http://news.linktv.org Link TV News Videos (Filtered by topics: National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) en-us Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:58:00 -0700 Copyright 2011 Link Media, Inc. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-12-2012?start=125 Mitt Romney addressed the annual convention of the NAACP Wednesday, and drew boos from the crowd when he vowed to repeal Obama's healthcare law and billed himself as the better candidate for the African-American community. Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:58:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-12-2012 Woody Guthrie, Protest song, Centennial, McCarthyism, Mitt Romney, Syrian Civil War, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 2011-2013 Spanish Protests, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Nawaf al-Fares Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney faced an icy reception on Wednesday as he addressed the annual convention of the NAACP. Romney drew boos from the crowd when he vowed to repeal President Obama's healthcare law and billed himself as the better candidate for the African-American community. Mitt Romney: "If our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over a trillion dollars more than we take in every year. And so, and so, to do that I am going to eliminate every non-essential expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare — and I'm going to work to reform and save ... (Audience boos). My agenda is not to put in place a series of policies that get me a lot of attention and applause. My policy would be, number one: Create jobs for the American people. I do not have a hidden agenda. I submit to you this — if you want a president that will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him. (Audience boos). You take a look." Romney later drew controversy when he discussed his NAACP appearance at a fundraising event last night in Montana. Romney reportedly told the crowd: "If they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy-more free stuff. But don't forget nothing is really free." House GOP Votes to Repeal Obamacare As Mitt Romney continued to vow an end to so-called "Obamacare," the Republican-controlled House passed a measure to repeal the law. Democrats say the measure has no chance of passing the Senate. Speaking on the House floor, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi traded barbs over the law. Eric Cantor: "We are trying to end the era of Washington-controlled healthcare. We believe, as do most of the American people, that's — it's patient-centered care is our goal. That's where we need to start. We start along the path to that goal by repealing Obamacare." Nancy Pelosi: "American people want us to be creating jobs. That's what we should be using this time on the floor for. Not this bill to nowhere — bill to nowhere that does serious damage to the health and economic well being of America's families." Wednesday's House vote marked the 33rd time the House has voted to repeal all or part of Obama's healthcare law. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-11-2012?start=2327 Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is in the hot seat over his vast personal fortune, estimated at up to $250 million. Five more corporations have severed ties with secretive right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) over its controversial policies on gun use, voter suppression, union busting, and more. And Democracy Now! hosts a debate on the legality of Israel's self-proclaimed right to build settlements throughout the occupied West Bank. Plus headlines, and more. Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:00:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-11-2012 Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, Tax avoidance and tax evasion, Tax haven, US presidential election, 2012, 2011-2013 Spanish Protests, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Anti-austerity protests, Israeli settlement, Israeli-occupied territories Five more corporations have severed ties with the secretive right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC. The group has come under increasing scrutiny in recent months as the public has become aware of its role in advancing the "Stand Your Ground" gun law initially cited to protect Trayvon Martin's killer in Florida. The organization has pushed voter suppression bills, union-busting policies and other controversial legislation. The future of ALEC is now more precarious than ever before. A grand total of 25 corporations have dropped ALEC membership, as well as four major non-profit organizations and 55 elected officials. We're joined by Lisa Graves, executive director of the Center for Media and Democracy, which created ALEC Exposed, a website showcasing more than 800 of the group's model bills. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-10-2012?start=459 Democracy Now! looks at the bloody struggle to obtain -- and protect -- voting rights in the US with the civil rights icon and 13-term Georgia congressmember John Lewis. Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:17:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-10-2012 Politics of the United States, Voting Rights Act, John Lewis (U.S. politician), US presidential election, 2012, Voter ID laws (United States), Voter suppression, Suffrage, United States, Civil and political rights, Voting rights in the United States Democracy Now! looks at the bloody struggle to obtain — and protect — voting rights in the U.S. with the civil rights icon, now 13-term Georgia congressmember, John Lewis. During the 1960s, Rep. Lewis was arrested more than 40 times and beaten almost to death as he served as chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, marched side by side with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., helped organize the Freedom Rides, campaigned for Robert Kennedy's presidential bid, and spoke at the 1963 March on Washington. He has just written a new memoir looking back on his more than 50 years of political involvement, "Across That Bridge: Life Lessons and a Vision for Change." Having risked his life marching for the right of all Americans to vote, Lewis reflects on the ongoing struggle for voting rights today, when 16 states have passed restrictive voting laws that critics say target people of color. "It is so important for people to understand, to know that people suffered, struggled," Lewis says. "Some people bled, and some died, for the right to participate. The vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool that we have in a democratic society. It's precious. It's almost sacred. We have to use it. If not, we will lose it." We spend today's hour looking at the bloody struggle to obtain—and protect—voting rights in this country. Since 2010, at least 10 states have passed laws that require people to show a government-issued photo ID when they go to the polls. While supporters say the laws protect against voter fraud, others argue they're more likely to suppress voter turnout among people of color, the poor and the elderly, who may lack the proper ID and find it harder to obtain one. In total, 16 states have passed restrictive voting laws that could shape the 2012 election, including the vital swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania. Well, on Monday, NAACP president and CEO Ben Jealous made voting rights the center of his address to the group's annual convention in Houston. BENJAMIN JEALOUS: Right now, in this moment, with 120 days left until the election, we have a choice to make. We can allow this election, Jerry Mondesire, to be stolen in advance, as a politician from Pennsylvania recently bragged about when he thought no one was listening, talking about his state's voter ID law, or we can double down on democracy and overcome the rising tide of voter suppression with a higher tide of voter registration and mobilization and activation and protection. Well, today we're joined by a leader of the civil rights movement who risked his life numerous times marching for the right of all Americans to vote: 13-term Democratic Congressmember John Lewis of Georgia. He was a leader of the civil rights movement who marched side by side with Dr. Martin Luther King. He served as chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, helped organize the Freedom Rides and spoke at the 1963 March on Washington. He has been arrested more than 40 times and has just written a new book called Across That Bridge: Life Lessons and a Vision for Change. He visited us in our studio, and I asked Congressmember Lewis about the voter purge in Florida, where the Justice Department had sued to block Republican Governor Rick Scott's controversial effort to remove thousands of registered voters from the rolls, using an outdated drivers' license database to ostensibly identify non-citizens registered to vote. It is unreal, it is unbelievable, that at this time in our history, 47 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed and signed into law, that we're trying to go backward. I think there is a systematic, deliberate attempt on the part of so many of these states—not just Florida, but it's all across the country, it's not just Southern states—to keep people from participating. I think there is an attempt to steal this election before it even takes place, to make it hard, to make it difficult for our seniors, for our students, for minorities, for the disabled to participate in the democratic process. It's not right, it's not fair, and it's not just. Why do these voter purges actually target the groups you've just talked about? How do they target them? Maybe you can explain what you were so pivotal in having passed, the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Well, I think there's this make-believe that if we do not purge, if we do not weed out some of these people, they're going to come out and vote, and they're going to vote not the way that some people would like for them to vote. They're primarily Democratic voters. It makes me want to just cry, after people gave a little blood, after some people were beaten, shot and murdered trying to help people become registered voters. I can never forget the three civil rights workers that were murdered in the state of Mississippi on the night of June 21st, 1964; other people shot down in cold blood; the march from Selma to Montgomery, where 17 of us were seriously injured. And we passed the Voting Rights Act. We renewed the act. We extended the act. And then the state of Florida, the state of Georgia, Alabama and other states throughout the nation come along with tactics to make it hard, to make it difficult for people to participate. We should be making it easy and simple and open up the political process and let all of the people come in. Explain what the Voting Rights Act said. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 said, in effect, that you cannot use a literary test, you cannot have a poll tax, you cannot use certain devices, you cannot harass, you cannot intimidate. And before you make any changes in election laws dealing with registration, changing a precinct, local lines for any political position, you have to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice or the federal district court in Washington, D.C. So, the state of Florida, for an example, never sought to get clearance to purge. And they're hiding behind there may be fraud. That's their own. You were on that Selma to Montgomery march. You had your head bashed in for this. Can you explain what happened, as we go back, what, almost half a century now? On March 7, 1965, a group of us attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, to dramatize to the nation that people wanted to register to vote. One young African-American man had been shot and killed a few days earlier, in an adjoining county called Perry County—this is in the Black Belt of Alabama—the home county of Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr., the home county of Mrs. Ralph Abernathy, the home county of Mrs. Andrew Young. And because of what happened to him, we made a decision to march. In Selma, Alabama, in 1965, only 2.1 percent of blacks of voting age were registered to vote. The only place you could attempt to register was to go down to the courthouse. You had to pass a so-called literacy test. And they would tell people over and over again that they didn't or couldn't pass the literacy test. On one occasion, a man was asked to count the number of bubbles on a bar of soap. On another occasion, a man was asked to count the number of jellybeans in a jar. There were African-American lawyers, doctors, teachers, housewives, college professors flunking this so-called literacy test. And we had to change that, so we sought to march. And we got to the top of the bridge. We saw a sea of blue—Alabama state troopers—and we continued to walk. We came within hearing distance of the state troopers. And a man identified himself and said, "I'm Major John Cloud of the Alabama state troopers. This is an unlawful march. It will not be allowed to continue. I give you three minutes to disperse and return to your church." And one of the young people walking with me, leading the march, a man by the name of Hosea Williams, who was on the staff of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said, "Major, give us a moment to kneel and pray." And the major said, "Troopers, advance!" And you saw these guys putting on their gas masks. They came toward us, beating us with nightsticks and bullwhips, trampling us with horses. I was hit in the head by a state trooper with a nightstick. I had a concussion at the bridge. My legs went out from under me. I felt like I was going to die. I thought I saw Death. All these many years later, I don't recall how I made it back across that bridge to the church. But after I got back to the church, the church was full to capacity, more than 2,000 people on the outside trying to get in to protest what had happened on the bridge. And someone asked me to say something to the audience. And I stood up and said something like: "I don't understand it, how President Johnson can send troops to Vietnam but cannot send troops to Selma, Alabama, to protect people whose only desire is to register to vote." The next thing I knew, I had been admitted to the local hospital in Selma. Explain that moment where you decided to move forward, because I don't think the history we learn records those small acts that are actually gargantuan acts of bravery. Talk about—I mean, you saw the weapons the police arrayed against you. What propelled you forward, Congressmember Lewis? Well, my mother, my father, my grandparents, my uncles and aunts, and people all around me had never registered to vote. I had been working all across the South. The state of Mississippi had a black voting age population of more than 450,000, and only about 16,000 were registered to vote. On that day, we didn't have a choice. I think we had been tracked down by what I call the spirit of history, and we couldn't—we couldn't turn back. We had to go forward. We became like trees planted by the rivers of water. We were anchored. And I thought we would die. I first thought we would be arrested and go to jail, but I thought it was a real possibility that some of us would die on that bridge that day, after the confrontation occurred. I thought it was the last protest for me. But somehow and someway, you have to keep going. You go to a hospital, you go to a doctor's office, you get mended, and you get up and try it again. So what was the next act you engaged in? Well, we continued to organize, continued to try to get people registered. We went to federal court, testified, to get an injunction against Governor George Wallace and the Alabama state troopers. And the federal court said that we had a right to march from Selma to Montgomery. President Johnson spoke to the nation and condemned the violence in Selma, introduced the Voting Rights Act. And that night, he made one of the most meaningful speeches that any American president had made in modern times on the whole question of civil rights and voting rights. He condemned the violence over and over again, and near the end of the speech he said, "And we shall overcome. We shall overcome." We call it the "We Shall Overcome" speech. I was sitting next to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as we listened to President Johnson. I looked at Dr. King. Tears came down his face. He started crying. And we all cried a little when we heard the president saying, "We shall overcome." And Dr. King said, "We will make it from Selma to Montgomery, and the Voting Rights Act will be passed." Two weeks later, more than 10,000 of