Democracy Now! Blog http://www.democracynow.org/blog http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/ http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification mail@democracynow.org (Amy Goodman) mail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!) http://www.democracynow.org/images/dn-logo-for-podcast.png http://www.democracynow.org/blog 144 144 Democracy Now! Blog en-US Democracy Now! Blog Web Exclusive Obama Admin. Admits for First Time It Killed Four U.S. Citizens in Drone Strikes Outside War Zones http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/-eTj-x4sRCw/obama_admin_admits_for_first_time_it_killed_four_us_citizens_in_drone_strikes_outside_war_zones tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-22:blog/da4c87 The United States has formally confirmed for the first time that it killed four American citizens in Yemen and Pakistan, “outside of areas of active hostilities." The acknowledgement came in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder that was obtained by The New York Times. In a letter dated May 22, 2013 Holder wrote to Congressional leaders that the Obama administration "has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, 'Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States." Watch Democracy Now! Thursday when we get reaction from Jeremy Scahill, author of Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. The Obama administration’s assassination al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old Denver-born son Abdulrahman, is a central part of Scahill’s new book, which is based on years of reporting on U.S. secret operations in Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan. "The idea that you can simply have one branch of government unilaterally and in secret declare that an American citizen should be executed or assassinated without having to present any evidence whatsoever, to me, is a — we should view that with great sobriety about the implications for our country," says Scahill, national security correspondent for The Nation magazine. Watch this interview below. Click here to see all of Scahill's recent reports on Democracy Now! including his look at how the assassinations of U.S. Citizens were largely ignored at John Brennan's CIA confirmation hearing. Also see our recent debate, White House Changing Story on Anwar al-Awlaki? A Debate on NYT’s Inside Account of ’11 Drone Strike. The United States has formally confirmed for the first time that it killed four American citizens in Yemen and Pakistan, “outside of areas of active hostilities." The acknowledgement came in a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder that was obtained by The New York Times.

In a letter dated May 22, 2013 Holder wrote to Congressional leaders that the Obama administration "has specifically targeted and killed one U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi. The United States is further aware of three other U.S. citizens who have been killed in such U.S. counterterrorism operations over that same time period: Samir Khan, 'Abd al-Rahman Anwar al-Aulaqi, and Jude Kenan Mohammed. These individuals were not specifically targeted by the United States."

Watch Democracy Now! Thursday when we get reaction from Jeremy Scahill, author of Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. The Obama administration’s assassination al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old Denver-born son Abdulrahman, is a central part of Scahill’s new book, which is based on years of reporting on U.S. secret operations in Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan.

"The idea that you can simply have one branch of government unilaterally and in secret declare that an American citizen should be executed or assassinated without having to present any evidence whatsoever, to me, is a — we should view that with great sobriety about the implications for our country," says Scahill, national security correspondent for The Nation magazine. Watch this interview below.

Click here to see all of Scahill's recent reports on Democracy Now! including his look at how the assassinations of U.S. Citizens were largely ignored at John Brennan's CIA confirmation hearing.

Also see our recent debate, White House Changing Story on Anwar al-Awlaki? A Debate on NYT’s Inside Account of ’11 Drone Strike.

]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 20:47:00 -0400 http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/22/obama_admin_admits_for_first_time_it_killed_four_us_citizens_in_drone_strikes_outside_war_zones Web Exclusive Dissent or Terror: Counterterrorism Apparatus Used to Monitor Occupy Movement Nationwide http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/MQ0_YUNZtUM/dissent_or_terror_counter_terrorism_apparatus_used_to_monitor_occupy_movement_nationwide tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-22:blog/861b0e [Watch Part One of our interview with Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive Newly revealed documents show how police partnered with corporations to monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy have obtained thousands of pages of records from counterterrorism and law enforcement agencies that detail how so-called fusions centers monitored the Occupy Wall Street movement over the course of 2011 and 2012. These fusion centers are comprised of employees from municipal, county and federal counterterrorism and homeland security entities, as well as local police departments, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Click here to see our extensive coverage of the police crackdown of the Occupy movement. Read full report on government surveillance of Occupy movement by the Center for Media and Democracy / DBA Press. TRANSCRIPT : AMY GOODMAN : Matt Rothschild, it's great to have you with us, editor of The Progressive magazine. And he did this very interesting story, a cover story for June issue of the magazine, "Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street." Can you compare what you have found—and start off by saying why Phoenix. Why did you focus on Phoenix? MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD : Well, I focused on Phoenix because the primary researcher for this story, Beau Hodai of DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy, had compiled tremendous amounts of information. He had issued Freedom of Information Act requests from the Phoenix Police Department, from the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center. And so, he got thousands, literally thousands, of pages of information, primarily about Phoenix and Arizona, but also some national context. But I thought by focusing on this one city, you could really tell, at the most granular level, how police officers and Homeland Security are really going after left-wing activists. And I thought it was important to really focus in narrowly, because I think those narrow details really give a clearer picture of just how hand-in-glove local law enforcement is with the private sector in going after these Occupy protesters. AMY GOODMAN : How does this compare to the IRS monitoring tea party groups or, you know, sort of specially targeting them for deciding whether they should get nonprofit status? MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD : Well, I thought it was outrageous what the IRS was doing in that Cincinnati office. But this, to me, is much worse because, whereas the IRS office in Cincinnati, that may have been, you know, a bureaucratic mistake or bungling or lack of supervision, what's going on with the spying on Occupy activists was a systematic effort by police departments, not just in Phoenix, but around the country, with Homeland Security, to track the Occupy activists—and to coordinate a response, even. One of the documents that Beau Hodai released, from the Center for Media and Democracy and DBA Press, was a file—a report on a teleconference that 13 police departments around the country had as to how to respond to Occupy, what they called "growing concerns" about the burgeoning Occupy movement, and that they needed to coordinate an effective response. And so, you know, when we had that crackdown on Occupy simultaneously over a weekend in many different cities, I wondered at the time whether there wasn't coordination going on between the police departments to crush the Occupy movement. And this suggests that there was. NERMEEN SHAIKH : Matt Rothschild, you also speak specifically about the way in which protests against the NDAA , the National Defense Authorization Act, occurred. Could you elaborate on that and why that was a particular focus of law enforcement? MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD : Yeah, there's documents, again, that show that police, from the U.S. Capitol Police all the way to the Phoenix Police Department, were monitoring protests of the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Defense Authorization Act allows the president of the United States to grab any single one of us and throw us into jail and deny us due process and access to a judge for as long as the president says so. And so, this is a huge clampdown on our civil liberties, and people should be protesting it. And it's ironic that people trying to defend their civil liberties are having their civil liberties violated at the same time. AMY GOODMAN : Matt Rothschild, explain what these fusion centers are and how they work, both with public law enforcement and with private companies. MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD : Well, this is a real problem I have with fusion centers, Amy. Fusion centers are—in each state, there's a fusion center. And the fusion center is supposed to represent law enforcement at every level, from, you know, campus police to city police, to sheriffs, to the FBI and state police. But also, within these fusion centers, there are representatives of the private sector. And there's also an organization called InfraGard in these fusion centers. Now, InfraGard is an association of more than 50,000 business people with the FBI . They're essentially FBI minders, with these business people in each state. And sometimes these business people get information from the FBI even before elected officials get it. And also, the FBI tells these business members of InfraGard, "Hey, if you ever have a problem with an employee, just let us know." And so, you know, is this the kind of collaboration we want? That a boss, who doesn't like what you're doing on the workplace—maybe you're forming a union, the boss calls the FBI , and then what? The FBI opens a file on you? We need to be careful of this institution called InfraGard, too, which was part of the Arizona fusion center, by the way. AMY GOODMAN : Matt, we want to thank you for being with us. Matt Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive magazine, wrote the cover story for the June issue of the magazine, "Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street." The piece draws heavily on documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and DBA Press. Matt Rothschild is also author of You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression . [Watch Part One of our interview with Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive

Newly revealed documents show how police partnered with corporations to monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy have obtained thousands of pages of records from counterterrorism and law enforcement agencies that detail how so-called fusions centers monitored the Occupy Wall Street movement over the course of 2011 and 2012. These fusion centers are comprised of employees from municipal, county and federal counterterrorism and homeland security entities, as well as local police departments, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Click here to see our extensive coverage of the police crackdown of the Occupy movement.

Read full report on government surveillance of Occupy movement by the Center for Media and Democracy / DBA Press.

TRANSCRIPT:

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Rothschild, it's great to have you with us, editor of The Progressive magazine. And he did this very interesting story, a cover story for June issue of the magazine, "Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street." Can you compare what you have found—and start off by saying why Phoenix. Why did you focus on Phoenix?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, I focused on Phoenix because the primary researcher for this story, Beau Hodai of DBA Press and the Center for Media and Democracy, had compiled tremendous amounts of information. He had issued Freedom of Information Act requests from the Phoenix Police Department, from the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center. And so, he got thousands, literally thousands, of pages of information, primarily about Phoenix and Arizona, but also some national context. But I thought by focusing on this one city, you could really tell, at the most granular level, how police officers and Homeland Security are really going after left-wing activists. And I thought it was important to really focus in narrowly, because I think those narrow details really give a clearer picture of just how hand-in-glove local law enforcement is with the private sector in going after these Occupy protesters.

AMY GOODMAN: How does this compare to the IRS monitoring tea party groups or, you know, sort of specially targeting them for deciding whether they should get nonprofit status?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, I thought it was outrageous what the IRS was doing in that Cincinnati office. But this, to me, is much worse because, whereas the IRS office in Cincinnati, that may have been, you know, a bureaucratic mistake or bungling or lack of supervision, what's going on with the spying on Occupy activists was a systematic effort by police departments, not just in Phoenix, but around the country, with Homeland Security, to track the Occupy activists—and to coordinate a response, even. One of the documents that Beau Hodai released, from the Center for Media and Democracy and DBA Press, was a file—a report on a teleconference that 13 police departments around the country had as to how to respond to Occupy, what they called "growing concerns" about the burgeoning Occupy movement, and that they needed to coordinate an effective response. And so, you know, when we had that crackdown on Occupy simultaneously over a weekend in many different cities, I wondered at the time whether there wasn't coordination going on between the police departments to crush the Occupy movement. And this suggests that there was.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Matt Rothschild, you also speak specifically about the way in which protests against the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, occurred. Could you elaborate on that and why that was a particular focus of law enforcement?

