the validity of UNAMA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journalists and rights groups counter that on-the-ground investigations are critical .
The U.S. military rarely visits the site of a raid or airstrike , or interviews eyewitnesses — and in several cases , they have had to reverse their position on civilian casualties from an attack after outside investigators surfaced new information .

The Pentagon is overhauling the way it tracks and reports payments to the families of civilians killed or injured in U.S. operations, standardizing a process that has remained secretive and ad hoc for years.
Giving money to the victims of war, commonly called condolence or ex gratia payments, has long been a part of U.S. strategy in places like Afghanistan, where commanders have also used it to compensate local civilians for property destruction. In 2016, for example, after the U.S. admitted to bombing a hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, military officials on a nearby U.S. base handed out thousands of dollars to the relatives of some of the 42 people killed.
But in places like Syria and Somalia, where the U.S. has conducted airstrikes with a smaller ground presence, human rights groups have criticized the military for failing to compensate or even properly account for civilians who were killed and injured by American bombs.
In May, the Defense Department sent a first-of-its kind report to Congress that shows the limits of condolence payments. The report, posted on a department website with little notice, states that in 2019, the military made 65 condolence payments in Afghanistan, six in Iraq, and none in any other country.
In the first half of 2019 alone, the monitoring group Airwars tracked 43 separate reports of civilian casualties from the U.S.-led coalition’s operations in Syria estimating that between 415 and 1,029 civilians were killed. The Department of Defense, for the same period in Syria, acknowledged only nine “credible” civilian casualty incidents, resulting in 21 civilian deaths. None of those appear to be reflected in the new report on condolence payments.
Luke Hartig, a fellow with New America and a former senior director for counterterrorism on Barack Obama’s National Security Council, told The Intercept that having U.S. troops on the ground made it “easier to both assess damages and make the payments” in places like Afghanistan, but added, “I don’t totally buy that rationale for not making any ex gratia payments in other locations.”
In 2019, the military made 65 condolence payments in Afghanistan, six in Iraq, and none in any other country.
Congress authorized money to be used for compensation payments in 2017 in Syria, and in 2018 extended it to Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. Earlier this month, in response to a law passed by Congress last year, the Defense Department issued “interim regulations” meant to create an internal process for gathering reports of the payments and then sending them to Congress.
The regulations — which are expected to be finalized early next year — say that the “principal goal” of the payments is to “help authorized commanders obtain and maintain friendly relations with and the support of local populations where U.S. forces are operating.”
Hartig said that he had hoped the regulations would acknowledge, if not a legal obligation, at least a moral duty to compensate for U.S. errors. “Mistakes happen, and part of this is not just to smooth things over but to attempt on its own right to try to make good when we make mistakes,” he said. “I would have expected more moral and ethical culpability in here.”
In a statement to The Intercept, Pentagon spokesperson Michael Howard said that the interim regulations allow “authorized commanders, at their discretion” to provide payments as a “means of expressing condolences or sympathy or as a goodwill gesture in the event of property damage, personal injury, or death that is incident to the use of force by the U.S. Armed Forces, a coalition that includes the United States, or a military organization supporting the United States or such coalition.”
Internally, the Defense Department refers to condolence payments as a type of “ex gratia payments” — Latin for “from favor” — meaning that the U.S. government is choosing to make them voluntarily, not from a sense of legal obligation. The military also uses the term to describe payments made to compensate for property damage or to pay the families of fallen Afghan soldiers or police officers who were working with the U.S.
“Offers of ex gratia payments … are not legally required, nor may they be construed or considered as an admission or an acknowledgment of any legal obligation to provide compensation, payment, or reparations for property, personal injury, or death,” the interim regulations say.
Daphne Eviatar, director of Amnesty International USA’s Security With Human Rights Program, told The Intercept that the regulations made it clear that the military wasn’t even attempting to provide the type of legal accountability required by international law.
“Civilians are civilians. There are not ‘friendly’ or ‘unfriendly’ civilians. Civilians need to be protected, period.”