us, people from all over America, started walking from Selma to Montgomery. And by the time we made it to Montgomery five days later, there were almost 30,000 black and white citizens—Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, men, women, young people. It was like a holy march. And the Congress debated the act, passed it, and on August 6, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed it into law. Congressmember John Lewis. We continue our conversation after break. [break] The Morehouse College Glee Club performing "We Shall Overcome." Morehouse College was the alma mater of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, as I continue with my interview with Democratic Congressmember John Lewis of Georgia, leader of the civil rights movement, risked his life numerous times marching for the right of all Americans to vote. During the civil rights movement, he marched side by side with Dr. King. He served as chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, helped organize the Freedom Rides, spoke at the 1963 March on Washington. Congressmember Lewis was also a leader of the now-famous voting rights march from Selma to Montgomery. On July 6, 1964, he led 50 African Americans to the courthouse in Selma, Alabama, on voter registration day, but Sheriff Jim Clark arrested them rather than allow them to apply to vote. I played for Congressman Lewis a clip of his close friend and ally, Martin Luther King Jr., speaking in 1965 about Jim Clark. I am here to tell you tonight that the businessmen, the mayor of this city, the police commissioner of this city, and everybody in the white power structure of this city must take a responsibility for everything that Jim Clark does in this community. It's time for us to say to these men, that if you don't do something about it, we will have no alternative but to engage in broader and more drastic forms of civil disobedience in order to bring the attention of the nation to this whole issue in Selma, Alabama. Dr. Martin Luther King. You were in the church, John Lewis. It was an unbelievable speech. Dr. King spoke out of his gut. Sheriff Clark was a very mean man. He was vicious. I think maybe he was a little sick. He wore a gun on one side, a nightstick on the other side. He carried an electric cow prodder in his hand—and he didn't use it on cows. When young— An electric cow prodder. That you use to move cattle along. And I remember on one occasion he was wearing a button on his left lapel that said "Never." He thought he was a general in a military. He would wear a helmet like Patton. He forced a group of young children on a false march, which was so cruel, so vicious and so evil. He took them down a highway and said, "If you want to march..." And he had people just chase these little children on horseback. I saw him one day when a group of black women were trying to march, primarily black schoolteachers, that he literally put his foot on the neck of a black woman. We were peaceful. We were orderly. We believed in the philosophy, in the discipline of nonviolence. We were trying to appeal to the conscience of everybody. Well, you somehow reached the conscience of the KKK man who beat you. I wanted to get your response. Almost a half a century has passed since the now ex-Klansman Elwin Wilson hit you at a lunch counter in a South Carolina bus station. After years of regret, Elwin finally apologized to you in 2009. He has spoken out against bigotry and intolerance. I want to go to a clip of him speaking on The Oprah Winfrey Show about what happened the day he attacked you. Were you a member of the Ku Klux Klan? That was Elwin apologizing to you, the ex-Klansman. Describe what he did to you during the Freedom Rides, and tell us what they were. On May 9th, 1961, my seat mate, a young white gentleman, we arrived at the Greyhound bus station in Rock Hill, South Carolina. We got off the bus. What were you doing there? We were testing the facilities—the lunch counters, the waiting room, the restroom facility. During those days, the stations were marked "white waiting," "colored waiting," "white men," "colored men," "white women," "colored women." And we were following a decision of the United States Supreme Court banning discrimination—or segregation in intrastate travel. And when we started to enter the so-called white waiting room, we were attacked by a group of young white men, beaten and left in a pool of blood. The local police officials came up and wanted to know whether we wanted to press charges. We said, "No, we believe in peace. We believe in love and nonviolence." Years later—to be exact, 48 years later—Mr. Wilson and his son came to my office in Washington and said, "Mr. Lewis, I'm one of the people that beat you. Will you forgive me? I apologize." His son had been encouraging his father to do this. His son started crying. Mr. Wilson started crying. He hugged me. His son hugged me. I hugged them both back. Then all three of us stood there crying. That's what the movement was about, to be reconciled. When we hear about voting rights today, we don't hear about these struggles that you and so many others that you led went through 50 years ago. That's why it is so important for people to understand, to know that people suffered, struggled. Some people bled, and some died, for the right to participate. You know, the vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool that we have in a democratic society. It's precious. It's almost sacred. We have to use it. If not, we will lose it. A few years after that, two years after you had your head slammed in and so many others were beaten in Montgomery, was the 1963 March on Washington. Dr. King spoke, and you also spoke. I want to go to a clip of that moment, August 28th, 1963. To those who have said, "Be patient and wait," we must say that we cannot be patient. We do not want our freedom gradually, but we want to be free now. We are tired. We are tired of being beat by policemen. We are tired of seeing our people locked up in jail over and over again, and then you holler, "Be patient." How long can we be patient? We want our freedom, and we want it now. We do not want to go to jail, but we will go to jail if this is the price we must pay for love, brotherhood and true peace. I appeal to all of you to get in this great revolution that is sweeping this nation. Get in and stay in the streets of every city, every village and hamlet of this nation, until true freedom comes, until the revolution of 1776 is complete. We must get in this revolution and complete the revolution, for in the Delta of Mississippi, in Southwest Georgia, in the Black Belt of Alabama, in Harlem, in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia and all over this nation, the black masses are on the march for jobs and freedom. They're talking about slow down and stop. We will not stop. All of the forces of Eastland, Barnett, Wallace, and Thurmond will not stop this revolution. If we do not get meaningful legislation out of this Congress, the time will come when we will not confine our march into Washington. We will march through the South, through the streets of Jackson, through the streets of Danville, through the streets of Cambridge, through the streets of Birmingham. But we will march with the spirit of love and with the spirit of dignity that we have shown here today. By the forces of our demands, our determination and our numbers, we shall splinter the segregated South into a thousand pieces, put them together in the image of God and democracy. We must say, "Wake up, America! Wake up!" for we cannot stop, and we will not and cannot be patient. That remarkable speech that you gave on August 28th, 1963. You were the youngest speaker at the March on Washington. You spoke before Dr. King. I spoke number six. Dr. King was the last speaker. He spoke number 10. That day, when A. Philip Randolph introduced me, and he said, "And I present to you, young John Lewis, national chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee," I looked to my right, I saw many other young people sort of cheering me on; looked to my left, and I saw young people up in the trees trying to get a better view of the crowd; then I looked straight ahead, and I said to myself, "This is it. I must do my best." And that's what I tried to do. When I was working on the speech, I was reading a copy of the New York Times, and I saw a group of black women in southern Africa carrying signs saying, "One Man, One Vote." So in my March on Washington speech, I said, "'One man, one vote' is the African cry; it is ours, too. It must be ours." And that became the rallying cry for many other young people in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. And yet, you had to change that speech that you gave on that day. I was asked to change the speech. Some people thought the speech was too radical, too militant. I thought it was a speech for the occasion. It represented the people that we were working with. Some people didn't like the use of the word "revolution" or the use of the phrase "black masses." A. Philip Randolph came to my rescue and said, "There's not anything wrong with the use of 'revolution.' I use it myself sometimes. There's not anything with 'black masses.'" So we kept that part in the speech. But near the end of the speech, I said something like, "If we do not see meaningful progress here today, the day may come when we will be forced to march through the South the way Sherman did—nonviolently." And people thought we couldn't make a reference to Sherman, and so we deleted that. The text that I have exactly: "The next time we march, we won't march on Washington, but will march through the South, through the Heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did. We shall pursue our own 'scorched earth' policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground—nonviolently." Why did you give in? One of the reasons, A. Philip Randolph, this wonderful man, this prince of a man, had always dreamed of a march on Washington. You couldn't say no to A. Philip Randolph. And then you had Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. saying to me, "John, this doesn't sound like you." I love those two men. Dr. King was my hero, my inspiration. And for the sake of unity, I made a decision to change the speech, to delete some of those words. You also asked, "I want to know: which side is the federal government on?" I did ask the question. I did raise the question, "I want to know: which side is the federal government on?" because it appeared, in certain parts of the South, the federal government was not on the right side of history. It appeared that the federal government was not a sympathetic referee in the struggle for civil rights. We felt that the federal government could do more, the Department of Justice could do more, the FBI could do more, than just stand back and take pictures. We thought they could prevent some of the violence and protect people that were being arrested, being beaten and being killed. I'd like to play Danny Glover reading the excerpts of the speech that you didn't give. DANNY GLOVER: "To those who have said, 'Be patient and wait,' we must say that 'patience' is a dirty and nasty word. We cannot be patient. We do not want to be free gradually. We want our freedom, and we want it now. We cannot depend on any political party, for both the Democrats and the Republicans have betrayed the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence. ... We won't stop now. All of the forces of Eastland, Barnett, Wallace and Thurmond won't stop the revolution. The time will come when we will not confine our marching to Washington. We will march through the South, through the Heart of Dixie, the way Sherman did. We shall pursue our own 'scorched earth' policy and burn Jim Crow to the ground!" John Lewis, you also said a part that didn't get included was: "In good conscience, we cannot support the administration's civil rights bill, for it's too little, too late. There's not one thing in the bill that will protect our people from police brutality." I thought, and I believe, that the proposed civil rights bill was not enough. President Kennedy took the position that if a person had a sixth grade education, that person should be considered literate and should able to register to vote. Those of us in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee took the position that the only qualification for being able to register to vote in America should be that of age and residency, nothing more or anything less. We wanted a much stronger bill. But the whole idea of the march was not to support a particular piece of legislation. It was a march for jobs and freedom. It was a coalition of conscience to say to the Congress and say to the president of the United States, "You must act." We didn't think that the proposed bill was commensurate to all of the suffering, to the beatings, to the jailing, to the killing that had occurred in the South. Congressman John Lewis. He's just written a new book called Across That Bridge: Life Lessons and a Vision for Change. I'll continue the interview with him in a moment. [break] "Ain't Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Round," the SNCC Freedom Singers, a group that traveled the country singing and fundraising for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Congressmember John Lewis was one of the chairs of SNCC. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report, as we return to my interview with the now 13-term Democratic congressman, John Lewis of Georgia, arrested more than 40 times as he fought for voting rights and against segregation in America. Just before Malcolm X was assassinated, John Lewis met with him in Africa. They spent several days together. I asked John Lewis where they met, what they talked about. We met Malcolm in Nairobi, Kenya, at the New Stanley Hotel. He happened to be staying there—we didn't know he was staying there—and we were also staying there. We were on our way to Zambia for their independence celebration. And we had an opportunity to talk and chat with him about what was going on in America. And I think at that time Malcolm was seeking to find a way to identify with the Southern civil rights movement. He wanted to be helpful, wanted to be supportive. And as a matter of fact, he came to Selma. He came to Selma, February the 14th, 1965. And we were in jail, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and the local authority refused to let him come and meet with us. He spoke at the Brown Chapel AME Church with Mrs. King to a group of high school students. And seven days later, he was assassinated. On February 21st, 1965, he was gunned down. I will never forget it, because February 21st is my birthday. And I was in a car on my way from southwest Georgia. You were 25 years old. Twenty-five. And I was going from southwest Georgia through Atlanta back to Selma, when we heard that he had been shot. I came to New York, attended the service for him. What is your assessment of the significance of Malcolm X? I think Malcolm played a major role in helping to educate, inform and dramatize the need for mass movement. People read about him. Many of the young people, black and white, read his story. Many did not agree necessarily with his techniques or his tactic. But if Malcolm had lived, I am convinced that he would have been part of the Southern nonviolent wing of the civil rights movement. And his relationship with Dr. King? What did Dr. King think? I remember Malcolm being in the hotel, before we even saw him in Kenya, the night of the March on Washington—the evening before the March on Washington. He was at the Hilton Hotel in Washington. Now, he didn't like the way the march turned out, because he said it was like a picnic and that it was not strong enough. And he wasn't invited to speak. He was not invited to speak. We—I didn't have anything to do with that decision. After the Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Act were signed, Dr. King increasingly started speaking out against the Vietnam War—his inner circle saying, "Don't give that speech at Riverside Church," April 4th, 1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated in Memphis, the "Why I Oppose the War in Vietnam" speech. "You've got the president of the United States behind you. You got him to sign the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act," they said to Dr. King. "Don't take him on in a war that is not ours." Yet he defied them and said it is. Were you a part of that circle? What position did you take, John Lewis? I supported the position of Martin Luther King Jr. As chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, during that time, we had already taken a position against the war in Vietnam. So many of the