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Yeah, there's documents, again, that show that police, from the U.S. Capitol Police all the way to the Phoenix Police Department, were monitoring protests of the National Defense Authorization Act. The National Defense Authorization Act allows the president of the United States to grab any single one of us and throw us into jail and deny us due process and access to a judge for as long as the president says so. And so, this is a huge clampdown on our civil liberties, and people should be protesting it. And it's ironic that people trying to defend their civil liberties are having their civil liberties violated at the same time.

AMY GOODMAN: Matt Rothschild, explain what these fusion centers are and how they work, both with public law enforcement and with private companies.

MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, this is a real problem I have with fusion centers, Amy. Fusion centers are—in each state, there's a fusion center. And the fusion center is supposed to represent law enforcement at every level, from, you know, campus police to city police, to sheriffs, to the FBI and state police. But also, within these fusion centers, there are representatives of the private sector. And there's also an organization called InfraGard in these fusion centers. Now, InfraGard is an association of more than 50,000 business people with the FBI. They're essentially FBI minders, with these business people in each state. And sometimes these business people get information from the FBI even before elected officials get it. And also, the FBI tells these business members of InfraGard, "Hey, if you ever have a problem with an employee, just let us know." And so, you know, is this the kind of collaboration we want? That a boss, who doesn't like what you're doing on the workplace—maybe you're forming a union, the boss calls the FBI, and then what? The FBI opens a file on you? We need to be careful of this institution called InfraGard, too, which was part of the Arizona fusion center, by the way.

AMY GOODMAN: Matt, we want to thank you for being with us. Matt Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive magazine, wrote the cover story for the June issue of the magazine, "Spying on Occupy Activists: How Cops and Homeland Security Help Wall Street." The piece draws heavily on documents obtained by the Center for Media and Democracy and DBA Press. Matt Rothschild is also author of You Have No Rights: Stories of America in an Age of Repression.

]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:00 -0400 Dissent or Terror: Counterterrorism Apparatus Used to Monitor Occupy Movement Nationwide Newly revealed documents show how police partnered with corporations to monitor the Occupy Wall Street movement. [includes rush transcript] nonadult tv-g Democracy Now! News http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/22/dissent_or_terror_counter_terrorism_apparatus_used_to_monitor_occupy_movement_nationwidehttp://traffic.libsyn.com/democracynow/2013-0522_webex_matt_rothschild.mp3 Web Exclusive Massive Tornado Hits Oklahoma Kills Dozens, Is There a Link to Climate Change? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/3NAc1K6kkXg/massive_tornado_hits_oklahoma_killing_at_least_10_is_there_a_link_to_climate_change tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-20:blog/a9cc30 A huge tornado with winds of up to 200 miles per hour tore through the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore on Monday killing dozens of people. The Associated Press reports hospitals are treating more than 120 patients including about 70 children. The storm ripped up at least two elementary schools and a hospital. On Tuesday morning Democracy Now! will report on the latest. Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground reports the tornado will "likely be one of the five most damaging tornadoes in history" Livestream of KFOR in Oklahoma City: For years some climate scientists have been warning of a link between stronger tornadoes and climate change. "It is irresponsible not to mention climate change," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in 2011 after a series of large tornadoes. "The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences." 350.org founder Bill McKibben appeared on Democracy Now! in May 2011 , the deadliest year for tornado outbreaks in the United States since 1953, with more than 500 people killed. "What’s happening is we’re making the earth a more dynamic and violent place. That’s, in essence, what global warming is about," McKibben said. "We’re trapping more of the sun’s energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and that’s now expressing itself in many way. We don’t know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we’re seeing epic levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things that climatologists have been warning us about." WATCH : Bill McKibben: From Storms to Droughts, Devastating Extreme Weather Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change A huge tornado with winds of up to 200 miles per hour tore through the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore on Monday killing dozens of people. The Associated Press reports hospitals are treating more than 120 patients including about 70 children. The storm ripped up at least two elementary schools and a hospital. On Tuesday morning Democracy Now! will report on the latest.

Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground reports the tornado will "likely be one of the five most damaging tornadoes in history"

Livestream of KFOR in Oklahoma City:

For years some climate scientists have been warning of a link between stronger tornadoes and climate change.

"It is irresponsible not to mention climate change," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in 2011 after a series of large tornadoes. "The environment in which all of these storms and the tornadoes are occurring has changed from human influences."

350.org founder Bill McKibben appeared on Democracy Now! in May 2011, the deadliest year for tornado outbreaks in the United States since 1953, with more than 500 people killed.

"What’s happening is we’re making the earth a more dynamic and violent place. That’s, in essence, what global warming is about," McKibben said. "We’re trapping more of the sun’s energy in this narrow envelope of atmosphere, and that’s now expressing itself in many way. We don’t know for sure that any particular tornado comes from climate change. There have always been tornadoes. We do know that we’re seeing epic levels of thunderstorm activity, of flooding, of drought, of all the things that climatologists have been warning us about."

WATCH: Bill McKibben: From Storms to Droughts, Devastating Extreme Weather Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change

]]> Mon, 20 May 2013 23:47:00 -0400 http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/20/massive_tornado_hits_oklahoma_killing_at_least_10_is_there_a_link_to_climate_change Columns & Articles The Three Heroines of Guatemala: The Judge, the Attorney General and the Nobel Peace Laureate http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/PklhA8KHSjs/the_three_heroines_of_guatemala_the_judge_the_attorney_general_and_the_nobel_peace_laureate tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-16:blog/d672cb By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan Former Guatemalan President Efraín Ríos Montt was hauled off to prison last Friday. It was a historic moment, the first time in history that a former leader of a country was tried for genocide in a national court. More than three decades after he seized power in a coup in Guatemala, unleashing a U.S.-backed campaign of slaughter against his own people, the 86-year-old stood trial, charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. He was given an 80-year prison sentence. The case was inspired and pursued by three brave Guatemalan women: the judge, the attorney general and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. “My brother Patrocinio was burnt to death in the Ixil region. We never found his remains,” Rigoberta Menchu told me after Rios Montt’s verdict was announced. She detailed the systematic slaughter of her family: “As for my mother, we never found her remains, either. ... If her remains weren’t eaten by wild animals after having been tortured brutally and humiliated, then her remains are probably in a mass grave close to the Ixil region. ... My father was also burned alive in the embassy of Spain [in Guatemala City] on January 30th, 1980.” Rigoberta Menchu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992, “in recognition of her work for social justice and ethno-cultural reconciliation based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.” She continued telling me about her family’s destruction: “In 1983, my brother Victor Menchu was also shot dead. His wife had her throat slit, and he was fleeing with his three children. Victor was jailed in the little town, but his three children were kept in a military bunker. My two nieces died of hunger in this military base, and my brother Victor was shot. We still have not found his remains.” According to the official Commission on Historical Clarification, which undertook a comprehensive investigation of Guatemala’s three-decade genocide, at least 200,000 people were killed. Menchu brought one of the original lawsuits against the perpetrators of the genocide, which resulted in the trial that ended with Rios Montt’s conviction. Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey was appointed as Guatemala’s first female attorney general in December 2010, and has earned wide acclaim for her pursuit of perpetrators of crimes against humanity. The judge in the case is another woman, Yassmin Barrios. In a country where, historically, people who challenge those in power are often killed, Paz y Paz and Barrios demonstrated tremendous courage. Journalist Allan Nairn, who has covered Guatemala, among other conflict zones, since the early 1980s, observed the trial. In mid-April, the trial was ordered shut down by another Guatemalan court, presumably under the influence of President Otto Perez Molina. From Guatemala City, Nairn reported then: “The judge, Yassmin Barrios, and the attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz, both say they’re going to defy this order to kill the case, which is extraordinary.” They continued the trial, and eventually Ríos Montt was found guilty. Nairn said, after the verdict: “Judge Barrios ... ran the trial. She was the one who had to deliver the verdict. As she left the courthouse every night, you could see her wearing a bulletproof vest. The judges and prosecutors involved in the case received death threats. In one case, a threat against a prosecutor, the person delivering the threat put a pistol on the table and said, ‘I know where your children are.’ It takes a lot of courage to push a case like this.” Menchu said: “This verdict is historic. It’s monumental. The verdict against Rios Montt is historic. We waited for 33 years for justice to prevail. It’s clear that there is no peace without justice.” It is all the more so because it occurred in a national court in Guatemala. She noted that the International Criminal Court, as currently empowered, could not have taken the case, saying: “It’s not retroactive. It doesn’t address those cases that were committed before the court was created. So the statute of limitations on the International Criminal Court should be lifted.” Nairn was supposed to testify at the trial. One interview he conducted in 1982 has attracted widespread attention. On camera, he spoke with “Major Tito,” who said entire families of indigenous villagers worked with the guerrillas. Tito’s troops told Nairn that they routinely killed such civilian villagers. “Tito,” it turns out, is none other than the current president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina. Nairn sees the guilty verdict against Rios Montt as an opening to potential prosecution of Perez Molina and others: “There would be hundreds of U.S. officials who were complicit in this and should be subpoenaed, called before a grand jury and subjected to indictment — including [President Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights] Elliott Abrams. And the U.S. should be ready to extradite them to Guatemala to face punishment, if the Guatemalan authorities are able to proceed with this. And General Perez Molina is one who should be included.” Regardless of where the case goes from here, Guatemala has set an example for the world, away from violence and impunity. Or as Nairn puts it, “Guatemala’s Mayans have reached a higher level of Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,000 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller. © 2013 Amy Goodman By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan

Former Guatemalan President Efraín Ríos Montt was hauled off to prison last Friday. It was a historic moment, the first time in history that a former leader of a country was tried for genocide in a national court. More than three decades after he seized power in a coup in Guatemala, unleashing a U.S.-backed campaign of slaughter against his own people, the 86-year-old stood trial, charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. He was given an 80-year prison sentence. The case was inspired and pursued by three brave Guatemalan women: the judge, the attorney general and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

“My brother Patrocinio was burnt to death in the Ixil region. We never found his remains,” Rigoberta Menchu told me after Rios Montt’s verdict was announced. She detailed the systematic slaughter of her family: “As for my mother, we never found her remains, either. ... If her remains weren’t eaten by wild animals after having been tortured brutally and humiliated, then her remains are probably in a mass grave close to the Ixil region. ... My father was also burned alive in the embassy of Spain [in Guatemala City] on January 30th, 1980.”

