One of the many telling vignettes in Michael Wolff’s book is the sight of Steve Bannon, then White House chief strategist, pacing the West Wing, openly dispensing odds on Donald Trump’s chances of surviving in office.
Bannon gave Trump a probability of a third that he might limp to the finish line because of Democratic incompetence; a third that he would be pushed from office under the 25th amendment on grounds of mental incapability; and a third that he would be impeached.
That a man who was for many months Trump’s right-hand man would brazenly give out such doom-laden predictions is remarkable enough. But letting the world know of it via Wolff could make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The most explosive aspect of Bannon’s take, revealed by Fire and Fury, is Trump’s handling – or rather mishandling – of the Russia investigation that rages around him. Assuming Wolff’s account to be accurate (and Bannon has said nothing so far to suggest otherwise) the former chief strategist considered Trump entirely out of his depth with regard to special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into possible links between Russia and the Trump team.
On a practical level, Trump did not have the “discipline to navigate a tough investigation”, Wolff writes, nor the savvy to bring on powerful lawyers. Most seriously, Trump was, in Bannon’s estimation, unable to grasp “how much Mueller had on him and his family”.
“He doesn’t necessarily see what’s coming,” Bannon is quoted as saying.
We now know from the Guardian’s account of excerpts of the book that Bannon believes the June 2016 meeting between Trump’s son and Russians bearing promises of dirt on Hillary Clinton to have been “treasonous”. We also know that Bannon puts the chances of Donald Jr failing to have informed his father of the encounter at “zero”.
That is not evidence that would satisfy as meticulous a prosecutor as Mueller, but it does shift the frame of the Russia inquiry. Trump may try to belittle Bannon’s involvement with his campaign and subsequent time in the White House, scoffing that he had “little to do with our historic victory”, but few will buy that.
“Bannon was an insider in the campaign at the highest level, and in the White House all the way to last August,” said Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under George W Bush. “He was talking to the president constantly – I can’t imagine Trump not confiding in him, including over the Russia inquiry.”
That in turn raises the possibility that Bannon might cooperate. Certainly, there is no love lost between him and Trump family members, notably the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
“Bannon may already be cooperating with Mueller for all we know,” Painter said. “He has no incentive to cover up for Trump, or his family members."
All of which increases the significance of Bannon’s interpretation of the Russia investigation as it reaches possibly critical stages. Where he places his focus is clear from the book: the financial doings of Trump and his immediate family.
When Trump gave an interview to the New York Times last July in which he warned Mueller not to delve into his family’s finances, Bannon’s response was scathing. Wolff writes: “‘Ehhh … ehhh … ehhh!’ screeched Bannon, making the sound of an emergency alarm. ‘Don’t look here! Let’s tell a prosecutor what not to look at!’”
Bannon is specific about what he regards as the most dangerous aspect of the Mueller inquiry: “It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They’re going to go right through that.”
Last month it was revealed that federal prosecutors are looking into Kushner’s ties to Deutsche Bank. Those ties include the $285m borrowed from a bank which has been implicated in Russian money-laundering scandals to refinance his holding of part of the old New York Times building in Manhattan. Last July, the Guardian disclosed that Kushner bought the property from a Soviet-born oligarch whose company was named in a high-profile New York money-laundering case.
“Watch Kushner” and “watch Deutsche Bank” seem to be two of the takeaways from this extraordinary chapter in an exceptional presidency.
As was previously known, Trump took control of the statement, insisting the meeting was exclusively about the adoption of Russian children. In fact, the Russian contingent offered incriminating intelligence on Clinton, a crucial detail that was not mentioned but which became quickly public after the email chain involving Don Jr was released.
Wolff gives a more complete rendition, again assuming the accuracy of his account. He writes that the entire White House communications team was relegated to the back of the plane while Trump was up front composing a public statement that could be construed as an attempted cover-up, exposing the president to legal peril.
“It used to hurt my feelings when I saw them running around doing things that were my job,” Sean Spicer, the then White House director of communications, is quoted as saying. “Now I’m glad to be out of the loop.”
The person who remained in the loop was Hope Hicks, currently a successor of Spicer’s as communications chief.
Bannon is said by Wolff to have seen Hicks as “nothing more than a hapless presidential enabler” and flunky for “Jarvanka” – Kushner and his wife, Trump’s daughter Ivanka.
In the fallout from the Trump Tower meeting and false statement, Wolff reports a fight between Bannon and Hicks in the cabinet room. “You don’t know what you are doing,” Bannon is said to have shouted. “You don’t know how much trouble you are in … You are as dumb as a stone!”
The pair, Wolff writes, never spoke to each other again.
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are gearing up for what is expected to be a crucial showdown in the US supreme court in 2018 over Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban, as they enter the second year in an epic battle against the president’s populist – and frequently arguably unconstitutional – agenda.
The nation’s oldest and largest civil liberties group has found itself on the frontline of legal resistance to an executive branch that is proving to be historically hostile towards constitutional rights. Since Trump took power on 20 January, the organization has launched 113 legal actions attempting to block his extreme rightwing ambitions.
Those actions included an unprecedented 57 lawsuits brought against the most egregious aspects of the Trump project. Having warned Trump before he entered the White House that he would have to “contend with the full firepower of the ACLU at your every step”, the organization has lived up to its word.
It has successfully challenged the administration in its efforts to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, cut off access to abortion, ban transgender people serving in the military and overturn Obamacare.
“Donald Trump is certainly the most dangerous president we’ve had in my lifetime, and possibly ever,” said David Cole, the ACLU’s national legal director, who leads a central team of 100 lawyers. “But he’s also the most frustrated president in my lifetime, maybe ever.”
Arguably the ACLU’s most significant action was to challenge his initial Muslim ban, issued within his first week in the White House, that barred Syrian refugees and visitors from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the country. The ensuing legal tussle between the ACLU and the president has been drawn out over months and through many iterations and is currently before the US fourth circuit court of appeals where a ruling is expected imminently.
Cole said he was confident that the court would strike down the Muslim travel ban as unconstitutional. Last week in a parallel case initiated by the state of Hawaii, the US ninth circuit court of appeals once again found that Trump had exceeded his authority. But it won’t end there. The Trump administration is almost certain to take one or other of the cases up to the US supreme court, which in turn is likely to give its final verdict by the end of its term in June.
For the ACLU’s legal director it will be the ultimate test of what he believes is Trump’s “unique disregard and in some instances contempt for basic constitutional norms”. It will also be a test of the limits of the president’s power, which so far has turned out to be surprisingly limited – thanks in no small part to the ACLU’s dogged opposition.
The president has the advantage of conservative control of both chambers of Congress, two-thirds of state legislatures and, since he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the highest court, the US supreme court. Yet the $1.5tn tax cuts that were rushed through Congress this month were the president’s first and only major legislative achievement.
“We have managed to limit the damage that Trump has wrought. And we’ve helped to mobilize spirit of liberty in citizens that in the long term will encourage them to be engaged in defense of those values,” Cole said in an interview with the Guardian.
The 113 legal actions this year span the range of Trump’s attacks on civil liberties, from his attempts to turn the screws on undocumented immigrants, suppress voting through its Orwellian-named “Commission on Election Integrity”, unpick equal employment rights for women and the LGBT community, and increase surveillance on ordinary Americans. In addition to the lawsuits, the ACLU has issued 69 freedom of information requests and several ethics complaints including one against the attorney general Jeff Sessions for his misleading comments to a Senate committee over communications with Russia.
That’s an impressive record for an organization that is utterly outgunned by the federal government when it comes to legal firepower. The ACLU’s national team of 100 lawyers under Cole is pitted against 19,000 attorneys employed by just six key federal departments.
But that daunting disparity is leveled out to some degree by the 200 additional lawyers deployed by the ACLU through its 53 affiliates in each of the states, and there are plans to bring on a further 100 staff on board to meet the Trump challenge. On top of that, the organization has been propelled by the rocket fuel of its membership which has exploded from 425,000 before the presidential election to 1.6m today.
Cole, who is on leave from Georgetown University where he is a constitutional law scholar, is big on harnessing the potential of members. Last year he published Engines of Liberty, a book exploring the phenomenon of citizen activism, and in the wake of Trump he and the ACLU have launched a new initiative, People Power, that aims to encourage peaceful protest and engagement.
“When you see the Women’s March, the airport demonstrations, the town halls around Obamacare, the recent elections in Virginia and Roy Moore’s defeat in Alabama – these are all examples of citizen mobilization inspired by the Trump threat,” Cole said.
One of the sharpest examples of “people power” was the eruption of public anger at Trump’s initial Muslim ban. The ACLU was already primed for action, having drawn up before the inauguration a seven-point plan to take on the Trump, and within hours of the travel ban executive order being issued they had filed suit.
Hours after that mass protests erupted at US airports as protesters turned out in their thousands to oppose what they saw as an attack on American values. It was a vivid manifestation, Cole believes, of “people power”.
“That said to me that we are in a different climate today in terms of citizen engagement. This was a measure targeted at foreign nationals – not at Americans at all – and yet tens of thousands of Americans turned out to protest at the airports. They knew that it would be their own rights on the block next time.”
Cole is cautious in predicting the outcome of a supreme court ruling on the Muslim ban. On the one hand he’s clear that the president has a strong hand in terms of his executive power over immigration and national security.
On the other hand, as a candidate Trump called for the “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim entry to the US. “He could not be more explicit about what he was doing – effectively putting up a ‘Muslims Keep Out’ sign. The conservatives on the supreme court are very sensitive about religious freedoms, and you can’t get a more direct violation of the constitution than that,” Cole said.
With so much still hanging in the balance, Cole had no illusions about premature victory. “There’s plenty of damage that Trump can do and that he has already been doing.”
Above all, the Trump administration has shown itself to be adept at appointing relatively young and highly conservative judges to federal benches. “This is about the long term,” Cole said. “These people are not going to be there for four years but for their lifetimes, maybe 30 or 40 years. That’s very concerning.”
Against that, he draws hope from the outpouring of support the ACLU has received from ordinary Americans. “I don’t think we’ll win every battle and Trump will continue to do tremendous damage. But the silver lining is that he has also inspired citizens in the United States to engage in civil rights and liberties. Apathy right now is not our problem.”
Bernie Sanders has warned that the world is rapidly becoming an “international oligarchy” controlled by a tiny number of billionaires, highlighted by the revelations in the Paradise Papers.
In a statement to the Guardian in the wake of the massive leak of documents exposing the secrets of offshore investors, Sanders said that the enrichment of wealthy individuals and companies in tax havens was “the major issue of our time”.
He said the Paradise Papers opened the door on a “major problem not just for the US but for governments throughout the world”.
“The major issue of our time is the rapid movement toward international oligarchy in which a handful of billionaires own and control a significant part of the global economy. The Paradise Papers shows how these billionaires and multinational corporations get richer by hiding their wealth and profits and avoid paying their fair share of taxes,” the US senator from Vermont said.
Sanders, who came in a close second to Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, pointed the finger of blame for the flourishing of offshore holdings on both Congress and the Trump administration. He told the Guardian that Republicans in Congress were responsible for providing “even more tax breaks to profitable corporations like Apple and Nike”.
The same tax breaks, he said, were being seized upon by super-wealthy members of Trump’s cabinet “who avoid billions in US taxes by shifting American jobs and profits to offshore tax havens. We need to close these loopholes and demand a fair and progressive tax system.”
Sanders’ intervention in the debate sparked by the Paradise Papers marks the most prominent political response to the leak in their opening 24 hours. The investigation stems from the leak of some 13m files obtained by Süddeutsche Zeitung in Germany and shared with almost 100 news organisations around the world including the Guardian by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.
One of the most pointed disclosures in the Paradise Papers was that Wilbur Ross, Trump’s commerce secretary, has continued to do business with the son-in-law of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, as well as a member of Putin’s inner circle who is under US sanctions. Ross, himself a billionaire, has retained since joining the Trump administration his investment in a shipping company, Navigator, that has a partnership with the Russian gas giant Sibur.
In turn Sibur is part-owned by Kirill Shamalov, the husband of Putin’s daughter.
The emergence of Ross’s ongoing ties to business interests so close to the Russian president at a time of intense scrutiny of the relationship between the Trump administration and the Kremlin has incensed prominent Democrats involved in Ross’s confirmation to office. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat who sits on the US Senate commerce committee, accused Ross of deceiving the public as well as lawmakers who had allowed the confirmation to go through having heard Ross promise to divest himself of any interests that carried potential conflict.
“If he fails to present a clear and compelling explanation, he ought to resign,” Blumenthal told MSNBC in an interview.
Senator Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, said: “In February, I opposed Mr. Ross’ nomination because there were a number of unanswered questions about his ownership stake in the Bank of Cyprus and his connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as his refusal to divest from a $1 billion co-investment made with the state-owned Chinese Investment Corporation.
“Despite assurances from the Commerce Department and the White House on the eve of his nomination, these questions remain unanswered over eight months later. These unanswered questions and recent revelations certainly warrant a Commerce Committee hearing and I think an Inspector General investigation is in order. We should get to the bottom of this.”
On Monday, Ross denied that he had done anything wrong in his handling of his investment in Navigator. In the course of a visit to London, he told UK media that “there is nothing wrong with it. The fact that it happens to be called a Russian company doesn’t mean there is any evil in it.”
Further responses to the Paradise Papers came from the Democratic leader in the US Senate Chuck Schumer, and the ranking Democratic member of the Senate finance committee, Ron Wyden. In a joint statement they accused Republicans in Congress leading the push towards a reform of the tax code of failing to close egregious loopholes revealed by the leaks.
As a result Republicans were rewarding, the duo said, “wealthy billionaires like secretary Wilbur Ross for dodging taxes, while punishing many in the middle class with new tax hikes. If you deduct medical expenses or student loan interest from your taxable income, the Republican plan comes after your wallet. But if you stash your billions in secret bank accounts overseas, their plan gives you the green light to keep doing what you’ve been doing.”
They added that the Paradise Papers were “proof positive that the Republican tax plan favours the wealthy and betrays the middle class in this country, who are the ones left carrying the financial burden of massive corporate tax avoidance”.
Donald Trump will visit Puerto Rico next Tuesday, to see some of the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria on the lives of 3.5 million Americans. As the president announced the visit, however, one Democratic congresswoman who was born in Puerto Rico warned that his lack of attention to the disaster so far risked making it “your Katrina”.
The White House said on Tuesday Trump had also made additional disaster assistance available, “by authorizing an increase in the level of federal funding for debris removal and emergency protective measures”.
But it took the president five full days to respond to the plight of the US territory. When he finally did so on Monday night, his comments on Twitter were so devoid of empathy it threatened to spark new controversy.
Hot on the heels of the billowing dispute he single-handedly provoked over African American sporting figures protesting against racial inequality during the national anthem, Trump effectively blamed the islanders – all of whom are American citizens – for their own misfortune.
“Texas & Florida are doing great but Puerto Rico, which was already suffering from broken infrastructure & massive debt, is in deep trouble,” Trump wrote. The US territory was hit by Maria soon after the two states were struck by Harvey and Irma.
Trump acknowledged that “much of the island was destroyed” but caustically went on to say that its electrical grid was already “in terrible shape” and that Puerto Rico owed billions of dollars to Wall Street and the banks “which, sadly, must be dealt with”.
The following morning, the president spoke to reporters at the White House before a bipartisan meeting on tax reform. Next Tuesday would, he said, be the earliest feasible day to visit the island, due to the extent of the damage. The island has been “literally destroyed”, Trump said, expressing confidence “they’ll be back”. The people of Puerto Rico “are important to all of us”, he said.
Federal authorities were landing relief supplies “on an hourly basis”, Trump said, adding that he will also stop in the US Virgin Islands, also severely damaged.
Later, at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden, he denied that he had been preoccupied with the NFL issue, insisting that the government has had “tremendous reviews” for its response, which now includes the military. “We understand it’s a disaster, it’s a disaster that just happened,” he told reporters. “The grid was in bad shape before the storm and Puerto Rico didn’t get hit by one hurricane; it got hit by two hurricanes; and they were among the biggest we’ve ever seen.
“We are unloading on an hourly basis massive loads of water and food and supplies for Puerto Rico. And this isn’t like Florida where we can go right up the spine or Texas where we go right down the middle and distribute; this is a thing called the Atlantic Ocean, this is tough stuff. The governor has been so incredible in his statements about the job we’re doing: we’re doing a great job.”
Trump added for emphasis: “Everybody has said it’s amazing the job we’ve done in Puerto Rico. We’re very proud of it and I’m going there on Tuesday.”
Trump’s Monday night tweets were the first comments he had made on Puerto Rico since hours before Maria made landfall as a category 4 hurricane, pummelling the island and destroying its entire power network with winds up to 155mph (250km/h). On that occasion he told the people of Puerto Rico: “We are with you.”
But for many Puerto Ricans the reality five days after the hurricane struck was that the US president had not been with them. About 700 Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) staff were on the island in a total of 10,000 federal workers, carrying out search and rescue missions and supplying basic food and water. But Trump spent those five days mired in his self-made battle with African American sports stars, seemingly oblivious to the plight of millions of Hispanic Americans in peril in a natural disaster zone.
“At the same time that he was doing all of that, we had American citizens in Puerto Rico who are in a desperate condition,” said Hillary Clinton, Trump’s defeated opponent in the 2016 election, in a radio interview which aired before Trump’s late-night tweets on Monday. “He has not said one word about them, about other American citizens in the US Virgin Islands. I’m not sure he knows that Puerto Ricans are American citizens.”
The Trump administration has refused to waive federal restrictions on foreign ships carrying life-saving supplies to Puerto Rico – a concession it readily made for Texas and Florida in the cases of hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
In the last of his tweets on Monday night, Trump said “food, water and medical are top priorities – and doing well”. On Tuesday morning, while continuing to tweet about the NFL, he wrote: “Thank you to Carmen Yulin Cruz, the Mayor of San Juan, for your kind words on Fema etc. We are working hard. Much food and water there/on way.”
On the island, Governor Ricardo Rosselló, has warned that Puerto Rico is on the brink of a “humanitarian crisis”. In the hard-to-reach interior of the country, thousands are struggling with destroyed houses, a heatwave and rapidly depleting supplies of clean water and food.
Earlier on Monday, Rosselló made a point of thanking George HW Bush and former Florida governor Jeb Bush for their calls of support.
Most Puerto Ricans were spared the experience of reading Trump’s tweets as a result of the total blackout. But condemnation was swift in mainland US. Juliette Kayyem, a former senior official in the Department of Homeland Security under Barack Obama, said Trump’s response showed “a lack of empathy of epic proportions”.
On Tuesday Nydia Velázquez, a Democratic representative from New York, said she was concerned that Trump’s continued tweets about NFL players showed he did not grasp the severity of the crisis. Referring to criticism of George W Bush following a hurricane that devastated New Orleans in 2005, she warned the president: “If you don’t take this crisis seriously this is going to be your Katrina.”
Velázquez also said she was “offended and insulted” by Trump’s tweet that Puerto Rico’s public debt contributed to the crisis.
Joe Crowley, another New York Democrat, said it was “absolutely ridiculous” for Trump to mention debt “when people are suffering and dying”.