young people in SNCC, so many of the young people that we were working with all across the South were being drafted and going off to Vietnam, so we came out against the war in January 1966. But I was there at Riverside Church on the night of April 4th, 1967, when he spoke. And I think that speech is one of the greatest speeches. A lot of people speak about the March on Washington. It was a wonderful speech. But the speech against the war in Vietnam, Dr. King—he said, "I'm not going to segregate my conscience. If I'm against violence at home, I'm against violence abroad." And he went on to say that America was the greatest purveyor of violence in the world. He was—he was a preacher. He was a prophet. Do you agree with him? I agree with him. That the U.S. is the greatest purveyor of violence. We have more—we spend hundreds and thousand, millions and billions of dollars on weaponry. We're supplying the world. We sell arms to everybody. Dr. King was saying that we have to put an end to this madness. He was influenced by Gandhi, and Gandhi said it's nonviolence or nonexistence. Dr. King went on to say, "We must learn to live together as brothers and sisters, or we will perish as fools." He was saying, in effect, that we have enough bombs and missiles and guns to destroy the planet. He said it then, and it's still true today. At the time, Time magazine called the speech "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." That's the Dr. King 1967 speech against the war in Vietnam. The Washington Post declared King had, quote, "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people." I think it's so unfortunate that publications like Time magazine, Washington Post — if they had to rewrite those articles today, it would be a different story. Dr. King was right. He was right—and so many others, politicians, who came out against the war, whether it was Eugene McCarthy or others, later Bobby Kennedy. What that war helped to destroy: the hopes, the dreams and aspiration of so many people. War is bloody. It's messy. And so, today, the war in Afghanistan, the drone war that President Obama is conducting in Pakistan, in Yemen, in other places, with the "kill list," that the Times called it, that he personally keeps and names the people he puts on the list—your thoughts? Well, I think it's time for us to end, end the efforts in Afghanistan. We cannot justify the killing of people that we don't see. We don't know anything about them, or very little. War is not the answer. War is obsolete. It cannot be used as a tool of our foreign policy. It's barbaric. Someplace, somehow, people must come to that point and say, "I ain't gonna stay the war no more." Have you talked to President Obama about this? I have not had an opportunity. But I've spoken out on the floor of the House against the war in Afghanistan, as I did against the war in Iraq. You voted in—three days after September 11, 2001, to give President Bush the authority to retaliate in a vote that was 420 to 1. You have described it was one of your toughest votes. Talk about how you decided to do that. I was very disturbed about what happened on 9/11. And when I look back on it, if I had to do it all over again, I would have voted with Barbara Lee. It was raw courage on her part. So, because of that, I don't vote for funding for war. I vote against preparation for the military. I will never again go down that road. And what do you say to those who say, "Then you're not supporting the military. You're not supporting the soldiers, the troops"? I support the soldiers. When I see young men in uniform, I say, "Thank you for your service." And I tell them, "I want all of you to come home." I tell them to their faces. I see them in the airports. I see them in Washington. I say, "It's time for you to come home." President Obama will be giving his renomination address at the Democratic convention in the Bank of America Stadium. I saw you four years ago at the Mile High Stadium in Denver, where they were honoring you. It was actually August 28th, 2008. It was the anniversary of Dr. King's speech in Washington, as well as your own. But now President Obama will be speaking in Charlotte at the Bank of America Stadium, and the economy is a major issue, also deeply linked to the war. What are your thoughts today about where we have gone in this four years? Well, it is—it's my hope that President Obama and the Democratic Party will recapture the hopes, the dreams that people had four years ago, and have a platform, a program, where we must go now. How do we rescue and save people? How do we give people a feeling that they can survive, they can make it in America? People—many people lost their homes, their jobs. We must say, there is a way out, there is a better way. They cannot be shy because the convention is taking place in the Bank of America center. They've got to be strong. They've got to tell the truth. Do you think people should be protesting as President Obama is speaking? Well, I don't know. If people feel that something is not right, is not fair, they have a right to protest. Do you feel it's not right? Would you be protesting? I don't know what I'm going to do. I don't know. I believe that the time is always right to do right, as Dr. King said, and people always have a right to protest for what is right. How did you decide to go from activist, real street-fighting activist—you, yourself, weren't physically fighting, but you were being fought by the police every step of the way—to a congressmember? Talk about the moment you made that decision and the year you did. How old were you? I made the decision after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy. I was with Robert Kennedy in Indianapolis, Indiana, on the evening of April 4, 1968, when I heard that Dr. King had been shot. I didn't know his condition until Robert Kennedy spoke at a rally that I was having to organize and said that Dr. King had been assassinated. I want to go to that clip. I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens and people who love peace all over the world. And that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee. That was Robert Kennedy in Indianapolis, breaking the news to so many. John Lewis, you were there. I cried, with so many other people. And I said to myself, "We still have Bobby." I went back to Atlanta, attended the funeral with Robert Kennedy and hundreds and thousands of others. After the funeral was over, I got back in the Kennedy campaign, went to Oregon and later to California. I campaigned for Bobby Kennedy with César Chávez. It was a wonderful effort. We went all over Los Angeles, going into wealthy neighborhoods, knocking on doors, urging people to vote for Bobby. And that evening the primary was over, Bobby Kennedy came up to me and said, "John, I'm going downstairs to make my victory statement. Why don't you remain?" I was in his suite with his sister, several other individuals, the brother of Medgar Evers. And we listened to Bobby, and he said, "On to Chicago." And moments, minutes later, it was announced that he had been shot. Dropped to the floor and cried and cried. I just wanted to get out of L.A. I got on a flight the next morning, flew to Atlanta, and I think I cried all the way from L.A. to Atlanta. And I came back to New York for the funeral. And before the funeral, I stood the night before as an honor guard with Reverend Ralph Abernathy. Then I rode the funeral train. The family asked me to ride with them from New York to Washington. And someplace along the way, I felt that somehow, in some way, I had to try to pick up where Dr. King and Robert Kennedy left off. These were my friends. These were my heroes. These were two young men that had inspired me. And some of my friends started encouraging me to get involved in electoral politics, do more than just register people, that I should run for office. And I made a decision years later to do it. Finally, at the end of Across That Bridge, your new book, you write, "Just as Gandhi made it easier for King and King made it easier for Poland and Poland [made it easier] for Ireland [and] Ireland [made it easier] for Serbia [and] Serbia made it easier for the Arab Spring, [and] the Arab Spring made it easier for [the protests in] Wisconsin [and] Occupy." Talk about these connections. I believe there is something in human history—I call it the spirit of history. It's like a spring, a stream, that continue to move. And individuals and forces come along that become symbols of what is good, what is right and what is fair. And that's why I wrote this little book, to say to people that you, too, can allow yourself to be used by the spirit of history. Just find a way to get in the way. When I was growing up, my mother and father, my grandparents and great-grandparents were always telling me, "Don't get in trouble. Don't get in the way." But I was inspired by Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks and others to get in the way, to get in trouble—good trouble, necessary trouble. And we all must find a way to have the courage to get in trouble, to do our part. Every generation must find a way to leave the planet, leave this little spaceship, earth, this little piece of real estate, a little better than we found it—a little cleaner, a little greener and a little more peaceful. I think that's our calling. We have a mission, a mandate and a moral obligation to do just that. John Lewis, 13-term congressmember, former chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, arrested more than 40 times, beaten repeatedly as he fought for voting rights and against a segregated America. He's just written a new book called Across That Bridge: Life Lessons and a Vision for Change. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-9-2012?start=1631 The US Justice Department and Texas legislature are squaring off in court today over the state's controversial voter ID law. The law requires voters to show photo ID at the polls, and Texas hopes to implement it before the November election. Mon, 09 Jul 2012 14:17:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-july-9-2012 United States, Bashar al-Assad, Kofi Annan, Syrian Civil War, Politics of the United States, Syria, Kofi Annan peace plan for Syria, War Crime, Heat wave, Oakland City Council The Justice Department and the Texas legislature are squaring off in court today over the state's controversial voter ID law. The law requires voters to show photo identification at the polls, and Texas hopes to implement it before the November election. The DOJ blocked Texas' voter ID law in March, saying it will disenfranchise at least 600,000 voters — a disproportionate number of which are Latinos and other minority groups. Currently, 16 states have passed restrictive voting laws that have the potential to impact the 2012 election, including vital swing states such as Florida and Pennsylvania. We speak with Robert Notzon, the legal redress chair for the Texas State Conference of the NAACP and co-counsel in a lawsuit challenging Texas' voter ID law; and Ari Berman, who covers voting rights for The Nation and Rolling Stone magazines. "Not only is Texas such a large state, but it has probably the strictest voter ID law on the books right now," Berman says. "You can vote with a handgun permit but not a student ID. Hispanics are anywhere from 46 to 120 percent more likely to not have IDs than white voters. ... In some ways, it really is 'as goes Texas, so goes the nation,' in terms of demographic change and the Republican response." Today, the Department of Justice and the Texas legislature head to court over Texas's voter ID law. The law requires voters to show their photo ID at the polls, and Texas hopes to implement it before the November election. A three-judge panel will hear the groundbreaking case, which could challenge the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, a cherished safeguard for voters of color around the country. In March, the Department of Justice blocked Texas's voter ID law, saying it will disenfranchise at least 600,000 voters, a disproportionate number of which are Latinos and other minorities. This is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder speaking in April at the Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network 14th annual convention. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: We will continue to oppose discriminatory practices while also vigorously defending Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act against challenges to its constitutionality. Now, let me be very clear. This administration will do whatever is necessary to ensure the continued viability of the Voting Rights Act, our nation's most important civil rights statute. However, supporters of voter ID laws claim such measures are crucial for preventing voter fraud. This is Republican Governor Rick Perry of Texas defending his state's voter ID law on Fox News. GOV. RICK PERRY: We had multiple cases where voter fraud was in various places across the state. And this isn't a Democrat or Republican issue. I think any person who does not want to see fraud believes in having good, open, honest elections, transparent. And one of the ways to do that, one of the best ways to do that, is to have a identification, photo identification, so that you prove you are who you are and you keep those elections fraud-free. Governor Perry. Texas is one of nine states that must get any changes to their election law cleared by the Justice Department under the Voting Rights Act due to a history of discrimination. Currently, 16 states have passed restrictive voting laws that have the potential to impact the 2012 election. These include vital swing states like Florida and Pennsylvania. All together, these states account for 214 electoral votes, or nearly 79 percent of the total needed to win the presidency. For more, we're going to Houston, Texas, to speak with Robert Notzon, the legal redress chair for the Texas State Conference of the NAACP. He's co-counsel in a lawsuit challenging Texas's voter ID law, in Houston for the NAACP national convention, which is focusing this year on voter participation in the wake of restrictive voting laws. The theme of the conference: "NAACP: Your Power, Your Decision — Vote." Can you explain, Robert Notzon, about the lawsuit that the NAACP has brought? Well, actually, the state of Texas has brought it, because they're seeking pre-clearance for the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to get the voter ID law to become law under federal law, under the Voting Rights Act. So, they have asked the district court in the District of Columbia for pre-clearance, and that is a trial which starts today. They need to prove that the—their law has no discriminatory intent or no discriminatory effect in the way it's operated. And talk about the significance of this hearing that is taking place this week. Well, it's critical, because, as you said, there's several states that have attempted to or that have passed voter ID laws. But in Texas, we always do things different. And they seem to be—I won't say unapologetic, because they don't wear race on their sleeves when they do it, but the way they go about passing their voting laws in the state of Texas, historically, for decades, regardless of party, is to be—take advantage of race and use it as a tool to stay in power and to keep the minority vote down. So, in Texas, when they pass a law like this voter ID law, it's different than other states. They restrict the number of IDs that are available to be used. And the impact on that is disproportionately on the minority community. Explain more why it impacts the minority community—in Texas, we're talking particularly Latinos, though African Americans, as well—why presenting a photo ID does this. Right. Well, on all the—I like to call them the "pursuit of happiness" indexes on the census, the minority populations in Texas, historically and currently, are on the lower end of the economic scale. So the effects of having to get voter IDs, having to have the documentation necessary to get those voter IDs, having to get to the place where you need to get the ID, having to take off work, having to get transportation, having to—I guess, if you move often, the minority populations are going to have more trouble keeping a current voter ID. And also, the voter ID— Robert Notzon— No, go ahead. Explain what can be used as an ID. What are they requiring in this law? What photo ID? There's a—the driver's license. There's a passport. There's a fishing and hunting licenses. There's a state ID. Some of these, you need to actually have a birth certificate before you can get it. So, I think there's been some argument that these voter IDs are free, some of them are free, but you need to have these documents with