“This is designed to serve a short term strategic interest — that the commander on the ground thinks it’s helpful to have friendly relations with the people that his troops are interacting with,” said Eviatar. “It’s not designed at all to address the interests of the victims of U.S. bombings.”
The vast majority of the 611 payments tallied in the 2019 report are marked as compensation for “battle damage” to property, or as so-called “hero payments,” for the families of fallen Afghan allies. The 71 condolence payments in Afghanistan and Iraq ranged in amount from $169 to $35,000.
And although human rights advocates described the regulations as a step forward for transparency, Eviatar also expressed dismay with a provision in the regulations that requires that the recipients of compensation be “friendly” to American forces.
“Under the laws of war, civilians are not the enemy,” Eviatar said. “Civilians are civilians. There are not ‘friendly’ or ‘unfriendly’ civilians. Civilians need to be protected, period.”
The preponderance of payments in Afghanistan in the report demonstrates that compensating civilians is a key part of U.S. strategy in that conflict.
In 2019 — the same period in which the U.S. made 65 condolence payments in Afghanistan — the U.S. assessed that 57 “reports” of civilian casualties were “credible,” according to the Department’s most recent annual accounting. Those credible claims added up to 132 Afghan civilians killed and approximately 91 civilians injured. Clearly, not each individual death or injury resulted in a payment, although some payments may have covered multiple individuals, and Howard said that “generally, U.S. military forces operating in Afghanistan offer condolence payments at a relatively high rate.”
But the military has also been heavily criticized for how rarely it assesses that civilian casualties have taken place. The Defense Department openly admits that it uses a different standard of “civilian casualty” than the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, or UNAMA, which estimated that in 2019 “international military forces” — mostly the United States — were responsible for 559 Afghans killed and 227 injured.
The main reason for the discrepancy, as a recent DOD report on Afghanistan explains, is that the U.S. forces only assess claims as “credible” when their own sources of intelligence can verify that civilians were killed. “The UNAMA reports rely primarily on human sources and in many cases [the United States] cannot verify the validity of UNAMA sources,” the report says.
Journalists and rights groups counter that on-the-ground investigations are critical. The U.S. military rarely visits the site of a raid or airstrike, or interviews eyewitnesses — and in several cases, they have had to reverse their position on civilian casualties from an attack after outside investigators surfaced new information.


theintercept--2020-07-27--Tom Cotton Thinks Slavery Was a "Necessary" Evil. Here Are Some Others.

What Cotton did not say is that the defenders of hideous acts almost always engage in this rhetorical tic , using that exact word : “ necessary.
” In an interview published on Sunday , Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton declared that “ We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can ’ t understand our country .
As the Founding Fathers said , it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.
” Here are several notable examples : • From 1986 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted what it called the “ Anfal ” campaign against Kurdish Iraqi citizens in northern Iraq .
In addition to firing squads and mass conventional bombings , the Iraqi military used mustard and nerve gas against civilians .
Perhaps 150,000 people were murdered .
The Anfal campaign has been recognized by the British , Norwegian , and Swedish governments as genocide , and it was one of the crimes for which Saddam Hussein stood trial in 2006 .
Before Hussein ’ s execution , he was interrogated by FBI agent George Piro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes , including famous photographs of victims of the Anfal campaign .
This is what Piro later said on “ 60 Minutes ” about Hussein ’ s perspective on Anfal : • Beginning in 1915 , the Ottoman Empire killed about 1.5 million ethnic Armenians .
At that time , the Ottoman Empire was governed by the so-called Young Turks and their associated party , the Committee of Union and Progress .
Just before the killing began , a key figure in the impending genocide named Nazim Bey delivered a speech at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary to eliminate the Armenian people in its entirety , ” he explained .
“ It is necessary that not even one single Armenian survive this annihilation.
” • Joseph Goebbels , Nazi Germany ’ s minister of propaganda , delivered his most famous speech in February 1943 , as the Holocaust was well underway .