“Here’s a president who’s used bankruptcy throughout his entire career,” he said.
Below: Drone footage shows flooding in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria – video
Chelsea Manning has accused Harvard University of caving into pressure from the CIA in reversing its invitation to her to become a visiting fellow, in what the former US soldier and whistleblower described as a “police state”.
n her first spoken comments on the Harvard debacle, Manning told a conference on Sunday that the university’s abrupt U-turn over the invitation, made in the face of fierce criticism from senior figures in the CIA, marked the end of free political debate in academic institutions.
“So this is one of the American government institutions [the CIA] telling one of the American academic institutions [Harvard], no, you cannot bring this to your school,” she said.
“And that’s what that was. This is a police state. This is a military intelligence and it is a police state in which we can no longer engage in actual political discourse in our institutions.”
Manning made the comments at an annual conference in Massachusetts called the Nantucket Project, a venture founded to bring together creative thinkers. Organisers said about 600 people attended.
It was one of Manning’s first public appearances since she was released from a military prison in May, having served seven years of a 35-year sentence which was commuted by Barack Obama in his final days in office.
Eugene Jarecki, an award-winning documentary director, moderated the discussion. He asked Manning if it “reflects something about the state of our time” that she was still the subject of pressure by the CIA and labelled by some as a traitor.
Manning said she took a risk to contribute to political and public discourse and “change the tone of the conversation”, but that it hadn’t changed and if anything “things have gotten worse”
“I’m walking out of prison and I see, literally, a dystopian novel unfolding before my eyes,” she said. “That’s how I feel when I walk in the American streets today.”
Manning said she was not disheartened by what Harvard had done under CIA pressure. On the contrary: “I’m honoured to be the first disinvited trans woman to the Harvard University fellowship program. And I am, I’m honoured.
“I don’t view that as something I’m ashamed of. I view that as just as much an honour and distinction as the fellowship itself.”
Manning also talked about the lack of privacy in today’s society, calling it “dead”, as well as the power of civil disobedience and the importance of forgiveness, saying “we should forgive everybody at some point”. She said she would keep speaking out.
“Everybody keeps telling me, ‘Maybe you shouldn’t say this. Maybe you shouldn’t do this event. Maybe you shouldn’t talk. Maybe you shouldn’t do this,’” she said.
“And I’m just like, OK, the fact that you’re telling me I shouldn’t do this is the reason why I should. And I think that’s what we can all do.”
This is a tale of two Irmas. First, there’s the Hurricane Irma facing Max Borges as he practised his short iron on a Miami Beach golf course just hours before one of the most powerful and deadly storms in modern times was scheduled to make landfall on the US mainland.
Borges, the 51-year-old owner of a PR agency, sat down with his wife and three children on Friday and ran over their prospects as Irma barreled towards them, leaving a trail of devastation in its wake. Their home in Miami Beach, a wealthy island city that runs along the coast of Miami known for its celebrity residents and art deco buildings, is under mandatory evacuation order.
Yet they had so much going for them, they recognised. Food, water, other essentials to last for days; a solid home raised off the ground to resist storm surge with toughened windows capable of withstanding 155mph winds; even an in-built generator should the electricity go down. They talked, they agreed: they would ride Irma out.
Decision made, Borges went off to practice his short iron. “That was a good one!” he exclaimed, sending the ball soaring off the tee and on to the green.
There’s a second Hurricane Irma descending on southern Florida, the one looming over Louis Diaz and his family in Liberty City, a mere nine miles away in the north of Miami. They too have decided to ride out the storm but where the Borges family is doing it because they can, the Diaz family is doing it because, well, what else can they do?
They have water and food for three days, but no gas in the car if they were to try to leave. When Diaz, 29, went to Home Depot to buy some plywood to shutter the windows, the store had run out. They could never afford hurricane-proof windows, relying, as they do, on his mother’s salary as a transit worker.
“We’re in the inner city here. People don’t want to help folk like us,” he said. “Nobody is leaving Liberty City because there’s nowhere for them to go.”
One mother of all hurricanes, two very different experiences. In Liberty City, the African American neighborhood that inspired the Oscar-winning movie Moonlight, the chances of escaping Irma’s devastating wrath are all but non-existent. When almost half the residents are below the federal poverty level, generators and storm windows are not an option, let alone a few boards of plywood and a tank of gas.
Most people are taking advantage of the lack of a mandatory evacuation order in their area and staying put. But local organisers fear they are woefully unprepared.
“People in Liberty City are not ready for what’s coming,” said Valencia Gunder, a community activist helping to set up an emergency response center for those in distress that will open on Monday morning, in the wake of Irma. “They don’t have enough money to pay the rent, and then this happens.”
Gunder said an additional problem facing low-income black, Hispanic and Haitian neighborhoods like Liberty City and Little Havana, the Cuban quarter, was that Miami authorities were so slow to reach them.
“Historically, the city and county and other large institutions do not respond to our communities, so we expect to be without help after Irma for at least three days.”
An unscientific survey of houses in Liberty City suggested that only about one in five were boarded up or showed other signs of storm protection. By contrast, virtually every property in Miami Beach was replete with sandbags, storm shutters and hurricane-resistant glass.
“We got what we got,” was how Michael McGoogan, 55, put it, expressing the sense of resignation that permeates Liberty City.
McGoogan works in a food processing factory and rents out a single room in a boarding house in the neighborhood, along with eight other people. They each pay $400 a month, not a bad rent for a run-down shack, but when they talked to their landlord about the coming storm he told them they had to look after themselves.
They clubbed together, scoured local stores and managed to cadge a couple of boards of plywood which the used to shutter the two windows in the front of the house. That left eight other windows exposed on the sides and back.
“I know what I need to do,” McGoogan said. “If the windows start smashing, I’m going to put my mattress up against them and if that don’t work, I’m going to hide in the bathroom.”
As Irma veers in its path, reserving its most terrifying force for the Florida Keys and potentially the west coast of Florida up to Tampa, Miami may be spared some of the worst of the disaster. But this is such a massive storm, its radius of destruction so wide, that it still has the potential to shatter windows and tear off roofs throughout southern Florida.
Thousands of people have heeded the evacuation orders, with local TV stations bombarding those in the evacuation zones with warnings to get away. In Miami-Dade, the county that covers the city, more than 20,000 people were in shelters on Saturday, many of which had closed having reached capacity.
Many others had fled the city, in a decision that many will come to regret. Some travelled west towards Naples, unwittingly moving right into the path of the storm.
Miami Beach and surrounding islands were largely evacuated, giving an area normally heaving with tourists and sun worshippers an eery pre-apocalyptic feel. The area is so low-lying that it experiences flooding even at regular high tides, let alone major hurricanes, and the scale of this storm may overwhelm the best-laid plans.
“Pray for Miami Beach” the owner of Mango’s Tropical Bar had spray painted on the boards that now shuttered the restaurant on Ocean Drive, the celebrated art deco strip in South Beach.
Nearby Fishers Island, that boasts the most expensive zip code in the US (median home price $6m) had emptied out. At the ferry port a sole white Daimler was parked ready to whisk the last fleeing resident away.
But Borges was not the only one who had decided to take a risk and stay. On the beach, just hours from Irma’s unwelcome arrival, Matthew Delafe, 25, was taking advantage of the sudden absence of people to exercise on the dip bars on the beach on Ocean Drive.
“I’ve never seen it this empty,” he said. “There are always 300lb guys on these bars, so I’m finally taking my chance.”
Delafe lives with his parents in Broward County further north and inland. They too have a generator, and his father landscaped their property to create a hill on which their purpose-built house sits, raised up above any flood waters from the Everglades.
“So I’m not that scared,” he said, performing another dip. “I’m planning to give Irma the finger.”
Florida residents were racing to complete final preparations on Friday as Hurricane Irma, slightly weakened from its peak but still packing enormous destructive power, cast a dark shadow over the southern half of the Sunshine State.
In a filmed message to the nation, Donald Trump called Irma “a storm of absolutely historic destructive potential”.
After leaving a trail of wreckage and claiming at least 21 lives during its four-day rampage across the Caribbean, Irma was forecast to take a significant turn north and strike one of the most populous areas of the US in the early hours of Sunday.
About seven million people lay directly in the path of the monster storm in South Florida and further north to Orlando and with winds of 150mph or greater spreading more than 70 miles from its center, officials warned that the whole of Florida was in the danger zone.
“The storm is wider than the state,” Rick Scott, the Florida governor, warned at a morning briefing. “The majority of Florida will have major hurricane impacts, with deadly storm surge and life-threatening winds. We are running out of time. The storm is almost here, a catastrophic storm that our state has never seen.”
In the UK, the Foreign Office launched an emergency hotline for Britons affected by the storm in the Caribbean or US, and issued travel advice urging tourists to evacuate south Florida if possible and seek advice from their travel companies.
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) in Miami reinforced Scott’s dire warnings in its late-morning advisory.
“There is the danger of life threatening storm surge inundation in southern Florida and the Florida Keys in the next 36 hours,” wrote Lixion Avila, a senior NHC specialist. “In particular, the threat of significant storm surge flooding along the south-west coast of Florida has increased and 6ft to 12ft of inundation above ground level is possible. Everyone in these areas should take all actions to protect life and property.”
The NHC noted that sustained winds had dropped below the 185mph peak that tore apart Caribbean islands including Barbuda, St Martin, Anguilla and the US and British Virgin Islands, but predicted the storm would still hit Florida as a strong category 4 hurricane.
Close to a million Floridians in low-lying and coastal areas were under a mandatory evacuation order and several major highways leading north, towards Georgia and Alabama, were choked with traffic.
Scott requested gas suppliers to increase deliveries and remain open as long as possible. Resupply tankers received police escorts in some areas but many gas stations were closed.
Those who could not leave filled shelters, ready to ride out the storm. At the White House on Friday afternoon, homeland security and counter-terrorism adviser Thomas Bossert said warnings to evacuate were “not a tough love message, it’s just a message of clarity and honesty.
“At some point, people are going to be on their own, so to speak, for a period of time during which the flooding and raining and the wind bear down on them, and they need to be prepared if they are in that path and haven’t taken some action to get themselves in a less dangerous position.”
Bossert added: “Let’s hope there is no hurricane amnesia but I would start by saying there are some people, probably some 20% of the population, that might not remember, might not have gone through the last big hurricane in Florida ... If you haven’t experienced it, take it seriously and ask those who have.”
One major concern was a possible breach of an ageing dike on Lake Okeechobee, the 730 sq-mile lake in central Florida that supplies fresh water to the south of the state. Scott said the US army corps of engineers had assured him the dike was solid but that winds would push water over the top. As a precaution, he said, he had ordered the evacuation of nearby communities.
All 7,000 members of Florida’s national guard were activated and utility companies said they had positioned emergency crews around the state to move quickly and work on restoring power that they warned in some areas could be out for weeks.
“We keep talking about the big one: when is it coming, when is it coming?” said Roman Gastesi, administrator of Monroe County, which includes the Florida Keys archipelago stretching 100 miles off the southern coast. “This, folks, is the big one.”
In a series of tweets, Trump said the full resources of the US government and Federal Emergency Management Agency were ready. In his video statement, the president said: “When the time comes, we will restore, recover and rebuild together as Americans. America stands united and I mean united.”
Bossert said the White House was thankful that Congress passed a $15.3bn disaster aid package and insisted the government could absorb the one-two punch of hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Bossert also said officials were reconsidering an executive order last month that rolled back Barack Obama’s directive for flood plain buildings to adhere to tighter standards.
The Department of Homeland Security said it would suspend non-criminal immigration enforcement operations for the duration of the storm.
In Miami, there was an eerie calm under a pristine sky. The most visible signs of the pending threat were empty gas stations, pumps enclosed in yellow tape, giving them the air of a police crime scene.
Those outlets that remained open were subject to long lines of cars. Mary Schaunaman, 56, was filling up nine gas canisters, each holding five litres, sufficient she said to keep a generator at her home going for a week.
“I’m anxious, nervous,” she said. “Extremely. It’s just the unknown of what’s coming.”
Supermarkets were preparing to shut their doors, with bottled water, torches and fresh food running out. Advice to residents was to lay in three to five days’ supply of food, water and petrol.
Holidaymakers were turned into refugees overnight. Norman McClain, 31, from Nashville, Tennessee, cut short a cruise aboard the Enchantment of the Seas that had been due to visit the Bahamas and Key West.
“It could be worse. I’m trying to keep optimistic,” he said.
Governor Scott warned that the window of opportunity to get to safety was closing fast.
“I’m a dad, I’m a grandfather, I love my family and can’t imagine life without them,” he said. “Do not put yourself or your family’s lives at risk. If you’ve been ordered to evacuate, please go. Today is the day to do the right thing for your family to get inland to safety.
The lawyer privately advising Donald Trump on the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election is head of a law firm that was involved in the sale of a prestigious piece of New York real estate to Jared Kushner, the US president’s son-in-law, in a deal that could fall under the spotlight of the same inquiry.
Marc Kasowitz, a member of the New York bar who has represented Trump in his business dealings for 15 years, was brought on board by the president last month to provide personal legal advice relating to the Russian inquiry now being conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller. The appointment has placed Kasowitz at the center of the legal maelstrom over the investigation into potential collusion between Russia and elements of Trump’s presidential campaign.
An investigation by the Guardian has found that Kasowitz’s law firm, Kasowitz Benson Torres, legally represented the owners of the former New York Times building in Times Square, Manhattan, in a 2015 deal in which part of the property was sold to Kushner for $296m.
The Washington Post has reported that a subsequent loan of $285m from Deutsche Bank to Kushner Companies, relating to the purchase of the building, could fall under the remit of the Mueller investigation given Deutsche Bank’s scandal-riven reputation. The involvement of Kasowitz’s firm as a key legal player in the initial sale adds a further possible twist as the special counsel’s inquiry gathers momentum.
Questions have already been raised about possible conflicts of interest between the lawyer’s role as Trump’s private attorney in the Russian inquiry and his work for various other clients, among them Russia’s largest bank OJSC Sberbank, which he represents in a corporate dispute lodged in US federal court.
The Guardian asked Kasowitz, via his spokesman, to respond to the potential conflict of interest relating to his firm’s role as attorney on the sale of the Times Square building to Kushner but he did not respond before publication. After publication, the spokesman send in a statement: “There are no conflicts under any standard or by any definition.”
rump’s connections with Kasowitz’s law firm go much further than just his personal attorney, raising other potential conflict of interest issues. Another of its partners, David Friedman, was appointed by the president as ambassador to Israel; its senior counsel, Joe Lieberman, was considered by Trump as replacement director of the FBI after the president fired James Comey but pulled out of the running, citing potential conflicts of interest with Kasowitz as the president’s private legal counsel; and yet another partner, Edward McNally, is reportedly in the running to replace Preet Bharara as US attorney for the southern district of New York, following a similar Trump sacking.
ProPublica has alleged that Kasowitz himself bragged to friends that he played a role in having Bharara fired, by telling Trump: “This guy is going to get you.” One of the major investigations conducted by the southern district of New York under Bharara was allegedly to look into Deutsche Bank’s involvement in alleged Russian money-laundering.
The Guardian invited Kasowitz to confirm or deny the ProPublica account, but he did not respond.
The old New York Times building is a neo-gothic styled building fronting Times Square, which had been a home to printing presses since the first year of Woodrow Wilson’s presidency. Located at 229 West 43rd Street in Manhattan, the building was declared a New York City designated landmark in 2000.
At the time of the sale to Kushner, the building was owned by Lev Leviev, an Israeli citizen born in the former Soviet Union in what is now Uzbekistan. His company, Africa Israel Investments, bought the Times Square property in 2007 for $525m.
State records show that Africa Israel’s Delaware LLCs, including its subsidiary that bought the former New York Times building, are registered at 40 Wall Street, Trump’s property over the road from the New York Stock Exchange. The office block has “The Trump Building” emblazoned over its entrance in gold capital letters, and was also the home of the now defunct Trump University.
Leviev is one of Israel’s richest businessmen, having made a fortune partly in diamond mining in Africa. He has claimed that he is a “true friend” of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
In a statement to the Guardian, the Leviev Group of Companies said that Leviev had indeed met Putin a few times though only in his capacity as president of the Federation of Jewish Communities of the Commonwealth of Independent States (the former Soviet Union). Leviev “does not have a personal relationship with the Russian premier” and the comment that he was a “true friend” referred to Putin’s help to the “Jewish community in Russia”.
Leviev’s company has had a number of contacts with the Trump family circle that go further than Kushner. Rich Marin, a former chairman and CEO of Africa Israel USA, has told the Guardian that he had a meeting with Trump himself as well as his daughter Ivanka about the possibility of creating a Trump hotel inside the Times Square property.
That deal never materialized, and it was several years later that Ivanka’s husband, Jared Kushner, stepped into the breach. Filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) show that the sale of the retail portion of 229 West 43rd Street to Kushner was made in an off-market transaction of the sort normally used by owners desiring a quick sale, where speed is more important than price.
Given the lack of competition inherent in such trades, they often give an advantage to the purchaser seeking to acquire property at a bargain.
Kushner acquired the building for $296m from Africa Israel USA and its partner in the deal Five Mile Capital, with Kasowitz’s law firm representing the sellers. The transaction included four storeys of retail space and two sub-basement floors.
The upper 12 floors of the old New York Times building, which are used for offices, were sold to Blackstone in 2011 for $160m. When both sales are put together, Leviev let go of the entire building after owning it for eight years and committing millions of dollars in renovations for a total price that was beneath the $525m he had originally paid for it.
The Guardian contacted Kushner Companies and Five Mile Capital about the sale, but neither commented.
In a statement to the Guardian, the Leviev Group of Companies said: “The Kushner Companies’ offer for the retail space was the most attractive offer ever submitted, and was higher than the building’s appraisal.”
Kushner sealed the refinancing deal with Deutsche Bank and SL Green over his half of the former New York Times building last October, in the dying days of the presidential campaign. The package, reported by Kushner’s own news magazine, Commercial Observer, amounted to $370m – $74m more than Kushner had paid for it.
The president of Kushner Companies, Laurent Morali, told the Washington Post that the discrepancy in price was a result of the “dramatic turnaround” that they had effected in filling up vacant rental units with high-profile outlets. “We had a vision for the property when we purchased it that no one else had, and are proud to say that we executed on it,” he said.
Deutsche Bank is the biggest lender to Trump, having provided $364m in loans. The German bank has been hit by a series of scandals including Russian money laundering, and was ordered earlier this year to pay more than $600m in fines for failing to prevent the secret and improper transfer of more than $10bn out of Russia.
The Guardian revealed in February that Deutsche Bank had itself conducted an investigation of Trump’s personal account to see whether there were any suspicious links to Russian entities.
Senior Democrats in Congress have raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest relating to the Trump administration and the president’s own financial debts to Deutsche Bank. In March, a group of Democrats on the House financial services committee wrote a joint letter saying that such links “raise serious concerns about whether the president and his inner circle will direct the Department [of Justice] to steer clear of issues that could implicate those who benefited from Deutsche Bank’s trading scheme.”
