26 March 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Several experts say that Thomas’s husband, the Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, must recuse himself from any case related to the 2020 election.
Stephen Gillers, a law professor at N.Y.U. and a prominent judicial ethicist, described the revelations as “a game changer.” In the past, he explained, he had supported the notion that a Justice and his spouse could pursue their interests in autonomous spheres. “For that reason, I was prepared to, and did tolerate a great deal of Ginni’s political activism,” he said. But “Ginni has now crossed a line.” In an e-mail reacting to the texts, Gillers concluded, “Clarence Thomas cannot sit on any matter involving the election, the invasion of the Capitol, or the work of the January 6 Committee.”
As I noted in a recent investigation of Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justices aren’t bound by the judicial code of conduct that applies to all other federal judges, which mandates that they recuse themselves from participating in any cases in which personal entanglements could cause a fair-minded member of the public to doubt their impartiality. Yet Justices are subject to a federal law that prohibits them from hearing cases in which their spouses have “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.” The statute, 28 U.S.C. section 455, also requires them to disqualify themselves from any proceedings in which their “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Justice Thomas has already participated in two cases related to the 2020 election and its aftermath, despite his wife’s direct involvement in the so-called Stop the Steal efforts. A third case, John Eastman v. Bennie Thompson, may soon reach the Court. Eastman, a right-wing legal theorist who advised Trump on ways to challenge the 2020 election results, is arguing that attorney-client privilege shields his records from the congressional committee that is investigating the January 6th insurrection, which is chaired by Thompson, a Democratic member of Congress from Mississippi; the committee argues that this privilege can’t be used to conceal potential crimes by Eastman or Trump. The case, currently in a federal district court in California, is likely to reach the Supreme Court on appeal.
Gillers’s e-mail to me laid out several reasons for why Thomas must now recuse himself from all such cases. Most narrowly, he said, these cases could “lead to discovery” of inappropriate conduct by Ginni Thomas; as her texts with Meadows demonstrate, “she actively insinuated herself in the events through her texts to Meadows, and perhaps more extensively.” Gillers continued, “That’s enough to require her husband to abstain from participation in any case in which her actions might be further revealed.” Justice Thomas, he said, clearly “has an understandable interest in protecting” his wife. For that reason alone, Gillers explained, “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, which the law says requires recusal.” More broadly, Gillers argued, “Ginni became part of the team seeking to overturn the election. That team expressly identified, as a critical part of its strategy, appeals to the Supreme Court, and therefore to Clarence.” He added, “Ginni chose to make herself part of the story that the Trump side, her side, would then ask the Court, including her husband, to interpret in its favor.”
Gillers emphasized that it’s impossible to know whether Clarence Thomas could actually be impartial in such cases. But, he argued, the Justice has now forfeited the right to “ask the public to trust his impartiality,” adding, “Now that Ginni’s texts are revealed, Clarence could not sit in any such cases.”
The new revelations of Ginni Thomas’s machinations have caused legal experts such as Gillers to retroactively cast a critical eye on those cases related to the 2020 election which Thomas has already heard. Both Justice Thomas and his wife have repeatedly denied that there is any conflict of interest between her activism and his work on the country’s highest judicial body. Earlier this month, Ginni Thomas gave an interview to the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, that was evidently meant to set the record straight. “Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work,” she said. But she also admitted, for the first time, that, on January 6, 2021, she had attended Trump’s militant Stop the Steal rally, which was held near the White House. She said that she had left the event before it ended—not because she was offended by speakers’ baseless allegations that Trump was the true winner of the election but because she was cold. The rally devolved into a deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol. She has condemned the violence but has defended the protests, and she signed an open letter castigating the congressional investigation of the January 6th events and demanding the banishment of Republicans in Congress, such as Representative Liz Cheney, who support the inquiry. The twenty-nine texts don’t just indicate Ginni Thomas’s efforts to scheme with high-level Administration figures; they expose her belief in baseless conspiracy theories. For example, she texted Meadows that “watermarked ballots in over 12 states have been part of a huge Trump & military white hat sting operation.” At the time, believers in the extremist QAnon conspiracy were arguing that Trump had secretly watermarked ballots in order to detect fraud by Democrats.