Rigoberta Menchu was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992, “in recognition of her work for social justice and ethno-cultural reconciliation based on respect for the rights of indigenous peoples.” She continued telling me about her family’s destruction: “In 1983, my brother Victor Menchu was also shot dead. His wife had her throat slit, and he was fleeing with his three children. Victor was jailed in the little town, but his three children were kept in a military bunker. My two nieces died of hunger in this military base, and my brother Victor was shot. We still have not found his remains.”

According to the official Commission on Historical Clarification, which undertook a comprehensive investigation of Guatemala’s three-decade genocide, at least 200,000 people were killed. Menchu brought one of the original lawsuits against the perpetrators of the genocide, which resulted in the trial that ended with Rios Montt’s conviction.

Claudia Paz y Paz Bailey was appointed as Guatemala’s first female attorney general in December 2010, and has earned wide acclaim for her pursuit of perpetrators of crimes against humanity. The judge in the case is another woman, Yassmin Barrios. In a country where, historically, people who challenge those in power are often killed, Paz y Paz and Barrios demonstrated tremendous courage.

Journalist Allan Nairn, who has covered Guatemala, among other conflict zones, since the early 1980s, observed the trial. In mid-April, the trial was ordered shut down by another Guatemalan court, presumably under the influence of President Otto Perez Molina. From Guatemala City, Nairn reported then: “The judge, Yassmin Barrios, and the attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz, both say they’re going to defy this order to kill the case, which is extraordinary.” They continued the trial, and eventually Ríos Montt was found guilty. Nairn said, after the verdict: “Judge Barrios ... ran the trial. She was the one who had to deliver the verdict. As she left the courthouse every night, you could see her wearing a bulletproof vest. The judges and prosecutors involved in the case received death threats. In one case, a threat against a prosecutor, the person delivering the threat put a pistol on the table and said, ‘I know where your children are.’ It takes a lot of courage to push a case like this.”

Menchu said: “This verdict is historic. It’s monumental. The verdict against Rios Montt is historic. We waited for 33 years for justice to prevail. It’s clear that there is no peace without justice.” It is all the more so because it occurred in a national court in Guatemala. She noted that the International Criminal Court, as currently empowered, could not have taken the case, saying: “It’s not retroactive. It doesn’t address those cases that were committed before the court was created. So the statute of limitations on the International Criminal Court should be lifted.”

Nairn was supposed to testify at the trial. One interview he conducted in 1982 has attracted widespread attention. On camera, he spoke with “Major Tito,” who said entire families of indigenous villagers worked with the guerrillas. Tito’s troops told Nairn that they routinely killed such civilian villagers. “Tito,” it turns out, is none other than the current president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina. Nairn sees the guilty verdict against Rios Montt as an opening to potential prosecution of Perez Molina and others: “There would be hundreds of U.S. officials who were complicit in this and should be subpoenaed, called before a grand jury and subjected to indictment — including [President Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights] Elliott Abrams. And the U.S. should be ready to extradite them to Guatemala to face punishment, if the Guatemalan authorities are able to proceed with this. And General Perez Molina is one who should be included.”

Regardless of where the case goes from here, Guatemala has set an example for the world, away from violence and impunity. Or as Nairn puts it, “Guatemala’s Mayans have reached a higher level of

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,000 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.

© 2013 Amy Goodman

]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 16:56:00 -0400 The Three Heroines of Guatemala: The Judge, the Attorney General and the Nobel Peace Laureate By Amy Goodman and Denis Moynihan Former Guatemalan President Efraín Ríos Montt was hauled off to prison last Friday. It was a historic moment, the first time in history that a former leader of a country was tried for genocide in a national court. More than three decades after he seized power in a coup in Guatemala, unleashing a U.S.-backed campaign of slaughter against his own people, the 86-year-old stood trial, charged with genocide and crimes against humanity. He was given an 80-year prison sentence. The case was inspired and pursued by three brave Guatemalan women: the judge, the attorney general and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. nonadult tv-g Democracy Now! News http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/16/the_three_heroines_of_guatemala_the_judge_the_attorney_general_and_the_nobel_peace_laureatehttp://traffic.libsyn.com/democracynow/2013-0516_podcast.mp3 Web Exclusive VIDEO: From Boston to Pakistan, Pentagon Officials Claim Entire World is a Battlefield http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/BHkhC6YssBY/video_from_boston_to_pakistan_pentagon_officials_claim_entire_world_is_a_battlefield tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-16:blog/2f83ff Pentagon officials today claimed President Obama and future presidents have the power to send troops anywhere in the world to fight groups linked to al-Qaeda, based in part on the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ), passed by Congress days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Speaking at the first Senate hearing on rewriting the AUMF , Pentagon officials specifically said troops could be sent to Syria, Yemen and the Congo without new congressional authorization. Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, predicted the war against al-Qaeda would last at least 10 to 20 more years. Senator Angus King (I-Maine) challenged the Pentagon's interpretation of the Constitution and that the entire world is a battlefield. "This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today," King said. "You guys have invented this term 'associated forces' that's nowhere in this document. ... It's the justification for everything, and it renders the war powers of Congress null and void." This excerpt of the hearing includes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Robert Taylor, acting general counsel, Department of Defense; Michael Sheehan, assistant secretary of defense for special operations/low-intensity conflict, Department of Defense; and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine). TRANSCRIPT SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : Do you agree with me, the war against radical Islam, or terror, whatever description you like to provide, will go on after the second term of President Obama? MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Senator, in my judgment, this is going to go on for quite a while, and, yes, beyond the second term of the president. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : And beyond this term of Congress? MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Yes, sir. I think it's at least 10 to 20 years. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : So, from your point of view, you have all of the authorization and legal authorities necessary to conduct a drone strike against terrorist organizations in Yemen without changing the AUMF . MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Yes, sir, I do believe that. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : You agree with that, General? BRIG . GEN . RICHARD GROSS : I do, sir. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : General, do you agree with that? GEN . MICHAEL NAGATA : I do, sir. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : OK. Could we send military members into Yemen to strike against one of these organizations? Does the president have that authority to put boots on the ground in Yemen? ROBERT TAYLOR : As I mentioned before, there's domestic authority and international law authority. At the moment, the basis for putting boots on the ground in Yemen, we respect the sovereignty of Yemen, and it would— SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about: Does he have the legal authority under our law to do that? ROBERT TAYLOR : Under domestic authority, he would have that authority. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : I hope that Congress is OK with that. I'm OK with that. Does he have authority to put boots on the ground in the Congo? MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Yes, sir, he does. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : OK. Do you agree with me that when it comes to international terrorism, we're talking about a worldwide struggle? MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Absolutely, sir. [inaudible] SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : Would you agree with me the battlefield is wherever the enemy chooses to make it? MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Yes, sir, from Boston to the FATA [the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan]. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : I couldn't agree with you more. We're in a—do you agree with that, General? BRIG . GEN . RICHARD GROSS : Yes, sir. I agree that the enemy decides where the battlefield is. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : And it could be anyplace on the planet, and we have to be aware and able to act. And do you have the ability to act, and are you aware of the threats? MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Yes, sir. We do have the ability to react, and we are tracking threats globally. SEN . LINDSEY GRAHAM : From my point of view, I think your analysis is correct, and I appreciate all of your service to our country. SEN . CARL LEVIN : Senator King. SEN . ANGUS KING : Gentlemen, I've only been here five months, but this is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, clearly says that the Congress has the power to declare war. This—this authorization, the AUMF , is very limited. And you keep using the term "associated forces." You use it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF . And you said at one point, "It suits us very well." I assume it does suit you very well, because you're reading it to cover everything and anything. And then you said, at another point, "So, even if the AUMF doesn't apply, the general law of war applies, and we can take these actions." So, my question is: How do you possibly square this with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war? This is one of the most fundamental divisions in our constitutional scheme, that the Congress has the power to declare war; the president is the commander-in-chief and prosecutes the war. But you're reading this AUMF in such a way as to apply clearly outside of what it says. Senator McCain was absolutely right: It refers to the people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11. That's a date. That's a date. It doesn't go into the future. And then it says, "or harbored such organizations"—past tense—"or persons in order to prevent any future acts by such nations, organizations or persons." It established a date. I don't disagree that we need to fight terrorism. But we need to do it in a constitutionally sound way. Now, I'm just a little, old lawyer from Brunswick, Maine, but I don't see how you can possibly read this to be in comport with the Constitution and authorize any acts by the president. You had testified to Senator Graham that you believe that you could put boots on the ground in Yemen now under this—under this document. That makes the war powers a nullity. I'm sorry to ask such a long question, but my question is: What's your response to this? Anybody? MICHAEL SHEEHAN : Senator, let me take the first response. I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a lawyer of any kind. But let me talk to you a little—take a brief statement about al-Qaeda and the organization that attacked us on September 11, 2001. In the two years prior to that, Senator King, that organization attacked us in East Africa and killed 17 Americans in our embassy in Nairobi, with loosely affiliated groups of people in East Africa. A year prior to 9/11, that same organization, with its affiliates in Yemen, almost sunk a U.S. ship, the U.S.S. Cole, a billion-dollar warship, killed 17 sailors in the port of Aden. The organization that attacked us on 9/11 already had its tentacles in—around the world with associated groups. That was the nature of the organization then; it is the nature of the organization now. In order to attack that organization, we have to attack it with those affiliates that are its operational arm that have previously attacked and killed Americans, and at high-level interests, and continue to try to do that. SEN . ANGUS KING : That's fine, but that's not what the AUMF says. You can—you can—what I'm saying is, we may need new authority, but don't—if you expand this to the extent that you have, it's meaningless, and the limitation in the war power is meaningless. I'm not disagreeing that we need to attack terrorism wherever it comes from and whoever is doing it. But what I'm saying is, let's do it in a constitutional way, not by putting a gloss on a document that clearly won't support it. It just—it just doesn't—it just doesn't work. I'm just reading the words. It's all focused on September 11 and who was involved, and you guys have invented this term "associated forces" that's nowhere in this document. As I mentioned, in your written statement, you use that—that's the key term. You use it 13 times. It's the justification for everything. And it renders the war powers of the Congress null and void. I don't understand. I mean, I do understand you're saying we don't need any change, because the way you read it, you can—you could do anything. But why not say—come back to us and say, "Yes, you're correct that this is an overbroad reading that renders the war powers of the Congress a nullity; therefore, we need new authorization to respond to the new situation"? I don't understand why—I mean, I do understand it, because the way you read it, there's no limit. But that's not what the Constitution contemplates. RELATED DEMOCRACY NOW ! COVERAGE 'The World Is a Battlefield: Jeremy Scahill on Dirty Wars and Obama’s Expanding Drone Attacks' 'Dirty Wars: Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley’s New Film Exposes Hidden Truths of Covert U.S. Warfare Pentagon officials today claimed President Obama and future presidents have the power to send troops anywhere in the world to fight groups linked to al-Qaeda, based in part on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Speaking at the first Senate hearing on rewriting the AUMF, Pentagon officials specifically said troops could be sent to Syria, Yemen and the Congo without new congressional authorization. Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, predicted the war against al-Qaeda would last at least 10 to 20 more years. Senator Angus King (I-Maine) challenged the Pentagon's interpretation of the Constitution and that the entire world is a battlefield. "This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today," King said. "You guys have invented this term 'associated forces' that's nowhere in this document. ... It's the justification for everything, and it renders the war powers of Congress null and void."