On Tuesday the Guardian reported that a different Trump lawyer, Jay Sekulow, had approved plans to push poor and jobless people to donate money to his Christian nonprofit, which since 2000 has steered more than $60m to Sekulow, his family and their businesses.
When Donald Trump delivered his first address to Congress 10 days ago, sticking dutifully, for once, to the teleprompter, the media praised him for sounding statesmanlike and presidential. But one person, sitting in a front-row seat just a few feet away, thought differently.
Bernie Sanders was growing more aghast with every sentence. Then, when Trump began to talk about the environment, the 75-year-old independent senator from Vermont nearly laughed out loud. Earlier that day, the president signed an executive order that gutted federal controls against the pollution of rivers and waterways. Now he was standing before US legislators pledging to “promote clean air and clear water”.
“The hypocrisy was beyond belief!” says Sanders, still scarcely able to contain himself. “To talk about protecting clean air and water on the same day that you issue an order that will increase pollution of air and water!”
Sanders’ Senate office in DC has an untouched quality, as though the rocket launcher that propelled him last year from relative obscurity to credible contender for the White House has left no trace. The office walls display quaint photographs of his home state – a field of cows labeled Spring in Vermont – and there’s a bookshelf stacked with distinctly Bernie-esque titles such as Never Give In and The Induced Ignorance of Power.
Sanders sweeps into the room wearing a casual sweater. His white hair is tousled, and he has the distracted look of someone dragged away from concentrated study. But when we start talking, he is immediately transfixing. In a flash, it is clear why so many have felt the Bern: because he feels it so intensely himself.
“These are very scary times for the people of the United States, and … for the whole world. We have a president who is a pathological liar. Trump lies all of the time.” And Sanders believes the lying is not accidental: “He lies in order to undermine the foundations of American democracy.” Take his “wild attacks against the media, that virtually everything the mainstream media says is a lie.” Or Trump’s denigration of one of George W Bush’s judicial appointees as a “so-called judge”, and his false claims that up to 5 million people voted illegally in the election. Such statements, which Sanders calls “delusional”, are meant to lead to only one conclusion, he says: “that the only person in America who stands for the American people, who is telling the truth, the only person who gets it right, is the president of the United States, Donald Trump. That is unprecedented in American history.”
He travels even deeper into dystopian territory when I ask what, in his view, Trump’s endgame might be. “What he wants is to end up as leader of a nation that has moved a significant degree towards authoritarianism; where the president of the United States has extraordinary powers, far more than our constitution has provided for.”
Sanders is well into his stride by now, conducting the interview with great waves of his arms, punching out words in that distinctive Brooklyn-Vermont growl. It’s impossible not to be drawn in by a man who comes across as this authentic.
Sanders occupies an exalted pedestal in American politics today. In 2016 he won 23 primary and caucus races to Clinton’s 34, notching up 13 million votes. Given the odds stacked against him – Clinton’s establishment firepower; the skewed weighting of the “superdelegates” that tipped the primaries in her direction by reserving 15% of the votes for the party establishment; and the cynical efforts of the party machine through the Democratic national convention to undermine Sanders’ campaign by casting aspersions on his leadership abilities and religious beliefs, as revealed in the Russian-hacked WikiLeaks emails – that was no mean achievement.
If he had won the nomination, would he have beaten Trump? I feel a blowback to the question even as I pose it. Sanders’ body language expresses displeasure as crushingly as any verbal putdown: his face crumples, his shoulders hunch, and he looks as though someone is jabbing him with needles. “I don’t think it’s a worthwhile speculation,” he says. “The answer is: who knows? Possibly yes, possibly no.”
Moving swiftly on. Did he anticipate the result on election night, or was he as shocked as many others when Trump began to sweep rust belt states such as Michigan and Wisconsin – states, incidentally, in which Sanders also defeated Clinton in the primary/caucus stage? “I wasn’t expecting it, but it wasn’t a shock. When I went to bed the night before, I thought it was two-to-one, three-to-one that Clinton would win, but it wasn’t like, ‘Oh, there’s no chance Trump could do it’. That was never my belief.”
Sanders’ sanguine response was rooted in his familiar critique of modern capitalism – that it has left the US, alongside the UK and other major democracies, vulnerable to rightwing assault. This is how he connects Trump with Brexit, and in turn with the jitters gripping continental Europe ahead of elections in France and Germany – common manifestations all, he believes, of the ravages of globalization.
“One of the reasons for Brexit, for Trump’s victory, for the rise of ultra-nationalist rightwing candidates all over Europe, is the fact that the global economy has been very good for large multinational corporations, has in many ways been a positive thing for well-educated people, but there are millions of people in this country and all over the world who have been left behind.”
I tell him that last September I had an epiphany as I watched Trump tell a ballroom of billionaires at the Waldorf Astoria in Manhattan that he would get all the steelworkers back to work. Steelworkers? How on Earth did the Democratic party, the party of labour, cede so much political ground that a billionaire – “phoney billionaire”, Sanders corrects me, firmly – could stand before other billionaires at the Waldorf and pose as the champion of steelworkers?
“That is an excellent question,” he says, needles turning to roses. “Over the last 30 or 40 years the Democratic party has transformed itself from a party of the working class – of white workers, black workers, immigrant workers – to a party significantly controlled by a liberal elite which has moved very far away from the needs of … working families in this country.”
He goes on to lament what he sees as an unnecessary dichotomy between the identity politics favoured by those liberal elites and the traditional labour roots of the movement – steelworkers, say. He is so incensed about this false division that it even dictates his self-perception: “I consider myself a progressive and not a liberal for that reason alone,” he says.
I ask him to flesh out the thought. He replies that the liberal left’s focus on sectional interests – whether defined by gender, race or immigrant status – has obscured the needs of a shrinking middle class suffering from huge levels of income inequality. It didn’t need to have been that way. “The truth is, we can and should do both. It’s not an either/or, it’s both.”
Does he see a similar pattern in the trajectory of Britain’s Labour party? His face starts to crumple again, UK politics apparently also being on his list of undesirable discussion topics. “I don’t want to say I know more than I do,” he says, adding, after a beat, “but obviously I am somewhat informed.”
There is a cord that ties Sanders to the UK, in the form of his elder brother, Larry, who lives in Oxford and who ran unsuccessfully last October as a Green party candidate for the Witney seat left vacant by the departure of former prime minister David Cameron. Sanders has described Larry as a large influence on his life, though he says they haven’t been in touch lately. “We talk once in a while.”
Add family matters to the needle category. He’s reticent, too, about discussing Jeremy Corbyn, deflecting a question about the current travails of the Labour leader by again saying: “I don’t know all the details.”
But he is happy to take an implicit poke at Tony Blair and New Labour, which he suggests fell into the same profound hole that the current US Democratic party is in. “Corbyn has established that there is a huge gap between what was the Labour party leadership and the rank-and-file Labour party activists – he made that as clear as clear could be … Leadership has got to reflect where working people and young people are in the UK.”
It’s all starting to sound pretty depressing. Much of the modern left has detached itself from working people; the vacuum created has in turn permitted that Waldorf moment where steelworkers turn to (phoney) billionaires for salvation; in the ensuing melee we see the rise of Trump, Brexit and the far right, hurtling the world’s leading democracies into the abyss.
Thankfully, that’s not the end of the narrative. Sanders is too driven a person, too committed to his own worldview, to leave us dangling in a dystopian fog. And with reason: he remains a formidable force to be reckoned with. Though he’s less in the conversation these days than he was at the height of his epic battle with Clinton, no one should make the error of thinking that Sanders is done.
Technically still an independent, he is busily lobbying to reform the internal rules of the Democratic party to give more clout to rank-and-file voters and less to party insiders, in order, he says, to tighten that gap between liberal elite and steelworker. He also continues to use the force of his grassroots activism to push the party towards a more radical economic position, based on regulating Wall Street and taxing the wealthy – and claims some success in that regard.
“The platform of the Democratic party doesn’t go as far as I would like,” he says, “but I worked on it with Clinton and it is far and away the most progressive platform in the history of American politics.”
Gorsuch hasn’t ruled on abortion directly, but he has indicated that he believes that the “intentional taking of human life is always wrong”, and on campaign finance he has hinted that he would open up the political process to even more private cash.
I ask Sanders why he isn’t minded to go further with Gorsuch. Why not take a leaf from the Republican book and just say no – after all, they refused even to consider Obama’s supreme court choice, Merrick Garland, effectively stealing the seat from the Democrats.
“There are reasons to say no. You don’t say, ‘I’m going to vote no before I even know who the candidate is.’”
But that’s what the Republicans did, I press.
“I think it’s more effective to give a rational reason,” he replies with finality.
But the real work of Sanders and the resistance begins when the lights of his Senate office are turned off, the squabbles of DC are left behind, and he takes his brand of progressive populism out to the American heartlands. He’s doing it largely unnoticed – not stealthily, but quietly, without much fanfare. But it’s happening, and with a clear goal: to rebuild the progressive movement from the bottom up.
There are shades here of the Tea Party movement, the disruptive rightwing grassroots group that in two short years destabilized Obama’s presidency and paved the way for everything we are witnessing today. So, is that it? Is that what Sanders is doing when he travels the country, attends rallies, addresses his legions of still adoring young supporters and urges them to resist? Is he putting down the foundations of a progressive Tea Party – as influential voices, such as the three former congressional staffers who co-authored a guide to resistance called Indivisible, have implored?
Unsurprisingly, Sanders fails to embrace the concept. But much of what he is doing, amplified by the network that grew out of his presidential campaign, Our Revolution, does follow a similar playbook: start local, shift the debate to a more radical posture, one primary election at a time.
“My job is to substantially increase the number of people participating in the political process. We’ve been quite successful in this, getting more and more people to run for office. That’s what I’m focusing on.”
Here’s where a shaft of light pierces through the gloom: he is convinced that the resistance is already working. In a 14-minute video posted to Facebook Live immediately after Trump’s joint session to Congress, Sanders went so far as to say that Republicans were on the defensive.
Really? Defensive? That seems a bold statement, given the daily stream of executive orders and the bonfire of regulations coming out of the White House. As evidence, Sanders points to Trump and the Republicans’ much-touted plan to scrap the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
“Well, a funny thing happened,” the senator says. “Millions of people have been actively involved in saying, ‘Excuse me, if you want to improve the Affordable Care Act, let’s do it, but you are not simply going to repeal it and throw 20 million people out on the streets without any health insurance … Now the Republicans are scrambling, they are embarrassed, and that tells me they are on the defensive on that area.”
He gives another, more lurid, example. Republican leaders holding regular town hall meetings across the country have been accosted in recent weeks by angry, banner-wielding protesters opposing the repeal of the healthcare law, and in some cases police have been called. In the wake of the feisty encounters, conservative leaders demanded more security at such events, which Sanders finds indicative: “When Republicans now are literally afraid to hold public meetings – some of them are arguing, ‘Oh my God, we are afraid of security issues!’ – that tells me they know that the American people are prepared to stand up and fight.”
Stand up and fight: it’s classic Bernie Sanders. And it brings us back to the original quandary: how to respond to the authoritarian threat that is Trump. What word of advice would he give a young person, a twentysomething who is scared and who feels that their country is moving against them? What should they do?
“This is what they should do,” he says, pumping out the Bern. “They should take a deep reflection about the history of this country, understand that absolutely these are very difficult and frightening times. But also understand that in moments of crisis, what has happened, time and time again, is that people have stood up and fought back. So despair is absolutely not an option.”
Spare a thought for the Catholics of St Louis, Missouri, weighed down as they are with ponderous spiritual matters. On top of such weighty issues as the Pope’s recent call for an end to the death penalty – a popular pastime in Missouri – they must now wrestle with a new moral conundrum: Girl Scout cookies.
The ethical dilemma is put pithily on the website of the archdiocese of St Louis under the headline: “Can I still buy Girl Scout cookies?” The equally punchy answer states: “Each person must act in accord with their conscience.”
The spiritual crisis over the selling of Thin Mints, Trefoils and Do-si-dos on Catholic premises has been triggered by the archbishop of St Louis, Robert Carlson. In a letter circulated to the region’s priests and scout leaders, he questions whether the Girl Scout movement is spiritually in line with the teachings of the Catholic church.
In the letter, he questions whether Girl Scouts USA, the nationwide network with more than 2 million young female members, and its parent body, the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, should be entrusted with the spiritual formation of its charges given the groups’ support for contraception and abortion. He also accuses them of promoting inappropriate role models such as the feminist writers Gloria Steinem and the late Betty Friedan, and of forging partnerships with human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Oxfam that advocate reproductive rights.
“Girl Scouts is exhibiting a troubling pattern of behavior and it is clear to me that as they move in the ways of the world it is becoming increasingly incompatible with our Catholic values,” the archbishop writes. “We must stop and ask ourselves – is Girl Scouts concerned with the total well-being of our young women? Does it do a good job forming the spiritual, emotional and personal well-being of Catholic girls?”
Though he does not order an immediate severing of ties with the Girl Scouts and their cookies, Carlson does urge each pastor in the region to consider ejecting them from Catholic property and replacing them with other forms of social networking for young female parishioners. Some 4,000 Girl Scouts are currently understood to meet on Catholic premises in St Louis.
“Our primary obligation is to help our girls grow as women of God. Several alternative organizations exist, many of which have a Catholic or Christian background,” Carlson writes.
Girl Scouts USA has not risen to the bait of the archbishop’s letter. In a statement, it said with measured diplomacy that it looked forward “to extending our longstanding relationship with faith-based organizations, including the Catholic Church and Catholic communities throughout the country … We remain committed to building girls of courage, confidence and character, who make the world a better place.”
Girl Scouts of Eastern Missouri said it had enjoyed cooperation with the archdiocese for almost 100 years. “Although we are a secular organization, we greatly value our long-standing partnerships with religious organizations across many faiths.”
Harper Lee, whose 1961 novel To Kill a Mockingbird became a national institution and the defining text on the racial troubles of the American deep south, has died at the age of 89.
Lee, or Nelle as she was known to those close to her, had lived for several years in a nursing home less than a mile from the house in which she had grown up in Monroeville, Alabama – the setting for the fictional Maycomb of her famous book. The town’s mayor, Mike Kennedy, confirmed the author’s death.
Until last year, Lee had been something of a one-book literary wonder. To Kill a Mockingbird, her 1961 epic narrative about small-town lawyer Atticus Finch’s battle to save the life of a black resident threatened by a racist mob, sold more than 40 million copies around the world and earned her a Pulitzer prize.
From that point the author consistently avoided public attention and insisted that she had no intention of publishing further works. But amid considerable controversy it was revealed a year ago that a second novel had been discovered which was published as Go Set a Watchman in July 2015.
Lee was born in Monroeville in 1926 and grew up under the forced racial divide of segregation. As a child she shared summers with another aspiring writer, Truman Capote, who came to stay in the house next door to hers and who later invited her to accompany him to Holcomb, Kansas to help him research his groundbreaking 1966 crime book In Cold Blood.
Capote informed the figure of the young boy Dill in Mockingbird, with his friend the first-person narrator Scout clearly modeled on the childhood Lee herself.
Lee was the youngest child of lawyer Amasa Coleman Lee and Frances Finch Lee. Her father acted as the template for Atticus Finch whose resolute courtroom dignity as he struggles to represent a black man Tom Robinson accused of raping a white woman provides the novel’s ethical backbone.
Last year’s publication of Go Set a Watchman obliged bewildered fans of the novel to reappraise the character of Finch. In that novel, which was in fact the first draft of Mockingbird that had been rejected by her publisher, Finch was portrayed as having been a supporter of the South’s Jim Crow laws, saying at one point: “Do you want Negroes by the carload in our schools and churches and theaters?”
Within minutes of the announcement of the novelist’s death, encomiums began to flow. Her literary agent Andrew Nurnberg said in a statement: “We have lost a great writer, a great friend and a beacon of integrity.”
He added: “Knowing Nelle these past few years has been not just an utter delight but an extraordinary privilege. When I saw her just six weeks ago, she was full of life, her mind and mischievous wit as sharp as ever. She was quoting Thomas Moore and setting me straight on Tudor history.”
Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, tweeted a quote from Mockingbird: “The one thing that doesn’t abide by majority rule is a person’s conscience.”
When Donald Trump, the Republican frontrunner in the race for the White House, dropped his A-bomb on the presidential contest last week by calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, there is little doubt that he knew what he was doing.
Anyone who has spent the past six months honing his political message under the national spotlight would have been wholly aware of the visceral response that such a radical proposal would provoke in the US and around the world.
Yet the policy statement was released in what appears to have been a remarkably cavalier fashion. None of the meticulous pre-release vetting, obsessive focus group testing and media messaging that would be typically carried out by an army of staffers working for any conventional presidential campaign seems to have been done.
The appearance of such a prominent presidential candidate, well ahead in the polls less than two months before the Iowa starting gun, apparently making up contentious policies on the hoof has left an already bewildered Republican party reeling. And it has raised important questions about Trump and his coterie: where is he getting his ideas, and is anybody advising him?
At first look, last Monday’s blast out of the blue certainly appears to have been thinly sourced. Trump’s two-paragraph announcement, released to reporters and then read out before a mostly military crowd on board an aircraft carrier, cited research by the Pew Research Center showing “great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population” – when Pew’s own studies suggest the exact opposite.
He went on to quote the results of a survey showing high levels of violent ideation among American Muslims that was conducted by the Washington-based thinktank, the Center for Security Policy.
Within minutes of the announcement, organisations that monitor hate speech were pointing out that the group’s founder, Frank Gaffney, is a notorious Islamophobe with a long track record in demonizing American Muslims.
When contacted to ask whether Trump had consulted him in advance of making his contentious call for a Muslim lockdown, Gaffney gave a one-word reply: “Nope.” Yet the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate speech, has identified strong connections between Trump and Gaffney running through this year.
The SPLC has found that Gaffney organized summits on national security policy in the three early contesting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and Trump attended each one. The Center for Security Policy also co-sponsored a rally on Iran in September at which Trump and his rival Ted Cruz spoke.
In March, the Center for Security Policy published a pamphlet called Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America that reads like a blueprint for Trump’s Muslim immigration blockade. Its conclusion calls for a “moratorium on Muslim immigration to America” and exhorts supporters to “demand a complete halt”.
Mark Potok, senior fellow at the SPLC, said that Trump’s anti-Muslim statement “turns out to be based entirely on the thoroughly un-American proposals of Frank Gaffney”.
Though the Center for Security Policy certainly appears to have influence on Trump’s campaign policies, it would be wrong to see him in any formal advisory capacity. The truth is that while the billionaire real estate developer has built astrong organization on the ground in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, there is only one person who truly matters in this campaign: Donald Trump himself.
As a Republican familiar with Trump’s efforts said: “He controls all content in his campaign. He dictates the press releases. He decides what reporters he wants to see. He is his own strategist and his own message maker.”
This isn’t to say Trump is making every decision. His campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has overseen a diligent organisation. Sam Clovis, a small-town Iowa college professor and conservative activist, advises Trump on policy and is seen at candidate forums and debates. He even has his own surrogate for cable news appearances, telegenic Tea Party activist Katrina Pierson who recently defended her boss’s Muslim ban with the statement: “So what? They’re Muslim.”