This January, Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in a proceeding in which Trump asked the Court to stop the House investigative committee from obtaining records of his communications relating to efforts to subvert the 2020 election results. It is unclear whether Trump’s records would have implicated Ginni Thomas. Meadows filed an amicus brief in the case, in support of Trump’s claims of executive privilege, and at the time Meadows’s lawyers were arguing that his coöperation with congressional investigators depended on whether Trump would be ordered to comply himself. Yet, by that point, Meadows had already turned over to the congressional committee some twenty-three hundred texts—and, according to the Washington Post, they included the twenty-nine-message exchange between him and Ginni Thomas. It is not yet known whether there were even more texts revealing Ginni Thomas’s encouragement of overturning the election, and whether Justice Thomas knew at the time about her potential exposure. Gillers told me that, had Justice Thomas been aware of such communications, “he should not have sat.” Gillers also said that Thomas cannot justify having heard the case by claiming that he was unaware of his wife’s interest in the outcome: “It was Thomas’s responsibility to ask Ginni what she was doing to help overturn Biden’s victory. ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ is not an acceptable strategy for the Thomases’ marriage. Thomas should have realized that the public would assume that he and Ginni did discuss Trump’s ‘stop-the-steal’ efforts and Ginni’s participation in those efforts. Thomas does not avoid recusal by stuffing his ears, assuming he even did so.” Gillers noted that judges often say that “intentional avoidance of knowledge is knowledge.”
When I spoke with Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, he also made note of the federal statute requiring Justices to recuse themselves if a spouse has “an interest” in a proceeding’s outcome. It’s unclear whether any of Ginni Thomas’s scheming was described in the papers that Trump attempted to withhold from investigators. But, Vladeck told me, “if any of her stuff was in the Trump docs, she sure had an interest,” and this would make Justice Thomas’s dissent unethical.
In an e-mail, Bruce Green, an expert in judicial ethics at Fordham Law School, told me that he agrees with Vladeck: “If Justice Thomas knew that his wife’s e-mails were among the records that would be produced, then surely he should have recused himself, because his wife, although not formally a party, had a very direct personal interest in the case—an interest in avoiding the embarrassment that would result (and now has resulted) from the revelation.”
Richard Hasen, an expert in election law who teaches at the University of California, Irvine, also believes that Justice Thomas should never have participated in the case weighing whether Congress had the right to review Trump’s papers. Hasen told me, “Given Ginni Thomas’s deep involvement in trying to subvert the outcome of the 2020 election based upon outlandish claims of voter fraud, and her work on this with not only activists but the former President’s chief of staff, Justice Thomas should not have heard any cases” involving disputes over the 2020 election or Congress’s investigation of the January 6th riots. It has now become clear, Hasen said, that “his spouse’s reputation, and even potential liability, is at stake.”
President Joe Biden on Friday traveled to southeastern Poland where he met with U.S. troops and aid workers. (photo: NBC)
Biden, who met with members of the 82nd Airborne Division and Polish President Andrzej Duda, said he regretted that he could not cross the border into Ukraine, barely 60 miles away, to see the crisis firsthand.
But inside Ukraine, where Russia’s brutal onslaught continued, a senior aide to President Volodymyr Zelensky said officials were “very disappointed” in the outcome of the series of summits Wednesday among NATO and European Union leaders in Brussels that brought Biden to Europe.
“We expected more bravery. We expected some bold decisions,” Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s chief of staff, told the Washington-based Atlantic Council via live video Friday.
U.S. and Ukrainian officials believe that the Russian operation has already failed in some respects, given strong Ukrainian resistance and heavy Russian losses, and Russia signaled Friday its aims might be narrowing. But Yermak’s remarks served as a reminder that Ukraine remains outmanned, outgunned and facing more destruction each day. The Pentagon said Friday Russia has begun to mobilize military reinforcements to possibly send into Ukraine.
Steve Bannon. (photo: Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg)
Bannon is advancing a high-stakes defense as he battles a case that could mean up to a year in federal prison and thousands of dollars in fines if convicted
That meant when Bannon’s then-attorney asked whether a lawyer for Trump could be present for the closed-door interview to decide what issues were covered by the former president’s invocation of executive privilege, the select committee flatly refused.
Now, that refusal appears set to feature as one of Bannon’s central arguments to defend against his contempt of Congress indictment that came after he entirely skipped his deposition last October and refused to produce documents as required by his subpoena.
The former Trump aide is advancing a high-stakes – and arcane-sounding – defense as he battles the justice department (DoJ) in a case that could mean up to a year in federal prison and thousands of dollars in fines if convicted – but potentially defang congressional power should he prevail.
The all-or-nothing nature of the defense is characteristic of Bannon, a fierce defender and confidante of the former president even after he departed the White House seven months into the Trump administration after a turbulent tenure as his chief strategist.
It was precisely because of his contacts with Trump in the days before January 6 that the select committee made Bannon one of the panel’s first subpoena targets as it seeks to uncover whether Trump oversaw a criminal conspiracy that culminated in the Capitol attack.
The crux of Bannon’s argument is that he could reasonably believe the subpoena was invalid when the select committee refused to allow a Trump lawyer to attend the deposition, after the former president asserted executive privilege over the materials covered by the subpoena.
The argument rests on a 2019 justice department office of legal counsel opinion (OLC) that says congressional subpoenas that prevent executive branch counsel from accompanying executive branch employees to depositions are “legally invalid” and not enforceable.
