RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
RSN: Biden's Eloquence About George Floyd Will Ring Hollow if Rahm Emanuel Gets Ambassador Nomination Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 May 2021 11:48

Solomon writes: "If Joe Biden fully meant what he said after meeting with George Floyd's family in the Oval Office on Tuesday, he won't nominate Rahm Emanuel to be the U.S. ambassador to Japan. But recent news reports tell us that's exactly what the president intends to do."

Philonise Floyd, brother of George Floyd at the White House. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)
Philonise Floyd, brother of George Floyd at the White House. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty)


Biden's Eloquence About George Floyd Will Ring Hollow if Rahm Emanuel Gets Ambassador Nomination

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

26 May 21

 

f Joe Biden fully meant what he said after meeting with George Floyd’s family in the Oval Office on Tuesday, he won’t nominate Rahm Emanuel to be the U.S. ambassador to Japan. But recent news reports tell us that’s exactly what the president intends to do.

After the meeting, Biden declared that the murder of Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer “launched a summer of protest we hadn’t seen since the Civil Rights era in the ’60s — protests that peacefully unified people of every race and generation to collectively say enough of the senseless killings.” The words were valuable, and so was the symbolism of the president hosting loved ones of Floyd on the first anniversary of his death.

But the value of the White House event will be weakened if Biden names Emanuel to one of this country’s top diplomatic posts — despite his well-earned notoriety for the cover-up of a video showing the police murder of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.

When McDonald was shot dead by Chicago police one night in October 2014, Mayor Rahm Emanuel was facing a tough re-election fight. Fortunately, a dash camera on a police car captured the murder on video. Unfortunately, Emanuel’s administration suppressed the video for 13 months, until after Emanuel won re-election.

Imagine if — when Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed Floyd by kneeling on him for 9 minutes and 29 seconds — there had been no civilian with a cell phone able to record the murder, and the only visual record of what happened was a police video. And imagine if the city of Minneapolis had suppressed that video for 13 months, until a judge’s order finally forced its release.

That would be Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago.

When reports surfaced last November that Biden was considering Emanuel for a cabinet position, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) pointed out: “Rahm Emanuel helped cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald. Covering up a murder is disqualifying for public leadership.” Then-Congressman-elect Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) tweeted: “That he’s being considered for a cabinet position is completely outrageous and, honestly, very hurtful.”

Two weeks ago, responding to news that Biden had decided to nominate Emanuel as ambassador to Japan, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) sent out a cogent tweet: “Black Lives Matter can’t just be a slogan. It has to be reflected in our actions as a government, and as a people. Rewarding Rahm Emanuel’s cover up of Laquan McDonald’s murder with an ambassadorship is not an act that reflects a value of or respect for Black lives.”

The post of ambassador to Japan would put Emanuel in the thick of economic and military policies. Japan has the world’s third-largest economy. The U.S. currently has two dozen military bases in Japan. A recklessly confrontational military approach in East Asia would get a boost if the next U.S. ambassador to Japan is Emanuel, a longtime hawk who supported the Iraq war even after many Democratic leaders turned against it.

For decades, Emanuel’s career has been the opposite of diplomatic as he bombastically denounced progressives and served corporate interests while enriching himself. And his record of running interference for racist police violence while mayor of Chicago underscores what a terrible mistake it would be for the Senate to confirm him as ambassador.

Impunity for American men in uniform who commit violent crimes is a deeply emotional subject in Japan. Outrage has long festered especially on Okinawa, where women and children have been subjected to sexual assaults by U.S. military personnel stationed at bases there.

Blocking the nomination of Rahm Emanuel to be the USA’s top envoy to Japan won’t bring back Laquan McDonald or any of the other African Americans murdered by police. But it would send a strong signal to mayors and other public officials that covering up brutal police violence is bad for career advancement.



Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: The Danger of the Moment Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=45295"><span class="small">Bob Bauer, Lawfare</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 May 2021 10:34

Bauer writes: "The question during the Donald Trump presidency and then again after the 2020 election was whether Trump's norm-shattering presidency would prompt a sustained reform initiative like the one following the Nixon presidency and the Watergate scandal."

Donald Trump. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Donald Trump. (photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)


The Danger of the Moment

By Bob Bauer, Lawfare

26 May 21

 

he question during the Donald Trump presidency and then again after the 2020 election was whether Trump’s norm-shattering presidency would prompt a sustained reform initiative like the one following the Nixon presidency and the Watergate scandal. There is a wide range of reforms to consider. But Trump and his Republican allies are now advancing a novel reform of their own, and the “reform” effort marks a new front in the Trump-era attacks on norms and democratic institutions. Trump is promoting, and his party is using various means of achieving, a politicized electoral process in which politicians would have more power to direct the running of elections in their self-interest. Republican-controlled state legislatures are passing laws to subject election officials to partisan control, using the threat of civil fines, criminal liability, and suspension, and it appears that, beginning with Arizona, they will use unprecedented “audits” by political allies to cast doubt on these officials’ professionalism and integrity.

This is how Trump is adapting his brand of demagogic populism to his “post-presidency,” as he perhaps plots an eventual third presidential campaign but certainly maintains his grip on the Republican Party and molds it in his image. His strategy now is no different from the one he followed while president: to politicize institutions so that he can bend them to his will and personal interests. His disdain as president for the independence of the Department of Justice, his baldly political and self-interested uses of the pardon power, his effort to obstruct the presidential transition process: These and other abuses of power in the Trump presidency have the same source, in the same politics, as his drive to compromise the electoral process.