Trump loves to go it alone, though, using his Twitter account to attack his critics. Britain got a taste of that when he warmed to his provocative theme with a succession of slurs about Muslims in the UK, which were rooted so superficially in reality that he found himself relentlessly mocked in a series of absurdist #TrumpFacts.
Most punditry about Trump has revolved around the idea that he will eventually ruin his own chances with one unsustainable remark too far. Yet even while US media have branded his charge for the White House as “the most vulgar, embarrassing campaign of the century”, polling in recent days suggests he is still resonating as he leads overall and has the support of 42% of Republicans for his Muslim ban.
At best it can be said that Trump is evasive about his policy advisers. He told NBC News that when it came to looking around for in-depth military knowledge, “I watch the [TV political] shows.”
The same pattern is shown on domestic policy. The campaign has released several policy papers on topics such as immigration, trade and military veterans’ affairs but they were written by an operative no longer affiliated with the campaign.
The campaign now relies on Trump himself to be the generator of its ideas. As the Republican source put it, in the same way that Ronald Reagan was able to glean facts from newspapers, Trump “just picks stuff up from the internet. He reads it and he keeps it.”
To some extent, this lack of a traditional infrastructure, largely lacking in policy advisers, speechwriters, pollsters, ad-makers or fundraisers all adds to the magical mystery show that is Donald Trump 2016. “It’s part of the presentation of self – that he wants it to appear that he is his own person telling it like it is with no advisers corralling him to do this or that,” said Jeffrey Berry, professor of political science at Tufts University.
But it also leaves him dangerously exposed, and vulnerable to his own tendency to shoot first, aim later. That pattern of behavior was well illustrated last month when he tweeted a panel of what purported to be USA crime figures gathered by the “Crime Statistics Bureau” that had black people being responsible for 81% of homicides of white people.The statistics were not only false – PolitiFact rated them “pants on fire” – they turned out to have come from a Twitter feed with the handle @CheesedBrit that has now been discontinued. The owner of the account described himself as someone who “should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little moustache”.
One reason that the Trump charabanc now looks so chaotic was the departure in August of his top – and pretty much only – political adviser, Roger Stone. In true Trump fashion, the candidate said he’d fired him, while Stone said he left of his own accord out of frustration that the media fights Trump was getting into were drowning out the message.
Either way, his absence, by all accounts, is now being felt. “I don’t think anybody tells Mr Trump what to say or think,” said conservative strategist Chris Barron, who has worked for many years with Stone. “But Roger was one of the few people who have known Mr Trump for decades and was not a yes-man and would challenge him.”
Barron said that a void had now opened up around the leading Republican contender that was problematic. “You can run an unconventional campaign – and Mr Trump is certainly doing that – but you still have to run a campaign.”
A day after 14 people were killed in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, all four Republican presidential candidates in the US Senate – Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio – opposed a measure that would introduce tighter gun laws.
They were among Republicans who overwhelmingly voted down a gun control measure that would extend FBI background checks on every firearms purchase.
Only four of the 54 Republican senators voted on Thursday in favour of applying the checks to currently unregulated sales of firearms online and at gun shows.
Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who co-sponsored a similar failed attempt at gun reform in the wake of the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, was joined in supporting the tighter restrictions by fellow GOP senators Susan Collins of Maine, Mark Kirk of Illinois and John McCain of Arizona. But they were the only four Republicans to do so.
The almost blanket opposition to greater gun controls – even in the wake of the bloodiest mass shooting since Newtown – underlined the hardline position that the Republican party has come to adopt over the second amendment.
A second gun control effort by Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein suffered a similar fate, voted down by a solid Republican bloc giving 54 votes to 45. It would have removed one of the most glaring anomalies of current US gun laws whereby individuals who are listed on the state’s terror watchlist – and forbidden from flying as a result – are nonetheless able to buy lethal firearms.
Both measures were introduced by the Democrats as a means of casting light on the almost rock-solid hostility of the modern Republican party to gun controls despite the rash of recent mass shootings.
It was not always like that. Ronald Reagan, a figure of worship for many modern conservatives, was far more amenable to the idea of intervention to reduce the carnage. The late president, also a former governor of California, was profoundly influenced in his thinking on firearms by the assassination attempt on his life in 1981 that injured him and left his press secretary Jim Brady paralyzed.
Brady went on to found the leading gun control advocacy group in the country, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Reagan himself, on leaving office in 1989, added his considerable political weight to key pieces of gun control legislation. In 1991 he wrote an article for the New York Times titled “Why I’m for the Brady bill” in which he explained why he supported a new provision – named after Jim Brady – that forced gun buyers to wait seven days before acquiring a firearm, giving time for background checks by local police.
“Every year an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns,” Reagan said. “This level of violence must be stopped. If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10-15% of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land.”
Three years later Reagan joined fellow former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford in writing a letter to the Boston Globe in which they backed a ban on assault rifles. “While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals,” the presidents wrote.
It is not coincidental that the shift from Reagan’s relatively moderate stance on guns to the Republican party’s hard line today is mirrored by an identical trajectory shown by the NRA. As Adam Winkler of UCLA has shown, the NRA in the 1920s and 30s was a leading proponent of gun control laws.
The lobby group pioneered legislation that banned the concealed carrying of handguns in public places without police permission. It also backed the introduction of permits that only granted firearms to individuals who could show a “proper reason for carrying”.
Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center and an authority on the NRA, said the group’s moderate position came to an abrupt end in 1977 when it sharply changed tack under the leadership of Harlon Carter. “From then on the NRA dropped its focus on sporting activities and concentrated primarily on politics,” Sugarmann said.
Over the past 20 years the NRA and the Republican party have moved in concert towards increasingly rigid policies opposing any gun controls. Their combined strength has seen the rolling back of even the meagre regulations that were in place, including the lapsing in 2004 of the assault weapons ban that Reagan had supported.
The NRA and its GOP allies in Congress have similarly consistently blocked any attempt to end the situation in which individuals on the terror watchlist are allowed to buy guns. As a result, as the Washington Post has pointed out, in the 10 years up to 2014 suspected terrorists attempted to buy firearms in the US at least 2,233 times.
Given this solid wall of opposition, signs of compromise on the right are extremely few and far between. But there was one such opening on Thursday when the former GOP congressman who was seminal in introducing an NRA-fostered ban on federal research into gun violence announced he now wants to see the prohibition lifted.
Jay Dickey, a former US House representative from Arkansas, called for the scrapping of his 1996 amendment that banned the federal agency the Centers for Disease Control from engaging in research aimed at reducing gun deaths. Hours after the San Bernardino rampage Dickey wrote in a public letter: “Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution.”
Having recently expressed his regrets about the legislation he championed, Dickey went further and argued that from now on the CDC should be allowed to conduct research designed to reduce gun violence. Dickey cited its other important work in investigating how to cut fatalities from car crashes.
“Research could have been continued on gun violence without infringing on the rights of gun owners, in the same fashion that the highway industry continued its research without eliminating the automobile,” Dickey said.
In addition to voting against the gun reform measure in the Senate, one of the Republican presidential candidates – Paul, who is senator for Kentucky – introduced an amendment to allow the federal government to essentially override the District of Columbia’s strict gun control laws. It failed to achieve the necessary 60-vote supermajority to advance and failed by a margin of 54-46.
Meanwhile, Cruz, who represents Texas, and is currently considered among the frontrunners in the Republican race for the White House, announced his campaign would be holding a “second Amendment event” at a gun store in suburban Des Moines on Friday.
When Michael Haas, a former senior airman with the US air force, looks back on the missions he flew over Afghanistan and other conflict zones in a six-year career operating military drones, one of the things he remembers most vividly is the colorful language airmen would use to describe their targets. A team of three would be sitting, he recalls, in a ground control station in Creech air force base outside Las Vegas, staring at computer screens on to which images would be beamed back from high-powered sensors on Predator drones thousands of miles away.
The aim of the missions was to track, and when the conditions were deemed right, kill suspected insurgents. That’s not how they put it, though. They would talk about “cutting the grass before it grows out of control”, or “pulling the weeds before they overrun the lawn”.
And then there were the children. The airmen would be flying the Predators over a village in the tribal areas of Pakistan, say, when a series of smaller black shadows would appear across their screens – telling them that kids were at the scene.
They called them “fun-sized terrorists”.
Haas is one of four former air force drone operators and technicians who as a group have come forward to the Guardian to register their opposition to the ongoing reliance on the technology as the US military’s modern weaponry of choice. Between them, the four men clocked up more than 20 years of direct experience at the coalface of lethal drone programs and were credited with having assisted in the targeted killings of hundreds of people in conflict zones – many of them almost certainly civilians.
As a senior airman in the 15th reconnaissance squadron and 3rd special operations squadron from 2005 to 2011 – a period straddling the presidencies of George W Bush and Barack Obama – Haas participated in targeted killing runs from his computer in Creech that terminated the lives of insurgents in Afghanistan almost 8,000 miles away. He was a sensor operator, controlling the cameras, lasers and other information-gathering equipment on Predator and Reaper drones as well as being responsible for guiding Hellfire missiles to their targets once the pilot sitting next to him had pulled the trigger.
Haas, a 29-year-old, in a Notre Dame baseball cap and Chicago Blackhawks ice hockey jersey, looks too youthful to be burdened by such enormous issues. Yet the existential sensation of killing someone by manipulating a computer joystick has left a deep and lasting impression on him. “Ever step on ants and never give it another thought? That’s what you are made to think of the targets – as just black blobs on a screen. You start to do these psychological gymnastics to make it easier to do what you have to do – they deserved it, they chose their side. You had to kill part of your conscience to keep doing your job every day – and ignore those voices telling you this wasn’t right.”
Haas was relatively lucky, in that his team directly launched only two missile strikes during his 5,000 hours of drone flying. The first of those incidents, in January 2011, involved a group of insurgents in Helmand province, Afghanistan, who were exchanging gunfire with US troops on the ground and were duly eviscerated. “No-doubters”, the targets were called in the cold vocabulary of the military drone business, indicating certainty about their enemy status. Such certainty rarely existed, Haas said.
He has also been spared the burden of knowing the overall number of killings in which he played a part as a cog in the wider machinery of drone warfare. When he left the air force, Haas was given a report card that revealed the tally, but he chose to ignore it.
“They handed me a closed envelope with the number in it, but I never opened it. I didn’t want anything to do with it,” he said.
Brandon Bryant, a staff sergeant who worked with US air force Predator drones between 2005 and 2011 as a sensor operator and imagery analyst, did not get away so lightly. He knows for a fact – he saw it on his screen – that he was directly involved in the deaths of 13 people in five separate Hellfire strikes, one in Iraq and the rest in Afghanista
Bryant, 30, his head shaved and tattoos covering the backs of his hands, carries himself like a leader and seems to be driven by a determination to own a personal responsibility for the drone campaign he was involved in for five years and five days.
His first “shot”, as the former drone operators call the strikes, was in Afghanistan, where Bryant helped guide in F-16 fighter aircraft to kill three individuals who he was told were reinforcements coming to join anti-US Taliban forces. But when he “got eyes” on the targets, it was obvious to him from their body movements – they were hunkering down, gesturing, looking around – that they were terrified, suggesting to him that they were unlikely to be trained fighters.
After the strike was completed, when Bryant was back with his squadron, there were high-fives all round. He was celebrated for having “popped his cherry” – he had broken his drone virginity with a killing.
In the fourth of the Hellfire strikes in which Bryant directly participated, his team was called in to take out a group of five tribal individuals and their camel who were travelling through a pass from Pakistan to Afghanistan. They were said to be carrying explosives for use in attacks on US troops.
Bryant, together with a pilot and mission coordinator who formed the other two members of his team, tracked the group for several hours from their computers outside Las Vegas. They flew the Predator drone out of sight and beyond earshot of the targets at about 20,000 feet and a distance of about four nautical miles from the group on the ground.
He was puzzled during that time, because there was no sign of any weapons on the men or in the baggage carried by the camel. The drone team patiently waited for the men to descend the valley and bed in for the night, before they let rip with the Hellfire. Even then, there were no secondary explosions, which made Bryant think that his hunch had probably been right – five men and a camel had been reduced to dust for no apparent reason.
“We waited for those men to settle down in their beds and then we killed them in their sleep. That was cowardly murder,” he said.
These direct incidents were harrowing enough for Bryant. But then, when he was honorably discharged from the air force in 2011, he made the mistake of doing what Haas had refused to do: he opened the envelope with the report card in it that itemized the number of killings in which he had played some assisting role.
The number was 1,626.
The impact of such knowledge, and the myriad other stresses of sitting in a tin box in Nevada tracking individuals for potential assassination on the other side of the globe, has taken a heavy toll on Bryant and other drone operators. Studies have found similar levels of depression and PTSD among drone pilots working behind a bank of computers as among military personnel deployed to the battlefield.
Westmoreland was troubled by the disclosure, and from 2009 to this day has been disturbed by recurring nightmares. “I’m in the radio unit flipping switches, with my boss yelling at me to get it up and running. Then all of a sudden it does start working and I realize with a jolt what I’ve done. I run out of the control station and now I’m in a village in Afghanistan and the whole place is burnt out and there’s a woman on the ground covered in soot and a child crying over her. I go up to help the child, but half of her face is blown off and there’s nothing I can do.”
The four former drone operators who talked to the Guardian described the various ways in which they and their peers would try to cope during shifts of up to 12 hours. Airmen would show up to the control station drunk; others would sleep on the job, read comic books or play video games on their secure computers.
Despite the load they were carrying, they were disparaged within the wider air force. “We were looked down upon, because we were wearing flight suits but not sitting in the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Drones were like a joke in the military,” Bryant said.
Toward the end of his service, Haas switched to training new recruits in the technology of drone warfare. That shocked him anew, as he discovered that many of the younger intake were gung-ho about the power they wielded at their fingertips. “They just wanted to kill,” he said.
He remembers one training session with a student in which they were flying live over Afghanistan. The student said that a group of people on the ground looked suspicious.
Why? Haas asked. Because they look like they are up to no good, the student replied.
Would you act on that? the instructor asked. Sure, the student said.
Haas immediately pulled him from his seat, took over the mission himself, and promptly failed the student. “I tried to get the students to understand that preservation of innocent life had to take priority.”
Because he failed the student, Haas was later rebuked by senior officers. They told him that they were short of bodies to keep the drones flying, and they ordered him to pass students in future so that there would be a sufficient number trained and ready to go.
Qumotria Kennedy, a 36-year-old single mother with teenage kids from Biloxi, Mississippi, was driving around the city with a friend in July when they were pulled over by police for allegedly running a stop sign. Though Kennedy was the passenger, her name was put through a police database that flashed up a warrant for her arrest on charges that she failed to pay $400 in court fines.
The fines were for other traffic violations dating back to 2013. At that time, Kennedy says she told her probation officers – a private company called Judicial Corrections Services Inc (JCS) – that she was so poor there was no way she could find the money.
She worked as a cleaner at the baseball field in downtown Biloxi, earning less than $9,000 a year – well below the federal poverty level for a single person, let alone a mother of two dependent children. Her plea fell on deaf ears: a JCS official told her that unless she paid her fines in full, as well as a $40 monthly fee to JCS for the privilege of having them as her probation officers, she would go to jail – an arrest warrant was duly secured to that effect through the Biloxi municipal court
Nor was Kennedy’s inability to pay her fines as a result of poverty taken into account by the police officer when he stopped her in July, she said. Discovering the arrest warrant, he promptly put her in handcuffs and took her to a Gulfport jail.
There she was told that unless she came up with all the money – by now the figure had bloated as a result of JCS’s monthly fees to $1,000 – she would stay in jail. And so she did. Kennedy spent the next five days and nights in a holding cell.
“It was filthy,” she told the Guardian. “The toilet wasn’t working, there was no hot water and I was put in the cell with a woman who had stabbed her husband, so I was scared the entire time. For the first three days, they wouldn’t even let me tell my kids where I was.”
Kennedy is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit lodged on Wednesday with a federal district court in Gulfport against the city of Biloxi, its police department, the municipal court system and the private probation company JCS. The filing, drawn up by the American Civil Liberties Union, claims that the agencies collectively conspired to create a modern form of debtors’ prison as a ruse to extract cash from those least able to afford it – the city’s poor.
In a statement, the city of Biloxi said it had not yet seen the lawsuit but insisted that it treated all defendants fairly. “We believe the ACLU is mistaken about the process in Biloxi,” the city said. “The court has used community service in cases where defendants are unable to pay their fines.”
A request for comment from the Guardian to JCS was not immediately answered.
Kennedy v City of Biloxi discloses that between September 2014 and March this year, at least 415 people were put in jail under warrants charging them with failure to pay fines owed to the city. According to court records, none of these 415 people had the money available when they were locked up.
Nusrat Choudhury, an ACLU attorney involved in the lawsuit, called the Biloxi system “a debtors’ prison from the dark ages”. She said that people were being “arrested at traffic stops and in their homes, taken to jail and subjected to a jailhouse shakedown. They are told that unless they pay the full amount they will stay inside for days”.
That’s not just an idle threat. One of the plaintiffs in Kennedy v City of Biloxi, a 51-year-old homeless man named Richard Tillery, spent 30 days in jail for failure to pay fines for misdemeanors that mainly related to his homelessness and poverty. Another of the plaintiffs, Joseph Anderson, 52, who was physically disabled having had four heart attacks, was handcuffed in front of his girlfriend and her son and put in jail for seven nights for failure to pay a $170 police ticket for speeding.
Debtors’ prisons were abolished in the United States almost two centuries ago. The informal practice of incarcerating people who cannot pay fines or fees was also explicitly outlawed by the US supreme court in 1983 in a ruling that stated that to punish an individual for their poverty was a violation of the 14th amendment of the US constitution that ensures equal protection under the law.
In that judgment, the nation’s highest court ordered all authorities across the country to consider an individual’s ability to pay before jailing them or sentencing them to terms of imprisonment. Yet the plaintiffs in the Biloxi lawsuit all found themselves carted straight to jail without any prior legal hearing and with no representation by a lawyer – a fast-tracking to detention that the complaint argues is a flagrant abuse of the supreme court’s ruling, now more than 30 years old.
The pattern of judicial behavior outlined in Kennedy v City of Biloxi is replicated throughout the US as local authorities seeking new revenue sources jail their poor citizens, allegedly as a way of intimidating them to hand over money they do not have. In 2010, the ACLU exposed similar practices they say are akin to modern-day debtors’ prisons in Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio and Washington. Lawsuits have followed, with Georgia and Washington both being sued this year.
At its most extreme, the incarceration of poor debtors can cost them their lives. Last month David Stojcevski, 32, died in jail 16 days into a 30-day sentence for failing to pay a $772 fine for careless driving – a sum he could not afford, his family said. Ray Staten died in 2011 in the same Gulfport jail in which Qumotria Kennedy was held five days after he was locked up for failure to pay a $409 court fine.
There is no nationwide database of the syndrome of pay-or-stay incarceration, but Choudhury said that anecdotal evidence pointed to a growth in the practice in recent years. “We see cities relying increasingly on court fines and fees as a way of generating revenue.”
In Biloxi, a town of 44,000, the amount of money raised is disclosed in the budget of the city’s municipal court general fund. In the 2014-15 budget it was $1.27m; in the 2015-2016 budget it had risen to $1.45m.