Bannon’s attorneys say the doctrine at issue is protecting the president’s constitutional authority to limit the disclosure of privileged information, which typically involves discussions with close presidential aides who need to be able to offer candid advice.
In that sense, the principle extends to Bannon, they argue: the supreme court decided in Nixon v GSA 1977 that former presidents could “assert” executive privilege, while a 2007 OLC opinion found executive privilege could cover discussions with private, non-executive branch employee advisers.
And since the select committee issued only one subpoena for both documents and testimony, when the subpoena was invalidated by the panel’s refusal to allow a Trump lawyer to attend, Bannon’s attorneys contend the document request element of the subpoena also became void.
“We don’t read OLC opinions in isolation,” David Schoen, one of three attorneys defending Bannon in this case – the others are Evan Corcoran and Bob Costello – told the Guardian in a text message. “They build on each other.”
The justice department does not think the OLC opinions protect Bannon, in part because he was not an executive branch employee at the time of January 6, and the select committee contends Trump did not formally assert executive privilege over subpoenaed materials.
The assistant US attorney Amanda Vaughn also indicated in recent court filings that Bannon’s argument – that the subpoena was invalid because House deposition rules excluded third-party lawyers – was in bad faith since his then-attorney, Bob Costello, never raised it as an issue at the time.
“Costello inquired – but said that he did not need an immediate answer – whether there was a way for a lawyer for President Trump to appear at the defendant’s deposition,” Vaughn said in the justice department’s response to Bannon.
But Bannon won an initial victory on the dispute last week after the judge in the case ordered the justice department to turn over OLC “writings” about its position on prosecuting current or former US officials claiming immunity from congressional subpoena over executive privilege.
US district judge Carl Nichols granted the request by Bannon’s attorneys, who suggest Costello was relying on the OLC opinions to current and former White House aides when he advised Bannon not to appear for his deposition since the select committee subpoena was invalid.
A spokesman for the select committee and a spokesman for the US attorney for the District of Columbia declined to comment.
The defense that Bannon is advancing – using broad readings of parts of the justice department’s own positions and amalgamating them into a wider argument – is controversial, but it underscores the complexities facing the justice department in pursuing the case.
“Bannon’s trying to use the OLC opinions as a shield that doesn’t quite cover him, but gives him enough of a defense to fend off the DoJ’s necessity of proving criminal intent,” said Jonathan Shaub, a law professor at the University of Kentucky and a former OLC attorney-adviser.
To establish criminal contempt of Congress, the justice department has to prove Bannon’s subpoena defiance was “willful” – which Bannon’s attorneys say should be interpreted as meaning whether the former Trump aide knew his conduct was unlawful or wrong.
The combined force of Bannon’s arguments, his attorneys say, demonstrate that he did not know his defiance was unlawful, and shifts the burden onto the justice department to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bannon did not believe the privilege claims were valid.
The former Trump aide is also coupling the argument that the subpoena was invalid with the defenses that he relied on the advice of counsel when he defied the subpoena, and that he cannot be prosecuted because OLC opinions – considered binding on the justice department – forbid it.
Bannon’s attorneys say the former Trump aide ignored his subpoena entirely on the advice of Costello, who relied on the OLC opinions about immunity for former presidential aides and was the only point of contact with the select committee during negotiations about his cooperation.
It is far from clear whether Bannon will prevail.
In a hearing last week, Nichols cast doubt on the advice of counsel argument, noting that the relevant case law, Licavoli v United States 1961, holds that relying on legal advice to defy a subpoena is no defense.
The justice department argued in their brief that the interpretation of “willful” should in fact remain the standard established by the Licavoli court: “a deliberate and intentional failure to appear or produce records as required” by a congressional subpoena.
But Bannon’s lawyers have noted that the Licavoli case did not involve executive privilege and therefore does not apply to Bannon, not least because the justice department has itself maintained that executive privilege cases are unique because of the constitutional implications.
“He’s reaching for all the straws that he can,” Shaub said of Bannon. “It may succeed or it may not. But if Nichols rules against him, he’s certainly going to take it to the DC circuit or even up to the supreme court. He’s definitely playing a longer game here.”
A man stands in front of residential buildings damaged in shelling in the city of Chernihiv, Ukraine. (photo: Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images)
A resident shared the daily struggles he and others face as food runs out and water becomes scarce
The city of 285,000 became even more isolated this week, when Russians bombed a major bridge, Ukrainian forces said, cutting off another route to get residents out and humanitarian aid in.
With little electricity, getting up-to-date information out of the city has been challenging.
One of the few eyewitness accounts from inside the city comes from Chernihiv resident Alex, a 38-year-old who is volunteering with humanitarian aid efforts. Starting on March 12, he sent a team of journalists at The Washington Post updates about the situation in his hometown. He used his limited phone battery and connectivity to share voice notes, photos and videos.
His account has been translated from Russian and condensed for clarity. The Post is using only his first name for security reasons.