The national policy agenda is, of course, crowded with urgent public health, economic and other matters. Moreover, the space for reform, which is never unlimited, has been taken up with the Democratic congressional effort to move H.R. 1, which rightly includes proposed federal voting standards. But the battle to preserve institutional legitimacy is a fight separate from, though related to, the legislative and related litigation struggles over specific voting rules. At issue is the system for nonpartisan election administration and the role that experienced professionals, not politicians and political parties, will play in implementing voting laws and managing voting systems.

The Trump Assault on the Electoral Process

The current assault on electoral norms and institutions constitutes a radical challenge to understandings reached in the wake of the last major electoral controversy—the 2000 election and the Florida recount. The parties then came together to establish baselines for professional nonpartisan election administration. The Help America Vote Act passed on a bipartisan basis, and among other measures, it established the Election Assistance Commission as a “national clearinghouse and resource” to support the effective administration of elections. It authorized funding to the states to replace the notorious “punch card” machines and fund voter education, election official training, and improved “accessibility and quantity of polling places.”

The Election Assistance Commission has struggled to overcome the same polarizing politics that have gripped other institutions. But there nonetheless long remained a basic bipartisan appreciation of the principle that credible election administration had to operate at some remove from pure partisan political calculation. In 2014, the bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Administration appointed by President Obama unanimously endorsed the importance of professionalized election administration. “Whatever the view taken of the role of elected officials,” the Commission reported to Obama, “the Commission found general agreement that election administration is public administration. That means that in every respect possible, the responsible department or agency in every state should have on staff individuals who are chosen and serve solely on the basis of their experience and expertise.” It made a point of noting “this is often the case in departments across the country, and it is a model to which all jurisdictions should aspire.” [Note I was a member of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration.]

Now Trump and his supporters are pressing for “election integrity” reforms in Republican state legislative bodies that would reverse course and subject election administration to systematic partisan political control and contestation. Under the voting law passed recently in Iowa, state election officials would be subject to fines for technical infractions—for failing, in the estimation of politicians in the state legislatures, to do their jobs properly. These performance failures are broadly defined to include any that “hinder or disregard the object of the law.” The penalties include $10,000 fines and suspension. Georgia has provided for the removal of election officials for “at least three” violations of law over the course of two election cycles—of whatever kind, however technical or inadvertent. Election officials managing complex systems with limited resources are sure to make “at least three” mistakes—to “violate the law”—leaving them perpetually at risk of removal for reasons unrelated to sound election administration. And, remarkably, the Georgia law prohibits counties from paying for these elections officials’ defense.

There can be little doubt about the objective behind these enactments: to have election officials aware that the politicians are hovering nearby, with new tools at their disposal to bully and intervene as partisan interests require. Nor is this an initiative we expect to occur in only two states. Similar measures to impose penalties or deny funding to officials for various infractions and failures are pending in Missouri, Texas and Wisconsin.

These “reforms” fit into a broader pattern of responses to Trump’s attack on the 2020 election. Republican election officials who aroused the wrath of Trump and his allies by doing their jobs came under direct and personal attack at the time. Georgia wrote its law to remove the secretary of state—the state official responsible for overseeing elections—from the chairmanship of the State Election Board, demoting this official to nonvoting, ex officio status. Now the Georgia General Assembly holds the power to appoint the chair: There can be no clearer signal that the politicians plan to take charge after the 2020 experience when Republican Secretary Brad Raffensperger rejected Trump’s demand that he refuse to certify President Biden as the winner and affirmed the accuracy of the president’s victory in Georgia. As Raffensperger’s chief operating officer and the director of election systems affirmed, the statute eliminating the secretary’s Election Board chairmanship was “political payback, no question”—and a message that Trump and his allies intended to be heard around the country.

Laws to bring election officials under political pressure and controls are not the only mechanisms Trump and his allies have devised. The infamous 2020 postelection “audit” launched by Arizona state Republicans is an extraordinary experiment in partisan challenges to the integrity of elections certified by election officials. Two previous, professionally conducted and bipartisan audits had uncovered no basis for questioning the certified results in favor of Biden. Yet the state senate majority decided to make up an “audit” of its own, retaining for this purpose a firm headed by a “stop the steal” conspiracy theorist. It collected all the ballots and commenced an “audit” without regard to any professional qualifications for the “auditors” or professional standards for the conduct of the “audit.”

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors protested, on a bipartisan basis, the “failure [of the “auditors”] to understand basic election processes” and termed the proceedings a “circus” and “political theater” that could only have the effect of “encouraging our citizens to distrust elections.”

In no time, the board’s view was vindicated, as the “auditors” announced on Twitter that they had discovered the deletion of entire databases, a “spoliation of evidence”—only to have to retreat and admit that no such deletion had, in fact, occurred. Joining the county board in its denunciation of the “audit” was the Republican recorder of the county, the chief elections official, who responded to the “database deletion” falsehood by protesting on Twitter: “We can’t indulge these insane lies any longer. As a party. As a State. As a country.”