Yet census data from the American Community Survey shows that the percentage of the city’s population that lives below the federal poverty level doubled between 2009 and 2013, from 13% to 28%.
That makes people like Qumotria Kennedy increasingly vulnerable to the trap set for them – pay up or go to jail. As a result of her jail time in July, she lost her job at the MGM Park baseball fields having failed to turn up for work and currently she only gets one or two days cleaning a week.
A judge at the municipal court placed her on 12 months’ probation under a new private company – JCS having ceased to operate in Mississippi – and she is still clocking up an additional $40 a month in fees owing to them. Her current burden to the city, rising with every month that passes, stands at $1,251; unless she can find a new, well-paying job and begin to pay off the fines soon, she faces a return to the holding cell.
“The probation person told me if I don’t pay it, I will be arrested again sooner or later,” Kennedy said. “I don’t believe this is right. I just hope other people in the world don’t get treated like I have.”
On 29 April last year Amanda Kimbrough sat down in her cell inside the notoriously tough Tutwiler women’s prison in Wetumpka, Alabama, and began writing a letter in which she described her feelings of loss and remorse. It was a poignant moment, as six years earlier to the day her only son Timmy had been born prematurely and had died from complications at birth after only 19 minutes.
“Tim Jr would be six years old [today],” she wrote, “and not a day goes by I don’t think of him. While I was out we keep his grave decorated and kept up, my husband and family do while I’m here.”
That Kimbrough – Alabama offender 287089, as the state branded her – should be thinking of her son on the anniversary of his death needs no explanation. But the poignancy of the letter is heightened by the knowledge that it was because of Timmy’s stillbirth at 25 weeks that she was locked up in the first place.
Kimbrough was prosecuted for the “chemical endangerment” of her fetus relating to her on-off struggle with drug addiction. The case was pursued so forcefully by the state of Alabama that she was charged with a class A felony – equivalent to murder – and taken all the way to trial, in what is thought to be the only full trial hearing of its sort in the country.
Later, the profound legal issues raised by the case would rise up through appeals all the way to the Alabama supreme court, the highest judicial panel in the state, where it would set a new precedent. In effect, it renders all pregnant women vulnerable to prosecution for any harm they might cause their fetus at any time after the moment of conception.
At her trial, Kimbrough was warned that if she was found guilty, she would face a mandatory sentence of 10 years to life in prison. In the end, though, she felt the deck was too stacked against her to take that risk.
When her trial lawyer asked the court to be allowed to call an expert medical witness to testify that Kimbrough’s drug problems were not responsible for her son’s stillbirth, the request was denied. So she pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 10 years.
Kimbrough was released from Tutwiler, an institution that the federal government has castigated for being rife with abuse of prisoners, earlier this month. She had spent more than three years in prison.
Over the past two years of her sentence, Kimbrough has engaged in a dialogue with the Guardian, exchanging letters from her prison cell. In the letters, she discusses in moving detail her son’s death, her thoughts about Alabama’s decision to prosecute her, and the impact of her imprisonment on her remaining three daughters.
In the letter written last year on the anniversary of Timmy’s death, Kimbrough revealed one of the great ironies in her case – she is herself firmly opposed to abortion. “I am against abortion, I was going to keep my baby no matter what … It’s my baby. I’d do any and everything I could for my kids,” she said.
In an earlier letter to the Guardian, written from Tutwiler in February 2014, she spelled out what occurred. Early in her pregnancy, she said, she had been tested for Down syndrome and was advised by doctors to travel to Birmingham, Alabama, for an abortion at 20 weeks. “I refused,” she wrote bluntly.
Five weeks later, she began having difficulties with her pregnancy. She knew she was high risk in any case – her first two children, Kimberly “Nicole”, now 16, and Kailey, 13, had both been born prematurely, at seven and eight months respectively.
At 25 weeks and five days into her third pregnancy, Kimbrough went into labor. She rushed into the hospital and was given an emergency caesarian section. “I never heard my son cry and I panicked, asking why,” she said.
Timmy Wayne Kimbrough was not breathing when he was born, and his body was blue. “I got to hold my son. He was big for his size at 21 weeks he weighed 2 lb 1 ounce, 12 inches long. It’s the worst thing I’ve ever been through,” she wrote.
After the stillbirth, Kimbrough’s obstetrician diagnosed “occult cord prolapse” – the umbilical cord had descended through the birth canal ahead of the fetus, cutting off blood flow. Yet the authorities chose to ignore that finding, focusing instead on another detail that emerged after the death – that a urine sample taken from Kimbrough had shown traces of the drug methamphetamine.
At that point, the cogs of Alabama’s justice system began to turn. In 2006, state legislators passed a “chemical endangerment” law. It was initially conceived as a way to protect young children exposed to noxious fumes or explosions when their parents ran improvised meth labs from their kitchens.
But soon after the law was enacted, state prosecutors began applying it in a way that had never been intended – against pregnant women. The investigative website ProPublica and AL.com have calculated that since 2006 at least 479 pregnant women have been prosecuted for “chemical endangerment” of their fetuses, most commonly for smoking marijuana.
One of those 479 was Amanda Kimbrough. In September 2008, she was charged with the chemical endangerment of a child with bond set at half a million dollars. The indictment said she “did knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally cause or permit a child, Timmy Wayne Kimbrough, to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, to wit: methamphetamine”.
Kimbrough, who declined to be interviewed by the Guardian following her release from prison, is an example of a trend that in recent years has swept across not just Alabama but several other states from Tennessee and South Carolina to Wisconsin. Hundreds of women have been prosecuted – some for murder – for harms allegedly inflicted on their fetuses, even though in many cases their pregnancies have ended with the birth of healthy babies.
Lynn Paltrow, an authority on the subject who is executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, says that the spread of aggressive new tactics by prosecutors across several states has led to the effective criminalization of pregnancy in the US. “States are saying that they know what is best for fertilized eggs, and because they know best they can tell a pregnant women that she’s a criminal and that she must do whatever her doctor – or a social worker, or law enforcement officer, or lawyer appointed to represent her fetus – says.”
In 2013, Paltrow’s organization compiled a peer-reviewed study that documented more than 400 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty between 1973, when Roe v Wade legalized abortion, and 2005. In the 10 years since 2005, the group has identified a further 800 cases and Paltrow said she believes the true figure is significantly higher.
A ‘personhood’ agenda
Kimbrough’s prosecution has not only had devastating consequences for her personally, it has also set a precedent that will affect countless other women following her. Two years ago, her case rose all the way to the supreme court of Alabama, the highest judicial panel in the state.
The judges ruled that the word “child” in the chemical endangerment law could be applied equally to unborn fetuses. To the astonishment of experts in reproductive health, the court went further and said that the law did not have to be restricted to viable fetuses – the standard set for abortion in Roe v Wade – but could in effect be used to prosecute pregnant women from the moment of conception.
Brian White, Kimbrough’s attorney, said that in his view her prosecution was a “backdoor way to promote the ‘personhood’ agenda - the idea that at any time after conception the fetus should be considered a person with full legal rights”.
Lynn Paltrow said that the impact of such a “personhood” approach was that an entire system of separate and unequal laws had been created for pregnant women.
“They say this protects unborn fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses which have as much right to state protection as children. But there is no way to recognize the separate rights for fetuses without removing women from the protection of the federal constitution.”
She went on: “It creates a burden on all fertile women – because once there is a fertilized egg something they did yesterday that wasn’t a crime could be a crime today. So if they are taking painkillers for a painful back, they are now guilty of a crime.”
Medical and other authorities including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have spoken out vociferously against the proliferating laws criminalizing pregnancy. They warn that such a penal approach could frighten women away from seeking prenatal care which in turn could put both them and their fetuses in danger.
Threatening addicts with imprisonment can also be counterproductive, dissuading them from going to rehab and steering them away from safe medical treatment for their babies, who may themselves be addicted in the womb to their mother’s drugs. And then there’s a question of where will it all end – where do you draw the line?
As Chuck Malone, then chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, put it in a dissenting opinion in the Kimbrough case, what would happen to a “woman who has conceived, but who is without knowledge that she is pregnant, and who thereafter has a glass of wine”?
‘I’ll always blame myself’
Kimbrough in her letters to the Guardian explained that she had wrestled with meth addiction for about five years after the birth of her first two children. She was adamant, however, she had been clean for about two years before she became pregnant with Timmy.
Then she momentarily let her guard down. “One day, a friend came by and had some meth. I don’t know why but I did a line,” she wrote in the letter on the anniversary of her son’s death.
Asked whether she believes the meth harmed her unborn child, she said: “Maybe, maybe not.” But she added: “I should’ve been offered help to start with.”
In the letters, Kimbrough expressed conflicting views about what had happened. She said: “I’ll always blame myself.”
But she also said that “a lot of other factors” were involved in the stillbirth, including her propensity to have premature deliveries. She also felt deeply that her remaining children – Kimberly, Kailey and Josie, who was only two when Kimbrough was arrested – had been punished by the state of Alabama for something they had nothing to do with.
In March last year, when she was about halfway through her sentence, Kimbrough wrote to the Guardian and said: “The kids are doing alright I guess. But they’re ready for me to get home to them. Of course I worry about my girls, what mother wouldn’t? We write every week, we talk on the phone, and we visit once a month for two to three hours.”
Then she said: “I think it’s wrong that I’ve been taken away from them. I think they should’ve offered me some type of drug rehab. People make mistakes in life every day. I made mine, but my children shouldn’t be punished for it.”
Her lawyer Brian White agreed. “I don’t believe that the problem of drug use by pregnant women ought to be dealt with by putting them in prison and depriving children of their mother.”
White currently has three other “chemical endangerment” cases on his client list, all involving women who were subjected to drug tests in the hospital at birth and found to have consumed marijuana. All three had given birth to healthy babies, but now face prosecution and possible criminal records that could impair their employment and other chances for the rest of their lives.
White said that it was no coincidence that women facing such charges were offered the possibility of enlisting in pre-trial intervention programs as a means to avoid conviction, but at a cost that could run into thousands of dollars. “The way I look at it, Alabama is bankrolling itself by extracting a tax on poor pregnant women.”
Since Timmy’s death, Kimbrough has been free from drugs. “I never had tried drugs with any of my three girls,” she stressed, adding: “A person can change. I know I have. People (myself included) deserve a second chance to prove theirselves.”
Kimbrough took the trouble on Thanksgiving day last year to write another letter to the Guardian. “I continue to give a lot to God and just hang on,” she said. “I know I made a mistake, a fatal one I have to live with every day. I just take it one day at a time. God has a reason for everything even if I don’t know.”
Wrapping his words in the cloak of a church sermon, deploying the inflections and oratorical rhythms of a pastor, Barack Obama delivered one of his most searing speeches on modern race relations in America at a funeral service in Charleston on Friday.
In the course of eulogising Reverend Clementa Pinckney, the pastor of the Mother Emanuel African American church who was shot dead in his own sanctuary along with eight of his flock last week, Obama addressed several of the most contentious debates that have erupted since the shooting.
He referred to the gun rampage by an avowed white supremacist as an act of terrorism, linking it to America’s long history of racist church bombings and arsons.
He said the shooting was not a random act, “but a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress”. He said the alleged shooter, who he did not name, had imagined his deed would “incite fear and recrimination, violence and suspicion”, as “an act that he presumed would deepen divisions that trace back to our nation’s original sin”.
In the course of a eulogy in which Obama had the audacity to sing Amazing Grace in front of a rapt audience of 5,500 mostly African Americans in the College of Charleston TD Arena, the president also made a robust case for the tearing down of the Confederate flag. As debate continues to rage over the enduring presence of the old secessionist symbol across much of the deep south, Obama said bluntly that the flag was a “reminder of systemic oppression and racial subjugation”.
The flag did not cause the murder of nine churchgoers at a Bible-study meeting on 17 June, Obama said. “But as people from all walks of life – Republicans and Democrats – have acknowledged, the flag has always represented more than just ancestral pride.”
He said taking down the flag from the grounds of South Carolina’s state capitol in Columbia “would not be an act of political correctness, it would not be an insult to the valour of Confederate soldiers, it would simply be an acknowledgement that the cause for which they fought – the cause of slavery – was wrong.”
Speaking in front of political leaders from both sides of the partisan divide, including Hillary Clinton and the Republican leader John Boehner, as well as African American household names such as Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton, Obama also called for action to address what he called the “mayhem” of gun violence in America.
He also touched on police brutality towards black communities, endemic poverty in many African American neighbourhoods and Republican attempts to introduce new voting laws that would make it more difficult for people to cast their vote.
“None of us can or should expect a transformation in race relations overnight,” Obama said, adding that whenever a tragedy happened such as the massacre at the Mother Emanuel church in Charleston there were calls for a debate.
“We talk a lot about race,” he said. “There is no short cut, we don’t need more talk. People of goodwill will continue to debate the merit of various policies as our democracy requires. There are good people on both sides of these debates. Whatever solutions we find will be incomplete. But it would be a betrayal of everything Reverend Pinckney stood for if we allow ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. To go back to business as usual as we so often do.”
He said that after a week of reflection on the Charleston shooting he had concluded that what was required now was “an open heart. That more than a particular policy or analysis, that’s what I think is needed.”
Then, after what must be one of the longest pauses he has ever held in the middle of a public speech, the president of the United States began to sing Amazing Grace. The arena burst into song alongside him.
Obama first met Pinckney in 2007, during the early stages of his first run to the White House. Pinckney was an early supporter of Obama’s bid for the presidency.
The president said he did not know Pinckney well, but he did a little. He described the pastor as a “man of God who lived by faith … when Clementa Pinckney entered a room it was like the future had arrived.”
Pinckney, 41 when he died, made an impact on those around him from an early age. He was only 13 when he had what he took to be a message from God calling him to preach and by 18 he enjoyed his first appointment as pastor. He was elected to the South Carolina legislature in 1996, aged 23, the youngest African American to hold a seat in the assembly, going on to become a state senator just four years later.
A massive crowd of mourners descended on the College of Charleston well before the official funeral service began. Thousands came in hope of securing a place inside the arena, standing from soon after dawn in a line that ran down three blocks and snaked all the way around the corner.
In the blazing heat, mourners huddled under umbrellas and relied on bottles of water handed out among the crowd.
“We expected a large turnout,” a White House official said. “But this is overwhelming.”
The tone of the funeral service that preceded Obama’s eulogy was one of celebration of Pinckney’s life rather than dwelling on the unconscionable act of racial hatred that ended it.
“Senator Pinckney’s last act was to open his doors to someone he did not know, who did not look like him,” said the Honorable Reverend Joseph Neal, referring to Dylann Roof, the suspected shooter. “So let us not close the doors. Do not let race and politics close the doors that Senator Pinckney opened.”
A succession of speakers from South Carolina’s church as well as political circles remembered Pinckney for his booming voice, his skills as a preacher, and his loyalty as a father, husband and friend.
“Tell the people that Reverend Clementa Pinckney walked the talk,” said Reverend George Flowers. “He was the embodiment of the sermon. He was humble, caring, compassionate, supportive, a man of integrity.”
Only one speaker referred directly to Roof, albeit without using his name. Reverend John Gillison told the crowd: “Someone should have told that young man! He wanted to start a race war, but he came to the wrong place.”
In moving messages to their father published in the official order of service, Pinckney’s two young daughters said their goodbyes. Malana, who hid with her mother Jennifer in a side room in the Mother Emanuel church while her father was being killed along with eight others, wrote in her message:
The idea that police officers should use handcuffs and leg shackles to control an unruly individual is hardly unusual in the US, where fondness for the use of metal restraints runs through the criminal justice system.
What is unusual is when the individual in question is five years old, and the arrest takes place in an elementary school.
New York state police were called last week to the primary school in Philadelphia, New York, close to the Canadian border, after staff reported that a pupil, Connor Ruiz, was disruptive and uncontrollable. When officers arrived at the premises, they placed the five-year-old boy in handcuffs, carried him out to a patrol car and put his feet into shackles before taking him to a medical center for evaluation.
The child’s mother, Chelsea Ruiz, told the local Watertown Daily Times she was shocked and angered by what had happened.
“An officer told me they had to handcuff his wrists and ankles for their safety,” she said. “I told him that was ridiculous. How could someone fear for their safety when it comes to a small, five-year-old child?”
A spokesman for the state police force, Jack Keller, justified the constraints on grounds that the child was “out of control” and “combative”, and was deemed to be a danger to himself or staff. Troopers had found him “screaming, kicking, punching and biting”.
“Our concern was his safety, of not only himself but the staff he was dealing with and the other students in the class where he was,” Keller said.
Handcuffing of young children is frequently reported in the US. Last December, a child aged four was handcuffed in Nathanael Greene primary school in Stanardsville, Virginia.
In 2013, the handcuffing of a nine-year-old girl in Portland, Oregon prompted a public outcry that forced the police department to revise its rules. The new procedures forbid officers from handcuffing a child under 12, unless they pose a “heightened risk to safety”.
Ruiz said that two weeks ago she had placed her son in a special-needs class, precisely to avoid the kind of incident that occurred when police were called to the school.
“We had a plan in place so they would call me to come to the school if they couldn’t calm him down,” she said, “and they didn’t do that.”
She said Connor was “terrified of going back to school”, and added that she planned to transfer him to a different school district.
Within 12 hours of Bruce Jenner’s double coming out on network television Friday night – in which the former Olympian told ABC News that he identifies both as a woman and as a Republican – the hostility he is likely to face from some of his newly revealed party associates was on full display in Minnesota.
On Saturday morning, the Twittersphere was still digesting Jenner’s comments to Diane Sawyer that “for all [intents and purposes], I am a woman” and that he has always been “more on the conservative side”. But at the same moment, Republican leaders were gathering on the floor of Minnesota’s house of representatives to promote a vicious legislative attack on transgender rights.
They were pushing a new provision, HF 1546, that would ban students from using school bathrooms, showers and changing rooms other than those for the gender into which they were assigned.
Similar moves have swept Republican-held assemblies in six other US states this year – Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada and Texas. Opponents of the bills call them “bathroom bounty laws” because in some cases they allow individuals to sue for up to $4,000 should they find themselves sharing bathroom facilities with a transgender person.
Though none of the bills has passed so far, they are seen as a sign of a new aggressiveness on the part of state-level Republicans in publicly expressing overt hostility towards transgender people. As such, they highlight some of the political and ideological tensions that Jenner could now face as a conservative embarking on gender transition.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality and a trans woman herself, said that she saw no essential contradiction between Jenner’s transgender identity and his conservatism if by that he meant a belief in efficient and small government.
“It’s not Republicans who think government should get out of people’s lives who are the problem, it’s those who want to put it right in our faces,” she said.
When Jenner said he was “kind of more on the conservative side”, Sawyer asked him: “Are you Republican?”
“Yeah,” he said. “Is that a bad thing? I believe in the constitution.”
Keisling said she would welcome Jenner’s help in fighting what she called “mean-spirited, time-wasting knuckleheads” within the Republican party who were promoting the new bathroom legislation. “We welcome anybody who’s prepared to get involved in dealing with this legal nonsense.”