Day One: “There is no electricity, no gas, no heating”
From what I understand, they hit the water pipes and cut them off. Almost the whole city was without water for almost two days. Just this evening, the water began to flow slowly, at least in some areas. There is also no heating or electricity in most of the city.
The Hotel Ukraine building was completely destroyed by an airstrike. Just last night, three Russian bomber planes hit the city and one was shot down. The humanitarian corridor is still not there. There is no passage via the Kyiv-Chernihiv highway. People who try to leave drive through a very strange and scary route on mud roads toward Anysiv.
Many people do not have gas. In the courtyards of houses, people are gathering and lighting fires, cooking some kind of soup in large pots. Because there is no electricity, no gas, no heating.
The grocery stores are running out of supplies. Finding meat or dairy is unrealistic. It’s a catastrophic situation with baby food. People bring some things into the city but it is in very small quantities and brought by desperate drivers under shelling along the road. So they bring medicine, baby food and diapers. But pharmacies are empty. The lines are so long, so even if you manage to get to the counter it doesn’t mean you’re going to get what you need there, because it may not just be there.
The military still seems to think the city will not be taken. Multiple rocket launchers continue to shell the city. There are many unexploded shells — they are sticking out from the gardens, roofs and in the yards of houses.
But on the positive side, since yesterday, our connection and the Internet are getting a little better.
Day Two: “Already a humanitarian disaster zone”
Nighttime airstrikes continue. At midnight approximately and then at 4 a.m.
Today a residential area was hit. Multiple launch rocket attacks also continue. My friends found many parts from the Uragan multiple launch rocket system. There was a strike in the afternoon, apparently it was a dormitory at the radio factory. In general, they are bombing from all sides, using artillery and multiple launch rocket systems on the outskirts.
In terms of the humanitarian situation, it’s all about the same. There are huge lines in stores which have almost nothing. People wander around the city in search of food. Pharmacies do not have medicine, it can only be found through volunteer centers. Food can also be found through volunteer centers. People continue to evacuate. Cars are going through an unsafe corridor; they are being fired at.
My friend’s car was shot and they were lucky that there was just a pile of firewood between him and the explosion. It didn’t hit the passenger side but hit the trunk.
People are trying to find each other because there has been no electricity or communication for three days. The fact that they gave water make the situation a tiny bit easier. But overall it’s a real mess.
Day Three: “People are starving”
Today is a really hard day. There’s been intensive shelling along the entire perimeter of the city. Bombs hit the gym next to the polytechnic university. And the question of food is getting more and more serious. We are delivering food to volunteer centers by just looking for people who have the most basic supplies at home: carrots, potatoes, anything to cook. There are huge lines everywhere and it is almost impossible to buy food.
They tried to hit the city’s water facilities. Four people were killed. This is a purposeful policy to destroy the infrastructure and create a humanitarian catastrophe that has already been created, so this is done simply to worsen the situation which is already threatening the many people who cannot leave. There is no humanitarian corridor.
People call and every day the number of calls is increasing. They ask to bring at least something to them. They say people are starving: my mother, my sister. We try to bring something. But with no electricity or gas, it’s really hard because they can’t cook. We need dry rations, but there are none.
People are bartering. And the price of fuel is rising so much because there is simply none. So it’s hard to escape from here. But there’s nothing to eat here — do you understand? And there are very few people who will just drive around giving out bread. Someone gave us cookies. What do we do with these cookies? Well, we split them and give them to people, but [expletive]! People don’t need cookies, people need food. And food can only be delivered on trucks. And trucks cannot drive. Even taking into account the fact that people are leaving, the humanitarian catastrophe is intensifying. It’s all very sad to be honest.
Day Four: “The water was gone almost all day”
Today they were shelling very hard. Seriously damaged a thermal power station, there was also no electricity all day, the water was gone almost all day. Attacks are unsystematic and on residential areas. It’s getting harder to find food. There is no gas and people sell it at 350 UAH per liter. Another attack on the polytechnic university, the windows in the gym and in the house opposite the university were broken.
Day Five: No connection
Day Six: “Everything is so sad”
The past two days there was heavy shelling, aircraft, mortars and artillery. They somehow got closer to the city and already began to strike, hitting the center and generally everywhere. The situation seems to be getting worse because there is still no water, there is no electricity, no heating, fewer and fewer products. Everything is so sad. In terms of the military situation, I don’t know, they say “we are fighting.” There’s very heavy shelling, a bunch of destroyed houses. I will send you the pictures later. The connection is very bad, sometimes Kyivstar (a mobile provider) connects but in general, of course, sadness.
Day Seven: “Chernihiv is still suffering”
Hi. The situation is not changing overall. There was a barrage of bombs this morning, I don’t know where. Now there is artillery shelling, I think it is aimed at a thermal power plant. Smoke is everywhere.