you, and you need to be able to get there and get the IDs. In addition to Robert Notzon, we're also joined by Ari Berman, who covers voting rights for The Nation magazine and Rolling Stone, as well. Ari, put Texas, this law and the hearing that's taking place this week, in the national context. Well, it's very important, because not only is Texas such a large state, but it has probably the strictest voter ID law on the books right now, because, as Robert mentioned, you can vote with a handgun permit but not a student ID. Hispanics are anywhere from 46 to 120 percent more likely to not have IDs than white voters. It's also much more difficult for them to get IDs, because they're more likely to live in counties without DMV offices. They're less likely to have a car to get to a DMV. They may have to travel a very far distance, up to 170 miles round trip. So, Texas has had such a strict law. They're so brazen in terms of what they're doing, and the minority growth in Texas is so rapid, it's an indicator of where the country is moving as a whole—that, in some ways, it really is "as goes Texas, so goes the nation," in terms of demographic change and the Republican response to that change. I want to go back to this issue of not a student I.D., but you can have a gun license. Talk further about that. Well, look at who is going to own guns in Texas and look at who students are in Texas, and which parties they are going to support. It's very likely that gun owners in Texas are going to be overwhelmingly Republican, while young voters are going to be more Democratic. Similar with Hispanics, with African Americans, with people of color in the state: they are going to be more Democratic than Republican-leaning. And this is the theme of voter ID laws, in general, and restrictive voting laws, is this is an attempt by Republicans to shape the electorate in their own favor and to make it harder for Democratic and progressive-leaning voters to have access to the electoral process at every level—harder to register to vote, harder to cast a ballot, harder to participate in the political process itself. And so, that's the grand scheme of the Republican Party, in Texas and elsewhere, passing all these restrictive voting laws since the 2010 election. And what it means for the 2012 election? Are you saying that this could–it could definitely throw the election? It could throw the election. As you mentioned earlier in your introduction, the states that have passed restrictive voting laws account for 214 electoral votes, nearly 80 percent of what is needed. We're talking about very, very significant swing votes—swing states, like Pennsylvania, like Florida, like Wisconsin. These are going to be very close states in November. And so, what is going on in these states could swing the election in terms of who makes it to the ballot box and then in terms of whether their votes are counted. So I've always said, since the 2010 election, this has been one of the biggest sleeper issues there is out there, where people weren't paying enough attention, but it clearly had a major impact. Now people are starting to pay a lot more attention, but the problem is, a lot of these laws are already on the books, or they're in court, but we don't know what the outcome will be. Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania is huge. As you mentioned, it's going to be a very major swing state. There was just a study released last week that said that 758,000 Pennsylvanians may lack the ID needed to vote. That's 10 percent of statewide voters, but what's most interesting, 18 percent of people in Philadelphia don't have that ID. Philadelphia is the Democratic and progressive hub of the state. It's 44 percent African American. So you're looking again at a case where voter ID is carried out in such a way that's disproportionately going to impact Democratic and progressive-leaning voters, and it's going to make it a lot harder to vote in the next election. The number of people in Pennsylvania without ID is larger than the margin of victory for Barack Obama in 2008 in the state. Say that one more time. The number of people without ID is larger than the margin of victory for Barack Obama in the state in 2008. Barack Obama won by about 600,000 votes in 2008 in Pennsylvania; 758,000 Pennsylvanians don't have ID. The Justice Department has ordered Florida, a likely key swing state in the 2012 election, to end a controversial voter purge that's primarily targeted Latino, Democratic, independent-minded voters. I want to turn to a clip of the Florida Republican governor, Rick Scott, who was on Fox News defending the voter purge. I want fair, honest elections. I don't know anyone that doesn't. Holder says you're suppressing votes. No. I mean, I want people to vote, register to vote, but U.S. citizens. Yeah, but he says you're suppressing Democrat votes. No, I want everybody to vote that wants to vote, but only U.S. citizens. Let's bring Robert Notzon back into this conversation. As the NAACP meets where you are in Houston, taking on these voter rights and voter ID laws around the country, the significance of what's happening right now, the showdown between the Justice Department and Florida? Oh, that's really what is happening in Texas. They're trying to link the immigration issue with the voting—or the alleged voter fraud issue. It's their—have a solution searching a problem. There really is no voter fraud problem. The clip that you played from Governor Perry, that's just inaccurate. I think between 2002 and 2009, there were zero prosecutions for voter fraud during that time. And even the kind of voter fraud that has been prosecuted is not addressed by the voter ID law. It's about—you know, the voter ID law is about protecting against voter impersonation. And there's already voter ID laws in the—on the books. But in Texas, when you link the immigration issue with voter fraud, which just isn't there, it creates this fear, and it's driving the public opinion. So it's the politicians driving the public opinion and not vice versa, because there is no voter fraud in any degree in Texas. Ari Berman? Well, it's true. If you look at Texas between 2008 and 2010, there was five cases of possible in-person voter impersonation, which a voter ID would theoretically stop, out of 13 million votes. So, clearly this is not a significant problem in Texas. But there is an accurate point that this idea that illegal immigrants are somehow voting and influencing American elections has been peddled not only in Texas but in Florida. And so, Rick Scott in Florida had this huge voter purge list of so-called non-citizens. When people took a closer look at it, the state's data was not only discriminatory, but it was totally inaccurate. Right now, 98 percent of the people on that so-called non-citizen list remain on the voter rolls because the county election supervisors couldn't confirm that they were actually non-citizens. And so, what Florida did is they essentially put out a list of people of color, because the purge list was 80 percent people of color, even though minorities in Florida are only 30 percent of the electorate. They put out this very inaccurate list of people of color. It started to be scrutinized, and Florida had to backtrack there. But the larger message that illegals are voting in U.S. elections, which is totally unproven, is still something that Republicans are saying every single day on Fox News and similar outlets. Former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell have a new video arguing that voter ID laws are actually on the side of civil rights. Let's go to that clip. Why is Eric Holder demanding that Florida stop removing illegal voters from their rolls. Elections should never be about color. Unless it's purple. Now, purple is a very nice color. Yes, it is. And states should not have to sue the federal government to be able to protect their citizens' sacred right to vote. Help us keep America free. Help us protect your vote. Tell Eric Holder to do his job. Which is to keep politics out of the Justice Department. There you have it. Former presidential candidate Herman Cain, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, both, of course, African American. Ari Berman, your response to their point that passing these voter ID laws is actually a civil rights issue? Well, it's incredibly ironic, what Herman Cain and Ken Blackwell are saying, because if you look at who's affected by voter ID laws, it's disproportionately people of color. Ten percent of U.S. citizens don't have this ID, but it's 18 percent of Hispanics and 25 percent of African Americans. And you look at what the GOP is doing, they're not only passing these restrictive voting laws, they're challenging the Voting Rights Act, which is the most important civil rights accomplishment, in many respects, of the 20th century. And so, when these people say that the GOP is trying to fight for civil rights, you have to question, well, why are they doing it in such a way that discriminates against minority voters and undercuts the most important minority voting achievement of the 20th century? Robert Notzon, what do you expect to come out of the hearing today in Washington, D.C.? Well, it's actually a trial, and it's going to go on this whole week. Texas gets to go first, because they're the plaintiff, so they're going to put on their evidence. And I think what's going to happen is, Texas is going to show that their—they have woefully little evidence to support their claims about what the voter ID does and the fact that it doesn't have a discriminatory purpose or that there is no discriminatory effect. So, we feel very confident that the experts and the evidence will bear out that this law should not be pre-cleared. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is very important to Texas. We are a covered jurisdiction, so they have to get everything pre-cleared. And in Texas, there hasn't been an election cycle where there's been an issue that hasn't been objected to by the DOJ or that has failed to gain pre-clearance, because they're always trying new and different ways to harm minorities' opportunity to vote. Ari Berman, Michigan, Mississippi? Well, Michigan was significant because it's the first place where a GOP governor actually vetoed a restrictive voting law since 2010. These laws had been passed in concert with Republican legislators and Republican governors. Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan said, "No, I don't want to get my state involved with this so close to the election." So, to me, that was a sign that the public pushback against these restrictive voting laws is having some impact, even among some Republicans. Mississippi is a situation where, to actually get the free voter ID now required by the state, you have to have a birth certificate or some sort of ID to obtain a birth certificate, so it really is a catch-22, where you need an ID to get the ID. The same sort of situation is playing out in other states, like South Carolina. And that's why these laws are being referred to as a 21st century poll tax or a new Jim Crow law, because their effect is essentially to exclude certain people from the political process who either don't have the money to pay for this documentation or don't have access to obtain the documentation needed to vote in the next election. Finally, Robert Notzon, as you're at the NAACP national meeting there in Houston, talk about the grassroots organizing that's going on to challenge these laws around the country. Well, we are just having people stay vigilant, keep records of what's happening, why people are being affected this way, the fact that they're being affected. We don't just come at these laws when they happen; we're always protecting against them, because every election cycle it happens. So we know it, so we keep records. We keep communications open. We document when these voter intimidation and voter fraud cases—alleged voter fraud cases are put forward and are—the minority votes are impacted. So that's what we do. And I'm in the middle of the CLE program, the continuing legal education, and we had a presentation on the redistricting cases in Texas, which are still ongoing. The Section 5 in D.C. and the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act trial in San Antonio, we're still waiting for resolutions from those trials, as well. So Texas does not stop. They don't sleep. They continue to come after the minority vote, doggedly. Robert Notzon, I want to thank you for being with us, with the Texas NAACP, at the national meeting in Houston of the National organization. Ari Berman, here, covering voting rights for The Nation and Rolling Stone magazines, thank you. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-19-2012?start=2482 Today Democracy Now! dedicates a special episode to the life and death of Ramarley Graham, a teenager who was shot dead by a NYPD officer inside his own bathroom in the Bronx on February 2. Graham's mother speaks out, and says the cop who killed her son should be charged with murder. And we speak to some of the high-profile participant's at this weekend's protest against the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy in New York City. Plus headlines, and more. Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:16:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-19-2012 NYPD, New York City, Ramarley Graham, The Bronx, United States, Shooting of Ramarley Graham, Richard Haste, Manslaughter, Shooting, New York Civil Liberties Union Thousands participated in a silent march in the streets of New York City on Sunday calling on police to stop their practice known as "stop-and-frisk." Last year, New York City police officers stopped and interrogated residents nearly 700,000 times. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, about 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino. We speak to stop-and-frisk victims and youth organizers Carmen Perez and Antonio Melendez. [includes rush transcript] Ramarley Graham's parents joined thousands who took part in the protest on Father's Day, on Sunday, calling on police to stop the practice known as stop-and-frisk. Last year, New York police officers stopped and interrogated, oh, residents nearly 700,000 times. Just one in 10 were arrested or ticketed. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, about 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of stops of black men between the ages of 14 and 24 exceeded the total city population of black men in that age range. Sunday's protest was a silent march organized by the NAACP. It stretched down more than 20 blocks of Fifth Avenue, from Harlem to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's mansion. After the march, I spoke to some of the young people involved. What's your name? My name is Carmen Perez. And have you ever been stopped? Oh, I've been stopped and frisked plenty of times. What do you mean "plenty"? Well, I think it was a cultural norm in my community. I come from California, a place called Oxnard, and they have gang injunctments there. And so, for us, you know, when you play basketball or you play sports, you use a certain color, and so you also meet the profile. And it became the norm for me until I went away to college, and I learned that that was injustice. And I learned to articulate, you know, being taken out of my environment and learning that what was happening to us wasn't something that should be happening. I think, here in New York City, it's the same thing. We—especially with young people is, it's—we don't want it to become normal, right? It becomes normal activity. It's kind of like, you know, young people are saying, "Well, I don't want to be a stop-and-frisk virgin," you know, because it's cool. It's cool. It's— How old were you the first time you were stopped and frisked? I was 11 years old. And what happened then? You were 11 years old? I was 11 years old. My brother was taking me home after a basketball game with my friends, and he actually met the profile. They pulled us over. They had us at gunpoint. They put us on the floor, and they hogtied him. And after being humiliated, I think—and that wasn't—you know, that wasn't the first nor was it the last. I think a lot of times after that, you just—you learn to kind of assume the position. So explain what exactly they do to you, from when you were 11 years old. And who is the "they"? The police. And initially, you know, you have male police officers that pull you over, and they have to bring in women police officers to frisk you. You assume the position. You, you know— You spread your legs? You spread your legs. You put your arms behind your back. You get, you know, felt up. And then, you know, sometimes, depending on the situation, you get put on the floor for a couple of minutes, or you have to sit down. It's a huge—it's one of the ugliest feelings ever. You know, you're humiliated. It's demeaning. When was the last time you were stopped and frisked? Umm... Before college? It was after college. We were—there was an incident that happened where, you know, if you were in the vicinity, you got stopped, not necessarily frisked. But, you know, it was just kind of like wrong place at the wrong time. And what do you now say to the police? You know, luckily, I'm not in those situations. But I do advocate for young people, because I've been there. And, you know, I think we need to have a conversation with police officers as community members, as activists, as young people. We need to create a space for that dialogue, so that they can know what they're doing to us. And although they have to enforce this policy, it's not right. It's not right, what we do to young people, specifically, you know, Ramarley Graham, who was killed, you know, and didn't have anything on him. I think what you've seen with these policies, you see, especially in Brownsville, you have, what, 93 out of a hundred young people that are stopped and frisked? UNIDENTIFIED: Percentage. Can you tell me your name? Hello, hi. My name is Antonio Melendez. I'm one of the Purple and Gold's future of the movement, of the labor movement. I've been stopped plenty of times. From where? Where you you live? I live—I was living in Morris Park and White Plains. In Bronx? In the Bronx, yes, ma'am. You lived somewhat near where Ramarley Graham lived. Yes, that was in 233rd. It's on the north—I think the northwest. How many times have you been stopped? I've been stopped plenty of times, about 10 times, 15 times. Have ever been arrested in any of those cases? No, I have not. So what do they do to you? What they do, they tell me what I'm doing within this neighborhood. They stop me, and they frisk me. They tell me to take out everything out of my pockets. The fear of their control over me, of a United States that we can walk free, and every time I'm walking, I'm scared. I'm scared what can happen if I question why are you stopping me. They do get offended. They do get harsh sometime. They say you're in a neighborhood that you shouldn't be. And I thought we were free. And I was 11 my first time that they've stopped me, and so forth. And it's humiliating, as well. I had tears the first time and wondering why did you stop me for no apparent reason. Antonio Melendez and Carmen Perez, stopped and frisked many times. Dick Gregory, 79, took part in Sunday's march against NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy in New York City. He criticized police departments across the country for racially profiling persons of color. “It's happening all the time, it's just there was never no spotlight on it, and that's what's so beautiful about this here,” Gregory said. "They're invading me as if I was invading the Beach of Normandy or something," says John Covington at Sunday's march against the New York City Police Department practice known as stop-and-frisk. "I become a piece of property to them, and they can do anything they want to me because they're the police. You want to have respect for the police, but they don't have respect for us. That's the key to the whole thing. It's about respect. And don't practice racism." J.D. Williams, an actor who played drug dealer Preston "Bodie" Broadus on the hit HBO series, "The Wire," took part in Sunday's New York City march against the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. "It's a sad thing that it becomes kind of natural with young black men," Williams says. "It becomes second nature with us, in a way that we expect to be stopped or we expect to be bothered or we expect to be harassed." At the march opposing the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy in New York City, Joyce Williams, a Bronx great-grandmother, victimized in a stop-and-frisk incident, says she had money taken from her when he was stopped by police last year: "If they're stealing from great-grandmothers, they're stealing from these young kids, also," Williams says. We also speak with organizer and activist Thenjiwe McHarris. "Young people of color ... cannot walk down the street without being profiled," McHarris says. "It's not just [police] stopping them and asking them questions, but they're stopping them and communicating a very powerful message to them, which is: You are black, you are brown, you are a person of color. You are in a city where you live and there is something really wrong with you. And that hurts." http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-18-2012?start=3146 Thousands marched in New York to protest the NYPD's controversial "stop-and-frisk" policies. The initiative has drawn accusations of being unconstitutional and of mostly targeting people of color, overwhelmingly black and Latino men. Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:51:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-18-2012 DREAM Act, Immigration reform, Deportation, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, United States, Barack Obama, Executive order, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, Politics of the United States Thousands of people held a silent march in New York City on Sunday to protest the New York City Police Department's controversial "stop-and-frisk" policies. The warrantless search initiative has drawn accusations of being unconstitutional and while mostly targeting people of color, overwhelmingly black and Latino men. We hear from several voices at the march: Reverend Al Sharpton; Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union; Benjamin Jealous of the NAACP; and New York City residents who have endured dozens of "stop-and-frisk" searches. Thousands of people took to the streets Sunday to protest the New York City Police Department's controversial stop-and-frisk policies. Organized by the NAACP, the protest marked only the second time the organization has held a silent march. The last time was in 1917 to protest lynching. Last year, the New York police officers stopped and interrogated people nearly 700,000 times. Nine out of 10 ultimately were not arrested or ticketed. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, about 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino. In all, there were more stops of young African-American men than the total population of that group in the city. Yesterday, at this massive march that went from Harlem to outside Mayor Bloomberg's home, I spoke with a number of people at the march, including Donna Lieberman of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, but first, Reverend Al Sharpton, who disagreed with Mayor Bloomberg's assessment the city has been made safer by stop-and-frisk. The fact is that the mayor has not confiscated many more guns than was confiscated in 2003. The fact is that 88 percent of the people they've stopped were not committing a crime, there was nothing on them. So how is it safer? The net result is that you're having more innocent people harassed, and you're not collecting more guns. Why have a net negative if you can sit down with the community, sit down with those policymakers, like the New York City Civil Liberties Union, and come with policy that doesn't say check your civil rights and civil liberties at the door to fight against crime? We want to fight crime. But we don't want to pay it at the expense. What legislation do you want to see passed? Donna? Donna Lieberman of the NYCLU? We want the passage by the city council of the Community Justice Act. We want an independent inspector general for the NYPD. Every agency in the city and every other police department in the nation has an independent inspector general except the NYPD. It's clear what happens when you don't have accountability. They are out of control at the NYPD, and they have to bring stop-and-frisk in check. Ben Jealous, please. Do think President Obama should issue an executive order? What kind of legislation do you want to see at the national level, Ben Jealous? Well, what we know, as far as ending this program, is that this mayor and—you know, that this mayor can shut it down right now. He has ratcheted it up. We were all out here in 1999, when there were 80,000 stop-and-frisks. This year they're on pace for 800,000 stop-and-frisks. And so, it will take this mayor, it will take the head of—you know, it will take Kelly, the head of the NYPD—I'm sorry, this is the first press conference with my daughter playing with my hair. You know, and so, you know, what's real is that this doesn't take the president. The mayor can do it. The chief of cops can do it. They can shut it right down. Reverend Sharpton, how does— Well, we do intend to go to the Justice Department. There's already been one meeting. We intend to press this with Eric Holder. Holder was at our National Action Network conference. He's coming to the NAACP, works for 1199. If we have to go to the federal government, we will. But wouldn't it be sad that you'd have to take the New York City government to the Justice Department like they used to do in the Deep South? We would hope the mayor wouldn't force that, but we're willing to do that. How does the police killing of Ramarley Graham fit into this story? It started as a stop-and-frisk. His parents are with us today. They started as a stop-and-frisk that went bad. And that is what we're talking about. The dangers, the risks are not worth a program that does not really cut down on violence. Tomorrow on Democracy Now!, we'll bring you the story of Ramarley Graham. We'll speak with his mother. But at the end of the march, in front of Mayor Bloomberg's home on the Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest areas of the United States, I spoke with some of the young people on the march. All had been subjected to stop-and-frisk. We're here from 1199 representing our young workers' Purple Gold program. And we're here to— What's your name? Jason Morales, political organizer, 1199. Have you ever been stopped? Absolutely, plenty of times. What do you mean, plenty of times? It's been more than 20 times that I've been stopped and frisked in my neighborhood in Brooklyn. Where? Brooklyn, New York, Bedford-Stuyvesant. Were you arrested? I was not, not one time. So, why were you stopped? I'm assuming because of the color of my skin. I'm brown, I'm a Latino, and we experience that day in and day out. As a teenager, that's all I experienced. I see a tattoo on your arm that's a picture of the Statue of Liberty. Oh, that's right. It's supposed to represent liberty. But unfortunately, walking down the street, I get stopped, and it makes me question how loyal I am to the NYPD. Why do they say they're stopping you? They got a call that they got a description that a Latino has just robbed somebody. And I'm that Latino, unfortunately. And how does it make you feel? Angry, frustrated. And that's why we're out here, making sure that we get the word out to Mayor Bloomberg that stop-and-frisk has to stop. What's your name? Joseph Norris. And have you ever been stopped? Oh, yes, numerous times. Numerous times? Yes. About how many? If I had to give a number, I would say close to 30. Have you been arrested in any of those stops? No, I haven't been arrested. Where were you stopped? Actually, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn. And what did the police say? Usually, it's a stop that it's asked just to question you. There isn't really a reason given, the majority of times that I've been stopped. Or I've been stopped as they claim there was criminal activity. How does it make you feel? I mean, more than frustrated. I mean, you know, the first few times, you go with the flow. But after that while, you just really feel frustrated. Some young victims of stop-and-frisk. We'll continue, those who marched in the streets, telling their stories, tomorrow, as well as telling the story of a young man named Ramarley Graham, 18 years old, who was killed by police in his home in the Bronx. The police officer who was involved with that killing was just charged with manslaughter. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-7-2012?start=714 Dozens of New York lawmakers and several advocacy groups are convening on Capitol Hill today to call on the US Justice Department to investigate the New York City Police Department's controversial "stop-and-frisk" policies. Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:43:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-june-7-2012 NYPD, New York City stop-and-frisk program, New York City, Michael Bloomberg, US Department of Justice, African American, Hispanic and Latino Americans, Bil'in, Syria, United States Dozens of New York lawmakers and several advocacy groups are convening on Capitol Hill today to call on the Justice Department to investigate the New York City Police Department's controversial "stop-and-frisk" policies. Last year the NYPD stopped, frisked and interrogated people nearly 700,000 times — mostly black and Latino men. In all, there were more stops of young African-American men than the total population of that group in the city. "This is not about criminals. This is about a generation that's been criminalized, targeted and brutalized by the police," says organizer Jamel Mims, a victim of stop-and-frisk. We're also joined by NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, who is helping to organize a silent march against racial profiling in New York City on Father's Day, June 17. "This is really the biggest, most aggressive racial profiling problem that we have in this country, and it just has to be stopped," Jealous says. Dozens of New York lawmakers and several advocacy groups are convening on Capitol Hill today to call on the Justice Department to investigate the New York City Police Department's controversial "stop-and-frisk" policies. Last year, the New York police officers stopped and interrogated people nearly 686,000 times. Nine out of 10 ultimately were not arrested or ticketed. According to the New York Civil Liberties Union, about 87 percent of those stopped were black or Latino. In all, there were more stops of young African-American men than the total of population of that group in the city. Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office, the number of stop-and-frisks has increased by 600 percent, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union. While the city has defended the practice, opposition to stop-and-frisk is increasing. On Tuesday, a coalition of New York City politicians, civil rights leaders, gay rights activists and union representatives gathered at the historic Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village to call on the police to halt its practice of stopping and interrogating people on the basis of their identity. This is City Council Speaker Christine Quinn followed by Kenneth Upton of Lambda Legal. SPEAKER CHRISTINE QUINN: It's sending a message that our quest, all of us as New Yorkers, is to make this a city that is free and safe and embracing for everyone. KENNETH UPTON: Stop-and-frisk, and the racial profiling behind it, is destroying the social fabric of this city. It leaves us unsafe, and it must stop. To talk more about stop-and-frisk, we're joined by two guests. Ben Jealous is the president and CEO of NAACP. The NAACP is helping to organize a silent march against racial profiling in New York City on Father's Day, June 17th. And we're joined here in New York by Jamel Mims, an organizer with the Stop Mass Incarceration Network, which is working to end the practice of stop-and-frisk. He has been a victim of stop-and-frisk and has been arrested for nonviolently protesting the policy. We invited the New York Police Department to join us on the show but received no response. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Ben Jealous, you're in Washington. Talk about what is happening in Washington today, many people coming down from New York, going to the Justice Department. That's right. Folks will be here to meet with the CBC, the Congressional Black Caucus, and to meet with the U.S.