In his Sawyer interview, Jenner – who has asked that until further notice he still be referred to as “he” – said he was willing to ask the Republican leaders in Congress, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, to engage with trans issues. He said he expected them to be “very receptive to it”.
But the relationship between Republicans and the LGBT community has come under renewed stress recently as the large pool of potential candidates vying to become the party’s presidential nominee in 2016 have been tying themselves in knots over same-sex marriage.
The tension burst to the surface on Sunday when a gay hotelier apologized in the face of an LGBT boycott for his “poor judgment” in hosting a political event by Republican senator Ted Cruz, who has been touting his opposition to gay marriage around the country.
The main LGBT group on the right, Log Cabin Republicans, has been swift in inviting Jenner to join them, seeing in the former athlete and reality TV star a potential champion of their cause. The organization’s national executive director, Gregory Angelo, said that the idea that transgender identity and conservatism were mutually exclusive was a myth put out through the media by the gay left.
“There’s a very diverse LGBT community out there that aligns itself with basic conservative principles,” he said.
Angelo added that the philosophy of the group was to engage fellow Republicans with the 90% of politics in which they were in agreement, and then take on the more difficult 10%. “We remind the GOP of the roots of the party – in equality, in emancipation, suffrage and civil rights.”
Not everyone is convinced that accommodation is possible, however. Jimmy LaSalvia, an openly gay conservative strategist and founder of the now defunct GoProud, said that he decided last year to quit the Republican party after a decade of trying to reform it from within.
“The reason I left was that the Republican party made it clear that there was no place for LGBT communities within it. There’s just not the support on the right for that kind of diversity,” he said.
LaSalvia said that there were plenty of LGBT people attracted to conservative economic policies. “But more and more LGBT Americans are finding it embarrassing to commit themselves as Republicans even if they are conservatives.”
LaSalvia believes that Jenner’s coming out will make it all the more difficult for Republicans to stick to the past. “The interview was so powerful because millions of Americans look up to him. So now when Republicans push policies that are openly hostile towards transgender people, what they are doing will hit home for everyone.”
Blake Layman broke into a house unarmed. The homeowner opened fire, injuring him and killing a friend. But Indiana law means he is officially a murderer
Blake Layman made one very bad decision. He was 16, an unexceptional teenager growing up in a small Indiana town. He’d never been in trouble with the law, had a clean criminal record, had never owned or even held a gun.
That decision sparked a chain of events that would culminate with his arrest and trial for “felony murder”. The boy was unarmed, had pulled no trigger, killed no one. He was himself shot and injured in the incident while his friend standing beside him was also shot and killed. Yet Layman would go on to be found guilty by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 55 years in a maximum-security prison for a shooting that he did not carry out.
How Blake Layman got to be in the Kafkaesque position in which he now finds himself – facing the prospect of spending most of the rest of his life in a prison cell for a murder that he did not commit – is the subject on Thursday of a special hearing of the Indiana supreme court, the state’s highest judicial panel. How the judges respond to the case of what has become known as the “Elkhart Four” could have implications for the application of so-called “felony murder” laws in Indiana and states across the union.
It was about 2pm on 3 October 2012, and Layman was hanging out after school in his home town of Elkhart with a couple of buddies, Jose Quiroz, also 16, and Levi Sparks, 17. They smoked a little weed, got a little high, and had a moan with each other about how broke they were.
Layman looks back on that afternoon and wonders why did he do it? Why did he throw it all away? He was doing well at school, had an evening job at Wendy’s, had a girlfriend he liked, was preparing to take his driving test. “It felt to me like life was really coming together at that point,” he said.
Within minutes, all that promise vaporised in an act of teenaged madness. Someone noticed that the grey pickup truck belonging to Rodney Scott, the guy who lived across the street, wasn’t in its usual parking spot. The homeowner must be at work or away somewhere. The house, by extension, must be empty.
On the spur of the moment, Layman and his teenaged buddies came up with a plan to break into the house, grab a few things to sell and quit before Scott returned. It would be easy, a harm-free ruse to get hold of some spending money.
It all happened so fast. They called a couple of older friends from down the road, Danzele Johnson, 21, and Anthony Sharp, 18, to join them. They knocked as loudly as he could on Scott’s door and when there was no reply – confirmation in their minds that the house was vacant – they broke open the side door. Five minutes out from having had the original idea, four of them were in the house with Sparks keeping lookout outside.
They ran through the kitchen, Layman pocketing a wallet on the kitchen table without stopping to think why it would be left there if the house was empty. They had a look around the spare bedroom and then indicated to each other it was time to leave.
That’s when the shooting started. Layman heard the boom of a gun and scrambled to hide in the bedroom closet. Danzele Johnson fell into the closet beside him. When Layman looked down he saw Johnson’s shirt stained red with blood. Layman crouched down in terror, and noticed that he too had been shot and that blood was streaming down his right leg.
Rodney Scott was not, as the boys had assumed, out of the house. He had been asleep upstairs and when he heard the commotion of the break-in grabbed his handgun. Not knowing that the intruders were unarmed, he let off a couple of rounds that put a bullet through Layman’s leg and hit Johnson in the chest, killing him.
Layman replays those fateful minutes for the Guardian as he sits in a visitor’s room in Wabash Valley correctional facility, a maximum-security prison in the south-west of Indiana where he is serving his sentence. He is dressed in standard-issue khaki and grey, his hair cropped short in classic prison style.
He recalls that a couple of hours after his arrest, he was told by officials at the county jail in his home town of that he was being charged with “felony murder”. “I was shellshocked,” he told the Guardian. “Felony murder? That’s the first I’d heard of it. How could it be murder when I didn’t kill anyone?”
The charge was not a mistake. At the end of a four-day trial in September 2013 in which they were all judged as adults, Layman, Sharp and Sparks were found guilty of felony murder. (Quiroz pleaded guilty under a plea deal and was given 45 years.) Layman was dispatched to the prison, still aged 17, to begin his 55 years in a lock-up cell.
The legal anomaly at the heart of what has become known in criminal justice circles as the case of the “Elkhart 4” will be the subject on Thursday of a special hearing by the Indiana supreme court, the state’s highest legal panel. The judges have asked lawyers for Layman and for the prosecution to address that specific question: is it consistent with Indiana law that he and his friends who were all unarmed, who fired not a single shot, and who in fact were themselves fired upon, one fatally, by a third party – the homeowner Rodney Scott – could be put away for decades for murder?
The conundrum is not an arcane one. Some 46 states in the union have some form of felony murder rule on their statute books. Of those, 11 states unambiguously allow for individuals who commit a felony that ends in a death to be charged with murder even when they were the victims, rather than the agents, of the killing.
In Indiana the wording of the felony murder law is more nuanced than those of the other 11 states. It says that a “person who kills another human being while committing or attempting to commit … burglary … commits murder, a felony.”
Cara and Joel Wieneke, the legal duo who represent Layman , said that at the heart of the argument they will be presenting to the supreme court is the issue of agency. “The plain language of the statute requires the defendant or one of his accomplices to do the killing. In Blake’s case neither he nor any of his co-perpetrators killed anybody – this was a justified killing by the person who was protecting his home,” Joel Wieneke told the Guardian.
Layman’s mother, Angie Johnson, expressed a similar thought in lay terms. She told the Guardian that “stealing and killing are two different things. In this case they took stealing and they turned it into killing – my son doesn’t deserve that.”
Blake Layman has had plenty of time to contemplate his action, and its consequences, since that Wednesday afternoon in 2012. “I’ve thought about it a lot. I made this bad decision and it derailed my entire life. I just wish I could go back and tell my 16-year-old self to see sense.”
He’s done a lot of growing up behind bars, shedding his child’s skin and the reckless decision-making that came with it. “I know I did wrong. I know I committed a crime. From the very beginning I’ve never disputed that. If they had brought me a burglary plea bargain I would have signed it, because I was guilty. I made a bad choice, and I gladly take responsibility for it,” he said.
But the one thing that he does not accept is that he is a murderer. “I’m not a killer,” he said.
Layman’s wounds have healed, leaving two very neat tattoos on the side and back of his leg where the bullet entered and exited. But he continues to feel deep remorse for what happened.
Police reports show that when the arresting officers turned up at Scott’s house, they found Layman lying face down on the carpet of the bedroom saying “I’m sorry, I’m sorry,” over and over again.
“I realised how bad everything had gone,” he told the Guardian. “I knew Danzele was dead. I was apologising to him, and to the homeowner – both of them really.”
He also had the chance to apologise to Danzele Johnson’s mother, who visited him in county jail when he was awaiting trial. “I told her if I get the chance, whenever I get out, I promised her I’d do right. Danzele was 21 years old and he didn’t get the chance to live his life. So I said I was going to do right when I get out, not just for me but also for him.”
Today Layman is housed in a wing of Wabash prison where inmates are put as a reward for best behaviour. He’s taking cognitive thinking classes, has learnt how to quilt, and spends a lot of time in the library reading up on the law. “I feel like if I have to do my time, why not better myself as much as I can while I’m here,” he said.
He’s hoping he will be allowed to walk free from prison before it’s too late. “I just want a chance to live,” he said. “I’ll go to work every day, and come home to my wife and kids. When I think of my future that’s what I see. I don’t ask for much.”
Google took almost three years to disclose to the open information group WikiLeaks that it had handed over emails and other digital data belonging to three of its staffers to the US government, under a secret search warrant issued by a federal judge.
WikiLeaks has written to Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, to protest that the search giant only revealed the warrants last month, having been served them in March 2012. In the letter, WikiLeaks says it is “astonished and disturbed” that Google waited more than two and a half years to notify its subscribers, potentially depriving them of their ability to protect their rights to “privacy, association and freedom from illegal searches”.
The letter, written by WikiLeaks’ New York-based lawyer, Michael Ratner of the Center For Constitutional Rights, asks Google to list all the materials it provided to the FBI. Ratner also asks whether the California-based company did anything to challenge the warrants and whether it has received any further data demands it has yet to divulge.
Google revealed to WikiLeaks on Christmas Eve – a traditionally quiet news period – that it had responded to a Justice Department order to hand over a catch-all dragnet of digital data including all emails and IP addresses relating to the three staffers. The subjects of the warrants were the investigations editor of WikiLeaks, the British citizen Sarah Harrison; the spokesperson for the organisation, Kristinn Hrafnsson; and Joseph Farrell, one of its senior editors.
When it notified the WikiLeaks employees last month, Google said it had been unable to say anything about the warrants earlier as a gag order had been imposed. Google said the non-disclosure orders had subsequently been lifted, though it did not specify when.
Harrison, who also heads the Courage Foundation, told the Guardian she was distressed by the thought of government officials gaining access to her private emails. “Knowing that the FBI read the words I wrote to console my mother over a death in the family makes me feel sick,” she said.
She accused Google of helping the US government conceal “the invasion of privacy into a British journalist’s personal email address. Neither Google nor the US government are living up to their own laws or rhetoric in privacy or press protections”.
The court orders cast a data net so wide as to ensnare virtually all digital communications originating from or sent to the three. Google was told to hand over the contents of all their emails, including those sent and received, all draft correspondence and deleted emails. The source and destination addresses of each email, its date and time, and size and length were also included in the dragnet.
The FBI also demanded all records relating to the internet accounts used by the three, including telephone numbers and IP addresses, details of the time and duration of their online activities, and alternative email addresses. Even the credit card or bank account numbers associated with the accounts had to be revealed.
Alexander Abdo, a staff attorney and privacy expert at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the warrants were “shockingly broad” in their catch-all wording.
“This is basically ‘Hand over anything you’ve got on this person’,” he said. “That’s troubling as it’s hard to distinguish what WikiLeaks did in its disclosures from what major newspapers do every single day in speaking to government officials and publishing still-secret information.”
Google has not revealed precisely which documents it handed over by the deadline of April 2012. But it has told the three individuals that it provided “responsive documents pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act”.
Google told the Guardian it does not talk about individual cases, to “help protect all our users”. A spokesperson for the company said: “We follow the law like any other company.
“When we receive a subpoena or court order, we check to see if it meets both the letter and the spirit of the law before complying. And if it doesn’t we can object or ask that the request is narrowed. We have a track record of advocating on behalf of our users.”
The data grab is believed to be part of an ongoing criminal investigation into WikiLeaks that was launched in 2010 jointly by the US departments of Justice, Defense and State. The investigation followed WikiLeaks’ publication, initially in participation with international news organisations including the Guardian, of hundreds of thousands of US secrets that had been passed to the organisation by the army private Chelsea Manning.
The warrants were issued by a federal judge in the eastern district of Virginia – the jurisdiction in which a grand jury was set up under the criminal investigation into WikiLeaks. The investigation was confirmed to be still active and ongoing as recently as May last year.
Testimony given during the prosecution of Manning indicated that at least seven “founders, owners or managers or WikiLeaks” were put under the FBI spotlight in the wake of Manning’s disclosures. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in military prison for crimes related to the leaks and is currently being held in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
The WikiLeaks warrants cite alleged violations of the 1917 Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act – the same statutes used to prosecute Manning. The data seizures were approved by a federal magistrate judge, John Anderson, who a year later issued the arrest warrant for the former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ founder and editor-in-chief, said the search warrants were part of a “serious, and seriously wrong attempt to build an alleged ‘conspiracy’ case against me and my staff”. He said that in his view the real conspiracy was “Google rolling over yet again to help the US government violate the constitution – by taking over journalists’ private emails in response to give-us-everything warrants”.
The FBI warrants will be presented to the United Nations human rights council in Geneva on Monday by the Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón, who is director of Assange’s defence team. Assange remains in asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, facing extradition to Sweden following sexual assault and rape allegations that he denies and for which he has never been charged.
Google’s behaviour stands in stark contrast to Twitter, which has challenged similar US government demands. In its letter to the search giant, WikiLeaks notes that “Twitter challenged the government so it could notify its subscribers of the orders, and prevailed”.
In Twitter’s case, the Justice Department demanded access to the social-media accounts of Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic MP and former Wikileaks volunteer who was part of the team that released the secret Apache helicopter footage.
Twitter informed Jonsdottir that the US government had asked for access to her messages, allowing her to mount a legal campaign to stop them. In July 2012 an appeals court ruled against Jonsdottir and two other defendants, allowing the Justice Department to keep secret information about its attempts to obtain their information without a warrant.
All the major tech companies now disclose how many requests they receive from US authorities for users’ information but it is extremely rare for them to divulge specific targets of those investigations and in most cases they are limited in what they can disclose.
In the first six months of 2014, Google received close to 32,000 data requests from governments, an increase of 15% compared with the second half of 2013, and two-and-a-half times more than when Google first started publishing it’s semi-annual Transparency Report, in 2009.
Billionaires and politicians gathering in Switzerland this week will come under pressure to tackle rising inequality after a study found that – on current trends – by next year, 1% of the world’s population will own more wealth than the other 99%.
Ahead of this week’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in the ski resort of Davos, the anti-poverty charity Oxfam said it would use its high-profile role at the gathering to demand urgent action to narrow the gap between rich and poor.
The charity’s research, published on Monday, shows that the share of the world’s wealth owned by the best-off 1% has increased from 44% in 2009 to 48% in 2014, while the least well-off 80% currently own just 5.5%.
Oxfam added that on current trends the richest 1% would own more than 50% of the world’s wealth by 2016.
Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International and one of the six co-chairs at this year’s WEF, said the increased concentration of wealth seen since the deep recession of 2008-09 was dangerous and needed to be reversed.
“The message is that rising inequality is dangerous. It’s bad for growth and it’s bad for governance. We see a concentration of wealth capturing power and leaving ordinary people voiceless and their interests uncared for.”
Oxfam made headlines at Davos last year with a study showing that the 85 richest people on the planet have the same wealth as the poorest 50% (3.5 billion people). The charity said this year that the comparison was now even more stark, with just 80 people owning the same amount of wealth as more than 3.5 billion people, down from 388 in 2010.
Byanyima said: “Do we really want to live in a world where the 1% own more than the rest of us combined? The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast.”
Separate research by the Equality Trust, which campaigns to reduce inequality in the UK, found that the richest 100 families in Britain in 2008 had seen their combined wealth increase by at least £15bn, a period during which average income increased by £1,233. Britain’s current richest 100 had the same wealth as 30% of UK households, it added.
Inequality has moved up the political agenda over the past half-decade amid concerns that the economic recovery since the global downturn of 2008-09 has been accompanied by a squeeze on living standards and an increase in the value of assets owned by the rich, such as property and shares.
Pope Francis and the IMF managing director Christine Lagarde have been among those warning that rising inequality will damage the world economy if left unchecked, while the theme of Thomas Piketty’s best-selling book Capital was the drift back towards late 19th century levels of wealth concentration.
Barack Obama’s penultimate State of the Union address on Tuesday is also expected to be dominated by the issue of income inequality.
He will propose a redistributive tax plan to extract more than $300bn (£200bn) in extra taxes from the 1% of rich earners in order to fund benefits specifically targeted at working families.
However, the odds of the White House having any success persuading Congress to adopt the plan, given the Republicans’ new grip on both chambers, are extremely long. But Obama’s embrace of what he calls “middle-class economics” – as opposed to the trickle-down economics of the Republicans – is likely to ensure that inequality remains a pivotal theme of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Oxfam said the wealth of the richest 80 doubled in cash terms between 2009 and 2014, and that there was an increasing tendency for wealth to be inherited and to be used as a lobbying tool by the rich to further their own interests. It noted that more than a third of the 1,645 billionaires listed by Forbes inherited some or all of their riches, while 20% have interests in the financial and insurance sectors, a group which saw their cash wealth increase by 11% in the 12 months to March 2014.
These sectors spent $550m lobbying policymakers in Washington and Brussels during 2013. During the 2012 US election cycle alone, the financial sector provided $571m in campaign contributions.
Byanyima said: “I was surprised to be invited to be a co-chair at Davos because we are a critical voice. We go there to challenge these powerful elites. It is an act of courage to invite me.”
Oxfam said it was calling on governments to adopt a seven point plan:
• Clamp down on tax dodging by corporations and rich individuals.
• Invest in universal, free public services such as health and education.
• Share the tax burden fairly, shifting taxation from labour and consumption towards capital and wealth.
• Introduce minimum wages and move towards a living wage for all workers.
• Introduce equal pay legislation and promote economic policies to give women a fair deal.
• Ensure adequate safety-nets for the poorest, including a minimum-income guarantee.
• Agree a global goal to tackle inequality.
Speaking to the Guardian, Byanyima added: “Extreme inequality is not just an accident or a natural rule of economics. It is the result of policies and with different policies it can be reduced. I am optimistic that there will be change.
“A few years ago the idea that extreme poverty was harmful was on the fringes of the economic and political debate. But having made the case we are now seeing an emerging consensus among business leaders, economic leaders, political leaders and even faith leaders.”
Supporters of LGBT rights are calling for legal changes and a shift in social understanding in the wake of the death of Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teenager whose cry of anger and despair expressed in a suicide note has sparked nationwide soul-searching.
Over the weekend, up to 300 members of the LGBT community as well as Alcorn’s friends, teachers and fellow students attended a candlelight vigil at Kings high school in Kings Mills, Ohio, which she had attended. A petition on change.org has attracted almost 300,000 signatures backing its call for a ban on the practice of “transgender conversion therapy”, to which Alcorn was subjected before she killed herself on 28 December.