It’s a total disaster with groceries. The humanitarian aid comes in slowly. But very little. We are going to go deliver food now. We get more and more calls asking us to bring at least some products. In general, it is still sad. There are no normal roads. So something like this. In short, Chernihiv is still suffering.
People who've been taken into custody related to cases of illegal entry into the United States, sit in one of the cages at a detention facility. (photo: AP)
According to the document, Ice will discontinue the use of the Etowah county detention center in Gadsden, Alabama, saying it had “long been a facility of serious concern, due to the quantity, severity, diversity and persistence of deficiencies identified during facility inspections”.
While the facility is not currently housing many detainees, the average length of stay remains high, the draft memo said, adding that the age of the jail and the lack of outdoor space were of particular concern.
The memo also said the agency would pause the use of Glades county detention center in Florida ,where there have been “persistent and ongoing concerns related to the provision of medical care at the facility”.
Immigration advocates have for years raised complaints about a lack of adequate medical care and other problems at several Ice facilities and urged the administration of Joe Biden to close down the centers. Ice is currently detaining nearly 22,000 immigrants at facilities across the country.
Under Biden, Ice arrests and deportations of immigrants living illegally in the United States have plummeted compared with the administration of his predecessor, Donald Trump. The agency has de-emphasized enforcement against immigrants with no criminal history to prioritize the arrest of those committing serious crimes.
An announcement about detention changes was expected on Friday, according to three US officials familiar with the matter. Ice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The document said Ice would also be reducing the “guaranteed minimum” number of beds contracted at the Alamance county detention facility in North Carolina and the Winn correctional center in Louisiana, citing in part a reduced number of detainees.
The measures are likely to spark criticism from Republicans who have said the Biden is encouraging illegal immigration, pointing to record numbers of migrant arrests at the US-Mexico border, which are expected to rise further this year. Most of the migrants arrested at the border, however, have been immediately expelled under current policy aimed at reducing the spread of Covid in detention settings.
People attend a rally for Gustavo Petro in Cali, Colombia. He has developed a following not seen in generations for a leftist candidate. (photo: Ernesto Guzmán Jr./EPA)
Last week’s election in Colombia saw the best result for the Left in decades and confirmed Gustavo Petro as favorite to become the country’s first socialist president. It’s a major shift in a country that has long been dominated by US-backed right-wing leaders.
Gustavo Petro, the coalition’s presidential candidate, comes from a family of rural workers who, like many in the country, were forced to migrate toward the capital to escape poverty and violence. As expected, Petro won the coalition’s primaries with more than four million votes. Francia Marquez, a rural black activist within the alliance, also made history with close to a million votes — more than all the mainstream candidates received in their respective primaries, and despite having never held a political post.
Although the progressive coalition is the most dominant political force in the country, the center and right-wing parties are now forming their alliance to impede their progress toward the presidency in May. What happens next depends on Pacto Historico’s ability to mobilize first-time and swing voters and persuade the more popular center parties and leaders to join the coalition, a feat Petro failed at in the 2018 elections.
The centrists who purport to represent an alternative to the country’s polarized political camps are, in all but name, part of the country’s traditional conservative right-wing elites. Petro’s moderate policy proposals, closer to the center than the centrists are, have alarmed these elites and their Western allies. Petro and his coalition demand a cautious redistribution of the country’s vast wealth and insist his brand of leftism is different from the processes in Cuba and Venezuela. He recently quipped that the rich need not fear him as no one was “expropriated” during his time as Bogota’s mayor.
However, it is not Petro’s moderate economic policies that the country’s Western-backed elites fear, so much as the possibility of the opening of the democratic political space. And they are right to be wary. For more than two centuries, Colombia has boasted of being the longest-serving consecutive democracy in Latin America, having never experienced the region’s all too common coup d’états and dictatorships. What has existed, nonetheless, is two centuries of oligarchic dictatorship. The ruling classes have been able to monopolize the country’s political system with a democratic façade in which the nation’s wealthy families share power via the liberal or democratic parties, or in recent history, their offshoots.
The Pacto Historico, despite being moderate, would be a definitive break with two centuries of elite rule, with consequences for both the country and the region. Crucially, its insistence on properly implementing the 2016 peace accords and demilitarization could allow more radical political movements to develop and contest political power — something that, until now, has been suppressed using Western-backed military and paramilitary force and state misinformation.
Colombia and the West
The West has a historical interest in Colombia, both for trade and for its regional geopolitical importance. Indebted due to financial backing during the independence struggle, Colombia’s sprouting elites were pushed into unequal trading and political relations with the UK and the United States. The situation was so dire that the independence leader Simón Bolívar complained once that this relationship had engendered a “chaos of horrors, calamities, and crimes . . . and Colombia is a victim whose entrails these vultures are tearing to shreds.”