None of these problems deterred Trump from heralding this “audit” and suggesting that other states would follow in its tracks with “audits” of their own. Banned from Facebook and Twitter, Trump used his personal blog to herald the sham and now discredited claim of a “deletion of databases” as further evidence of the “unbelievable Election crime” of 2020. He has told supporters that he is expecting these “audits” around the country, in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. “I wouldn’t be surprised if they found thousands and thousands and thousands of votes,” Trump said. Press reports cited election officials as fearing that “these fights will be a permanent feature of future elections.”

This is far from the standard story of two parties jockeying for competitive advantage or just fighting over close elections. We have had, of course, election controversies in recent decades. Congress bitterly disputed, and the House separately recounted, the 1984 election in Indiana’s 8th Congressional District. Republicans, enraged by their perception that Democrats “stole” the seat, marched to the floor in black armbands. The conclusion to the 2000 presidential recount, which ended by order of a Supreme Court divided along “liberal” and “conservative lines,” appalled Democrats; and they were already fuming over their belief that the governor of Florida had improperly influenced the state legal process in favor of the Republican nominee—his brother. But neither event culminated in one party’s commitment to revamp in fundamental ways the norms and core processes by which elections were conducted and their outcomes eventually accepted as legitimate. The 2000 presidential election inspired the very different result of an imperfect but still concrete bipartisan effort to modernize and professionalize election administration.

Reform and the Defense of Institutions

Trump’s assault on the 2020 elections—on norms and core processes—marks a major and dangerous moment in American democracy. And it tracks the experience more broadly of the Trump presidency with its unprecedented indifference to democratic norms and, in particular, the aim of politicizing various institutional arrangements in his self-interest.

In the immediate future, these electoral institutions require a robust defense. In states like Texas and Florida, Republican as well as Democratic election officials have come out against provisions of voting laws that may serve partisan interests but disserve voters. This bipartisan opposition is an encouraging indication that basic norms of democratic life retain their vitality.

But more needs to be done to check the Trump-directed state legislative program to exert partisan control over election administration. The laws targeting election officials for illicit partisan political purposes, and any punitive actions taken against those officials, call for a vigorous response. Legal challenges can be expected. Organized public pressure on state legislatures will remain indispensable in bringing this attack on the electoral process to wide public attention and calling out those in the state legislatures who are responsible. What is needed is an integrated approach that taps the range of resources available in government, the courts and civil society.

Moreover, each point in the process in which partisans may move in the future to intervene to undermine the professionalism of election administration calls for close attention. The Electoral Count Act should be reformed to modernize and clarify Congress’s function in tallying Electoral College votes and affirming the winner of a presidential election. To be sure, this will not be easy. But it must remain on the national election reform agenda.

The link between these attacks on democratic institutions and the ones that Trump threatened and pursued while in office should be kept clearly in view. The demagogic populist agenda is alive and well and is now being actively pursued in the electoral sphere. There were more than a few indications of this in the Trump candidacy and then presidency. He declined in the 2016 primaries and general election to commit to conceding an election he lost. Once elected, he denied that he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, insisting that her 3 million vote margin was the product of illegal voting. Once in office, Trump established a presidential “commission,” headed by Vice President Mike Pence, to investigate voter fraud. The irregularities in the conduct of the “commission” caused it to collapse; and, of course, it never could show the “fraud” that Trump was hoping to document and that was never there to be found.

Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign was the launching point for a renewed, full-scale attack on the norms and processes critical to nonpartisan election administration, culminating in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. Then came the conversion of Trump’s bitterness over his loss into a formal program to subject the electoral process to partisan control. The demonstrable absurdities of Trump’s claims and tweets about fraud, the ignominious demise of his “commission” to investigate fraud, the scores of lawsuits he lost in challenging the 2020 election, and the events of Jan. 6 might once have seemed enough to discredit and defeat any such program. This did not turn out to be the case. A comprehensive, focused response at the federal and state levels—calling on Democrats, independents and those Republicans ready to step up—is urgently needed to address the danger of this moment.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Banality of Democratic Collapse Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51503"><span class="small">Paul Krugman, The New York Times</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 May 2021 08:12

Krugman writes: "America's democratic experiment may well be nearing its end."

Former President Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)
Former President Donald Trump. (photo: Getty)


The Banality of Democratic Collapse

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

26 May 21

 

merica’s democratic experiment may well be nearing its end. That’s not hyperbole; it’s obvious to anyone following the political scene. Republicans might take power legitimately; they might win through pervasive voter suppression; G.O.P. legislators might simply refuse to certify Democratic electoral votes and declare Donald Trump or his political heir the winner. However it plays out, the G.O.P. will try to ensure a permanent lock on power and do all it can to suppress dissent.

But how did we get here? We read every day about the rage of the Republican base, which overwhelmingly believes, based on nothing, that the 2020 election was stolen, and extremists in Congress, who insist that being required to wear a face mask is the equivalent of the Holocaust.

I’d argue, however, that focusing on the insanity can hinder our understanding of how all of this became possible. Conspiracy theorizing is hardly a new thing in our national life; Richard Hofstadter wrote “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” back in 1964. White rage has been a powerful force at least since the civil rights movement.

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'First Martyr of the Voting Rights Movement': How a Black Man's Death in 1965 Changed American History Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=59567"><span class="small">Javonte Anderson, USA Today</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 May 2021 08:12

Anderson writes: "Like George Floyd, Jimmie Lee Jackson's killing by police inspired a movement. His death led to equal voting rights, but his name has been forgotten."