—and to meet with Holder and his staff. And the reason folks are here is, quite frankly, there needs to be a pattern and practice investigation into the—into the cops. What's going on in the city is really wholesale racial profiling. We're seeing 700,000 people stopped. Ninety percent of them have done absolutely nothing wrong. Of that 10 percent who may have done something wrong, most of them get a ticket. You know, about one out of 1,000 actually has a gun on them. Ninety percent of the people are people of color. And the stops are so frequent, as Juan said, you actually have more stops of young black men than there are young black men in the entire city. And so, you know, this is really the biggest, most aggressive racial profiling problem that we have in this country, and it just has to be stopped. And, Ben Jealous, in terms of what you're hoping to get out of the members of Congress, are there hearings scheduled, or is—and are you seeing this as New York representing something, a trend, anywhere else in the country? You know, what is perhaps most disturbing is that the city has said that they need to do this. The mayor has said that his cops need to do this to make the city safer. And he's very proud of the fact they have brought down violent crime by 29 percent in the past 10 years. What they aren't telling you is that a city like Los Angeles has brought down crime in that same time period, brought down violent crime in that same time period by 59 percent without this program, that Dallas has done so by 49 percent, Baltimore by 37 percent. So, yes, you know, racial profiling is a big problem in this country, has various manifestations. It does happen sort of from coast to coast. But not like this. You don't see big cities like this doing a sort of old-school, wholesale, you know, jack-'em-up-on-the-street racial profiling of young black folks in the same way in the biggest cities. Other big cities, like Los Angeles, simply moved beyond the practice since Rodney King. But, you know, what's most disturbing is that, you know, back in 1999, when so many of us went to jail in the wake of the shooting of Mr. Diallo, there were just—there were less than 100,000 stop-and-frisks per year in the city. Now—last year, there was almost 700,000. This year we're on the pace to 800,000. It seems like New York has gone in absolutely the wrong direction and, relative to the other biggest cities in the country, has done the reverse of what they have done. And as a result, New York has actually done less to stem violent crime than its peers, like Los Angeles, which has pushed down violent crime twice as far in the same period of time, because they have decided to use a tactic that builds walls. And so, you know, what happens is you have people, you know, who are in the most victimized communities in the city who now fear talking to the cops, because the cops are one of the gangs that hurt them, one of the gangs that humiliate their children, one of the gangs that leave them in fear. That's not the way it should be. Jamel Mims, talk about the organizing here in New York City and also what happened to you personally. OK. Well, here in New York City, and in fact most recently, we had been in the midst of trials for being put on trial for, you know, crimes that we committed, as far as standing in front of the 28th Precinct and, you know, officially being charged with blocking pedestrian traffic and blocking the entrance to the precinct. But, you know, the reason that this is important and that this should be really brought out is part of the entire fight against stop-and-frisk. I mean, this—we see the climate around stop-and-frisk right now as politicians are lining up on the left and the right to either defend or rebuke the policy, or ultimately make small reforms that keep this policy intact. On October 21st, when I joined Cornel West and Carl Dix to step out and answering their call to meet the stop-and-frisk policy with resistance and manifesting nonviolent civil disobedience, the purpose of that was to really raise the level of resistance. And we had seen that there was a lot of exposure done around the—around stop-and-frisk, but the missing element of mass resistance is what was really missing. So we kicked that campaign off on October 21st. And just as recently as last month, we were put through, you know, five days of trial in an extremely—you know, an extremely secure setting, where there were two security checkpoints. You know, this was the biggest political trial in decades, since the Chicago Seven in '79. And it's part of the ensemble of raising the level of resistance to this policy. Again, we're not talking about making reforms that leave this policy intact. In a similar—you know, the situation of the Freedom Riders is quite analogous to this. You know, when the Freedom Riders were going down South or people were conducting sit-ins, they weren't looking for more seats at the table or more seats at the back of the bus or hours where they'd be able to visit; they were looking to end an entire system of oppression and brutality, by looking at one specific facet and generating resistance around it. We have to look at stop-and-frisk through the same prism, and that's really what we've been doing most recently, and especially going into these trials that will have—you know, that we had in April and that we'll continue to have throughout the summer, in July and August. We invited the New York Police Department to join us on the program but didn't get a response. Last month, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly defended stop-and-frisk when questioned by a reporter. Although it is a tactic the police use, some people are just very hurt by it and upset when they're stopped unnecessarily. What message do you have to the— Well, I understand that. Some people—you know, you're taking away—at the very least, you're taking away people's time. So I understand people may not be happy with it. But I can also assure you that I go to communities, communities of color. People want more. So, it— They want more stop-and-frisk? Absolutely. It is not a universal opinion in a lot of communities. So, you know—and we've had meetings with community groups, and I have a lot of meetings with community groups. So it's not a—it's not a universal reaction. That was the police commissioner, Ray Kelly. Jamel Mims, your response? OK. You know, flat out, we are not dealing with a situation where this policy keeps the police from doing their job. In fact, we're looking at a policy that fits right into how the police broadly criminalize youth. We're looking—we're in an emergency situation where the youth are broadly criminalized, marked—deemed guilty before proven innocent, if they survive long enough to prove they're innocent. With 2.4 million people behind bars and held and warehoused in torture-like conditions, and when people even get out of those conditions, they're discriminated against and relegated to second-class status for the rest of their lives. Now, we have to look at stop-and-frisk as a pipeline to that program, and the front-line policing and measures like stop-and-frisk and racial profiling as the method by which that entire process begins. So, this really isn't a process that keeps—that keeps streets safer. It doesn't have—you know, it has no correlation to the rise or to the drop in crime rates, as statistics have shown. But we really need to broaden and change the terms of the conversation. This isn't about—again, this is not about criminals. This is about a generation that's been criminalized, targeted and brutalized by the police. Ben Jealous, I'd like to ask you about another aspect of the stop-and-frisk. Earlier this week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a new legislation to decriminalize public possession of small amounts of marijuana, lowering the penalty from a misdemeanor to a non-criminal offense. Misdemeanor marijuana arrests have skyrocketed in New York City in recent years largely because of stop-and-frisk. Here's the governor speaking. GOV. ANDREW CUOMO: Young person has a small amount of marijuana in their pocket, and that's a violation. That's a fine. Police officer says, "Turn out your pockets," and now it's a crime. I mean, who could—who could defend against that? Your response to the governor's proposal? Look, he is doing the right thing. What's been happening in the city is that, because you have this intense focus on young black and brown people, they have been busted at a much higher rate for something which is, frankly, a very common part of life in this country. You know, 75 percent of grown-ups in our country have smoked pot at least once. And so, when you do 90 percent of your stop-and-frisks on people of color in your city, what happens is that they get busted for what they have in their pockets much more frequently than white folks get busted for what they have in their pockets. And as a result, the penalty for a young person going through what for many has become a rite of passage becomes much higher, and can even lead to people being kicked out of public housing, not being able to get student loans or student grants that are guaranteed by the government because they have a drug offense, not being able to get hired for a job. You know, you talk to some of these young folks, and they've been stopped 15 times. And, you know—and you have to wonder—somebody is going to hire them for their first job, and they pull up their rap sheet, which unfortunately is very common now—people are actually doing criminal background checks for the most menial of jobs—and they see that this person has never been convicted of anything, but they had 15 run-ins with the cops—I mean, what would you think of that young person? And the reality is that what you should think, if they're coming from New York City, is that they've been repeatedly victimized by cops who seem to be, you know, encouraged to do just that to young people of color. It really has to stop. We've got to get back. You know, this is a city, by the way, which the last time that folks checked, because the city doesn't always report its homicide stats to the federal government as it should—the last time that folks checked was 2009. New York City was running about 10 percentage points below the national average for solving homicides. So, in the country you have about a one-in-three chance of getting away with murder, but in New York City you had almost a one-in-two chance. So, there are big jobs that the cops could be doing, if they weren't throwing our young people up against the wall over and over and over again. They're doing a half-million more stop-and-frisks than they were doing just, you know, five, six years ago. And, you know, they could take that half-million or that million hours and invest it into solving murders, invest it into solving rapes, invest it into doing their job, rather than building a wall between them and the people who, quite frankly, given the stats in our communities, most urgently need them to do a good job. On Wednesday, the New York Civil Liberties Union unveiled a free smartphone app that allows New Yorkers to report stop-and-frisk encounters in real time called "Stop and Frisk Watch." The app enables users to easily record videos of police officers performing these stops and send the clips to the NYCLU. Jamel Mims, I wanted to ask you how activists are organizing against stop-and-frisk, but first let's go to the clip of the video that explains how the NYCLU app is used. NYCLU VIDEO: The New York Civil Liberties Union's Stop and Frisk Watch is an easy way to record and report NYPD interactions with the public. Note: all footage and reports will be sent immediately to the NYCLU. The app has three main functions: record, listen and report. Record allows you to videotape an incident, audio concluded. Stop recording by shaking your phone or manually pressing click to stop. As soon as filming ends, you will immediately get a brief survey. Please fill it out and share any pertinent information regarding the police interaction you saw. Jamel Mims, will you be using this? Well, I mean, I don't have an Android phone. So, at the moment, I won't be. But people have been engaging in activism and engaging in this type of thing for a while. You know, there have been different Copwatch services, where people will record the interactions with the police with the people via their phones or cameras. And there's—but I would really like to stress or emphasize that this is a method where we can gather, you know, an extreme number of—you know, an extremely large amount of data and really start to characterize what's happening and put a face on exactly what's happening. But as far as a method and a tool of resistance and actually being able to overcome the situation that we find ourselves in via this toolset, you know, I would really want to stress this relationship and the analogy to, you know, the old Jim Crow and this being the new Jim Crow, and how—in the prism by which we actually have to see resisting this. And it has to be met with—you know, it has to be met with mass resistance and actually changing the terms of the conversation of the criminalization of the youth and mass incarceration in society. So, while this is—you know, this is a much-needed thing, and there are things that are doing this, you know, the kind of critical leap happens with resistance. There are organizations like the People's Neighborhood Patrols in Harlem, which—you know, you take a case like Oscar Grant. He was killed in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses who were using their cameras. The kind of critical step in what the People's Patrols do is actually, you know, intervening and stopping those assaults by [inaudible] the police. You talked about stop-and-frisk as being the beginning of the pipeline— Yeah. —into prison. And in your own experience, when you were stopped, you almost lost a Fulbright scholarship as a result of this. Explain what happened to you. Yes, this was—this was a few months after I graduated university at Boston College. And we had gone back to a party up in Boston, and we, you know, were down in like Tremont Street in the downtown district, coming out of this party at about 3:00 a.m. after the—after the cops had broken it up. As they were escorting us down the street—and this is, you know, a mob of colorfully clad folk, exactly the type of folks that are in New York that are targeted by this policy every day—they started to corral us, you know, grab us. And, you know, we see one of our friends being escorted with his hands behind his back and kind of paraded down the street. Another friend starts to take pictures of it, and as he—you know, the cops immediately seize upon his camera, not wanting, you know, any of that to get out. They toss his camera to me, and I grab it, and they then slam me to the ground. There were five of us who were kind of pulled out of the crowd. And as a result, I had to go and, you know, defend myself in front of the State Department. And my Fulbright—you know, my Fulbright grant, which I got for—which I received for—a grant to study hip-hop in China, was threatened. You know, it was the Fulbright that almost never happened. But this is an experience that—you know, you multiply that experience by 1,900 times every day, and that will really give us a true picture of the severe weight of the human rights crisis that we're in the midst of. And when you talk about the need for more mass resistance, specifically, other than the patrols, what do you mean? Well, you know, you look at a case like Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, where you had the same nine Supreme Court justices sitting on both of them. The thing that changed, the one that changed from segregation is illegal to segregation is legal, is public pressure. And so, I mean manifesting mass resistance and people coming out and casting off this—you know, the stigma and shame of having been criminalized and having gone to jail and those stories coming out. I mean mass resistance with things like the patrols. I mean mass resistance with things like Copwatch, and also in the legal front, you know, as far as this class action lawsuit challenge to stop-and-frisk. But also, more generally, just a—you know, talking about engendering an atmosphere of resistance where people see this as an intolerable offense, where they see it go by and they see it happen every day, and people are, you know, compelled to act, to put their humanity on the line, and to actually act to stop it. I want to end by asking Ben Jealous two questions. One is about the history of silent marches, the one that will be held on Father's Day, NAACP going back to, what, 1917 with W.E.B. Du Bois leading a silent march in New York against lynchings and segregation and other issues. And then also if you could comment on the Florida governor, Rick Scott, vowing to continue the purge of thousands of registered voters, despite the Justice Department intervening. Yeah, this country, sadly, in many ways, is starting out the 21st century in a place that is too similar in too many ways to how we started out the 20th. At the start of the 20th, we were dealing with a building confrontation against the old Jim Crow, racial segregation. Now, at the start of the 21st, we're starting with a building confrontation of the new Jim Crow, which is this mass incarceration, and