“ Enemy nations may raise hypocritical protests against our measures against Jewry and cry crocodile tears , but that will not stop us from doing that which is necessary , ” Goebbels said to wild applause .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no intention of bowing before this threat , but rather intends to take the most radical measures , if necessary.
” Indeed , this rhetorical move is so common that British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger said in 1783 — that is , just as the United States was being born — that “ Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom .
It is the argument of tyrants.
” Pitt was probably referencing “ Paradise Lost ” by John Milton , published 100 years before .
In it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to conquer a new world , it was necessary to do things he hated : For Cotton ’ s part , he ’ s now caught in a logical trap of his own making .
In his recent interview , he was obviously endorsing the view that slavery was a “ necessary evil.
” However , that didn ’ t play well .
He now is anxious to distance himself from that concept , ascribing it to America ’ s founders but not himself :

Photo: Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images
In an interview published on Sunday, Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton declared that “We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.”
What Cotton did not say is that the defenders of hideous acts almost always engage in this rhetorical tic, using that exact word: “necessary.”
Here are several notable examples:
• From 1986 to 1989, Saddam Hussein’s government conducted what it called the “Anfal” campaign against Kurdish Iraqi citizens in northern Iraq. In addition to firing squads and mass conventional bombings, the Iraqi military used mustard and nerve gas against civilians. Perhaps 150,000 people were murdered.
The Anfal campaign has been recognized by the British, Norwegian, and Swedish governments as genocide, and it was one of the crimes for which Saddam Hussein stood trial in 2006.
Before Hussein’s execution, he was interrogated by FBI agent George Piro, who showed him documentary evidence of his crimes, including famous photographs of victims of the Anfal campaign. This is what Piro later said on “60 Minutes” about Hussein’s perspective on Anfal:
SCOTT PELLEY: Did you show him pictures from the Anfal campaign, those terrible, terrible pictures? GEORGE PIRO: Yes, I did. PELLEY: And his reaction? PIRO: Necessary.
• Beginning in 1915, the Ottoman Empire killed about 1.5 million ethnic Armenians. At that time, the Ottoman Empire was governed by the so-called Young Turks and their associated party, the Committee of Union and Progress. Just before the killing began, a key figure in the impending genocide named Nazim Bey delivered a speech at a CUP meeting. “It is absolutely necessary to eliminate the Armenian people in its entirety,” he explained. “It is necessary that not even one single Armenian survive this annihilation.”
• Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Germany’s minister of propaganda, delivered his most famous speech in February 1943, as the Holocaust was well underway. “Enemy nations may raise hypocritical protests against our measures against Jewry and cry crocodile tears, but that will not stop us from doing that which is necessary,” Goebbels said to wild applause. “Germany, in any event, has no intention of bowing before this threat, but rather intends to take the most radical measures, if necessary.”
Indeed, this rhetorical move is so common that British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger said in 1783 — that is, just as the United States was being born — that “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.”
Pitt was probably referencing “Paradise Lost” by John Milton, published 100 years before. In it, Satan himself explains that in order to conquer a new world, it was necessary to do things he hated:
“Should I at your harmless innocence
Melt, as I do, yet public reason just—
Honour and empire with revenge enlarged
By conquering this new World—compels me now
To do what else, though damned, I should abhor.”
So spake the Fiend, and with necessity,
The tyrant’s plea, excused his devilish deeds.
For Cotton’s part, he’s now caught in a logical trap of his own making. In his recent interview, he was obviously endorsing the view that slavery was a “necessary evil.” However, that didn’t play well. He now is anxious to distance himself from that concept, ascribing it to America’s founders but not himself:
This is the definition of fake news. I said that *the Founders viewed slavery as a necessary evil* and described how they put the evil institution on the path to extinction, a point frequently made by Lincoln. https://t.co/SaWTTlMO7w — Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) July 26, 2020
The problem is that if Cotton doesn’t himself believe that slavery was a necessary evil, that means he must believe it — and therefore a core pillar of the founding of America — was simply evil.