Anne Robinson, a cousin of Jimmie Lee Jackson, stands for a portrait after recalling memories of what happened the night Jackson was shot by an Alabama state trooper on Feb. 18, 1965 in Marion, Alabama. (photo: Jessica Koscielniak/USA Today)
Anne Robinson, a cousin of Jimmie Lee Jackson, stands for a portrait after recalling memories of what happened the night Jackson was shot by an Alabama state trooper on Feb. 18, 1965 in Marion, Alabama. (photo: Jessica Koscielniak/USA Today)


'First Martyr of the Voting Rights Movement': How a Black Man's Death in 1965 Changed American History

By Javonte Anderson, USA Today

26 May 21


Like George Floyd, Jimmie Lee Jackson’s killing by police inspired a movement. His death led to equal voting rights, but his name has been forgotten.

e lay on the pavement with a bullet wound in his stomach, engulfed in chaos and darkness.

It was 1965. A year soon scarred by social and political upheaval: The assassination of Malcolm X. Bloody Sunday. The Vietnam War. The Watts Riots.

Jimmie Lee Jackson would see none of it.

The 26-year-old showed up the night of Feb. 18 in Marion, Alabama, where hundreds of people had gathered to march in protest of the arrest of a local civil rights activist. When police and state troopers intervened to break up the march, the scene outside Zion United Methodist Church turned violent.

Fists. Feet. Nightsticks. Bottles. Cattle prods. And a single shot from an Alabama state trooper's revolver that ripped through Jackson’s stomach as he tried to shield his mother from the attacks.

His death eight days later altered the course of American history. It united activists in Marion and Selma, making their combined campaigns for desegregation and voting rights powerful enough to resonate around the world.

Yet Jackson's name is little more than a footnote in time.

"It was the killing of Jimmie Lee Jackson that provoked the march from Selma to Montgomery," said John Lewis, a civil rights icon and U.S. congressman, in 2007. "It was his death and his blood that gave us the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

As the nation nears one year since the death of George Floyd, who inspired another national outcry for racial equality, USA TODAY looks at Jackson's story to understand why he is a forgotten martyr of the civil rights movement.

USA TODAY inspected hundreds of unredacted FBI files that few have seen, along with court records and newspaper accounts from the 1960s that illustrate the racial tension in central Alabama in the weeks leading up to Jackson's death.

We also interviewed dozens of historians, eyewitnesses, local citizens and relatives of Jackson to reconstruct what happened the night Jackson was fatally shot and to shed light on who he was as a person, why his legacy is overshadowed and how his death in 1965 is connected to the racial reckoning America experienced last year.

Fifty-five years after Jackson’s death, in a city more than a thousand miles north, another Black man lay motionless on the pavement. This time, his life was draining under the knee of a white police officer in Minneapolis.

The death of 46-year-old Floyd ignited a movement of its own.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans nationwide poured into the streets to protest racial inequality, police violence and the systems that perpetuate racism decades after the civil rights movement.

Floyd’s name echoed through every major American city and indeed, around the world, along with the rallying cry “Black Lives Matter.” Every movement has a catalyst, the person, place or situation that moves people to action. In 2020, it was Floyd. In 1965, it was Jackson.

But with Jackson, almost no one says his name.

An ordinary man in the segregated South

BEFORE A BULLET ripped through Jackson’s body, he was just an ordinary man. He once chopped wood for a living, earning $6 a day. He was a deacon at a local Baptist church and worked at the county hospital. And like many other Black folks living in the rural Deep South, he was frustrated with segregation and being denied the right to vote.

Jimmie Lee and his little sister, Emma Jean Jackson, grew up in a shotgun shack on the edge of a stream.

After Jimmie Lee's father died in a car accident, his grandfather, Cager Lee, became his father figure. And as Lee aged, he relied on Jimmie Lee, whom he called "Bunky," for transportation.

"My grandfather depended on him so much," said Evelyn Rogers, one of Jimmie Lee’s cousins.

"Bunky, take me to town. Bunky, I need to go to the store. Bunky, I need to go to this person's house."

After Jimmie Lee’s death, few details about him emerged. In this era, the media didn’t explore the personal lives of regular Black men who were killed by police. Therefore, the story of Jimmie Lee’s life has been largely lost to time as the family members closest to him have died. His sister and closest living relative, Emma, declined to be interviewed for this story.

But USA TODAY interviewed several other relatives to get a glimpse into who Jimmie Lee was.

Rogers recalled Jimmie Lee as a modest man who cared most about taking care of his family. "He was a very simple guy," she said.

Cousin Anne Robinson, now 75, remembers his beautiful smile and how Jimmie Lee let her and Emma borrow his 1963 green and white Chevy so they could learn how to drive.

"He just always liked to help people,” she said.

A day filled with tension

JIMMIE LEE JACKSON was shot on a February day filled with all the classic ingredients for mayhem in the Deep South: segregation and mounting racial tensions, Black folks daring to push back against inequality, police officers steadfast on enforcing the status quo and civil rights leaders hoping to bring national attention to bear on Alabama.

In January 1965, Martin Luther King Jr. and other activists from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference had arrived in nearby Selma to electrify the voting rights campaign. Central Alabama was one of the worst places in America when it came to suppressing Black votes.