Two hundred years on, his words still hold. Much of the country’s yearly GDP continues to be siphoned off to pay historical debts to the West, and the economy continues to serve the interests of a few, but particularly Western capitalists. And although Colombia is widely understood to be economically exploited and politically subdued by US government and business interests, Europe also has its fingers in the pie: the UK has more than one hundred multinational corporations in the country, among them none other than BP, which signed a multimillion-pound deal with Colombia’s ministry of defence to help protect its business interests.
The UK government itself has spent tens of millions in support of the country’s military and police forces, despite decades of human rights violations. When Colombia’s police and right-wing assassins worked together to kill and repress young protesters, it was exposed that the UK’s military and police forces had offered them training and support. Moreover, although the EU has long purported to support a peaceful solution to the violent conflict, its member states continue to provide funding and training to the violent Colombian state. Spain, like the UK, has ignored the nation’s dire human rights record and continues to fuel the nation’s internal war on the side of the state by providing them with modern military equipment, particularly aircraft.
In 2017, the conflict-ridden nation became NATO’s first Latin American partner. This move was justified on the basis of security cooperation. More recently, to ward off supposed Chinese and Russian influence, right-wing US congressmen Marco Rubio and Bob Menendez proposed further consolidated military cooperation with Latin America. Weeks later, Colombia signed the US-Colombia Strategic Alliance Act, one of the main aims of which was the provision of “additional benefits in the areas of defense trade and security cooperation.”
Colombia’s elites and their Western allies are rightly wary of the Pacto Historico in this sense. Its pro-peace, anti-militarism stance threatens their interests, and not just in Colombia but throughout the region.
A New Colombia?
For many decades, Colombia’s left has envisioned a Nueva Colombia, a Colombia that has finally overcome the surviving colonial legacies and the violent capitalist exploitation of the masses. Pacto Historico, with all its historical importance, cannot yet birth this ideal. What it can do is ready the ground. It is the only hope Colombians have for a peaceful solution to the ongoing conflict. And the coalition itself — made up of communists, socialists, social democrats, liberals, and black and indigenous activists—is a breathing example of the new Colombia.
The liberal democratic ideal on which many pinned their hopes in earlier decades, culminating in the 1991 constitution, has proven fruitless in practice. As this becomes clearer to the population, the state responds with open repression. With the support of powerful foreign allies, Colombia’s ruling class will do all in their power to frustrate a transition. For the Pacto Historico to achieve power in May, they must gain more ground in the electorate and be ready to contend with the state’s machinery: information war, election fraud, and violent military and paramilitary aggression.
Colombia has a historic chance to end decades of war and oppression peacefully and democratically. It is up to us to mobilize the people — and for the ruling class to accept the inevitability, eventually, of a new Colombia.
A Florida panther and her cubs. (photo: Carlton Ward Jr./Guardian UK)
In a state with a rapidly growing population, wildlife corridors and safe highway crossings are critical to protecting the species
We’re following the path of the elusive Florida panther. Our chances to spot one are slim: scientists estimate that only 200 of them remain in the wild in the US.
Lean and fawn-colored, these carnivores once roamed most of the southeastern US. At one point, the panther population dwindled to an estimated 20 individuals, bottlenecked in southwestern Florida. Ward, an accomplished conservation photographer and National Geographic explorer, has captured some of the most thrilling – and up close – images of the big cats, in hopes of drawing attention to their battle against extinction.
The panthers need space to live with ecological integrity; they require large swaths of contiguous habitat to hunt, mate and raise their offspring. Climate change and development are straining their already-fragmented habitat.
Ward, an eighth-generation Floridian, serves as a leading advocate for the Florida Wildlife Corridor – a plan that would conserve and connect 17.7m acres so that panthers and other wildlife can move safely within their native range.
Floridians are almost out of time to save the last of the state’s native habitat – only about 15% remains. Conservation efforts have significant bipartisan support in Florida, but are up against a tsunami of housing development. One million people move to Florida every three years.
Those changes are visible on our drive: we pass human-made canals, dozens of For Sale signs, and the occasional high-density neighborhood, all reminders that fragmented panther populations can only survive for so long before development engulfs their last chances of habitat preservation and connection.
To illustrate the panthers’ need for a connected landscape, Ward brings me to the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, which, at 26,400 acres, is still not enough to support a single panther’s home range. Female panthers require 40-80 square miles to establish their territory; male panthers require 200.
Wildlife biologist Mark Danaher greets us. A charismatic backcountry expert, he’s the kind of scientist who manages an enormous and complex refuge but can also handle poisonous rattlesnakes. We jump into his ATV and drive past wetlands and stands of slash pines to visit a wildlife underpass, where Danaher kneels to point out panther tracks in the sand.
Overhead the traffic from I-75 – the interstate highway that crosses through the Everglades and then runs north – is deafening. Vehicle strikes are the leading cause of death for Florida panthers. But overpasses and underpasses, like those installed by the refuge, are proving effective.