This excerpt of the hearing includes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Robert Taylor, acting general counsel, Department of Defense; Michael Sheehan, assistant secretary of defense for special operations/low-intensity conflict, Department of Defense; and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine).

TRANSCRIPT

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Do you agree with me, the war against radical Islam, or terror, whatever description you like to provide, will go on after the second term of President Obama?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Senator, in my judgment, this is going to go on for quite a while, and, yes, beyond the second term of the president.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And beyond this term of Congress?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. I think it's at least 10 to 20 years.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: So, from your point of view, you have all of the authorization and legal authorities necessary to conduct a drone strike against terrorist organizations in Yemen without changing the AUMF.

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, I do believe that.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: You agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: General, do you agree with that?

GEN. MICHAEL NAGATA: I do, sir.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Could we send military members into Yemen to strike against one of these organizations? Does the president have that authority to put boots on the ground in Yemen?

ROBERT TAYLOR: As I mentioned before, there's domestic authority and international law authority. At the moment, the basis for putting boots on the ground in Yemen, we respect the sovereignty of Yemen, and it would—

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about: Does he have the legal authority under our law to do that?

ROBERT TAYLOR: Under domestic authority, he would have that authority.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I hope that Congress is OK with that. I'm OK with that. Does he have authority to put boots on the ground in the Congo?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, he does.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: OK. Do you agree with me that when it comes to international terrorism, we're talking about a worldwide struggle?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Absolutely, sir. [inaudible]

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: Would you agree with me the battlefield is wherever the enemy chooses to make it?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir, from Boston to the FATA [the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan].

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: I couldn't agree with you more. We're in a—do you agree with that, General?

BRIG. GEN. RICHARD GROSS: Yes, sir. I agree that the enemy decides where the battlefield is.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: And it could be anyplace on the planet, and we have to be aware and able to act. And do you have the ability to act, and are you aware of the threats?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Yes, sir. We do have the ability to react, and we are tracking threats globally.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM: From my point of view, I think your analysis is correct, and I appreciate all of your service to our country.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: Senator King.

SEN. ANGUS KING: Gentlemen, I've only been here five months, but this is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today. The Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, clearly says that the Congress has the power to declare war. This—this authorization, the AUMF, is very limited. And you keep using the term "associated forces." You use it 13 times in your statement. That is not in the AUMF. And you said at one point, "It suits us very well." I assume it does suit you very well, because you're reading it to cover everything and anything. And then you said, at another point, "So, even if the AUMF doesn't apply, the general law of war applies, and we can take these actions." So, my question is: How do you possibly square this with the requirement of the Constitution that the Congress has the power to declare war?

This is one of the most fundamental divisions in our constitutional scheme, that the Congress has the power to declare war; the president is the commander-in-chief and prosecutes the war. But you're reading this AUMF in such a way as to apply clearly outside of what it says. Senator McCain was absolutely right: It refers to the people who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11. That's a date. That's a date. It doesn't go into the future. And then it says, "or harbored such organizations"—past tense—"or persons in order to prevent any future acts by such nations, organizations or persons." It established a date.

I don't disagree that we need to fight terrorism. But we need to do it in a constitutionally sound way. Now, I'm just a little, old lawyer from Brunswick, Maine, but I don't see how you can possibly read this to be in comport with the Constitution and authorize any acts by the president. You had testified to Senator Graham that you believe that you could put boots on the ground in Yemen now under this—under this document. That makes the war powers a nullity. I'm sorry to ask such a long question, but my question is: What's your response to this? Anybody?

MICHAEL SHEEHAN: Senator, let me take the first response. I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a lawyer of any kind. But let me talk to you a little—take a brief statement about al-Qaeda and the organization that attacked us on September 11, 2001. In the two years prior to that, Senator King, that organization attacked us in East Africa and killed 17 Americans in our embassy in Nairobi, with loosely affiliated groups of people in East Africa. A year prior to 9/11, that same organization, with its affiliates in Yemen, almost sunk a U.S. ship, the U.S.S. Cole, a billion-dollar warship, killed 17 sailors in the port of Aden. The organization that attacked us on 9/11 already had its tentacles in—around the world with associated groups. That was the nature of the organization then; it is the nature of the organization now. In order to attack that organization, we have to attack it with those affiliates that are its operational arm that have previously attacked and killed Americans, and at high-level interests, and continue to try to do that.

SEN. ANGUS KING: That's fine, but that's not what the AUMF says. You can—you can—what I'm saying is, we may need new authority, but don't—if you expand this to the extent that you have, it's meaningless, and the limitation in the war power is meaningless. I'm not disagreeing that we need to attack terrorism wherever it comes from and whoever is doing it. But what I'm saying is, let's do it in a constitutional way, not by putting a gloss on a document that clearly won't support it. It just—it just doesn't—it just doesn't work. I'm just reading the words. It's all focused on September 11 and who was involved, and you guys have invented this term "associated forces" that's nowhere in this document. As I mentioned, in your written statement, you use that—that's the key term. You use it 13 times. It's the justification for everything. And it renders the war powers of the Congress null and void. I don't understand. I mean, I do understand you're saying we don't need any change, because the way you read it, you can—you could do anything. But why not say—come back to us and say, "Yes, you're correct that this is an overbroad reading that renders the war powers of the Congress a nullity; therefore, we need new authorization to respond to the new situation"? I don't understand why—I mean, I do understand it, because the way you read it, there's no limit. But that's not what the Constitution contemplates.

RELATED DEMOCRACY NOW! COVERAGE

'The World Is a Battlefield: Jeremy Scahill on Dirty Wars and Obama’s Expanding Drone Attacks'

'Dirty Wars: Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley’s New Film Exposes Hidden Truths of Covert U.S. Warfare

]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 16:19:00 -0400 VIDEO: From Boston to Pakistan, Pentagon Officials Claim Entire World is a Battlefield In a Senate hearing today, Pentagon officials claimed President Obama and future presidents have the power to send troops anywhere in the world to fight groups linked to al-Qaeda, based in part on the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( AUMF ), passed by Congress days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. [includes rush transcript] nonadult tv-g Democracy Now! News http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/16/video_from_boston_to_pakistan_pentagon_officials_claim_entire_world_is_a_battlefieldhttp://traffic.libsyn.com/democracynow/wx2013-0516_senate_hearing_OK.mp3 Web Exclusive AP Reporter Appeared on Democracy Now! While Being Targeted By Justice Department Dragnet http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/eSX7R-HNTzk/ap_reporter_appeared_on_democracy_now_while_being_targeted_by_justice_department_dragnet tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-15:blog/9aa92e On April 17, 2012, Associated Press reporter Matt Apuzzo appeared on Democracy Now! to talk about the New York City Police Department's surveillance of Muslim communities in the city and around the northeastern United States. A day earlier, Apuzzo and his partners had won a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting for their months-long series. Apuzzo is now at the center of the Justice Department spy scandal. According to the Associated Press, Apuzzo was among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government. The phone records would include any calls made by Democracy Now! to Apuzzo ahead of his April 17 interview. Apuzzo was targeted because he co-wrote a May 7 article about a secret operation, conducted by the CIA and allied intelligence agencies, that stopped a Yemen-based al-Qaeda plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane headed for the United States. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has defended the secret subpoena as part of a probe into what he described a "very serious" leak which "put the American people at risk." Watch Matt Apuzzo Interview on Democracy Now! RELATED DEMOCRACY NOW ! COVERAGE OF AP SPYING SCANDAL 'Chris Hedges: Monitoring of AP Phones a Terrifying Step in State Assault on Press Freedom' 'Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark Decries Government’s Big Brother Seizure of AP Phone Records' On April 17, 2012, Associated Press reporter Matt Apuzzo appeared on Democracy Now! to talk about the New York City Police Department's surveillance of Muslim communities in the city and around the northeastern United States. A day earlier, Apuzzo and his partners had won a Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting for their months-long series. Apuzzo is now at the center of the Justice Department spy scandal. According to the Associated Press, Apuzzo was among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government. The phone records would include any calls made by Democracy Now! to Apuzzo ahead of his April 17 interview. Apuzzo was targeted because he co-wrote a May 7 article about a secret operation, conducted by the CIA and allied intelligence agencies, that stopped a Yemen-based al-Qaeda plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane headed for the United States. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has defended the secret subpoena as part of a probe into what he described a "very serious" leak which "put the American people at risk."

Watch Matt Apuzzo Interview on Democracy Now!