Alcorn’s death, and the note she left behind, opened a window to the anguish and mistreatment faced by many transgender teenagers as they struggle to find a place for themselves in the adult world. In the note, which has been deleted from Alcorn’s Tumblr feed at the request of her parents but has been archived by her supporters, she recounted the adverse reaction she received from her parents when she told them she had felt like a “girl trapped in a boy’s body” since the age of four.
Alcorn said her mother told her she would never truly be a girl and that “God doesn’t make mistakes”. She was taken out of school and barred from using social media, thus isolating her from friends and a support network. She was taken to see therapists but, Alcorn noted, only to “christian [sic] therapists, (who were all very biased) so I never actually got the therapy I needed to cure me of my depression. I only got more christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong and that I should look to God for help”.
She ended her suicide note with a plea for action: “My death needs to be counted in the number of transgender people who commit suicide this year. I want someone to look at that number and say ‘that’s fucked up’ and fix it. Fix society. Please.”
The most definitive study yet on the subject suggests that 41% of transgender people attempt suicide. That prevalence is exceptionally high compared with a rate of just 4.6% of the US population generally, and up to 20% for lesbian, gay and bisexual adults.
The study, by the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, found that rejection by family and friends as well as discrimination at school, work or when seeking healthcare, contributed to higher rates of suicide attempts. More than half of the participants in the research reported having been harassed or bullied at school, or having faced discrimination in the workplace.
Almost two-thirds said a doctor or healthcare provider had refused to treat them. More than two-thirds had experienced homelessness, and a similar proportion had suffered physical or sexual violence from other individuals or from law enforcement officers.
In the aftermath of their child’s death, Alcorn’s parents, Carla and Doug Alcorn, have continued to express their disapproval of Leelah’s gender identity.
“We don’t support that, religiously,” Carla Alcorn told CNN, adding: “But we told him that we loved him unconditionally. We loved him no matter what. I loved my son. People need to know that I loved him. He was a good kid, a good boy.”
Trans Lifeline offers a helpline for anyone experiencing difficulties, staffed by transgender people. It can be reached at (877) 565-8860.
Iran’s supreme leader has stepped into the debate over police violence and race in America, likening police shootings of black people in Ferguson and elsewhere to the Palestinian struggle in Gaza in a series of tweets using the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter.
In a stream of comments on his English-language Twitter feed, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Sunday returned to a theme he has repeatedly struck since Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot dead by police officer Darren Wilson in Missouri on 9 August. In his latest outpouring, Khamenei seeks to highlight what he sees as the hypocrisy of the US at Christmastime by suggesting a link between Jesus suffering for the oppressed and official oppression of protesters in Ferguson.
“#Jesus endured sufferings to oppose tyrants who had put humans in hell in this world& the hereafter while he backed the oppressed. #Ferguson” he tweeted.
In another post, from Christmas Eve, the ayatollah wrote: “If #Jesus were among us today he wouldn’t spare a second to fight the arrogants&support the oppressed.#Ferguson #Gaza”
When it comes to domestic US affairs, Khamenei is quite the regular commentator. In 2011, when Occupy protests were erupting across America, he predicted the movement would bring down the entire capitalist system.
After protests exploded in Ferguson after Brown’s death, he seized on the events to criticise race relations generally in the US. He wrote: “Today like previous years, African-Americans are still under pressure, oppressed and subjected to discrimination. #Ferguson”
Today like previous years, African-Americans are still under pressure, oppressed and subjected to discrimination. #Ferguson
When a grand jury decision sparing Wilson of any charges in Brown’s shooting was announced on 24 November, sparking disorder in Ferguson and further protests across the US, Khamenei returned to the theme. He accused the US government of being dishonest with its citizens, tweeting: “At events in #Ferguson US is fighting w its ppl. #BlackLivesMatter”
Khamenei’s English-language Twitter feed is unverified by the social media company. It is widely understood that the account is managed by the supreme leader’s personal office, though they too will neither confirm or deny it.
Its existence casts a sliver of light into the thinking of the man who has wielded ultimate power in Iran for the past 25 years, a time of ongoing tension with the US over the country’s nuclear programme. The Twitter feed also acts as a megaphone for official Iranian policy, with regular denunciations of the Israeli government and Zionism.
The commissioner of the New York Police Department, Bill Bratton, has given strong backing to Bill de Blasio, denouncing the protest of rank-and-file officers who turned their back on the mayor at a weekend funeral as politicised and inappropriate.
Speaking on CBS on Sunday, the leader of the largest police force in the US came out fighting on behalf of the beleaguered politician who appointed him.
“This is a mayor who cares very deeply about New York police officers, cares very deeply about the divide in the city and is working hard to heal that divide,” Bratton said.
De Blasio has faced expressions of open hostility from New York’s police unions since two officers were killed last weekend. On Saturday a cordon of officers turned their back on the mayor’s image as it was being screened outside Christ Tabernacle church in Queens, where de Blasio was addressing the funeral of one of the murdered officers, Rafael Ramos.
Bratton condemned the silent protest of the police officers. “I certainly don’t support that action,” he said. “That funeral was held to honor officer Ramos, and to bring politics into that event was very inappropriate.”
In the most incendiary comments made since the deaths of Ramos and his partner, officer Wenjian Liu, the president of the NYC Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association Pat Lynch effectively blamed protesters against perceived police brutality and the mayor’s office for the shooting.
With so much tension in the air between police, politicians and public following a spate of high-profile deaths – including Michael Brown in Ferguson; Eric Garner in New York; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; and Ramos and Liu – Bratton has become something of a national figurehead in the search for solutions. His appearances on Sunday on CBS and NBC put him at the centre of the debate on policing that has erupted since Brown’s death at the hands of a white police officer in Ferguson in August. Bratton’s visibility was in contrast to de Blasio, who was pointedly absent from the airwaves.
On NBC, Bratton repeated the core theme that he struck in his remarks at the Ramos funeral – that mutual understanding must be found between police and protesters.
“We must find the common ground so that all parties understand the concerns of others,” he said. “Seeing each other, to understand, that means not look past each other, but to really see what is motivating the other.”
Bratton, who is no stranger to controversy having held senior police positions at similar times of strife in Boston and Los Angeles, as well as in New York between 1994 and 1996, sought to dilute the concentrated feelings around the policing issue by casting it as a problem with wide causes.
“This isn’t just about policing,” he said, “it’s about continuing poverty rates, disparity between wealthy and poor, unemployment – there are so many national issues that have to be addressed.”
The commissioner made particular mention of the contract negotiations that are ongoing between New York city hall and the police unions – hinting, though not saying overtly, that there might be a political motivation behind the aggressively hostile stance of the police unions toward the mayor. While the de Blasio administration has reached an agreement with several key unions, including teachers, it is still locked in an impasse with the police unions.
Bratton positioned himself bang in the middle of the raging dispute, as someone who empathised with the parents of black teenagers worried about their children’s interactions with police and with police officers in equal measure. He tried to defuse the NYPD anger around de Blasio’s comment that he had “trained” his own biracial son, Dante, to take extra care in encounters with police officers by saying that attitude was prevalent.
“I interact quite frequently with African Americans from all classes and there’s not a single one that hasn’t expressed this concern,” Bratton said.
On the other side, he also praised the professionalism of the NYPD, which he said had shown “great restraint in the face of incredible provocation”. Police morale, he admitted, was low and he said he expected the rift with the mayor to carry on “for some time”.
A former mayor of New York, Rudy Giuliani, who appointed Bratton to his first stint as the city’s police commissioner in 1994, also appeared on CBS. He called on de Blasio to apologise to the NYPD. Giuliani, who was mayor between 1994 and 2001, said the current mayor, perhaps unwittingly, had “created an impression with the police that he was on the side of the protesters”.
“He should have apologised for the remarks he made that gave the police the impression he was on the other side,” Giuliani said.
Giuliani, a one-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, insisted that he was giving such advice in “good faith” and not as an act of political interference toward the Democratic mayor. Once an apology was issued, Giuliani predicted, the stand off with the NYPD would be over.
Republican lawmakers in Ohio are rushing through the most extreme secrecy bill yet attempted by a death penalty state, which would withhold information on every aspect of the execution process from the public, media and even the courts.
Legislators are trying to force through the bill, HB 663, in time for the state’s next scheduled execution, on 11 February. Were the bill on the books by then, nothing about the planned judicial killing of convicted child murderer Ronald Phillips – from the source of the drugs used to kill him and the distribution companies that transport the chemicals, to the identities of the medical experts involved in the death chamber – would be open to public scrutiny of any sort.
Unlike other death penalty states that have shrouded procedures in secrecy, the Ohio bill seeks to bar even the courts from access to essential information. Attorneys representing death-row inmates, for instance, would no longer be able to request disclosure under court protection of the identity and qualifications of medical experts who advised the state on their techniques.
“This bill is trying to do an end run around the courts. When things aren’t going well, the state is making its actions secret because they don’t want people to see them screwing up,” said Mike Brickner, senior policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Ohio.
The draft legislation, framed by Republican state lawmakers Jim Buchy and Matt Huffman, has passed the state House of Representatives and now goes before the Senate. Republican leaders, backed by Ohio’s attorney general, Mike DeWine, want to ram it through no later than 17 December.
The move to erect a wall of secrecy is particularly alarming in Ohio, a state that has experienced no fewer than four botched executions in the past eight years. The most recent was the 26-minute death of Dennis McGuire in January, using an experimental two-drug combination. Eyewitnesses reported him gasping and fighting for breath.
One of the most contentious aspects of HB 663 is that it tries to break a boycott that has been placed on sales of lethal injection drugs from foreign manufacturers, following a 2011 ban by the European Commission. The bill seeks to undermine strict distribution controls that have been introduced by companies such as Lundbeck in Denmark, a major manufacturer of pentobarbital, by declaring void any contract that prohibits distribution of the drugs to the Ohio department of corrections.
Should the bill make it into law, that provision is certain to be challenged in the courts as a potentially unconstitutional state intervention into commercial contracts. Other legal challenges are almost certain to flow over the clause that prevents the courts gaining access to key information.
Brickner, who opposed the new bill in front of a committee of the Ohio House on behalf of the ACLU, said: “It’s very unclear whether such secrecy would be upheld in a court of law. Our courts don’t look kindly on measures that stop them doing their jobs properly.”
Capital punishment is currently on hold in Ohio. Following the botched execution of McGuire, the federal courts stepped in and imposed a moratorium that runs until February, to give the state time to clean up its act.
Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who escaped prosecution for killing an unarmed black teenager, has insisted in a televised primetime interview that his actions were not motivated by race and that there was nothing he could have done to avoid the tragedy.
As protesters began to gather on the streets of Ferguson for a second night after the announcement that Wilson had been spared a grand jury indictment for killing Michael Brown, the police officer spoke bluntly about his conviction that he had acted correctly according to his training. Asked by George Stephanopoulos of ABC News whether there was anything he could have done differently to prevent the killing from taking place, he replied with a one-word answer: “No.”
“Nothing?” Stephanopoulos repeated.
“No,” he replied.
Despite Wilson’s protestation that he would have acted entirely the same way had the teenager been white and not black, the officer repeated the racially-charged description of Brown that he had given to the grand jury. He said that when they first had a contretemps while Wilson was sitting in his police car and Brown was standing beside it in the street, “I reached out of the window, and I felt the immense power that he had. It was like a five-year-old trying to hold onto Hulk Hogan. He was a very large, a very powerful man.”
“You’re a pretty big guy,” Stephanopoulos observed.
“Yeah, I’m above average,” he said.
In fact, Wilson is 6ft 4ins tall, about an inch taller than Brown.
The ABC interview appears to be the only media interaction to which Wilson has agreed at this stage. It was conducted over an hour in Ferguson on Tuesday, just hours after the grand jury verdict had been announced and the city had erupted in flames as protesters vented their fury.
As he moved to get out of the car, he said Brown had turned and said “What the fuck are you going to do about it?” and slammed the door shut on him.Wilson, answering questions in a forensic and slightly antiseptic way, repeated the narrative that he had given to the grand jury about what had happened on 9 August: that he had seen Brown and a friend walking down the middle of the road, and had pulled his patrol car alongside him.
“Then punches started flying. He threw the first one, that hit me on the left side of my face.” About 10 seconds of what Wilson described as “swinging and grabbing and pulling” ensued.
Wilson claimed that on several occasions, he had feared for his life. He wondered whether he could have survived another punch, then he said he felt Brown’s hand reaching for the trigger of his gun that he pulled from his right side.
He tried to shoot the gun but it just clicked twice. Again, Wilson stressed that he feared he was going to die. “I thought this has to work otherwise I’m going to be dead.”
The gun detonated on the third attempt, he claimed, telling ABC News that it was the first occasion in which he had ever fired his weapon on the job.
At that point, Brown started to run away and Wilson got out of the car and gave chase. Why didn’t he stay in the car, the interviewer asked.
“My job is not just to sit and wait. I have to see where this guy goes.”
“So you thought it was your duty to give chase?”
“Yes it was. That’s what we were trained to do,” he said.
When Brown was about 30 or 40 feet away down the road, he turned to face Wilson, the officer said. He put his right hand into his waistband and his left hand into a fist, “and he starts charging at me,” Wilson.
Asked to respond to the testimony of some witnesses that Brown had turned and put his hands in the air in a gesture of surrender or supplication, Wilson replied: “That would be incorrect. No way.”
The police officer said he gave himself a “mental check – can I legally shoot this guy?” The answer he came up with, according to his own account, was: “I have to, if I don’t he will kill me.”
Stephanopoulos did not press Wilson on this point in the 10-minute clip aired on ABC News. The officer was not asked why it was that he should have feared for his own life when he was standing pointing a gun at an unarmed teenager 30 feet away.
“I fired a series of shots and paused. I noticed one of them hit him I don’t know where, but I saw him flinch,” Wilson said.
He yelled to Brown to get on the ground but he wouldn’t and instead kept running at him, Wilson said. So he shot another round “and at least one of those hit him because I saw the flinch.”
When Brown was about eight feet away and appeared about to tackle him “I barrelled the gun and I fired at what I thought was his head, and that’s where it went.”
At the end of the clip, Stephanopoulos asked him what dreams he had for the future. “I just want to have a normal life.”
The TV presenter remarked that Wilson gave the impression of someone convinced by his own “very clean conscience”. The police officer who killed Michael Brown replied: “The reason I have a clean conscience is that I know that I did my job right.”
Further excerpts of the interview are expected to be played on ABC’s Nightline programme on Tuesday night and Good Morning America on Wednesday.
A forensic pathologist who has reviewed official reports relating to the death of Lennon Lacy, the black teenager who was found hanging from a noose in North Carolina, has questioned procedures followed by local and state authorities and challenged the official determination of suicide.
Dr Christena Roberts, a Florida-based specialist in crime scene pathology, was brought in by the North Carolina branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), which has been advising Lacy’s family as they try to get to the bottom of what happened to the 17-year-old high school student and football player. He was found hanging from a swing set in a largely white trailer park in Bladenboro, a small town in the south of the state, on the morning of 29 August, just hours before a big game in his school’s football calendar.
An official autopsy carried out by the chief medical examiner, Dr Deborah Radisch, soon after Lacy’s body was discovered concluded that the cause of death was “asphyxia due to hanging”. But both the medical examiner investigation report and the death certificate went further, listing the manner of death as “suicide”.
Roberts reviewed all these stages in the official investigation on behalf of the NAACP, and met with the medical examiner. In her findings, she raises several concerns about the procedures that were followed and the conclusions that were reached.
The pathologist does not give any firm answers to the mystery of how Lacy died – whether it was self-inflicted or involved foul play. But she does suggest that the official parties may have been hasty in giving a firm indication that this was a suicide.
The Lacy family, led by Lennon’s mother Claudia and brother Pierre, have been distressed by how quickly the authorities formed the opinion that the teenager killed himself. They are demanding a more thorough inquiry, which would take into account any racial tensions in the area. With the support of the NAACP they have called on the US Department of Justice and FBI to get involved.
Roberts begins her report by questioning the emphasis made in official accounts, including the autopsy, on Lennon Lacy having been “depressed” after the death of his great uncle, with whom he was close. Roberts points out that Lacy gave no indication he had thought about taking his own life, such as expressing a desire to hurt himself, making preparations to give away his prized possessions or leaving a suicide note.
At the location where Lacy’s body was found, hanging from one of a series of swing sets in the middle of a square of trailer homes, Roberts also found puzzling features that were not reflected in the autopsy or other official reports.
She writes: “There was no item present at the scene that Lennon could have stood on, applied the noose then kicked away.”
The noose, which was fashioned out of two belts, did not appear to Roberts to be long enough for Lacy to have got his head through from the position on the swing set at which he would have had to be standing. The pathologist was also bemused by the fact that when Lacy’s body was placed in a body bag he was wearing white sneakers that were two sizes too small for him, shoes which were nowhere to be seen by the time the body arrived at the medical examiner’s office.
“It is not the usual practice for the police to remove clothing from the body before transport,” Roberts says.
Roberts’ findings do agree with the autopsy report in some important regards. She says fears Lacy’s face showed a large bump on the right forehead could be discounted, given photos taken at the autopsy in which no such contusion was visible. She also agrees that marks on his face were due to ant bites.
Friday, August 29 was a big day for Lennon Lacy. His high school football team, the West Bladen Knights, was taking on the West Columbus Vikings and Lacy, 17, was determined to make his mark. He’d been training all summer for the start of the season, running up and down the bleachers at the school stadium wearing a 65-pound exercise jacket. Whenever his mother could afford it, he borrowed $7 and spent the day working out at the Bladenboro gym, building himself up to more than 200 pounds. As for the future, he had it all planned out: this year he’d become a starting linebacker on the varsity team, next year he’d earn a scholarship to play football in college, and four years after that he’d achieve the dream he’d had since he was a child—to make it in the NFL.
“He was real excited,” said his Knights teammate Anthony White, also 17. “He said he was looking forward to doing good in the game.”
The night before the game, Lacy did what he always did: he washed and laid out his football clothes in a neat row. He was a meticulous, friendly kid who made a point of always greeting people and asking them how they were doing. Everybody in his neighbourhood appears to have a story about how he would make a beeline to shake their hand, or offer to help them out by moving furniture or anything else that needed doing. “He was in the best sense a good kid,” said his pastor, Barry Galyean.
His brother, Pierre Lacy, said that football was the constant that ran through Lennon's life since he started out as a Pee Wee: “He was very serious about being a professional, very passionate about it. He never changed his mind or wavered from the course.”
But Lacy never made it to the game that night. At 7.30am on Friday – exactly 12 hours before the game was scheduled to start – he was found hanging from a swingset about a quarter of a mile from his home. His tight-knit family was thrown into despair, and a question echoed around the streets of the tiny town of Bladenboro, North Carolina: what had happened to Lennon Lacy?