Poll taxes, literacy tests and intimidation tactics enforced by police all but ensured that only white people voted. Government records show that in 1960, less than 1% of African Americans in Dallas County, where Selma is located, were registered to vote even though they comprised more than half the county population. Black voters accounted for just 2% in Perry County, where Marion is located, despite representing nearly two-thirds of the county population.

The Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and local groups, including the Perry County Civic Justice League, had been focused on voter registration campaigns for months. But the arrival of King and other national civil rights figures both energized local protests and agitated law enforcement.

Black residents were chafing against an Alabama political system that didn't want to yield to racial integration. They marched. They sat in the “whites only” areas at movie theaters and restaurants. They boycotted businesses. The tension was mounting.

In early February, two weeks before Jackson was shot, hundreds of students walked out of a Marion high school to protest segregation, starting a three-week boycott of school.

Police were hauling Black youths off to state prison camps by the busload.

The newspaper in Alabama's state capital noted the unprecedented number of arrests made in Selma and Marion.

"800 More Arrested As Tension Builds," a Montgomery Advertiser front-page headline on Feb. 4, 1965, read.

The jails were overflowing with Black people, said Bernard Lafayette, a civil rights leader who worked in Selma at the time. "We wouldn't let up. We kept marching, kept the pressure on. We were breaking the system of local government."

On the morning of Feb. 18, 1965, FBI agents were on the ground, monitoring the civil rights protest activity in Marion. Seldom-seen notes agents made on their reports and dozens of eyewitness testimonies help re-create the day’s events.

"Negroes came out of church with a half-dozen picket signs," an FBI agent wrote at 10:56 a.m. "125 Negroes crossed the street, going north by the courthouse. They stopped and walked back, and were stopped … by the Chief of Police."

That morning, police arrested James Orange, an activist key to SCLC’s voter registration efforts in central Alabama, for encouraging students to join a march.

Activists learned that a group of Ku Klux Klansmen planned to lynch Orange while he was in police custody, Lafayette said. So organizers planned a nighttime march from the church to the jail for his protection.

However, Marion Police Chief T.O. Harris learned more civil rights leaders were coming from Selma, and "they planned to put on a show that night." So he and Perry County Sheriff William Loftis sought help from Alabama state troopers.

As the sun fell, the mood began to shift. Hundreds of Black people poured into Zion United church shortly before 7 p.m. They raised their voices in song; the melody wafting out of the red brick and wooden steepled church caught the ear of FBI agent Archibald Riley as he peered through a second-story window in a building across the street.

"Singing was louder than other nights," Riley noted.

Inside the church, a packed sanctuary listened to a fiery address from the Rev. C.T. Vivian, a civil rights leader and King's right-hand man. The congregation then prepared to march one block north to the jail to protest Orange's arrest.

Before the congregation exited the building, scores of police officers surrounded the church outside. One Alabama state trooper estimated there were 100 fellow officers on the scene. Assuming the protest would "get out of hand," the chief of police and sheriff already planned to stop the march before it got too far from the church, according to Chief Harris.

At about 9:25 p.m., the church's double doors opened wide, and the marchers emerged walking side by side in pairs.

They headed north toward the jail, walking past the bus station, where they were confronted by a police blockade. The police chief addressed the marchers over a bull horn.

"Chief Harris advised the Negroes that they were in an unlawful assembly and for them to disperse and go home or back to the church," a FBI agent noted.

Face to face with police officers and directed to disperse, the Rev. James Dobynes, one of the protest leaders, knelt to pray. As he prayed, the first blow was delivered: Dobynes was struck with a nightstick. More police officers and troopers followed suit, striking protesters with billy clubs. The chaos had begun.

Robinson, Jackson's cousin, tensed up as she recalled a memory she's long tried to bury. Robinson was 18 the night of the melee, but she remembers vividly the harrowing moment when officers began flailing their nightsticks.

"N------! What are you doing n------! It's illegal. You're not supposed to be here," Robinson recalled officers yelling.

"And then next thing you know, after that you hear bam, bam, bam, bam," she said, imitating the officers swinging their clubs.

“People were screaming, hollering, jumping over fences, jumping in ditches trying to get away.” It was dark, Robinson said. And unlike every other night, "the streetlights were not on.”

Police tried to force marchers back inside the church, but some fled into Mack's Cafe, a hangout next door. Amid the fray outside, Jackson's 82-year-old grandfather was attacked.

Lee was standing behind the church when a "man with clubs" came around and said, "n---- go home," he told the New York Times days after the assault.

"They hauled me off and hit me and knocked me to the street and kicked me," Lee told the newspaper. "It was hard to take for an old man whose bones are dry like cane."

Lee then sought refuge inside Mack's Cafe.

What happened next varies depending on who you ask and whose written account you believe. What’s certain is that dozens of marchers were bludgeoned and hospitalized that night, including Jackson’s grandfather and mother. Jackson was the only person killed.

Jackson had just finished his shift at the county hospital and was headed to the church to pick up his mother and grandfather, Rogers said.

Jackson told the FBI days after he was shot, while still in the hospital, that he initially went into Mack's Cafe to help get his grandfather to the hospital. As they were leaving the cafe, he said, two troopers forced them back inside and struck Jackson on the side, his arms and his head with their clubs.

Emma Jackson told the FBI she saw her brother enter the cafe to help their grandfather and she saw the troopers force them back inside. She said Jimmie Lee Jackson then stood near the counter and cigarette machine. He was visibly upset, so his sister "kept talking to (him) to calm him down."