RELATED DEMOCRACY NOW! COVERAGE OF AP SPYING SCANDAL

'Chris Hedges: Monitoring of AP Phones a Terrifying Step in State Assault on Press Freedom'

'Former Attorney General Ramsey Clark Decries Government’s Big Brother Seizure of AP Phone Records'

]]> Wed, 15 May 2013 16:06:00 -0400 http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/15/ap_reporter_appeared_on_democracy_now_while_being_targeted_by_justice_department_dragnet Web Exclusive Breaking: Former U.S.-Backed Guatemalan Dictator Found Guilty of Genocide in Historic Trial http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/HfiuePH0Nts/live_verdict_expected_soon_in_guatemalan_genocide_trial tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-10:blog/814c4e Former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt has been found guilty of genocide in a historic trial. He was the first head of state in the Americas to stand trial for genocide. Ríos Montt was sentenced to 50 years in prison for genocide and an additional 30 years for crimes against humanity for overseeing the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala's Mayan region after he seized power in 1982. His co-defendant, Mauricio Rodriguez Sanchez, his former head of military intelligence, was found not guilty. For minute-by-minute coverage of the trial, we have created a Twitter list of journalists and organizations covering the proceedings. Tweets from @democracynow/rios-montt-trial !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+"://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); -–-–-–-–-–-–-–- DEMOCRACY NOW ! COVERAGE OF TRIAL From today: 'Despite Evidence of Massacres, Former Guatemalan Dictator Proclaims Innocence at Genocide Trial' From April 19th: 'Exclusive: Allan Nairn Exposes Role of U.S. and New Guatemalan President in Indigenous Massacres' Click here to watch or read all of Democracy Now!'s ongoing coverage of the trial -–-–-–-–-–-–-–- MORE WEB RESOURCES ON RIOS MONTT TRIAL Allan Nairn's blog Coverage of the trial from the Open Society Justice Initiative Live audio stream of trial [when court is in session] Former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt has been found guilty of genocide in a historic trial. He was the first head of state in the Americas to stand trial for genocide. Ríos Montt was sentenced to 50 years in prison for genocide and an additional 30 years for crimes against humanity for overseeing the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala's Mayan region after he seized power in 1982. His co-defendant, Mauricio Rodriguez Sanchez, his former head of military intelligence, was found not guilty.

For minute-by-minute coverage of the trial, we have created a Twitter list of journalists and organizations covering the proceedings.


-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-

DEMOCRACY NOW! COVERAGE OF TRIAL

From today: 'Despite Evidence of Massacres, Former Guatemalan Dictator Proclaims Innocence at Genocide Trial'

From April 19th: 'Exclusive: Allan Nairn Exposes Role of U.S. and New Guatemalan President in Indigenous Massacres'

Click here to watch or read all of Democracy Now!'s ongoing coverage of the trial

-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-

MORE WEB RESOURCES ON RIOS MONTT TRIAL

Allan Nairn's blog

Coverage of the trial from the Open Society Justice Initiative

Live audio stream of trial [when court is in session]

]]> Fri, 10 May 2013 15:06:00 -0400 http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/10/live_verdict_expected_soon_in_guatemalan_genocide_trial Columns & Articles Addressing the Epidemic of Military Sexual Assault http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/3QnyBnw3z2o/addressing_the_epidemic_of_military_sexual_assault tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-09:blog/ff5e30 By Amy Goodman with Denis Moynihan Rape is center stage this week after the dramatic rescue of three women from close to a decade of imprisonment in a house on a quiet street in Cleveland. The suspect, Ariel Castro, has been charged with kidnap and rape. These horrific allegations have shocked the nation, and demand a full investigation and a vigorous prosecution. Also this week, the Pentagon released a shocking new report on rape and sexual assault in the U.S. military. According to the latest available figures, an estimated average of 70 sexual assaults are committed daily within the U.S. military, or 26,000 per year. The number of actually reported sexual assaults for the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2012 was 3,374. Of that number, only 190 were sent to a court-martial proceeding. There is a growing epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the U.S. military, perpetrated against both women and men with almost complete impunity. The situation blew up this week when the head of the U.S. Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office was himself arrested for sexual assault. Lt. Col. Jeff Krusinski, 41, was accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a parking lot outside an Arlington, Va., strip club. This comes after a recent case where a senior military officer overturned the sexual assault court-martial conviction of an officer under his command. Air Force Lt. Col. James Wilkerson was accused of sexually assaulting Kimberly Hanks at the Aviano Air Base in Italy. He was found guilty by a military jury, and sentenced to one year in jail and dismissal from military service. His conviction was overturned by Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin. Adding insult to the reversal, Wilkerson was transferred to an Air Force base in Tucson, Ariz., where many of Hanks’ family members live. They were joined by close to 50 people outside the base, protesting the overturning of his conviction and his transfer to their town. They are asking for his sentence and dismissal to be reinstated, and for Franklin to be fired. President Barack Obama addressed the rape epidemic at a press conference this week, saying: “If we find out somebody is engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held accountable. Prosecuted. Stripped of their position. Court-martialed. Fired. Dishonorably discharged. Period. This is not acceptable.” Anu Bhagwati is a former Marine officer, having served from 1999 to 2004, and is executive director and co-founder of Service Women’s Action Network. SWAN works to eliminate discrimination, harassment and assault from military culture, and to improve veterans’ benefits for those who have been assaulted. She told a Senate hearing last March: “During my five years as a Marine officer, I experienced daily discrimination and sexual harassment. I was exposed to a culture rife with sexism, rape jokes, pornography and widespread commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls, both in the United States and overseas.” When she filed a career-ending complaint against a fellow officer, she said she “lived in fear of retaliation and violence from both the offender and my own chain of command, and then watched in horror as the offender was not only promoted but also given command of my company.” I spoke with Bhagwati, who explained how the military prosecution of these cases has an inherent conflict of interest, which undermines the ability to obtain convictions: “Commanding officers—they’re called convening authorities—have authority from beginning to end of a trial. They determine whether or not a case even goes forward, whether or not the accused even sees the inside of a court-martial. That’s where a lot of the intimidation happens. That’s where a lot of victims feel the fear. They’re not supported. They don’t follow through with their cases.” Along with SWAN and similar groups, the campaign to end sexual assault in the U.S. military has attracted significant attention from the historically largest class of women in the U.S. Congress. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., has long led the charge from the House floor. The Senate Armed Services Committee now has seven women members, a record. This week, in a hearing of that committee, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., grilled Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh. Alongside Gillibrand was Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has put a hold on President Obama’s appointment of Lt. Gen. Susan Helms to be vice commander of the Air Force’s Space Command, because Helms overturned the conviction of a captain at Vandenberg Air Force Base on sexual-assault charges. Public attention is rightly focused on the horrible crimes in Cleveland. It’s time for the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military to get the attention it deserves, as well, where the problem is institutional. An estimated 70 sexual-assault crimes per day, perpetrated on both women and men. Commander in Chief Obama must take decisive action, now. Taking the investigations and prosecutions out of the military’s hands is a first, necessary step to address this systemic rape culture presided over by the Pentagon. Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,100 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller. © 2013 Amy Goodman By Amy Goodman with Denis Moynihan

Rape is center stage this week after the dramatic rescue of three women from close to a decade of imprisonment in a house on a quiet street in Cleveland. The suspect, Ariel Castro, has been charged with kidnap and rape. These horrific allegations have shocked the nation, and demand a full investigation and a vigorous prosecution.

Also this week, the Pentagon released a shocking new report on rape and sexual assault in the U.S. military. According to the latest available figures, an estimated average of 70 sexual assaults are committed daily within the U.S. military, or 26,000 per year. The number of actually reported sexual assaults for the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2012 was 3,374. Of that number, only 190 were sent to a court-martial proceeding.

There is a growing epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the U.S. military, perpetrated against both women and men with almost complete impunity.

The situation blew up this week when the head of the U.S. Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office was himself arrested for sexual assault. Lt. Col. Jeff Krusinski, 41, was accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a parking lot outside an Arlington, Va., strip club. This comes after a recent case where a senior military officer overturned the sexual assault court-martial conviction of an officer under his command. Air Force Lt. Col. James Wilkerson was accused of sexually assaulting Kimberly Hanks at the Aviano Air Base in Italy. He was found guilty by a military jury, and sentenced to one year in jail and dismissal from military service. His conviction was overturned by Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin. Adding insult to the reversal, Wilkerson was transferred to an Air Force base in Tucson, Ariz., where many of Hanks’ family members live. They were joined by close to 50 people outside the base, protesting the overturning of his conviction and his transfer to their town. They are asking for his sentence and dismissal to be reinstated, and for Franklin to be fired.

President Barack Obama addressed the rape epidemic at a press conference this week, saying: “If we find out somebody is engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held accountable. Prosecuted. Stripped of their position. Court-martialed. Fired. Dishonorably discharged. Period. This is not acceptable.”

Anu Bhagwati is a former Marine officer, having served from 1999 to 2004, and is executive director and co-founder of Service Women’s Action Network. SWAN works to eliminate discrimination, harassment and assault from military culture, and to improve veterans’ benefits for those who have been assaulted. She told a Senate hearing last March: “During my five years as a Marine officer, I experienced daily discrimination and sexual harassment. I was exposed to a culture rife with sexism, rape jokes, pornography and widespread commercial sexual exploitation of women and girls, both in the United States and overseas.”

When she filed a career-ending complaint against a fellow officer, she said she “lived in fear of retaliation and violence from both the offender and my own chain of command, and then watched in horror as the offender was not only promoted but also given command of my company.”

I spoke with Bhagwati, who explained how the military prosecution of these cases has an inherent conflict of interest, which undermines the ability to obtain convictions: “Commanding officers—they’re called convening authorities—have authority from beginning to end of a trial. They determine whether or not a case even goes forward, whether or not the accused even sees the inside of a court-martial. That’s where a lot of the intimidation happens. That’s where a lot of victims feel the fear. They’re not supported. They don’t follow through with their cases.”

Along with SWAN and similar groups, the campaign to end sexual assault in the U.S. military has attracted significant attention from the historically largest class of women in the U.S. Congress. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., has long led the charge from the House floor. The Senate Armed Services Committee now has seven women members, a record. This week, in a hearing of that committee, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., grilled Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh. Alongside Gillibrand was Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has put a hold on President Obama’s appointment of Lt. Gen. Susan Helms to be vice commander of the Air Force’s Space Command, because Helms overturned the conviction of a captain at Vandenberg Air Force Base on sexual-assault charges.

Public attention is rightly focused on the horrible crimes in Cleveland. It’s time for the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the military to get the attention it deserves, as well, where the problem is institutional. An estimated 70 sexual-assault crimes per day, perpetrated on both women and men. Commander in Chief Obama must take decisive action, now. Taking the investigations and prosecutions out of the military’s hands is a first, necessary step to address this systemic rape culture presided over by the Pentagon.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,100 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.