The last person known to have seen Lacy alive was his father, Larry Walton. Around midnight on the night before the game, he came out of his bedroom to fetch a glass of water and saw his son preparing his school bag for the following morning. “I told him he needed to get to bed, the game was next day, and he said ‘OK, Daddy’.” A little later Walton heard the front door open and close; Walton assumed Lacy must have stepped out of the house, but thought no more of it and went to sleep.
Next morning there was no sign of Lacy, and Walton and Lacy’s mother, Claudia, thought he’d gone off to school. Later that morning, Claudia noticed he’d left some of his football gear on the line, so she called the school to say she’d bring it to him before the game. She was surprised to be told that her son hadn’t turned up at school. Just as she put the phone down, there was a knock on the door, and the Bladenboro police chief, Chris Hunt, was standing in front of her.
“I need you to come with me,” he said.
Lennon Lacy
Claudia was led to a trailer park a short walk from her home, where an ambulance was parked on the grass next to a wooden swingset. Even before she had got to the ambulance she saw police officers clearing away the crime scene tape that had been placed around the swing.
Then she saw Lennon’s body lying in the ambulance in a black body bag. “I know my son," she said later. "The second I saw him I knew he couldn’t have done that to himself – it would have taken at least two men to do that to him.”
She noticed what she describes as scratches and abrasions on his face, and there was a knot on his forehead that hadn’t been there the day before. In a photograph taken of Lacy’s body lying in the casket, a lump is visible on his forehead above his right eye. “From that point on it was just not real, like walking through a dream,” she said.
Five days later, the investigating team, consisting of local police and detectives from the state bureau of investigation, told the family it had found no evidence of foul play. There was no mention of suicide, but the implication was clear. In later comments to a local paper, police chief Hunt said: “There are a lot of rumors out there. And 99.9% of them are false.”
The Lacys were left with the impression that, for the district attorney, Jon David, and his investigating team, the question of what had happened to Lennon Lacy was all but settled. But it wasn’t settled for them.
As the Rev. William Barber, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in North Carolina, put it at a recent memorial service for Lennon Lacy held at the family’s church, “Don’t ask these parents to bury their 17-year-old son and then act as though everything is normal. Don’t chastise them for asking the right questions. All they want is the truth.”
Barber was careful to stress that that truth was elusive; no one knows what happened to Lennon Lacy, he said, beyond the bald facts of his death. If a full and thorough investigation concluded that the teenager had indeed taken his own life, then the Lacy family would accept that.
But Barber also talked about the chilling thought that lingered, otherwise unmentioned, over the scores of black and white people attending the packed memorial. “The image of a black boy hanging from a rope is in the souls of all of us,” he told them. “It is in the DNA of America. In 2014, our greatest prayer is that this was not a lynching.”
Pierre Lacy with his mother, Claudia Lacy who holds a picture of her late son Lennon Lacy in his younger days. Photograph: Andrew Craft/The Guardian
In Bladenboro, a town of just 1,700 people – 80% white, 18% black – the bitter legacy of the South’s racial history is never far from the surface. The African Americans have a nickname for the place: they call it “Crackertown” in reference to its longstanding domination by the white population.
The events of August 29 have become entangled in that historical narrative, inevitably perhaps in a state in which 86 black people were lynched between 1882 and 1968.
While America debates whether it is moving into a post-racial age, in Bladenboro the past is very much here and now, and the terrible image of “strange fruit” will hover over this town for as long as the truth about Lennon Lacy’s death remains uncertain. Which is paradoxical, because Lacy had joined a multiracial youth group across town at the Galeed Baptist church where he went for weekly services and basketball ministry, and his friends were black and white, in almost equal measure.
For several months before he died, he was in a relationship with a white woman, Michelle Brimhall, who lives directly opposite the Lacy family home. The liaison with Brimhall raised eyebrows because, at 31, she was almost twice his age. (The age of consent in North Carolina is 16.)
“Everybody was going on to me because he was 17 and I am 31,” Brimhall told the Guardian. “We told people we weren’t seeing each other so they would stop giving us trouble.”
The Lacy family said that Brimhall had split up with Lacy a couple of weeks before he died and that she had a new boyfriend. But she denied that. “We were still together, I did not break up with him,” she said. “I had never had a man treated me as good as he did, and I probably will never find another.”
Brimhall said she did not notice any hostility toward them as a mixed-race couple. But she is convinced that Lennon did not take his own life. “No, Lennon did not kill himself. He loved his mother so much, he would never put her through that.”
She added: “I want to know who did it. I want them to suffer.”
Lennon Lacy’s first football team, in Virginia. Lennon is No52 on the far left.
Brimhall’s close friend, Teresa Edwards, lives a few doors down from the Lacys. Edwards said she was desperate to find out the truth, particularly as Lacy was such a good person. “For him to be black – I’m not stereotyping or anything, I’m not racist, I love everybody – but he was a very well-mannered child.”
A white couple, Carla Hudson and Dewey Sykes, live in a trailer home right behind the Lacy house. Soon after Lennon died his family learned that a few years ago Sykes and Hudson had been instructed by police to remove from their front lawn a number of Confederate flags and signs saying “Niggers keep out."
The Guardian asked the couple why they had put up the signs. Sykes said that it was his idea. “There were some kids who ganged up on our kid and I put some signs up.” Asked whether he now regretted doing so, he replied: “Yeah, I regret it now.”
Carla Hudson said she had begged her husband to take the signs down. “I told him he had to stop that. It wasn’t how I saw things – there’s not a racist bone in my body.”
There is no evidence to suggest that either Hudson or Sykes had anything to do with Lacy’s death. Asked about the teenager, Hudson said: “Lennon was like a son to me, and this was his second home. He was nothing like the people we have trouble with. In my eyes he was just perfect.”
About a week after Lacy died, his family, with the help of the NAACP and their own lawyer, put together a list of questions and concerns that they presented to the district attorney. First, there was the overriding sense that Lennon was simply not the kind of boy to harm himself. He had no history of mental illness or depression, and was so focused on his future it was inconceivable he would intentionally cut it short.
The day before Lacy was found hanging, there had been a funeral service for his great uncle Johnny, who had died a couple of weeks previously. Lacy had been close to his uncle, and was visibly upset, but not to an extreme degree, his family said. He grieved “as a normal person would,” Claudia said.
Then there were those facial marks on his body. Even the undertaker, FW Newton Jr, who has worked as a mortician for 26 years, was taken aback by what he saw. Newton told the Guardian that when he received Lacy’s body two days after he died, he was struck by the abrasions he saw across both shoulders and down the insides of both arms. He also noted facial indentations over both cheeks, the chin and nose.
Though police have told the Lacy family that ants were responsible for causing the marks, to Newton the state of the body reminded him of corpses he had embalmed where the deceased had been killed in a bar-room fight.
The Guardian asked the local Bladenboro police department, the district attorney and the state bureau of investigation to respond to the allegation that they had conducted an inadequate investigation. They all declined to comment on the grounds that the investigation was ongoing.
In a statement posted on the Bladenboro town website, the district attorney, Jon David, said that the “victims [sic] family, and the community, can rest assured that a comprehensive investigation is well underway. All death investigations, particularly those involving children, are given top priority by my office. Investigations are a search for the truth, and I am confident that we have a dedicated team of professionals, and the right process, to achieve justice in this matter.”
David said that his team was keeping the Lacy family and its representatives closely apprised of the investigation, and had met community leaders to explain to them the current state of affairs. But he added that “to date we have not received any evidence of criminal wrongdoing surrounding the death”.
The family has many other questions they still want answered. Who desecrated Lennon Lacy’s grave a few days after the burial, dumping the flowers 40 feet away beside the road and digging a hole in one corner of the plot? Why didn’t forensic investigators take swabs from under Lacy’s fingernails and DNA test them to see if he had been in physical contact with anybody else before he died? Have the police probed deeply enough into Lacy’s wider group of friends and acquaintances; the family were disturbed to find, for instance, that one white associate of Lennon’s had a Confederate flag as the backdrop to his Facebook page.
Lennon Lacy’s grave was desecrated and a small hole dug in the plot.
They also want to know why it is it taking so long for the autopsy report to come through, with still no date set for its public release five weeks after the event. So far only the toxicology report has come back, showing that Lacy had no drugs, alcohol or other chemicals in his bloodstream.
The location where Lacy was found, the mobile home park at the Cotton Mill, has also caused the family great difficulty. The swingset from which he was hanging is one of eight such sets standing in a line in the middle of a rectangle of 13 mobile homes. The spot is desolate and vulnerable, overlooked as it is by so many trailer homes, like a sports field surrounded by grandstands.
“If my brother wanted to take his own life, I can’t understand why he would do it in such an exposed place. This feels more like he was put here as a public display – a taunting almost,” Pierre Lacy said.
Lacy was found wearing a pair of size 10.5 white sneakers, with the laces removed, which no one in his family recognized. A few days before he died, he had bought himself a new pair of Jordans for the start of school year. They were grey with neon green soles, size 12, and have been missing ever since.
The family also wonders why the former husband of Michelle Bramhill and the father of her children, whom she left in February before relocating to Bladenboro, has yet to be interviewed by detectives. There is no evidence to implicate him in the circumstances surrounding Lacy’s death, but the family would still like to know why detectives have yet to speak to him.
Allen Rogers, a Fayetteville lawyer with 20 years’ experience in criminal cases who is representing the Lacy family, said there were too many questions still unanswered. “I don’t believe that a thorough investigation has been done, and within that investigation, the evidence the police has compiled is not sufficient to rule out foul play. The concern is that there’s been a rush to judgment – a desire quickly to settle any issue over the cause of death,” he said.
Rogers conceded that it was hard for any family to accept a suicide in its midst, and that it would be natural in those circumstances to search for alternative explanations, to clutch at straws. But he said that in this case the clutching at straws appeared to have been on the part of “elected officials who can’t deal with the realities of race. Given the sensitivity of the issues here, it’s much easier to put this in a box marked ‘suicide’ than ask the tough questions. I’m afraid that politics have held back the investigation.”
A few hours after Lacy’s body was discovered, the coach of the West Bladen Knights called the team together to break to them the tragic news. He asked them what they wanted to do. They voted unanimously to play on, dedicating the game to their lost brother, Lennon Lacy. They won, 57-22.
At about 12:40 PM on 2 January 1996, Timothy Jackson took a jacket from the Maison Blanche department store in New Orleans, draped it over his arm, and walked out of the store without paying for it. When he was accosted by a security guard, Jackson said: “I just needed another jacket, man.”
A few months later Jackson was convicted of shoplifting and sent to Angola prison in Louisiana. That was 17 years ago. Today he is still incarcerated in Angola, and will stay there for the rest of his natural life having been condemned to die in jail. All for the theft of a jacket, worth $159.
Jackson, 53, is one of 3,281 prisoners in America serving life sentences with no chance of parole for non-violent crimes. Some, like him, were given the most extreme punishment short of execution for shoplifting; one was condemned to die in prison for siphoning petrol from a truck; another for stealing tools from a tool shed; yet another for attempting to cash a stolen cheque.
“It has been very hard for me,” Jackson wrote to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as part of its report on life without parole for non-violent offenders. “I know that for my crime I had to do some time, but a life sentence for a jacket valued at $159. I have met people here whose crimes are a lot badder with way less time.”
Senior officials at Angola prison refused to allow the Guardian to speak to Jackson, on grounds that it might upset his victims – even though his crime was victim-less. But his sister Loretta Lumar did speak to the Guardian. She said that the last time she talked by phone with her brother he had expressed despair. “He told me, 'Sister, this has really broke my back. I'm ready to come out.'”
Lumar said that she found her brother's sentence incomprehensible. “This doesn't make sense to me. I know people who have killed people, and they get a lesser sentence. That doesn't make sense to me right there. You can take a life and get 15 or 16 years. He takes a jacket worth $159 and will stay in jail forever. He didn't kill the jacket!”
The ACLU's report, A Living Death, chronicles the thousands of lives ruined and families destroyed by the modern phenomenon of sentencing people to die behind bars for non-violent offences. It notes that contrary to the expectation that such a harsh penalty would be meted out only to the most serious offenders, people have been caught in this brutal trap for sometimes the most petty causes.
Ronald Washington, 48, is also serving life without parole in Angola, in his case for shoplifting two Michael Jordan jerseys from a Foot Action sportswear store in Shreveport, Louisiana, in 2004. Washington insisted at trial that the jerseys were reduced in a sale to $45 each – which meant that their combined value was below the $100 needed to classify the theft as a felony; the prosecution disagreed, claiming they were on sale for $60 each, thus surpassing the $100 felony minimum and opening him up to a sentence of life without parole.
“I felt as though somebody had just taken the life out of my body,” Washington wrote to the ACLU about the moment he learnt his fate. “I seriously felt rejected, neglected, stabbed right through my heart.”
He added: “It's a very lonely world, seems that nobody cares. You're never ever returning back into society. And whatever you had or established, its now useless, because you're being buried alive at slow pace.”
Louisiana, where both Washington and Jackson are held, is one of nine states where prisoners are serving life without parole sentences for non-violent offences (other states with high numbers are Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina). An overwhelming proportion of those sentences – as many as 98% in Louisiana – were mandatory: in other words judges had no discretion but to impose the swingeing penalties.
The warden of Angola prison, Burl Cain, has spoken out in forthright terms against a system that mandates punishment without any chance of rehabilitation. He told the ACLU: “It's ridiculous, because the name of our business is 'corrections' – to correct deviant behaviour. If I'm a successful warden and I do my job and we correct the deviant behaviour, then we should have a parole hearing. I need to keep predators in these big old prisons, not dying old men.”
The toll is not confined to the state level: most of those non-violent inmates held on life without parole sentences were given their punishments by the federal government. More than 2,000 of the 3,281 individuals tracked down on these sentences by the ACLU are being held in the federal system. Overall, the ACLU has calculated that taxpayers pay an additional $1.8bn to keep the prisoners locked up for the rest of their lives.
'It doesn't have to be this way'
Until the early 1970s, life without parole sentences were virtually unknown. But they exploded as part of what the ACLU calls America's “late-twentieth-century obsession with mass incarceration and extreme, inhumane penalties.”
The report's author Jennifer Turner states that today, the US is “virtually alone in its willingness to sentence non-violent offenders to die behind bars.” Life without parole for non-violent sentences has been ruled a violation of human rights by the European Court of Human Rights. The UK is one of only two countries in Europe that still metes out the penalty at all, and even then only in 49 cases of murder.
Even within America's starkly racially-charged penal system, the disparities in non-violent life without parole are stunning. About 65% of the prisoners identified nationwide by the ACLU are African American. In Louisiana, that proportion rises to 91%, including Jackson and Washington who are both black.
The US has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with 2.3 million people now in custody, with the war on drugs acting as the overriding push-factor. Of the prisoners serving life without parole for non-violent offences nationwide, the ACLU estimates that almost 80% were for drug-related crimes.
Again, the offences involved can be startlingly petty. Drug cases itemised in the report include a man sentenced to die in prison for having been found in possession of a crack pipe; an offender with a bottle cap that contained a trace of heroin that was too small to measure; a prisoner arrested with a trace amount of cocaine in their pocket too tiny to see with the naked eye; a man who acted as a go-between in a sale to an undercover police officer of marijuana – street value $10.
Drugs are present in the background of Timothy Jackson's case too. He was high when he went to the Maison Blanche store, and he says that as a result he shoplifted “without thinking”. Paradoxically, like many of the other prisoners on similar penalties, the first time he was offered drug treatment was after he had already been condemned to spend the rest of his life in jail.
The theft of the $159 jacket, taken in isolation, carries today a six-month jail term. It was combined at Jackson's sentencing hearing with his previous convictions – all for non-violent crimes including a robbery in which he took $216 – that brought him under Louisiana's brutal “four-strikes” law by which it became mandatory for him to be locked up and the key thrown away.
The ACLU concludes that it does not have to be this way – suitable alternatives are readily at hand, including shorter prison terms and the provision of drug treatment and mental health services. The organisation calls on Congress, the Obama administration and state legislatures to end the imposition of mandatory life without parole for non-violent offenders and to require re-sentencing hearings for all those already caught in this judicial black hole.
A few months after Timothy Jackson was put away for life, a Louisiana appeals court reviewed the case and found it “excessive”, “inappropriate” and “a prime example of an unjust result”. Describing Jackson as a “petty thief”, the court threw out the sentence.
The following year, in 1998, the state's supreme court gave a final ruling. “This sentence is constitutionally excessive in that it is grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of the offence,” concluded Judge Bernette Johnson. However, she found that the state's four strikes law that mandates life without parole could only be overturned in rare instances, and as a result she reinstated the sentence – putting Jackson back inside his cell until the day he dies.
“I am much older and I have learned a lot about myself,” Jackson wrote to the ACLU from that cell. “I am sorry for the crime that I did, and I am a changed man.”
Jackson expressed a hope that he would be granted his freedom when he was still young enough to make something of his life and “help others”. But, barring a reform of the law, the day of his release will never come.
The police hadn’t even come for him. When four fully-armed officers of a Swat team burst into Jacob Elliott’s house in Peoria, Illinois in April they were looking for the source of a parody Twitter feed that had upset the town’s mayor by poking fun at him.
It transpired that one of Elliott’s housemates, Jon Daniel, had created the fake Twitter account, @peoriamayor, and so incensed the real-life official, Jim Ardis, with his make-believe account of drug binges and sex orgies that the police were dispatched. Elliott was just a bystander in the affair, but that didn’t stop the Swat team searching his bedroom, looking under his pillow and in a closet where they discovered a bag of marijuana and dope-smoking paraphernalia.
Elliott now faces charges of felony marijuana possession. He has also become the subject of one of the more paradoxical – if not parody – questions in American jurisprudence: can a citizen be prosecuted for dope possession when the police were raiding his home looking for a fake Twitter account?
A Peoria judge this week ruled that the police were entitled to raid the house on North University Street on 15 April under the town’s “false personation” law which makes it illegal to pass yourself off as a public official. Judge Thomas Keith found that police had probable cause to believe they would find materials relevant to the Twitter feed such as computers or flash drives used to create it.
Daniel created the social media feed when he was bored one night and thought he would amuse himself and a handful of friends by deriding the mayor. In a stream of fake comments in 140 characters, he portrayed Ardis as a Tequila-sodden, sex- and drug-addicted oaf. “Im bout to climb the civic center and do some lines on the roof who’s in,” one tweet said.
Daniel was never charged as the local prosecutor decided that “false personation” could only be committed in the flesh rather than through cyberspace. But his housemate, Elliott, still has the marijuana rap hanging over him and this week’s court ruling means that his attempt to have his charges dismissed on grounds that the original police raid was mistaken has failed.
Meanwhile, Daniel has turned the law back against the authorities in Peoria, a town with a population of 120,000. With the help of the ACLU he has filed a lawsuit against the town for wrongful arrest.
“You can’t do terrorist type of things or threaten people. But a simple joke, a parody, mocking somebody, that’s obviously not illegal,” he told Associated Press.
As for the mayor, he has tried to justify his reaction to the Twitter spoof by claiming that it had damaged his standing. “My identity as mayor was stolen,” he said a few weeks after he dispatched the police.
It is not known whether he now regrets his decision to send in the Swat team. One measure of its success is that there is no longer one parody feed ridiculing Ardis on Twitter – there are 15.