In 2012, a trail camera at the refuge captured a Florida panther moving three cubs. One became known as “Broketail” for her injured tail’s distinctive crimping.
In January 2022, a camera captured Broketail, now 10 years old, using the safety of the underpass to move her own three cubs from the neighboring Picayune Strand state forest to the heart of the refuge.
“She was born here, and now she’s teaching her own kittens how to hunt and navigate the landscape,” Danaher tells me. “It’s a testament to her intelligence and survival skills.”
It’s also a testament to the power of connectivity. The underpasses work.
“Wildlife can do a lot with a little help,” Ward says. “We just have to give them a chance.”
That afternoon, Ward and I drive into the backcountry of Audubon’s Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary to visit another piece of the corridor puzzle. Corkscrew is a 13,000 acre refuge with 500-year-old cypress trees and wetlands managed for wildlife. At 21 square miles, the sanctuary isn’t large enough for a panther’s home range, but female panthers are known to raise cubs there.
I sit down at a shaded picnic table to talk with the sanctuary’s director, Lisa Korte. “We believe in maintaining corridors,” Korte says. “Animals shouldn’t be dead-ended. We’re a place where a panther can feel safe.”
Proposed developments to the north and west of Corkscrew’s boundaries put this goal at risk. To ensure the best outcomes, Korte says the sanctuary is friendly with its neighbors, models native habitat management, and encourages buffer zones between the sanctuary and housing developments.
While at Corkscrew, we check Ward’s camera traps and stop to view some of the last old-growth cypress trees, known panther watering holes, and barbed wire fences where panthers have been photographed moving between ranches and the sanctuary.
At dusk, Ward captures drone footage of traffic hurtling along I-75. He’s indefatigable, always searching for a compelling shot that will help others realize the plight of the panther, and the need to conserve and connect land. In pursuit of this goal, he has even been bitten by an alligator while checking a camera trap.
After nightfall, we stop by an old metal bridge which lies across the Caloosahatchee river, a feature which often restricts the contemporary northern range of the panther. Ward hopes that one day a healthy breeding population of panthers will extend northward from here, perhaps even to the Georgia border.
Standing on the bridge, I’m disoriented by the dark water, lights and traffic. Recently someone captured an image of a panther limping across this very spot at night – on what must have been an arduous, disconcerting and biologically necessary trip.
Before arriving in Florida, I spoke about wildlife corridors with renowned road ecologist Marcel Huijser. “Animals need food, water and mates,” he explained to me over a Zoom call from Montana. “It’s dangerous for them to pursue these needs across the road.”
Generally, Huijser says, most departments of transportation make decisions on wildlife mitigation measures based on human safety and economics, but rarely factor in the value of animal lives. “We don’t yet agree on the value of biological conservation,” he said.
While warning signage is inexpensive and popular, he adds that “there are no easy answers to complex problems, but that’s what people want: a quick fix, simple, inexpensive, done tomorrow. Instead, we have to stay focused on the problems, and change our economic priorities, because it’s expensive to do nothing.”
A recent study showed a discrepancy between how Americans value wildlife, and how the DOTs design roads. When surveyed, people indicated they wanted better outcomes for wildlife – through fencing and over- and underpasses – and were willing to pay for it.
“It’s not just about if a species can survive,” Huijser said. “But can they live a natural life?”
Though it goes against the popular narrative about Florida politics, conservation enjoys broad bipartisan support in the state. Republican governors approved (and later undermined) earlier initiatives like Florida Preservation 2000, which allotted $300m a year for conservation purchases, and Florida Forever, a Jeb Bush initiative that has saved more than 800,000 acres.
The Florida Wildlife Corridor Act, which Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law in June 2021, may be the most progressive yet.
Astoundingly, the state senate passed the act – which defines the boundaries of the corridor – with a vote of 40-0, and the house with a vote of 115-0. A budget of $300m has been set aside for corridor-specific preservation, and an additional $100m for Florida Forever (80% of projects in the Florida Forever initiative are inside the orridor’s boundaries).
“The corridor is ambitious,” Ward says, “but achievable, if lawmakers keep investing in the conservation easements and public land acquisitions that will give landowners viable alternatives to development.”
Florida’s forward-looking corridor project provides a blueprint for other states to follow when contributing to President Biden’s 30-by-30 conservation plan – the goal to conserve and restore 30% of America’s land and rivers.
Ward tells me that some of the best conservation opportunities are not in perfectly open and conserved land, but working lands: ranches (which constitute 33% of the best future opportunities for additions to the corridor), timberlands (43%), former tomato fields, orange groves, and even an enormous active military zone known as the Avon Park Air Force range – which contains swaths of undeveloped habitat.
Ward’s family still owns traditional ranches. His comfort in the back country endears him to scientists, sportsmen, private landowners and traditional ranchers, making him a critical connection point for corridor support.