© 2013 Amy Goodman

]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 16:19:00 -0400 Addressing the Epidemic of Military Sexual Assault By Amy Goodman with Denis Moynihan. There is a growing epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the U.S. military, perpetrated against both women and men with almost complete impunity. The Pentagon released a shocking new report on rape and sexual assault in the U.S. military. According to the latest available figures, an estimated average of 70 sexual assaults are committed daily within the U.S. military, or 26,000 per year. The number of actually reported sexual assaults for the Pentagon’s fiscal year 2012 was 3,374. Of that number, only 190 were sent to a court-martial proceeding. nonadult tv-g Democracy Now! News http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/9/addressing_the_epidemic_of_military_sexual_assaulthttp://traffic.libsyn.com/democracynow/2013-0509_podcast.mp3 Web Exclusive Exclusive Video Inside Cooper Union Student Occupation to Protest End of Free Tuition http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/hBpELhRgCGU/video_cooper_union_students_occupy_presidents_office_to_protest_end_to_free_tuition tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-08:blog/ddb615 More than 50 students, faculty and staff at The Cooper Union in New York have begun a sit-in inside the office of the school's president, Jamshed Bharucha. Democracy Now! 's Martyna Starosta filmed students reading an open letter to Bharucha condemning his decision to end the school's longstanding tradition of free tuition for all undergraduates. Shortly after this video was filmed, school officials removed Starosta from the office. VICTORIA SOBEL : The action began as a sit-in in Jamshed Bharucha's office this morning at 11:00 a.m. The plan was to intercept the president and read this statement to him. Right now we have more than half of the signatures of the School of Art for students, so that is a majority of the students voicing no confidence in Jamshed Bharucha. So, for us, it began as a sit-in. And his absence has marked it as an occupation. He is no longer welcome in this office space. It is one that's been reclaimed by the students, for the students, for this school. It's not about tuition. It's about repealing tuition. It's about reclaiming administrative spaces and re-examining the roles of administration within a school context. DEVONN FRANCIS : This is a nonviolent direct action. You are not being held in this room. You are free to exit when you please. Jamshed Bharucha, we are here today to deliver you a statement of no confidence from the School of Art. We no longer recognize your presidency at Cooper as legitimate. And in so doing, we commit to reclaim this office in the interim until a suitable administrative alternative is secured. SEBASTIAN QUIJADA LINK : We, the students of The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, can no longer uphold or endorse the direction our college has taken under the leadership of Jamshed Bharucha, with the support of the current board of trustees. As a student—as the students, we are indebted and steadfastly committed to fulfilling the historic mission of Cooper Union as an institution committed to providing students with an exceptional educational experience without the burden of tuition, regardless of need. Central to this mission is the imperative to continue challenging the institutional and societal norms regarding education, accessibility, class mobility, pedagogy and organizational structures. The Union of Art, Architecture and Engineering has empowered a historically diverse student body that for over 150 years has served to shape engaged and creative citizens in and beyond New York City. As stewards of The Cooper Union, we are viscerally interconnected to Cooper's mission of championing free education to all. We know more intimately than any consulting firm that the integrity of academic and creative excellence achieved by The Cooper Union is intrinsic to the college providing its students full-tuition, merit-based scholarships. Jamshed Bharucha has continually relied on a campaign of marginalizing students, faculty and alumni voices, and has neglected to genuinely engage alternative models and financial solutions brought forth by the community. We see now that Jamshed Bharucha and the board of trustees have committed themselves to maximizing Cooper's expansion, both locally and globally, at the expense of its core values. We know this to be a grave misstep. The college has illegitimately been made to adopt the policy of tuition as a result of a top-down administrative structure that, from inception, relied on disregarding the voices and contributions of students, faculties and the community at large in vital decision-making processes. A persistent lack of transparency in decision making and a failure to adequately articulate a viable future for Cooper Union without tuition has compounded the fundamental issue of the college's governance. The result is administrative insistence that tuition is a foregone conclusion. In reality, if relieved from this oppressive administration, we stand to reclaim all that Peter Cooper intended for this college and more. As citizens of New York City, we must stand united in the face of mounting adversity as it plagues all of our institutions of learning, private and public. We recognize that this instance of crisis at Cooper Union is also a precious opportunity to radically redefine the thresholds of success and failure in our own terms, necessarily separate from corporate business models of growth and profitability. We see the need for a more explicitly robust system of shared governance, invoking greater faculty, student and community involvement in decision-making processes, a reaffirmed commitment to student diversity by abolishing the imposed tuition, and more respectful college engagement both locally and globally. As President Jamshed Bharucha has squandered two years of precious time in which the community needed, more than anything, a decisive leader with devout commitment to the mission and vision of Cooper Union, with this vote we express our abhorrence and disapproval of the policies and actions of Jamshed Bharucha's administration. We strongly affirm that we have no confidence in Jamshed Bharucha. We call upon the faculties of art, architecture, engineering and humanities at The Cooper Union to take the time to uphold the sanctity of this institution by putting forward respective votes of no confidence. We invite and implore our fellow student bodies from architecture and engineering schools to reflect on the mutually exclusive and divergent efforts of the community and those of the administration. By voting no confidence today, we set a future precedent and expectation of deliverable excellence from individuals bestowed with administrative titles. It is time to raise the bar. We extend our invitation to voice no confidence in Jamshed Bharucha to alumni and to the general public. It is time to enact new, more cooperative methods of organizing our colleges and universities. Let this demonstration of no confidence mark your commitment to any number of new viable beginnings for Cooper, and also mark the crucial intolerance of stagnant growth, expansion and capitalist models, which threaten to plague our college. Join us in taking a stand against Jamshed Bharucha's maladministration of Cooper Union. Let us continue to be an institution that leads by example. Join us in keeping Cooper Union free to all. Cooper Union is one of the last private schools to offer free tuition. The school says students will now be charged on a sliding scale, with tuition as high as $20,000 for those deemed able to afford it. School officials claim those unable to afford tuition still will not have to pay. Related Links : VIDEO : Voices from the Cooper Union Occupation in New York City (Democracy Now!) Board of Trustees Statement on the Future Plans of Cooper Union Cooper Union Student Action to Save Our School New York Times:'College Ends Free Tuition, and an Era' More than 50 students, faculty and staff at The Cooper Union in New York have begun a sit-in inside the office of the school's president, Jamshed Bharucha. Democracy Now!'s Martyna Starosta filmed students reading an open letter to Bharucha condemning his decision to end the school's longstanding tradition of free tuition for all undergraduates. Shortly after this video was filmed, school officials removed Starosta from the office.

VICTORIA SOBEL: The action began as a sit-in in Jamshed Bharucha's office this morning at 11:00 a.m. The plan was to intercept the president and read this statement to him. Right now we have more than half of the signatures of the School of Art for students, so that is a majority of the students voicing no confidence in Jamshed Bharucha. So, for us, it began as a sit-in. And his absence has marked it as an occupation. He is no longer welcome in this office space. It is one that's been reclaimed by the students, for the students, for this school. It's not about tuition. It's about repealing tuition. It's about reclaiming administrative spaces and re-examining the roles of administration within a school context.

DEVONN FRANCIS: This is a nonviolent direct action. You are not being held in this room. You are free to exit when you please. Jamshed Bharucha, we are here today to deliver you a statement of no confidence from the School of Art. We no longer recognize your presidency at Cooper as legitimate. And in so doing, we commit to reclaim this office in the interim until a suitable administrative alternative is secured.

SEBASTIAN QUIJADA LINK: We, the students of The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, can no longer uphold or endorse the direction our college has taken under the leadership of Jamshed Bharucha, with the support of the current board of trustees. As a student—as the students, we are indebted and steadfastly committed to fulfilling the historic mission of Cooper Union as an institution committed to providing students with an exceptional educational experience without the burden of tuition, regardless of need. Central to this mission is the imperative to continue challenging the institutional and societal norms regarding education, accessibility, class mobility, pedagogy and organizational structures. The Union of Art, Architecture and Engineering has empowered a historically diverse student body that for over 150 years has served to shape engaged and creative citizens in and beyond New York City.

As stewards of The Cooper Union, we are viscerally interconnected to Cooper's mission of championing free education to all. We know more intimately than any consulting firm that the integrity of academic and creative excellence achieved by The Cooper Union is intrinsic to the college providing its students full-tuition, merit-based scholarships. Jamshed Bharucha has continually relied on a campaign of marginalizing students, faculty and alumni voices, and has neglected to genuinely engage alternative models and financial solutions brought forth by the community. We see now that Jamshed Bharucha and the board of trustees have committed themselves to maximizing Cooper's expansion, both locally and globally, at the expense of its core values. We know this to be a grave misstep. The college has illegitimately been made to adopt the policy of tuition as a result of a top-down administrative structure that, from inception, relied on disregarding the voices and contributions of students, faculties and the community at large in vital decision-making processes. A persistent lack of transparency in decision making and a failure to adequately articulate a viable future for Cooper Union without tuition has compounded the fundamental issue of the college's governance. The result is administrative insistence that tuition is a foregone conclusion.

In reality, if relieved from this oppressive administration, we stand to reclaim all that Peter Cooper intended for this college and more. As citizens of New York City, we must stand united in the face of mounting adversity as it plagues all of our institutions of learning, private and public. We recognize that this instance of crisis at Cooper Union is also a precious opportunity to radically redefine the thresholds of success and failure in our own terms, necessarily separate from corporate business models of growth and profitability. We see the need for a more explicitly robust system of shared governance, invoking greater faculty, student and community involvement in decision-making processes, a reaffirmed commitment to student diversity by abolishing the imposed tuition, and more respectful college engagement both locally and globally.

As President Jamshed Bharucha has squandered two years of precious time in which the community needed, more than anything, a decisive leader with devout commitment to the mission and vision of Cooper Union, with this vote we express our abhorrence and disapproval of the policies and actions of Jamshed Bharucha's administration. We strongly affirm that we have no confidence in Jamshed Bharucha.