it is at a very high rate in this country. A black man in this country right now is five times more likely to be incarcerated than a black man in South Africa at the height of that country's segregation in, you know, again, the 1980s, for instance. And so, we're calling for this silent march much like we did in 1917. Then, it was the St. Louis Massacre, and it was a national march to express outrage about the hunting of blacks in the streets and calling for an end to lynch mob justice in this country. This time, it's about a massive problem of racial profiling, not in some far-off city but right in Manhattan, right in the five boroughs, calling for an end to racial profiling across this country. Trayvon Martin's lawyer, Ben Crump, will be there. Trayvon Martin's father will be with us the day before—for obvious reasons, he wants to be back in Florida with family on Father's Day—but the day before for a town hall meeting. We're asking people to meet at Fifth and 110th Street at 1:00. We will step off at 2:00. We march in silence to send a very powerful message. We want people, when they see the march, whether it's in person or on TV, to think about what's going on. You know, if you chant, if you yell, if you scream, people think about what you're chanting or yelling or screaming. But when you're silent, they're forced to actually focus on, you know, this massive social problem and really interrogate it for themselves. And we're asking people to think, because the mayor again has tried to convince people that this makes them safer, and it really doesn't, in very profound ways. You know, we've seen young men like Ramarley Graham killed as a result of these stop-and-frisks. It's just a terrifying problem. With regards to Governor Scott, the reality is— And we have 10 seconds. Yeah. You know, the reality is that we have Southern governors once again trying to steal our votes, trying to make it impossible for the people to actually choose who their president will be. The last time in Florida, they found that it gets real messy if you break the law. This time they're trying to use the law, but now that they're finding out that there is a higher law, which is federal law in the U.S. Constitution, they're even willing to defy that. And when you get Southern governors seeking to defy the U.S. Justice Department to control the outcome of our country's politics, it is a very sad day. Ben Jealous, I want to thank you for being with us, president and CEO of the NAACP, and Jamel Mims, with the Stop Mass Incarceration Network, which is working to end the practice of stop-and-frisk. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-12-2012?start=628 Forty-five days after George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, he has been charged with second-degree murder. Special Prosecutor Angela Corey says the charges are based on the merits of the case. Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:33:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-12-2012 Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Stand your ground, George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, United States, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Kenneth Chamberlain, Capital punishment, Connecticut, National Rifle Association (NRA) Forty-five days after George Zimmerman shot and killed unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, he has been charged with second-degree murder. Special Prosecutor Angela Corey says the charges are based on the merits of the case and were not influenced by the several weeks of nationwide protests and a massive social media campaign. We speak with NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, who disagrees. "The reality is that [Corey] would not be the prosecutor but for [Trayvon's] family standing up, and millions of people with them, and saying, 'We need justice in this case.'" We're also joined by attorney Jasmine Rand, head of the civil rights division at Parks & Crump Law Firm, which is representing Martin's family. "I think that the federal government needs to look very closely at all of the facts and investigate whether or not there was a hate crime," Rand says. Forty-five days after he shot and killed unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder. Zimmerman spent last night in the Polk County jail in Sanford, Florida, after turning himself in to state police. Special Prosecutor Angela Corey announced the charge Wednesday evening. Today we filed an information charging George Zimmerman with murder in the second degree. A capias has been issued for his arrest. With the filing of that information and the issuance of the capias, he will have a right to appear in front of a magistrate in Seminole County within 24 hours of his arrest, and thus formal prosecution will begin. Corey declined to discuss how her team arrived at the charges or to disclose other details of her investigation, saying, quote, "That's why we try cases in court." Earlier this week, she ruled out using a grand jury in the case, meaning Zimmerman could not be charged with first-degree murder, a serious charge that would indicate the crime was premeditated and would require the convening of a grand jury in Florida. At Wednesday's press conference, one reporter asked Corey if she believed Zimmerman should have been arrested on the night of the shooting. Here's how she responded. We have numerous homicides where immediate arrests are not made. And so, to us, it did not seem unusual. I think judgment has to be made when the final decision is reached, and that's what we would have hoped the public would have waited for. But some people did not wait. And so, an arrest can only be based upon probable cause. And so, we believe that that's what the Sanford Police Department was trying to do. And if there is any sort of determination as to what they did or didn't do, that will be handled by someone other than our prosecution team. Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, told the public she's grateful Zimmerman will have his day in court. SYBRINA FULTON: We wanted nothing more, nothing less. We just wanted an arrest, and we got it. And I say thank you. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, Jesus. The charges were announced in the wake of massive outcry and a social media campaign. Twitter has been flooded with tweets linked by the hashtag #Trayvon. And an online petition at Change.org demanding Zimmerman's prosecution has received more than 2.2 million signatures, one of the largest petitions in the site's history. Supporters of Trayvon Martin have also held marches, protests and rallies across the country, prompting the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI to launch probes into the case. The case even gained the attention of President Obama, who called for a thorough investigation. Several prominent civil rights leaders, members of Congress, and celebrities had also called for Zimmerman's arrest. The Reverend Al Sharpton warned Tayvon's hometown was on the verge of becoming known as the Birmingham or Selma of the 21st century. Wednesday, Sharpton said the case of Trayvon Martin reflected the "double standard" of the legal system. REV. AL SHARPTON: This case is a case, to us, that represents far too often what happens in our communities, where there is a double standard. We are not seeking to convict anybody; we are seeking to stop them from acquitting someone without a trial. We are not trying to rush to judgment; we are trying to stop the rush to judgment that Mr. Zimmerman apparently made on the night of February 26. Let us remember—and a lot of the media in many ways distort this—Trayvon Martin committed no crime. He had no weapon. And he had every legal right to be where he was. The rush to judgment was those that moved against him, said he was suspicious, and took his life. That was the civil rights leader, Reverend Al Sharpton. Meanwhile, George Zimmerman has retained a new lawyer, veteran Central Florida attorney Mark O'Mara. On Tuesday, Zimmerman's previous attorney, Craig Sonner, withdrew from the case, saying he had been unable to reach his client. Well, for more, we go to Tallahassee, Florida, where we're joined by attorney Jasmine Rand, head of the civil rights division at Parks & Crump Law Firm, which is representing Trayvon Martin's family. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Jasmine. Respond to the decision by the special prosecutor in this case, Angela Corey, to charge George Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The family is pleased with Angela Corey's decision. We are happy that she viewed the evidence in a fair and impartial manner and came to the decision that we feel like should have been come to a long time ago and decided to charge George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin. We are thankful that she made the decision that the chief of police could have made, that the former prosecutor could have made. And we are glad that the special prosecutor, you know, reviewed the evidence and decided to charge George Zimmerman with murder. And Jasmine Rand, the decision to charge him with second-degree murder instead of manslaughter obviously would require a higher standard for the jury to decide, on a second-degree murder case. Could you explain the differences in the law in Florida on those two counts? Actually, practice in the civil arena and the criminal arena is quite different. But, in general, a manslaughter charge is less voluntary. With second-degree murder, it's a—basically a depraved mind and disregard for human life. The fact that the special prosecutor was even brought into this case; that the state attorney, Norm Wolfinger, he recused himself; the Sanford police chief, he has stepped aside, though said he is coming back—what does this say about what took place on February 26, in terms of the investigation into George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon? And I will say that we don't know the full details of everything that has happened yet, but, to me, that indicates that there was a substantial amount of impropriety, whatever that impropriety was, that occurred that made, you know—that removed a chief of police, that had one state prosecutor step down, and had a special prosecutor appointed. That's obviously not a common situation. So, to me, it indicates that there was a substantial amount of impropriety that happened in Sanford. We're also joined by Ben Jealous, the CEO and president of the NAACP. He's in Hartford, Connecticut, because the legislature just overturned the death penalty, and we're going to talk about that in a moment. But, Ben, you were in Florida not very long ago, a part of the rallies that were taking place. I found it very instructive that Angela Corey was clear—and maybe we can play this clip, we played it in headlines—when she talked about public outcry having nothing to do with Zimmerman's arrest. Let's take a listen. I can tell you we did not come to this decision lightly. This case is like a lot of the difficult cases we have handled for years here in our circuit. And we made this decision in the same manner. Let me emphasize that we do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition. We prosecute based on the facts of any given case, as well as the laws of the state of Florida. That's Angela Corey. So she's saying it is not protest, but her decision itself was made on the merits of the case. But can you talk, Ben Jealous, about what got it into her hands? She is a special prosecutor appointed by the Florida governor. Well, that's, you know, right. The reality is that she would not be the prosecutor but for this family standing up, and millions of people with them, and saying, "We need justice in this case." We got charges here because a chief was forced aside and a prosecutor was forced to step aside, so that we could have a force led by somebody who would be impartial and this case prosecuted by somebody who would be impartial. This is a very unique situation, where we have had to wait weeks for justice and had to literally see a movement created in order to get this in the hands of a prosecutor who would do what the cops should have done on day one, lock this man up, charge him with murder, and get us headed towards a trial. And, Ben Jealous, the decision now, though some of the analysis so far, since it was announced, indicates that now a judge will—has the potential at a hearing to even throw the case out of court before it even goes to trial—your sense of how the judicial system will be functioning, given this enormous public outcry that has occurred around the country? Yeah, some have said, you know, this is a moment to be relieved—he has been charged—but not to relax. The reality is that, you know, what you see in Central Florida—I spent a week there on the ground listening to residents—is that there are serious concerns about how things operate at every level. That's why it was so important to get the chief removed. That's why it was so important to get a new prosecutor in there. And that's why it's so important that this gets before a good judge, because the reality is that we've seen cases involving the deaths of young black men in Central Florida mishandled at every single level—by the cops in the past, by the prosecutors in the past, by the judges in the past. And so, yes, this is a moment, you know, of relief. It's a moment to be pleased that the wheels are finally turning. But it's also a moment to stay vigilant, because the reality is that, you know, there are more hurdles for this case. At yesterday's news conference, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey insisted the justice system is race blind. Those of us in law enforcement are committed to justice for every race, every gender, every person, of any persuasion whatsoever. They are our victims. We only know one category as prosecutors, and that's a V. It's not a B, it's not a W, it's not an H. It's V, for "victim." That's who we work tirelessly for. Jasmine Rand, your response? Theoretically, justice should be blind. But I think that we've just seen in Sanford that justice is in fact not blind. Justice is only as blind as those that are delivering it. I wanted to play another clip from Eric Holder, the U.S. attorney general, who said Wednesday there is a high bar to bring federal civil rights charges in the killing of black teen Trayvon Martin. He said federal officials are still investigating the case. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: The primary responsibility we have in the Justice Department is to support the state in its ongoing investigation, to do our own thorough and parallel investigation, which we are in the process of doing, and try to resolve this matter in as fair and complete a way and as quickly as we can. And we're doing that, as well. That's Attorney General Eric Holder. Attorney Jasmine Rand is head of the civil rights division of the law firm that is representing Trayvon Martin's family. What role should the federal government play in this investigation, Jasmine? I think that the federal government needs to look very closely at all of the facts and investigate whether or not there was a hate crime. Regardless of the outcome, I think that it still needs to be looked at, especially in light of the 911 calls when we hear George Zimmerman saying, "These A-holes always get away." You know, there's some other questionable language throughout the tapes that I would like the federal government and Eric Holder to very closely scrutinize to see whether or not this case is right for a hate crime. Let's put that question to Ben Jealous, as well, the issue of whether the law is color blind. And what does it mean to also have a federal investigation right now into the killing of Trayvon Martin? You know, it should be. And we hope that Ms. Corey is—she has a reputation for being a tough prosecutor, and we pray that she will prosecute this case to the best of her ability. The reality is that the story in Sanford, the story in Central Florida, indeed the story in this country—Sanford could just—Sanford, Florida, is also Sanford, U.S.A.