“I believe in academic conservation targets,” Ward says. “But these high-level goals need to be met with on-the-ground strategies, built from local consensus. That’s where wildlife corridors come in. When approached the right way, they can bring people together to establish enduring bipartisan support.”
At the end of our first day in the field, Ward and I drive into Archbold Biological Station, a center focused on sharing science for land management. Founded in 1941, Archbold lies within the headwaters of the Everglades, on top of a raised topographical feature of ancient sand dunes.
The next morning, I awake to the intoxicating scent of orange blossoms from neighboring citrus groves, many of which are untouched due to labor shortages and a bacterial disease called citrus greening. You can feel change in the margins of the landscape.
After coffee, Ward introduces me to predator biologist Joe Guthrie, another corridor advocate. Guthrie – a former football player from Kentucky who reads the New Yorker but also regularly collars bears – cranks up a swamp buggy, a custom vehicle made on top of a truck chassis. We spend a few hours driving through varied and endangered Florida landscapes on large ranches, including patches of ancient scrub that host rare endemic plants.
Guthrie shows me saw palmettos and oak hammocks, which, depending on the season, produce critical food sources for wildlife such as nuts and acorns – and provide good cover for dens. Invasive feral hogs and heat tolerant cattle move in the distance. An expert tracker, Guthrie easily spots bear claw marks on palm trunks and old prints. He explains the seasonal movements of predator species, and what they need from traditional Florida landscapes.
Later that afternoon, I board another swamp buggy with the charismatic Hilary Swain, the longtime director of the Archbold Research Station. Swain is a hardcore hybrid of a rancher and a scientist, the kind of woman who can talk about both carbon sequestration and the fattening of calves with ease. The scientific work done at Archbold’s ranch helps inform practices for other working lands – managing water flow, phosphorus levels and grazing patterns.
I’m astounded by the richness of central Florida’s ranchlands. Meadowlarks are singing in the grassy fields as Swain guides me through Archbold’s ranch; kestrels perch on the powerlines. Egrets and roseate spoonbills flush from the alligator-flecked swamps. When ranchers preserve native landscapes like slash pine and scrub and tolerate the presence of native species, including megafauna like bears and panthers, wildlife abounds – significantly more than if the land were a strip mall or housing development.
“Many private landowners are already good conservationists,” Swain says, a map of the ranch across her lap. “Ranchers have also realized that conservation can be good for the bottom line, in terms of easements and payments for environmental services and ecological tourism.”
“Most of us want to save this landscape and keep it sustainable. We’re saving the last of the last. What happens here in central Florida is not independent of what happens on the Florida coastline, or the country, for that matter.”
My last morning in Florida, Ward insists I visit another working ranch so that I can meet Cary Lightsey, a rancher he admires and credits with being an early adopter of the corridor concept. We drive on to the farm as cowboys on horseback prepare to round up a group of heifers and calves.
Lightsey’s son-in-law offers me a seat on the back of an ATV. In minutes we’re flying across the pasture, dipping in and out of wet ditches as we back up the skilful cowboys, one of whom is 81. They turn their horses on a dime and steer the cows from the pasture toward the barn, where the calves will be castrated and dewormed, then returned to their mothers.
A longtime vegetarian, I’m slightly uncomfortable, but perhaps that’s the point – learning to spot shared values and cooperate with people with whom you may not be fully aligned.
I quickly come to admire the skill and family atmosphere of Lightsey’s operation. Lightsey invites me to lunch, where I sit next to the blue-eyed 81-year-old cowboy, who tells wild stories about the traveling medicine shows of his boyhood.
When we say goodbye, the mutual respect between Ward and Lightsey is evident. “I’ve learned a lot from him,” Lightsey says.
“Cary Lightsey is a hero to me,” Ward tells me later. “I don’t know another living rancher who has done more for conservation. In addition to protecting 90% of his family’s land in conservation easements starting 30 years ago, his leadership has helped inspire other ranchers to do the same, including members of my own family.”
Florida’s bipartisan conservation efforts are not just inspiring; they’re the only path forward for biodiversity. Most people want to live in a Florida that is more than a series of housing developments. They want to live in a Florida where Broketail and her kittens can hunt and flourish, not die on the side of a highway.
I think about my conversation with Huijser. “If our current road and conservation efforts don’t reflect our values,” he said, “we can change them, and moreover, we should.”
These values – of offering safe passage to wildlife and preserving natural landscapes – are often more shared than we realize. Moreover, with planning and cooperation, they’re entirely possible.
When Ward and I were driving, he pointed out I-75’s 8ft-high fencing with reverse-angle barbed wire, which discourages wildlife from crossing the road. Just weeks ago, a female Florida panther died crossing the road near a toll booth where the fencing stopped.
Special Coverage: Ukraine, A Historic Resistance
READ MORE
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.