We call upon the faculties of art, architecture, engineering and humanities at The Cooper Union to take the time to uphold the sanctity of this institution by putting forward respective votes of no confidence. We invite and implore our fellow student bodies from architecture and engineering schools to reflect on the mutually exclusive and divergent efforts of the community and those of the administration. By voting no confidence today, we set a future precedent and expectation of deliverable excellence from individuals bestowed with administrative titles. It is time to raise the bar. We extend our invitation to voice no confidence in Jamshed Bharucha to alumni and to the general public. It is time to enact new, more cooperative methods of organizing our colleges and universities. Let this demonstration of no confidence mark your commitment to any number of new viable beginnings for Cooper, and also mark the crucial intolerance of stagnant growth, expansion and capitalist models, which threaten to plague our college. Join us in taking a stand against Jamshed Bharucha's maladministration of Cooper Union. Let us continue to be an institution that leads by example. Join us in keeping Cooper Union free to all.

Cooper Union is one of the last private schools to offer free tuition. The school says students will now be charged on a sliding scale, with tuition as high as $20,000 for those deemed able to afford it. School officials claim those unable to afford tuition still will not have to pay.

Related Links:
VIDEO: Voices from the Cooper Union Occupation in New York City (Democracy Now!)

Board of Trustees Statement on the Future Plans of Cooper Union

Cooper Union Student Action to Save Our School

New York Times:'College Ends Free Tuition, and an Era'

]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 19:27:00 -0400 Exclusive Video Inside Cooper Union Student Occupation to Protest End of Free Tuition Over 50 students, faculty and staff at The Cooper Union in New York have begun a sit-in inside the office of the school’s president, Jamshed Bharucha. The school recently announced an end to its longstanding tradition of free tuition for all undergraduates. [includes rush transcript] nonadult tv-g Democracy Now! News http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/8/video_cooper_union_students_occupy_presidents_office_to_protest_end_to_free_tuitionhttp://traffic.libsyn.com/democracynow/2013-0508-webex-cooper-union.mp3 Web Exclusive Eduardo Galeano on Writing, "Historical Amnesia" in Latin America & His Fight Against Cancer http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/democracynow/hVoT/~3/YiWmLyZvzhE/eduardo_galeano_on_writing_historical_amnesia_in_latin_america_his_fight_against_cancer tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-08:blog/2ad96c Part one of this interview aired on the May 8th, 2013 program Watch part two of our conversation with the celebrated Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano, author of the new book, Children of the Days: A Calendar of Human History . Galeano's classic book, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent , made headlines when Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez gave President Obama a copy at the Summit of the Americas in 2009. Since its publication in 1971, Open Veins has sold over a million copies worldwide despite being banned by the military governments in Chile, Argentina and his native country of Uruguay. While in exile after the Uruguayan military junta seized power in a 1973 coup, Galeano began work on his classic trilogy, Memory of Fire , which rewrites five centuries of North and South American history. AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, and our guest is Eduardo Galeano, the great Latin American writer. His latest book is Children of the Days: A Calendar of Human History . Eduardo, you were just telling us a story about being— EDUARDO GALEANO : Chávez AMY GOODMAN : —an election observer in Venezuela— EDUARDO GALEANO : I was talking about Chávez, yes, yes. AMY GOODMAN : —in the referendum for Hugo Chávez. EDUARDO GALEANO : And I was a delegate of 200 independent observers and working with the former president of the United States, Jimmy Carter, and Gaviria in representation of the Organization of American States, OEA—we three, working together during some days and nights. And in that transit across people in—who was going to vote for or against Chávez retaining power, in this road I heard something which I will never forget, explanation of everything else. It was a man in a very poor neighborhood in Caracas, and I asked him, "I know this, the vote is secret. But tell me, just personally, will you vote yes or no to Chávez?" "I'll vote—I shall vote yes, of course. I shall vote yes." "And how? Why? Why?" "Oh, obviously, it's clear enough: Now I am no more invisible." NERMEEN SHAIKH : And that's his legacy? EDUARDO GALEANO : Mm-hmm. NERMEEN SHAIKH : For people in Venezuela. Do you think people in the region, as well? EDUARDO GALEANO : People in region? NERMEEN SHAIKH : In Latin America, as well, not just in Venezuela? EDUARDO GALEANO : Ah, no, not just in Venezuela. Now they are becoming—this is the good part, the best part of the present situation in diverse Latin American countries, in which the invisibles are becoming visibles. AMY GOODMAN : That's President Chávez's legacy. What about President Obama? EDUARDO GALEANO : Oh, for me, it was great news when I knew that he won the elections the first time, because in this country, I remember that 1942, when the United States entered in the Second World War, the Pentagon forbade, prohibir , forbade the transfusion of black blood. In order to avoid that, by injection, will be done, but it was prohibited in the beds. And so, the president of the Red Cross in the States was a very important scientist. He was black. And he said, "I won't obey this order of the Pentagon, because it's a stupid order, for the simple fact that black blood does not exist. All bloods are red." NERMEEN SHAIKH : Eduardo Galeano, you initially wanted to be a soccer player— EDUARDO GALEANO : Yes. NERMEEN SHAIKH : —and not a writer. EDUARDO GALEANO : No. NERMEEN SHAIKH : Can you talk about the significance of soccer in Latin America and the connection between soccer and politics, or sport and politics? EDUARDO GALEANO : Yes. Yes, I wanted to be a soccer player, and I became the best of the best, the number one, better than Maradona, better than Pelé, and even better than Messi—but only at night, nighttime, during my dreams. When I wake up, I realized that I have wooden legs and that I'm doomed to be a writer. It's my only possibility in life, to earn my life honestly, is writing, but not playing football, soccer. I remember a sports journalists in the States. I met him in Montevideo some years ago, 20 years ago. And I asked him about what is called soccer here. And he said, "Oh, no, no. Yeah, soccer, football in the United States, is the sport of the future, and it will always be." But he was wrong, because this very good journalist ignored that half of the U.S. population was you, women. And now the United States have the best teams, one of the two or three best team of female football in the world. And this is part of the reality also—or not. You are two to one; you are the majority in this table. AMY GOODMAN : Can I ask you about your health and about how it has evolved and changed your worldview? I mean, you have struggled with cancer. You had— EDUARDO GALEANO : Yes, twice, yes. AMY GOODMAN : —a cancer operation the last time you were here. EDUARDO GALEANO : Yes. AMY GOODMAN : A lung cancer. And you're dealing now. EDUARDO GALEANO : Yes. AMY GOODMAN : How is it—how are you coping? EDUARDO GALEANO : Well, I'm crossing this difficult period, and I realize that I have discovered new remedies that have awful side effects but are curing me. I mean, my tumor is reducing more and more, thanks to these new remedies, which are also sometimes—I feel some of the side effects are brutal. I asked my doctor, "Well, these remedies, [inaudible] by the Pentagon?" "No, no, not at all. But you just accept these side effects because you are going to go on living, and otherwise, you may be dead." "Oh, no," I told the doctor. "No, dead, no. Death is so boring. No, please, I'll try with the remedy." NERMEEN SHAIKH : You've often quoted Pablo Picasso saying that "art is a lie that tells the truth." EDUARDO GALEANO : It's true. NERMEEN SHAIKH : So what do you see as the significance of art and of your writing, in particular, its relationship to the truth and to politics? EDUARDO GALEANO : And to politics and to everything else. For instance, what is a good writer, from my point of view? That was able to make the past become present telling a history of two centuries ago or three centuries or four or I don't know how much, and the reader may feel it's happening right here and now. The past turn to be present in the magic words of a good writer. That's a lie, in the sense that what he or she is telling didn't—is not happening now, but thanks to these art prodigies, their magic powers, it does occur in today. I remember that—you know, I didn't receive a formal education. I was educated in the Montevideo cafe, in the cafes of Montevideo. There, I received my first lessons in the art of telling stories, storytelling. I was very, very young and sat at one table, neighbor of other table of people, old people, or more or less old, and they were telling stories, and I was hearing, because they were very good storytellers, anonymous. And one of them was telling a story about a battlefield at the beginning of the 20th century in Uruguay in a war period in the countryside. He was walking among the killed soldiers of both sides. They were distinguished by a ribbon on the front: the white and the red. And suddenly he found an angel. That was what he said: "I found an angel, with the arms open, laid in the grass." And a bullet had entered into his head, crossing the white ribbon. But he could read in the—in the white ribbon was a stain, mancha , stain of blood all along it. But something was written there: "For my country, for my countryside." No, patria ? How is it, patria , in English? Country? AMY GOODMAN : Country, for my country. EDUARDO GALEANO : "For my country, and for her." And the bullet had entered in the word "her." And so, I felt I was looking at that man who had died 50 years ago or 60 years ago. So this was a lie, but a lie telling the truth. This was art, an art done by an anonymous person and with no pretensions of being, you know, selected, elected by the finger of God. AMY GOODMAN : Eduardo— EDUARDO GALEANO : There are some writers who feel they are elected by God. I am not. I am elected by the devil, this is clear. AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to ask you about the power of silence, as you talk about words. You were born in Uruguay. You left at the time of the coup. You were imprisoned briefly? EDUARDO GALEANO : Sí , briefly. AMY GOODMAN : Why did they imprison you briefly? EDUARDO GALEANO : I never know, never knew. Everybody was imprisoned, even if you feel or you were, you know, practically free. But it—and it was an entire country in prison. And Uruguay was at that time world champion of torture. Everybody was tortured. I wasn't. I was lucky enough to avoid it. And torture was quite efficient, not in the sense that it's told by some friends of torture. No, not in this sense. It's not—never—it's almost never useful to get information. And the purpose of torture is not getting information. It's spreading fear. And in this sense, torture was really efficient in Uruguay. It was an entire country sick, enfermo — AMY GOODMAN : Sick. EDUARDO GALEANO : —of fear. I remember I received in exile in Barcelona some letters, anonymous letters with no indications of address, of names or nothing, no, of course. And one of the letters said, "It's terrible, learn to lie. But, you know, we had no choice. We're obliged to lie, day and night lying. And it's horrible. But worse than learning to lie is teaching to lie. And I have three children." AMY GOODMAN : Three children? EDUARDO GALEANO : That was what the letter said. "Worse than learning to lie was teaching to lie. And I have three children." AMY GOODMAN : On the issue of silence, you went from Uruguay to Argentina. And there, the torture, the repression was intense. EDUARDO GALEANO : Yes, yes. AMY GOODMAN : You were editor of a magazine, and you answered the censorship with silence. Explain. EDUARDO GALEANO : Yes. Yes, finally, I fled away from Argentina also, because—I couldn't stay in Uruguay, because I don't like to be in jail, and I didn't stay in Argentina. I could not, because I didn't want to lay in a cemetery, because, as I told you before, death is very boring. NERMEEN SHAIKH : You've said that a lot of your work—I mean, it's obvious from even what you've read—a lot of your work is about reclaiming different histories, not only in Latin America, but also in Latin America, to overcome what you've called the problem of amnesia. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that? EDUARDO GALEANO : Amnesia? NERMEEN SHAIKH : Yes. EDUARDO GALEANO : Well, we have a memory cut in pieces. And I write trying to recover our real memory, the memory of humankind, what I call the human rainbow, which is much more colorful and beautiful than the other one, the other rainbow. But the human rainbow had been mutilated by machismo, racism, militarism and a lot of other isms, who have been terribly killing our greatness, our possible greatness, our possible beauty. Part one of this interview aired on the May 8th, 2013 program