—you know, is that justice is still—our justice system is still infected by race. If we want to stop the next one of these cases—and these "Stand Your Ground" laws are important, but what is critical is that we end racial profiling in this country and that we get to a place where the cops take the killings of young black men and black boys and black men of all ages as seriously as they do for anybody else. I mean, the reality is that he was killed, what, 70 feet from his father's girlfriend's house, and the cops didn't knock on any doors. He had a cell phone with him, where he had been talking to somebody up to minutes before he was killed. They didn't call that person back. He sat as a John Doe for three days. And the reality is that this happens in Sanford, and it happens in many other places. I sat in a church and listened to story after story of mothers and aunts and grandmothers talking about their deep and sharp pain at their young men being killed by bad cops, by thugs—didn't matter—and the cops just not taking it seriously, and then many stories from—primarily from black men about being systematically humiliated by the cops, a very broad pain of racial profiling. But right now we've got to get a conviction in this case. The day after, you know, we will be right there with DOJ. We'll be right there with the state's attorney, saying we've got to go further. Now that—you know, once Zimmerman is convicted, we've got to push further and actually fix justice in Sanford, in Florida and in this country. And, Ben Jealous, you're raising this issue of the broader perspective, what's happening with racial profiling. We've discussed here on Democracy Now! the huge number of stop-and-frisk arrests in the New York City Police Department and other departments around the country. Is your sense that, in the last year or two, there has been an upsurge of these kinds of cases, or it's just that they're only now getting more media attention, largely as a result of the Trayvon Martin case? We have not had an honest conversation about racial profiling in this country in a decade. And the reality is that this case, for a whole generation of young people, is the first time they're seeing their country really talk about this problem. You know, we go back 13 years ago, 1999, you know, 2000, George Bush was campaigning against "driving while black," and there was good bipartisan consensus that racial profiling needed to be dealt with. After 2001, it went into a deep freeze, and we're now seeing our first Senate hearings next week will be on—our first Senate hearings on racial profiling in more than 10 years. We've got to have a conversation about this in our society. You know, in 2003, what, there were about 160,000-170,000 stop-and-frisks in New York; 87 percent of those resulted in no summons, no one being locked up or taken to the station. Last year, 285—excuse me, 685,000 stop-and-frisks, 685, and 88 percent of them found nothing. You know, less than 10 percent of those were of white people; you know, more than 90 percent were black and Latino people. And the reality is that we've seen a massive upsurge in racial profiling over the last decade, largely facilitated by the silence in our nation about the systematic humiliation and targeting and mistreatment of people, by the very people, be they cops, community watch, private security, teachers, who have sworn to protect those children. Later in the broadcast, we're going to get an update on the case of Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. He would have turned 69 years old today, except that on November 19th he was killed by White Plains, New York, police when they responded to a medical emergency. Somehow he had triggered his medical alert pendant while sleeping at home at 5:00 in the morning, and the life alert company called the police, said, "No criminal case, this is a medical emergency. Can you head to the home of this man?" They ended up breaking down the door, tasering him, then shooting him dead. We're going to speak to his lawyers, because a grand jury has just been convened, and it started hearing testimony yesterday. But before we end this segment and then break and talk about the death penalty in Connecticut being overturned, I just want to get a final comment from attorney Jasmine Rand. What is the schedule now? What do we expect to see happen? George Zimmerman is behind bars in Florida right now. He's been charged with second-degree murder. What is the timetable? Well, I can't, you know, give an exact timetable. I can kind of tell the next steps. He will have a hearing today, and, you know, the judge will determine whether or not the judge will set bail, the amount of bail that will be set. You know, we anticipate that the defense will put forth a motion to dismiss, on the Stand Your Ground law. There will certainly be a hearing, if not several hearings, on that. One side or the other may appeal the judge's decision. And then, eventually, you know, we hope that the case will proceed to trial, and the jury will decide to convict him. I want to thank you, attorney Jasmine Rand, for joining us, head of the civil rights division at Parks & Crump Law Firm, which represents Martin's family. Ben Jealous is going to be staying with us, head of the NAACP. Jasmine speaking to us from Tallahassee, Florida. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We're back in 30 seconds. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-12-2012?start=1775 George Zimmerman is finally charged with second-degree murder, 45 days after killing Trayvon Martin and sparking national outcry. Connecticut is poised to repeal the death penalty as momentum grows for a Supreme Court challenge. Outrage over "Stand Your Ground" laws after Trayvon Martin killing has sparked an exodus of corporate sponsors from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a corporate-funded group that worked with the National Rifle Association to pass similar measures across the country. And a grand jury has met to consider whether charges should be filed in the Kenneth Chamberlain Sr. case, as an autopsy casts further doubt on police claims. Plus headlines and more.<br /> Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:33:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-april-12-2012 Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Stand your ground, George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, United States, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Kenneth Chamberlain, Capital punishment, Connecticut, National Rifle Association (NRA) Lawmakers in Connecticut have given final approval to a measure that would repeal the state's death penalty for future convictions. The bill now goes to Gov. Dannel Malloy, who's pledged to sign it into law. Connecticut would become the fifth state in five years to abolish the death penalty and the 17th state overall, moving activists closer to the 26 states needed to bring a challenge to the Supreme Court. "This is our first victory since Troy [Davis] was executed," says NAACP President Ben Jealous. "This is a hard-won bit of progress on the issue of human rights for our country." Ben Jealous is staying with us, president and CEO of the NAACP. He was in Sanford, Florida, now in Hartford, Connecticut. Into the late hours last night, the state legislature voted to abolish the death penalty. Ben Jealous, can you talk about the significance of this? This is huge. We have a governor who has said he will sign this law. The vote last night wasn't even close; it was 86 to 62. And, you know, this is a—and this is a state—I mean, I've been up here five times in three years. Our folks have been working month after month for years. This is a state where we've come close before, but we haven't been able to get it. And you can attribute this to the upsurge in public support for ending the death penalty that the Troy Davis campaign created. The reality is, that campaign brought this issue to the consciousness of millions of people across this country, including tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, in this state. And the new spirit of—the new spirit of fight, of courage, of commitment, to finally have our country break with its long past of putting people to death and join the rest of Western civilization—indeed, most countries in the world have long since cut bait with the death penalty—is finally starting to take hold. This is our first victory since Troy was executed. We see a future of winning in states like Maryland, maybe even California soon. And so, we're excited. I mean, this is—it's a tough issue. There's tragedies, you know, all surrounding this issue. But this is a hard-won bit of progress on the issue of human rights for our country. But, Ben Jealous, even in this victory, those who were supporting abolition of the death penalty had to make quite a few concessions in terms of the kind of punishment that people convicted of murder will receive. Can you talk about that? Yeah. They actually beat back a ton of attempts to add really heinous things to this bill. There have been some concessions. The reality is that the people will live to fight another day, and I think many of those will be rolled back over time. But getting to this point where we can abolish the death penalty in the state is critical. And it's a critical step, quite frankly, to getting to a point where we can abolish it in the country as a whole. We have to get, Juan, 26 states in order to have met the minimum threshold for going to the Supreme Court and arguing that the punishment is not only cruel, but also unusual, and therefore in violation of Eighth Amendment and can be outlawed. And that's our only hope for abolishing it in Georgia, in Texas, in Mississippi, in states where, you know, quite frankly, there have been many Troy Davises over the decades, over the centuries, huge racial disparities, you know, exclusive focusing on the poor. And so, yes, this was a hard-won battle. There were some concessions made. But this is a huge victory for justice in this country. It moves us forward. And I have faith that if there's anything that needs to be fixed going forward, we will be able to fix that, too. So you have eight states to go, Ben Jealous? There are 17 states, five in five years, that have abolished the death penalty. What's the next focus point, next state? Well, this fall it will be on the ballot in California, and we are hopeful. You know, in California, we have both an attorney general and a governor who oppose the death penalty. And we hope that with their leadership of the state and with a big turnout in the fall, we will see the death penalty fall in California. Next year, we anticipate being able to do this in the state of Maryland. And we want to keep this pace up. I mean, in the last four years, we have averaged about a state per year, and that puts us within a decade of being able to get to the Supreme Court and finally outlaw this barbaric practice in this country. It's interesting, European countries are weighing in by forbidding the export—or the import into the United States, the export from their countries, of the lethal injection, the chemicals that are needed to execute a prisoner. You know, the Pope is probably the most important person in Europe in ending the death penalty in this country and making it harder. The influence of the Catholic Church was—it's very clear that the doctrine of life is inclusive of ending the death penalty, has played a huge role in setting a tone in Europe that's been very conducive first to ending it there, and then making it harder for drugs to be sold here, for various technologies to be exchanged, to facilitate the death penalty here. So, yes, Europe's role is important, and the Pope and the Catholic Church's role is extremely important. Finally, you mentioned Troy Davis. And you were down at his execution on September 21st in Jackson, Georgia. His sister, Martina Correia, said at his funeral that she would continue to fight to end the death penalty. She ultimately died a few weeks later of cancer, a battle she had been fighting all through the time she fought for Troy Davis's life. I daresay, if she were alive, she would be sitting next to you there in Connecticut. She would be. I was on the phone with her sister last night, who reminded me that their mother died one year ago today. That family had three tragedies in about six months. Troy's execution happened in the middle of his mother and his sister dying. And the family is very engaged. And the activist family is very engaged. I was sitting there last night with people I met 15 years ago when I first met Martina, you know, who have worked steadily on this issue to revive this movement. Quite frankly, you know, in 1996, the death penalty had been reinstated in this country for 20 years. The movement had lost every year. And we changed our strategy. We said, "We are going to go after the states. We're going to take this apart state by state." And in those past 15 years, we have abolished it for juveniles. We have abolished it for the category of people that the court refers to as "the mentally retarded." We have abolished it in many states where people thought it was impossible. And now, as of last night, we've abolished it here in Connecticut. Again, the governor has been very clear for years, including in his campaign, that if he was presented with a bill, he would sign it. So the vote last night in the House seals the deal. You know, this is a great moment. And quite frankly, Martina's spirit and Troy Davis's spirit was very much with us last night. They have really given birth to a renewed anti-death-penalty movement in this country by their courage and their steadfastness right to the end of their lives. Benjamin Jealous, we want to thank you very much for being with us, president and CEO of the NAACP, speaking to us from Hartford, Connecticut, where the state legislature— Thank you, Amy. Thank you, Juan. —has just abolished the death penalty. The governor of Connecticut will sign that legislation soon. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-special-on-troy-davis-execution-did-georgia-kill-an-innocent-man-1-of-2?start=0 Troy Anthony Davis was killed by lethal injection by the state of Georgia at At 11:08 p.m. EDT despite widespread doubts about his guilt. The execution occurred shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop the execution. Today we hear the voices of Troy Davis' sister Martina Correia, hip-hop artist Big Boi, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, Ed DuBose of the Georgia chapter of the NAACP, two members of the Troy Davis legal team, and more. Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:47:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-special-on-troy-davis-execution-did-georgia-kill-an-innocent-man-1-of-2 Troy Davis case, Troy Davis, Supreme Court of the United States, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Big Boi, Benjamin Jealous, Georgia, US, Democracy Now! Troy Anthony Davis was killed by lethal injection by the state of Georgia at At 11:08 p.m. EDT despite widespread doubts about his guilt. The execution occurred shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop the execution. Democracy Now! was the only news outlet to continuously broadcast live from the prison grounds last night where hundreds of supporters Troy Davis held an all-day vigil in Jackson, Ga. Today we hear the voices of Troy Davis' sister Martina Correia, hip-hop artist Big Boi, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, Ed DuBose of the Georgia chapter of the NAACP, two members of the Troy Davis legal team, and more. http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-special-on-troy-davis-execution-did-georgia-kill-an-innocent-man-2-of-2?start=0 Troy Anthony Davis was killed by lethal injection by the state of Georgia at At 11:08 p.m. EDT despite widespread doubts about his guilt. The execution occurred shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop the execution. Democracy Now! was the only news outlet to continuously broadcast live from the prison grounds last night where hundreds of supporters Troy Davis held an all-day vigil in Jackson, Ga. Today we hear the voices of Troy Davis' sister Martina Correia, hip-hop artist Big Boi, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, Ed DuBose of the Georgia chapter of the NAACP, two members of the Troy Davis legal team, and more. Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:34:00 -0700 http://news.linktv.org/videos/democracy-now-special-on-troy-davis-execution-did-georgia-kill-an-innocent-man-2-of-2 Troy Davis case, Troy Davis, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Supreme Court of the United States, Democracy Now! Troy Anthony Davis was killed by lethal injection by the state of Georgia at At 11:08 p.m. EDT despite widespread doubts about his guilt. The execution occurred shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to stop the execution. Democracy Now! was the only news outlet to continuously broadcast live from the prison grounds last night where hundreds of supporters Troy Davis held an all-day vigil in Jackson, Ga. Today we hear the voices of Troy Davis' sister Martina Correia, hip-hop artist Big Boi, NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, Ed DuBose of the Georgia chapter of the NAACP, two members of the Troy Davis legal team, and more.