"But he did not appear as if he were going to cause trouble," she told the FBI.

Jackson told the FBI he was drinking from a bottle when he saw a trooper hitting his mother. He went to assist his mother, but his sister held him back. Jackson recalled standing near the doorway when he was shot in the stomach by a trooper. He then ran out of the cafe. Several troopers followed and beat him with their nightsticks before he collapsed a few yards away.

Most eyewitnesses corroborated Jackson’s version of events, agreeing that he and his grandfather were pushed back into the cafe while trying to leave. Once inside, police began beating Black folks with their billy clubs. A scuffle ensued between Jackson’s mother and the police. One eyewitness said they saw Jackson’s mother, who was later hospitalized with a head injury, clubbed on the head. Shortly thereafter, several eyewitnesses said they heard a gunshot.

But police had a different version of events.

In a written statement provided to the FBI, state trooper B.J. Hoots said police entered Mack's Cafe because a group of African American people were throwing bricks and bottles at them. Fellow trooper James Bonard Fowler shot Jackson only after Jackson grabbed Fowler's gun inside the holster, "apparently trying to get it out."

Fowler said Jackson hit him twice over the head with a bottle while trying to pry his firearm out of the holster. Fowler staggered backward as the two tussled, pulling his gun free from the holster, and the gun fired when Jackson struck his hand with the bottle, he said.

No civilian witnesses reported seeing Jackson struggling to take Fowler’s firearm away.

Jackson was admitted to the Black hospital in Selma hours after being shot. He died eight days later.

The hidden figure of voting rights

OFF A NARROW, two-lane state highway, in an unmarked gravesite that blends in with the surrounding trees, one tombstone stands out. It sits atop a seven-layer bed of bricks, flanked by two wreaths of red flowers. An image of Jesus is carved into the large gray headstone, but it's marred by several bullet holes. Here, on the outskirts of Marion, Jackson is buried with the rest of his family.

"It was really a tragedy," Jackson’s cousin Evelyn Rogers said. "Here's someone who has never been in trouble. All he did was work and take care of his mother.”

A few miles from his gravesite, in downtown Marion, Jackson's legacy is visible for all to see. A historical marker stands on the lawn of the Perry County courthouse.

"Jimmie Lee Jackson, Voting Rights Martyr," it reads on one side.

"Jackson's Death Led To 'Bloody Sunday' March," the other side says.

Across the street, at the Zion United Methodist Church, Jackson's face is engraved on another memorial plaque. These permanent markers represent his enduring legacy.

“He was the first martyr of the voting rights movement,” said Albert Turner Jr., a Perry County commissioner. “Anytime (Black people) go to the polls and have a right to exercise their vote, it’s because of what happened in this little town of Marion.”

Ironically, Jackson and Marion have been overshadowed by the very march his death inspired.

One key reason Selma has long obscured Marion is because there was no video footage to capture the violence that occurred the night Jackson was shot. The police chief banned photographers and reporters from using lights or flashbulbs.

"There's no footage of that night," Turner said. "They intentionally shot out all the lights. They intentionally destroyed every camera of news media that was there."

The reporters and photographers present the night of Jackson’s shooting were harassed and beaten for trying to do their jobs. One NBC reporter was hospitalized after being struck in the head with a nightstick, according to FBI reports. Another reporter from United Press International received a blow to the back of the head and was hit five times in the face after taking two flash pictures with his camera.

Jackson had two funerals: one in Selma, and one in Marion. Thousands of people attended both services. But at his funeral in his hometown on March 3, 1965, Jackson's place in history would be spelled out clearly by the preeminent leader of the civil rights movement.

Speaking from a lectern just a few feet away from Jackson's casket, King called Jackson "a martyred hero of a holy crusade for freedom and human dignity."

A crowd of hundreds of people, stretched along an Alabama highway, walked 3 miles in the rain to bury Jackson.

Black people were angry. Many of the Black farmers in Marion wanted to arm themselves and turn to violence, said Lafayette, one of activists working in Selma. In fact, civil rights leaders canceled a march in Marion after Jackson’s death because they feared it wouldn’t be peaceful.

“They didn’t think our nonviolent approach worked after seeing what happened to Jimmie,” Lafayette said. “We feared they would come to the march with their guns, and that could have been ugly.”

But Jackson's death galvanized hundreds more people to become active participants in the movement. Some people wanted to march from Marion to the state capital, Montgomery, and lay Jackson’s body on the capitol steps for segregationist Gov. George Wallace to see. Leaders eventually abandoned that plan and settled on a march, without Jackson’s body, from Selma to Montgomery.

On March 7, little more than a week after Jackson died, about 600 demonstrators marched undisturbed through downtown Selma until they reached the steel-arched Edmund Pettus Bridge that stretched across the Alabama River.

Led by Lewis and Hosea Williams, a civil rights activist who was there in place of King, demonstrators were met with brutal force from state troopers and local police. They were attacked with clubs and tear-gassed by officers wearing helmets and gas masks.

The video footage and images from that day shocked the country and led to the passage of a landmark federal law, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited racial discrimination at the voting booth.

Bloody Sunday secured Selma's place in the civil rights movement. But it also overshadowed the brutality in Marion that claimed Jackson's life.