Watch part two of our conversation with the celebrated Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano, author of the new book, Children of the Days: A Calendar of Human History. Galeano's classic book, Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent, made headlines when Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez gave President Obama a copy at the Summit of the Americas in 2009. Since its publication in 1971, Open Veins has sold over a million copies worldwide despite being banned by the military governments in Chile, Argentina and his native country of Uruguay. While in exile after the Uruguayan military junta seized power in a 1973 coup, Galeano began work on his classic trilogy, Memory of Fire, which rewrites five centuries of North and South American history.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh, and our guest is Eduardo Galeano, the great Latin American writer. His latest book is Children of the Days: A Calendar of Human History. Eduardo, you were just telling us a story about being—

EDUARDO GALEANO: Chávez

AMY GOODMAN: —an election observer in Venezuela—

EDUARDO GALEANO: I was talking about Chávez, yes, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —in the referendum for Hugo Chávez.

EDUARDO GALEANO: And I was a delegate of 200 independent observers and working with the former president of the United States, Jimmy Carter, and Gaviria in representation of the Organization of American States, OEA—we three, working together during some days and nights. And in that transit across people in—who was going to vote for or against Chávez retaining power, in this road I heard something which I will never forget, explanation of everything else. It was a man in a very poor neighborhood in Caracas, and I asked him, "I know this, the vote is secret. But tell me, just personally, will you vote yes or no to Chávez?" "I'll vote—I shall vote yes, of course. I shall vote yes." "And how? Why? Why?" "Oh, obviously, it's clear enough: Now I am no more invisible."

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And that's his legacy?

EDUARDO GALEANO: Mm-hmm.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: For people in Venezuela. Do you think people in the region, as well?

EDUARDO GALEANO: People in region?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In Latin America, as well, not just in Venezuela?

EDUARDO GALEANO: Ah, no, not just in Venezuela. Now they are becoming—this is the good part, the best part of the present situation in diverse Latin American countries, in which the invisibles are becoming visibles.

AMY GOODMAN: That's President Chávez's legacy. What about President Obama?

EDUARDO GALEANO: Oh, for me, it was great news when I knew that he won the elections the first time, because in this country, I remember that 1942, when the United States entered in the Second World War, the Pentagon forbade, prohibir, forbade the transfusion of black blood. In order to avoid that, by injection, will be done, but it was prohibited in the beds. And so, the president of the Red Cross in the States was a very important scientist. He was black. And he said, "I won't obey this order of the Pentagon, because it's a stupid order, for the simple fact that black blood does not exist. All bloods are red."

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Eduardo Galeano, you initially wanted to be a soccer player—

EDUARDO GALEANO: Yes.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: —and not a writer.

EDUARDO GALEANO: No.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you talk about the significance of soccer in Latin America and the connection between soccer and politics, or sport and politics?

EDUARDO GALEANO: Yes. Yes, I wanted to be a soccer player, and I became the best of the best, the number one, better than Maradona, better than Pelé, and even better than Messi—but only at night, nighttime, during my dreams. When I wake up, I realized that I have wooden legs and that I'm doomed to be a writer. It's my only possibility in life, to earn my life honestly, is writing, but not playing football, soccer.

I remember a sports journalists in the States. I met him in Montevideo some years ago, 20 years ago. And I asked him about what is called soccer here. And he said, "Oh, no, no. Yeah, soccer, football in the United States, is the sport of the future, and it will always be." But he was wrong, because this very good journalist ignored that half of the U.S. population was you, women. And now the United States have the best teams, one of the two or three best team of female football in the world. And this is part of the reality also—or not. You are two to one; you are the majority in this table.

AMY GOODMAN: Can I ask you about your health and about how it has evolved and changed your worldview? I mean, you have struggled with cancer. You had—

EDUARDO GALEANO: Yes, twice, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —a cancer operation the last time you were here.

EDUARDO GALEANO: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: A lung cancer. And you're dealing now.

EDUARDO GALEANO: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: How is it—how are you coping?

EDUARDO GALEANO: Well, I'm crossing this difficult period, and I realize that I have discovered new remedies that have awful side effects but are curing me. I mean, my tumor is reducing more and more, thanks to these new remedies, which are also sometimes—I feel some of the side effects are brutal. I asked my doctor, "Well, these remedies, [inaudible] by the Pentagon?" "No, no, not at all. But you just accept these side effects because you are going to go on living, and otherwise, you may be dead." "Oh, no," I told the doctor. "No, dead, no. Death is so boring. No, please, I'll try with the remedy."

NERMEEN SHAIKH: You've often quoted Pablo Picasso saying that "art is a lie that tells the truth."

EDUARDO GALEANO: It's true.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So what do you see as the significance of art and of your writing, in particular, its relationship to the truth and to politics?

EDUARDO GALEANO: And to politics and to everything else. For instance, what is a good writer, from my point of view? That was able to make the past become present telling a history of two centuries ago or three centuries or four or I don't know how much, and the reader may feel it's happening right here and now. The past turn to be present in the magic words of a good writer. That's a lie, in the sense that what he or she is telling didn't—is not happening now, but thanks to these art prodigies, their magic powers, it does occur in today.

I remember that—you know, I didn't receive a formal education. I was educated in the Montevideo cafe, in the cafes of Montevideo. There, I received my first lessons in the art of telling stories, storytelling. I was very, very young and sat at one table, neighbor of other table of people, old people, or more or less old, and they were telling stories, and I was hearing, because they were very good storytellers, anonymous. And one of them was telling a story about a battlefield at the beginning of the 20th century in Uruguay in a war period in the countryside. He was walking among the killed soldiers of both sides. They were distinguished by a ribbon on the front: the white and the red. And suddenly he found an angel. That was what he said: "I found an angel, with the arms open, laid in the grass." And a bullet had entered into his head, crossing the white ribbon. But he could read in the—in the white ribbon was a stain, mancha, stain of blood all along it. But something was written there: "For my country, for my countryside." No, patria? How is it, patria, in English? Country?

AMY GOODMAN: Country, for my country.

EDUARDO GALEANO: "For my country, and for her." And the bullet had entered in the word "her." And so, I felt I was looking at that man who had died 50 years ago or 60 years ago. So this was a lie, but a lie telling the truth. This was art, an art done by an anonymous person and with no pretensions of being, you know, selected, elected by the finger of God.

AMY GOODMAN: Eduardo—

EDUARDO GALEANO: There are some writers who feel they are elected by God. I am not. I am elected by the devil, this is clear.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about the power of silence, as you talk about words. You were born in Uruguay. You left at the time of the coup. You were imprisoned briefly?

EDUARDO GALEANO: Sí, briefly.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did they imprison you briefly?

EDUARDO GALEANO: I never know, never knew. Everybody was imprisoned, even if you feel or you were, you know, practically free. But it—and it was an entire country in prison. And Uruguay was at that time world champion of torture. Everybody was tortured. I wasn't. I was lucky enough to avoid it. And torture was quite efficient, not in the sense that it's told by some friends of torture. No, not in this sense. It's not—never—it's almost never useful to get information. And the purpose of torture is not getting information. It's spreading fear. And in this sense, torture was really efficient in Uruguay. It was an entire country sick, enfermo —

AMY GOODMAN: Sick.

EDUARDO GALEANO: —of fear. I remember I received in exile in Barcelona some letters, anonymous letters with no indications of address, of names or nothing, no, of course. And one of the letters said, "It's terrible, learn to lie. But, you know, we had no choice. We're obliged to lie, day and night lying. And it's horrible. But worse than learning to lie is teaching to lie. And I have three children."

AMY GOODMAN: Three children?

EDUARDO GALEANO: That was what the letter said. "Worse than learning to lie was teaching to lie. And I have three children."

AMY GOODMAN: On the issue of silence, you went from Uruguay to Argentina. And there, the torture, the repression was intense.

EDUARDO GALEANO: Yes, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: You were editor of a magazine, and you answered the censorship with silence. Explain.

EDUARDO GALEANO: Yes. Yes, finally, I fled away from Argentina also, because—I couldn't stay in Uruguay, because I don't like to be in jail, and I didn't stay in Argentina. I could not, because I didn't want to lay in a cemetery, because, as I told you before, death is very boring.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: You've said that a lot of your work—I mean, it's obvious from even what you've read—a lot of your work is about reclaiming different histories, not only in Latin America, but also in Latin America, to overcome what you've called the problem of amnesia. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

EDUARDO GALEANO: Amnesia?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Yes.

EDUARDO GALEANO: Well, we have a memory cut in pieces. And I write trying to recover our real memory, the memory of humankind, what I call the human rainbow, which is much more colorful and beautiful than the other one, the other rainbow. But the human rainbow had been mutilated by machismo, racism, militarism and a lot of other isms, who have been terribly killing our greatness, our possible greatness, our possible beauty.

]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 18:03:00 -0400 Eduardo Galeano on Writing, "Historical Amnesia" in Latin America & His Fight Against Cancer Part two of our conversation with the celebrated Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano, author of the new book, "Children of the Days: A Calendar of Human History." nonadult tv-g Democracy Now! News http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/8/eduardo_galeano_on_writing_historical_amnesia_in_latin_america_his_fight_against_cancerhttp://traffic.libsyn.com/democracynow/wx2013-0508_Galeano.mp3