“Everyone saw what happened on that bridge,” Turner said. “No one saw what happened to Jimmie and what happened in Marion. Out of sight, out of mind.”

From the civil rights movement to Black Lives Matter

AFTER A WHILE, they all began to blur together. Michael Jackson, 57, can't recall the names, just a few hazy details surrounding their deaths. The name of the Black man who was shot in his back by a police officer escapes him. The young man who was shot while carrying a cellphone, too.

Michael Jackson's recollection may be overwhelmed by the onslaught of police violence, but every time he hears about a Black man killed by law enforcement, it stirs up memories of one person.

"Every time I see this across the country, I do think of Jimmie Lee Jackson," said Michael Jackson. The men are not related.

For decades, no one could prove who shot Jimmie Lee Jackson. The FBI files had been sealed. Then in 2004, Fowler admitted to a reporter from the Anniston (Alabama) Star that he was the shooter. Michael Jackson, who was just elected as the state's second African American district attorney, led the charge to prosecute Fowler.

At age 77, Fowler pleaded guilty to misdemeanor manslaughter but insisted that he acted in self-defense. Fowler, who told a reporter in 2005 that "Black people fared better when they stayed in their place," was sentenced to six months in state prison.

"To think that Jimmie Lee was killed almost 60 years ago, and here we are today still talking about the same thing," Michael Jackson said.

Watching the uprising after Floyd's death crystallized the parallels with the civil rights movement, said Margaret Burnham, a professor of law and Northeastern University's Civil Rights and Restorative Project director.

"What Jimmie Lee Jackson's death did was it galvanized and catapulted an already organized national community around civil rights to come out and say no more and push even harder for voting rights," she said.

"In that sense, it's similar to what occurred after George Floyd's death in May of 2020," she said, where an already organized community was able to take members' concerns to a higher national and global level because of the spotlight the incident shone on Minneapolis.

"Both the Jimmie Lee killing and the George Floyd killing were sparks in a dry forest."

Today, because Black people are able to vote freely, they hold esteemed political offices that were unimaginable decades ago, said Michael Jackson.

"There is no me, no (Barack) Obama or Vice President (Kamala) Harris without Jimmie," Michael Jackson said.

Selma's symbolic role in the civil rights movement is set in stone. But the complete story of how Black people earned equal voting rights can't be authored without Jimmie Lee Jackson and what transpired in Marion the night he was shot.

In many ways, the legacy of Selma stands on the shoulders of Marion.

"I don't care how many times you holler Selma," Turner said, sitting in his Perry County Courthouse office, which is across the street from where Jimmie Lee Jackson was shot.

"You got to ask yourself, what are y'all doing down there on the bridge? Why are you crossing the bridge?

"Selma has its part in it. But you have to go back to the beginning of the book. If you don't read the beginning of the book, you can't get the full story. The reason that they were marching on Bloody Sunday was because of what happened here."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Colombia's Ruling Class Is Getting Desperate Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=59564"><span class="small">Hasan Dodwell and Nick MacWilliam, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 26 May 2021 08:12

Excerpt: "The latest round of protests against Colombia's right-wing government has seen a brutal crackdown, leading to at least 43 deaths. But the mass movement against neoliberalism and state violence is only growing stronger."

Demonstrators clash with riot police at Portal De Las Americas in Bogotá on May 22, 2021. (photo: Juan Barreto/AFP/Getty Images)
Demonstrators clash with riot police at Portal De Las Americas in Bogotá on May 22, 2021. (photo: Juan Barreto/AFP/Getty Images)


Colombia's Ruling Class Is Getting Desperate

By Hasan Dodwell and Nick MacWilliam, Jacobin

26 May 21


The latest round of protests against Colombia’s right-wing government has seen a brutal crackdown, leading to at least 43 deaths. But the mass movement against neoliberalism and state violence is only growing stronger.

n April 28, Colombian trade unions and social movements staged a new round of paro nacional (national strike) protests, the latest in an ongoing series of mobilizations to address the litany of problems impacting Colombian society.

Opposition to a planned tax reform — which strike organizers said would unfairly target the middle and working classes in what is one of Latin America’s most unequal countries — was the central issue, particularly in the context of the global pandemic, which has pushed an estimated five million Colombians out of work. Calls to repeal the tax reform were aligned with longer-running demands around growing poverty levels, addressing the human rights crisis affecting much of the country, and properly advancing the implementation of the 2016 peace agreement.

Since the national strike movement was launched in November 2019, protesters have become accustomed to the police crackdowns of President Iván Duque’s right-wing administration. Yet, even by recent standards, the spread and duration of the violence unleashed since April 28 has been extreme. For over three weeks of daily protests across Colombia, Colombian security forces — especially the notorious riot police unit, the Mobile Anti-Disturbance Squadron (ESMAD) — have committed massive human rights violations as Duque’s government seeks to suppress anger toward his government.

As befits the camera phone era, social media has told the story of Colombia’s social revolt. Thousands of images and videos have spread virtually, with several standing out for their exhibitions of social unity or poignant solidarity: mothers bearing improvised shields join youthful protesters on the front line to face off against militarized police; statues of colonizers are toppled and replaced with the likenesses of victims of state violence; music, art, and dance energize crowds whose voices rise as one to demand a fairer Colombia.

While the official organization of the national strike movement comes from trade unions together with peasant, indigenous, and other established social organizations, the protests have been characterized by the mobilization of young Colombians from poor urban neighborhoods. In cities across the country, most notably in Cali, this new generation of political protesters have become the so-called front line resisting ever-increasing levels of police brutality.

Social media has also exposed the horrific violence inflicted on protesters by security forces. In one harrowing video, as four ESMAD agents drag her into a police station in Popayán, seventeen-year-old Alison Meléndez shouts that they are removing her trousers. The next day, after reporting they had sexually assaulted her, she took her life. Footage filmed in the town of Madrid in Cundinamarca shows a tear gas canister fired at protesters from an armored police vehicle. The projectile hit twenty-four-year-old Brayan Niño in the face, killing him despite the efforts of those around him.

By May 18, Colombian human rights organizations had registered security forces’ apparent responsibility for more than 2,300 acts of violence, 43 killings (including four minors), 18 sexual assaults, and 30 cases of eye injuries. Men in plain clothes have been filmed firing at protesters as uniformed police officers stand alongside them and do nothing, particularly alarming given Colombia’s long history of state collusion with paramilitary terror.

There has been widespread international condemnation of the Colombian government’s response to the protests. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said it had witnessed the use of “excessive force,” while the US Embassy in Bogotá called for “restraint” from Colombian police to avoid “additional loss of life.”

Fifty-five members of US Congress signed a letter calling the human rights situation “out of control,” while British and Irish trade unions demanded justice for victims of police violence. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has requested permission from the Colombian government to investigate abuses. For its part, the British government, which has training programs with the Colombian police, has not directly criticized the state violence.

Opposition to the planned tax reform comes at a time when more than five million people are estimated to have lost their main source of income due to the global pandemic and poverty levels increasing to over 40 percent. Coronavirus has particularly impacted the many Colombians eking out a living in the large informal sector, which accounts for roughly half of the labor force in roles such as transport workers, domestic staff, and street vendors.

National lockdowns, coupled with an absence of state support, pushed many Colombians into even deeper conditions of precarity. Although Duque repealed the tax reform after five days of intense unrest, it was far too late. His government had spilled too much blood.

In the midst of the killings and brutal violence being carried out by state agents, far from calling for the abuses to come to an end, government officials repeatedly issued stigmatizing statements against the protesters. On May 3, defense minister Diego Molano said, “Colombia faces the terrorist threat of criminal organizations,” while vice president Martha Ramírez implied that Indigenous organizations were funded by illegal drug money.

The use of smears to delegitimize popular movements is by no means a new tactic — trade unionists and activists have long been labelled “guerrillas” or “terrorists.” During the recent weeks, however, and in the context of a peace agreement now signed with the country’s largest and oldest guerrilla organization, the attempts to stigmatize appear to have largely strengthened the resolve of the protesters.

Anger over economic injustice sits alongside major concern for human rights and peace. The 2016 peace agreement brought the curtain down on decades of armed conflict between the Colombian state and the FARC. The peace process has seen important advances, such as the FARC’s reformation as a political party and the development of an internationally acclaimed transitional justice system that has begun investigating crimes committed during the conflict.

In one of its most significant findings so far, it found that between 2002 and 2008 — during the government of former president Álvaro Uribe — the Colombian military murdered 6,402 civilians and falsely presented them as guerrillas killed in combat.

Since its inception, however, the Colombian right has made efforts to undermine the peace process. Indeed, Uribe, who continues to wield significant political power and whose support for Duque was fundamental to his successful presidential campaign, has been the lead voice in that opposition.

Duque’s electoral campaign was based on antagonism to the peace agreement and a promise to make fundamental changes. Since 2018, when Duque was elected, Colombia has depended on a political movement hostile to the peace process. The protests have given voice to a major rejection of the ongoing influence of uribismo in Colombian politics and its attacks on human rights and peace.

Furthermore, since the agreement was signed, more than one thousand social activists and community leaders have been murdered across Colombia, with violence concentrated in regions historically impacted by conflict, structural poverty, and state abandonment. The FARC’s agreed withdrawal created power vacuums in areas the state has failed to secure. Paramilitaries and other illegal armed groups now vie to exert control over territories or illicit economies, targeting local leaders and displacing entire communities.

Additionally, more than 270 FARC former combatants have been murdered since putting down their weapons. The UN Verification Mission in Colombia warns that violence toward social activists and former combatants is the main threat to the peace process. The Duque government, however, has sought to downplay the human rights crisis and denies that killings reflect a systematic targeting of specific groups.

With elections scheduled in 2022, the protests could prove pivotal in determining who takes the presidency. The pro-peace movement enters electoral campaigning in a position of strength, but whether it will be able to successfully coalesce around a single candidate could prove decisive. Left candidate and 2018 runner-up Gustavo Petro currently leads the polls, and his supporters will be confident that the intensity of the protests reflects a widespread desire to fundamentally reshape Colombia’s social, political, and economic model.

The multitude of factors underpinning popular discontent in Colombia has now exploded to the fore. In meetings on May 10 and 16 with government officials, the National Strike Committee presented demands to resolve the crisis, including an immediate end to the violence. Human rights organizations have called for drastic police reform, which involves removing police jurisdiction from the Ministry of Defense and disbanding the ESMAD. However, with the Duque government still committing flagrant human rights abuses, there is little indication a resolution is close. The Colombian people have shown they do not plan to back down any time soon.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Next > End >>

Page 103 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN