11 May 23
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
From a Manhattan courtroom
What a moment.
We have a jury finding in a Manhattan civil trial that Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll.
We will dive into the implications in a bit, but first let’s step back and consider the big picture: A jury of Trump’s peers considered the evidence, listened to the arguments, and found that the former president engaged in sexual abuse.
When people look back years from now at this jury decision, will they see it as a watershed moment that wasn’t fully appreciated at the time? Or will they see this as just another example, after so many, that this man can do anything, no matter how horrid, and still claim a slavish following among a large number of Americans, including a majority of the Republican Party?
One suspects it will be some of both.
First off, let us take care to be precise. This was a civil trial and not a criminal one. That means the former president will not be heading to prison, nor will he have a criminal record. It also means that the threshold for finding against him was lower. And he says he intends to appeal, which is his right.
Still, it is clear that the jury found Carroll’s testimony credible. And when you consider the story she told of the assault and her reasons for not coming forward sooner, the effect is harrowing.
It is fitting that the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump bragged that when you’re famous, you can grab women anywhere on their body played a key role in this trial. When that confession was made public in 2016, its impact was dulled by the man’s subsequent election. It was understandable, in the aftermath, to conclude that it didn’t matter. Today in Manhattan, it mattered. This case, that tape, and the narrative they connect along with dozens of other credible accusations of sexual harassment and assault against Trump will be an indelible part of this man’s biography. With this development, as with so much else about him, history’s verdict will be harsh.
In the here and now, though, one must wonder what if anything has changed along our charged political divide. It’s difficult to see this hurting Trump in the polls, at least with Republican primary voters. After all, credible accusations of sexual harassment and assault were already baked into how millions of voters see him — a devil to some, a savior to others.
In assessing what this all means, however, it is important that we consider that Trump was right when he said that when you’re famous, you can get away with a lot. Throughout his life, he has embodied the power imbalance and privilege that come from being white, male, and wealthy in America. Democrats cheering today should contend with similar allegations against some of their heroes, notably Bill Clinton and John Kennedy, among others.
The truth is that this kind of behavior is still seldom made public, let alone punished. And it is understandable that, with these odds, few women come forward. Carroll did, and she risked a lot in doing so. Her courage was validated along with her pain.
One can’t help but hope and maybe even believe that actions that were once normalized, excused, or ignored no longer are thus. Part of the necessity of wrestling with the past is that the trauma and injustices it contains can become blueprints for change in building a better future.
E. Jean Carroll put herself and her story into the narrative of our times in a way that just might make a difference. Or at least get us pointed more resolutely in the right direction.
READ MORE 
A former Virginia Department of Corrections employee donated hundreds of execution documents, including these photographs, to the Library of Virginia more than a decade ago. (photo: Chiara Eisner and Monika Evstatieva/NPR)
A former employee donated the four tapes and hundreds of other execution documents to the Library of Virginia more than a decade ago. But shortly after NPR aired the audio, something unusual happened. A representative from the Department of Corrections requested that the library give the records back. Within a week, the library complied. The collection is once again behind prison walls.
The tapes can still be heard in full on NPR's website and two of six boxes of materials can be seen at the prison if a request under the public records act is made. But in order for more of the execution history to remain accessible, NPR is now exclusively publishing a selection of the documents that journalists managed to photograph at the library before they became restricted. The records, which detail responsibilities of staff, include candid photos taken of the prisoners before their deaths and even show the keys to Virginia's electric chair, illustrate how executions were conducted in the state that carried out more than any other.
The execution Polaroids
In Virginia, it was someone's job to take Polaroid pictures of condemned prisoners before they were led away to be executed.
The photos left behind reveal a range of emotions. In a series of different shots taken of Wilbert Lee Evans, he scratches his chin, raises his eyes, turns on his side and slumps his shoulders. As Buddy Justus holds a sign showing the identification number he was given when he was first booked into prison, his eyes stare straight into the camera.
The shots appear to have been taken in the same spot. Identical white curtains draped behind the prisoners as they posed, years apart. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the time frame in which the photographed men were executed, Virginia put people to death shortly before midnight. A black clock in the top right hand corner of nearly all the images seems to confirm that.
In his pre-execution photo, 33-year old Earl Clanton poses with hands on hips and eyebrows raised. Clanton grew up in prison. He was 17 when he was convicted of murdering a neighbor. How he spent most of his time behind bars is unknown. But the files published by NPR detail the last few months of his life, before his execution on April 14, 1988.
The path to execution, memorialized by memos
Before Earl Clanton was put to death on Virginia's electric chair, the documents indicate his sisters, his mother, attorneys and a reporter from Spain came to visit. In between meetings, Clanton tallied up the belongings in his cell. He counted one blue Wrangler jean jacket, a pack of cigarettes and a chess set among them. The prisoner would later bequeath those possessions to one of his lawyers who was defending him for no charge.
It's unclear whether that lawyer was there to watch him die. But police surrounded him when he walked into the death chamber, the files reveal. Behind the scenes, prison staff were also working. A small, handwritten note indicates that a device – likely the electric chair – was turned on by one worker at 11:01 p.m. for over a minute. Shortly after, Clanton was dead. The chief physician at the Department of Corrections signed his name in a log book to certify that Clanton had expired at 11:07 p.m. "by reason of execution."
The state of Virginia doesn't seem to have rushed to deal with his body. An envelope containing Clanton's autopsy report is dated 21 days after he was executed. It appears that only after those three weeks was his family able to take Clanton home. His death certificate shows his body was buried in the Clanton Family Cemetery in Carson, Va., a town 40 miles away from the state penitentiary.
The certificate also reveals something else: Clanton's cause of death was listed as a homicide. This was not unusual in the region. Execution workers told NPR that death certificates in other Southern states also classified executions as homicides. Some of those workers said this caused them to feel like murderers, too.
Why Virginia took back the files
Similar legal memos, autopsy reports, court records, death certificates and handwritten notes were left behind regarding five other men that Virginia executed. Sometimes execution files like those are kept secret for security reasons; prison representatives have claimed that details could be used by activists to stop future executions.
But these documents posed little threat. Virginia abolished the death penalty in 2021.
Dale Brumfield referenced some of the now-confidential files to write a book about the state's path to the abolition of capital punishment. He believes rescinding the documents follows Virginia's historic pattern of suppressing information about the death penalty.
"Some of that stuff is very benign," Brumfield said. "So this culture of secrecy, they're just covering up the ugliness of the whole thing."
The Department of Corrections declined NPR's request for an interview. In an emailed statement, a representative said the files contained "sensitive health, security, and personnel information about former inmates, victims, and VADOC employees, which makes them private in nature."
The Library of Virginia also declined a request for an interview to discuss why the agency relinquished the files to Corrections in January. But back when all the documents were still public in December, government records archivist Roger Christman told reporters he believed the library's job was to keep files about events like executions accessible – not hidden.
"That's what this entire building and agency is about," Christman said. "Whether you agree with it or not, this was happening."
READ MORE 
A still from video footage shows an NYPD officer shooting into the apartment where Kawaski Trawick was standing. Trawick, pictured at right, was hit twice and killed. (photo: Surveillance footage and Instagram)
We obtained the NYPD’s full investigation into the killing of Kawaski Trawick, including documents and audio of interviews with the officers. The records provide a rare window into how exactly a police department examines its own after a shooting.
But 112 seconds after their arrival, footage showed, one of the officers shot and killed Trawick, despite the officer’s more-experienced partner repeatedly telling him not to use force.
When an internal investigation later cleared the officers — saying “no wrongdoing was found” — the NYPD offered no explanation for its reasoning. But records obtained by ProPublica can now reveal how the department came to that conclusion.
Investigators never explored key exchanges between the two officers in the run-up to the shooting. They also never followed up with the officers when their accounts contradicted the video evidence.
“Any conversation between you and your partner?” the head of the investigative unit asked Officer Herbert Davis hours after the shooting.
“No,” Davis answered.
That wasn’t true.
After arriving at Trawick’s apartment and finding him holding a stick and a bread knife, body-worn camera footage shows that Davis, who is Black, told his less-experienced white partner, Officer Brendan Thompson, not to use his Taser. “Don’t, don’t, don’t,” he said, motioning for Thompson to step back.
Thompson fired his Taser anyway, causing Trawick to become enraged, and Davis then tried to stop Thompson from shooting Trawick. “No, no, don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t, don’t,” Davis said, before briefly pushing Thompson’s gun down.
The investigators had access to all that footage. They never asked either officer about it.
ProPublica obtained the NYPD’s full internal investigation, including audio of interviews with both officers, via a Freedom of Information Law request.
The documents and interviews provide a rare window into how exactly a police department examines the conduct of its own officers after a shooting. The newly released information also expands the public record of the Trawick case as New York City’s Civilian Complaint Review Board pursues disciplinary charges against both officers for wrongfully going into Trawick’s apartment and failing to render aid after he’d been shot. Thompson faces additional charges for his use of force.
The officers are contesting the charges in an ongoing administrative trial. Neither their lawyers nor their union responded to requests for comment for this story, but Thompson told police investigators that before firing on Trawick, “I feared for my safety.” The NYPD did not respond to ProPublica’s detailed questions or a request to interview Deputy Chief Kevin Maloney, the former investigative unit head who questioned both officers. He is scheduled to testify in the administrative trial on Thursday.
The NYPD’s Force Investigation Division, which conducted the investigation of Trawick’s death, was created after the killing of Eric Garner and focuses on officer shootings and other uses of force.
“You put some of your top investigators,” said then-Commissioner William Bratton in 2015 when he started the unit. “I will get a better investigation, a speedy investigation, a more comprehensive investigation.”
The investigation of Trawick’s killing took nearly two years. The two officers, Thompson and Davis, were each interviewed once, for about 30 minutes. (Bratton, who stepped down as commissioner in 2016, did not respond to a request for comment.)
In the files, investigators often refer to Trawick as “the perpetrator,” though it’s not clear that he had committed any crime — he had called 911 after he locked himself out of his apartment. They also repeatedly portray Trawick as effectively to blame for what happened.
“Due to the perpetrator becoming more agitated by the officers presence, Police Officer Thompson had deployed his taser,” an investigator wrote.
Trawick had struggled with his mental health and with drugs. A security guard in the building had also called 911 saying Trawick was acting erratically.
But by the time the officers arrived, Trawick had already been let back into his apartment by the Fire Department. “Why are you in my home?” he repeatedly asked the officers.
The interview sessions include a number of false and misleading statements by the officers.
For example, Davis told investigators that Thompson fired his Taser after Trawick started to “take a step forward, like if he wanted to come at us.” But the footage shows Trawick wasn’t advancing when Thompson, holding his gun in one hand and the Taser in the other, used his Taser on Trawick without any warning.
Thompson recalled that after he used the Taser, he again tried to warn Trawick. “I tell him to drop the knife you know a bunch of times.” The footage shows no such warnings were issued between when Thompson used his Taser and when he shot four times, killing Trawick.
Investigators never followed up. Beyond asking the officers whether they were wearing cameras, the investigators never questioned Thompson and Davis about any of the footage.
“That’s huge, they intentionally did that,” said John Baeza, a former detective who spent 16 years with the NYPD and now works as an expert witness. “That has to be intent not to question them about that.”
The investigators found no wrongdoing even when they were confronted with apparent violations of protocol.
Thompson, for instance, told investigators that he believed Trawick to be an “emotionally disturbed” person. The NYPD patrol guide says that officers facing a potentially dangerous person in crisis should “isolate and contain” them — that text is underlined — and should “immediately request the response of a supervisor and Emergency Services Unit.”
Neither Thompson nor Davis did so.
At one point, the chief investigator, Maloney, asked Davis why they didn’t call for help. “We didn’t feel we needed anybody just yet,” Davis responded. “We didn’t know how bad it was until we open the door.” Investigators did not press the issue.
A former NYPD detective who helped create de-escalation training for the department previously told ProPublica that Davis and Thompson could have simply closed the door and called in the specialized unit.
The timing and circumstances of the interviews were also significant. While Davis was interviewed just hours after the shooting, Thompson was interviewed roughly seven months later and, he said during the interview, he was given the body-worn camera footage to watch first. Advocates and many experts say officers shouldn’t be allowed to preview footage of incidents before talking to investigators in case the officers try to alter their testimony.
Though the NYPD allowed the officer who shot Trawick to see the footage during the investigation, the department long refused to show it to the public or the Civilian Complaint Review Board. The department withheld footage for more than a year and fought against a lawsuit that had sought the full recording, arguing that releasing it would interfere with the department’s investigation.
A state judge later ruled that the NYPD had illegally withheld footage and acted in “bad faith.”
When the full full footage was disclosed, it showed what happened in the minutes after the shooting. After a sergeant arrived and asked whether anyone was hurt, two officers responded in near-unison, “Nobody. Just a perp.”
The Bronx District Attorney investigated the shooting but declined to prosecute.
In the end, the NYPD investigators summarized their findings with a simple line: “No violation of department policy occurred.”
Asked about the investigation, Trawick’s mother, Ellen Trawick, called it “outrageous.” The details, she said, “show the NYPD never even tried to do a real investigation.”
The disciplinary trial of the two officers is scheduled to end in the next few days. But regardless of the ruling by the NYPD judge overseeing it, police Commissioner Keechant Sewell has the sole authority over what, if any, punishment to impose.
READ MORE 
Tommy Tuberville appears during a Senate armed services committee hearing. (photo: Shutterstock)
Senate majority leader speaks after Tommy Tuberville of Alabama appeared to defend white nationalists in US military
In an interview with the Alabama station WBHM, published on Monday, Tuberville was asked: “Do you believe they should allow white nationalists in the military?”
He answered: “Well, they call them that. I call them Americans.”
The Senate armed forces committee member added: “We are losing in the military so fast. And why? I can tell you why. Because the Democrats are attacking our military, saying we need to get out the white extremists, the white nationalists, people that don’t believe in our agenda, as Joe Biden’s agenda.”
Tuberville is currently attempting to impose his own agenda on the US military, by blocking promotions and appointments in protest of Pentagon rules about abortion access.
On Thursday, Schumer said: “Does Senator Tuberville honestly believe that our military is stronger with white nationalists in its ranks? I cannot believe this needs to be said, but white nationalism has no place in our armed forces and no place in any corner of American society, period, full stop, end of story.”
Previously, Sherrilyn Ifill, a former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) legal defense fund, said: “I hope we are not getting so numb that we refrain from demanding that Mr Tuberville’s colleagues in the Senate condemn his remarks.”
Schumer added: “I urge Senator Tuberville to think about the destructive spectacle he is creating in the Senate. His actions are dangerous.”
On Wednesday, a spokesperson for Tuberville said he was “being skeptical of the notion that there are white nationalists in the military, not that he believes they should be in the military”.
A Tuberville spokesperson told the Washington Post the senator “resents the implication that the people in our military are anything but patriots and heroes”.
The same spokesperson told NBC Tuberville “has kind of a sarcastic sense of humor” and “was expressing doubt about this being a problem in the military”.
Reports have shown the US military has a problem with white nationalism and white supremacy, despite the Pentagon having prohibited “active participation” in extremist groups since 1996.
In October 2020, a Pentagon report warning of a problem with white supremacists in the military was sent to Congress. It was released in 2021.
In February 2022, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors extremism, co-published documents showing one in five applicants to one white supremacist group claimed ties to the US military.
On Thursday, Adam Hodge, spokesperson for the White House national security council, said it was “abhorrent that Senator Tuberville would argue that white nationalists should be allowed to serve in the military, while he also threatens our national security by holding all pending DoD military and civilian nominations.
“Extremist behavior has no place in our military. None.”
Fact-checking Tuberville, WBHM, an NPR station, noted Pentagon efforts “to keep extremists, particularly fascists, out of the military”.
The station also fact-checked a remark about “what [Joe Biden’s] done to our military with the woke ideas, with the [critical race theory] that we’re teaching in our military”.
Critical race theory is an academic discipline that examines the ways in which racism operates in US laws and society. Republicans have turned it into an electoral wedge issue.
WBHM said: “The US military is not requiring that CRT be taught and there is little evidence that it’s being discussed much at all in the ranks. According to Military Times, the one instance in which it is being used in an educational setting is at the US Military Academy at West Point.”
READ MORE 
Former president Donald Trump boards his airplane at the Manchester-Boston Regional Airport on April 27 after speaking at a campaign event. (photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
On Capitol Hill and in the presidential race, the former president faced criticism from some in his party
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who hasn’t endorsed anyone in the GOP primary, said Tuesday that “a verdict like this doesn’t put a checkbox in the positive category” and suggested it would “for sure” be a liability in a general election.
“His first go-around, there were a lot of swing-type voters who were open to the opportunity and I think a lot of those voters abandoned him in the second go-around and this reminds them of why,” Cramer said.
In contrast to the almost uniform support for Trump in response to his indictment in a hush-money scheme, which was unsealed last month (Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts), several of Trump’s current and prospective GOP rivals were quiet on the verdict on Tuesday. Among those who did respond, the reaction was mixed.
“I would tell you, in my four and a half years serving alongside the president, I never heard or witnessed behavior of that nature,” said former vice president Mike Pence in an interview with NBC News. Pence, who has made moves toward entering the race, did not directly address the effect of the verdict on his view of Trump’s fitness to be president, saying, “I think that’s a question for the American people.”
Former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley also dodged a question from conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, saying “I’m not going to get into that. That’s something for Trump to respond to.” Among those who did weigh in, former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson, who recently entered the race, called Tuesday’s verdict “another example of the indefensible behavior of Donald Trump.” And former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who is considering another White House bid, said the long list of sexual misconduct allegations against Trump discredits his insistence that they’re all made up.
“It is one person after another, one woman after another,” Christie said in a Fox News interview. “The stories just continue to pile up. And I think we all know he’s not unlucky and that he engaged in this kind of conduct."
While statements flooded in after the indictment from many Republicans casting Trump as the target of a political attack, some in the party are now voicing misgivings about the potential political damage from the Carroll case.
“It has a cumulative effect,” Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, said of Trump’s legal pileup on Tuesday. “People are going to have to decide whether they want to deal with all the drama.”
Tuesday’s reactions reflected the political uncertainty surrounding Trump’s bid for another White House term, as he faces intensifying legal peril. Although he has built a wide polling lead in the Republican primary and support for him in some ways hardened after his indictment, Trump faces multiple ongoing criminal investigations at different stages.
An Atlanta-area district attorney is considering charging Trump and allies over pressuring state officials to change the 2020 election results there, and a federal special counsel, Jack Smith, is investigating efforts to overturn the election and raise money off false claims of election fraud, as well as the mishandling of classified materials. Trump’s company also faces a civil case from the New York attorney general alleging fraudulent business practices.
When it comes to the case involving Carroll, opponents in both parties are already discussing how the verdict and clips from Trump’s deposition could turn into potent campaign attack ads. Democrats said the jury’s finding could worsen Trump’s standing with women, but some Republicans, including those aligned with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), cautioned that disapproval of Trump’s personal conduct is already baked in for many voters.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a close McConnell ally, expressed doubt that Trump could win a general election but predicted the verdict wouldn’t have an impact, given the strong opinions voters already have about Trump.
Trump’s Republican rivals have been searching for lines of attack that could prove effective against the former president, who remains overwhelmingly popular within the party. His foremost rival for the nomination, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has mostly avoided criticizing Trump head-on as he prepares to officially launch his campaign in the coming weeks. DeSantis and his allies have touted his landslide reelection win last fall, signaling an intent to make electability a selling point.
The Trump campaign has already poll-tested many of the allegations against him among Republican primary voters, and found they did not move the needle, and that Republican primary voters generally did not believe the allegations, according to two advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal data and strategy.
Trump’s advisers have long viewed his challenges with winning over female voters with college degrees as a significant problem, but much of his strategy so far has centered on vanquishing Republican rivals in a primary, not winning a general election.
“We’re going to be very aggressive in attacking this verdict,” one of the advisers said. “We’re going to lay out pieces of evidence and the story that the judge did not necessarily allow in the courtroom.”
The adviser added that as the campaign remains focused on Republican primary voters, “My gut assessment is this won’t be that big of a deal.”
Trump on Tuesday struck a defiant tone, as he has in the face of other legal setbacks. “THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE - A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!” he said on his Truth Social website.
In a recent focus group conducted by the anti-Trump Republican Accountability Project with two-time Trump voters without college degrees, only one of seven participants said she was familiar with the trial. “It happened a couple years ago and the witnesses are her two friends,” the participant, a woman named Chandra from Florida, said. “It’s kind of stupid.”
Trump already lags with female voters, contributing to his narrow defeat in battleground states that decided the electoral college in 2020. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, women split 44 percent for President Biden and 41 percent for Trump, while Trump led 48 percent to 31 percent with men. The gender gap was similar in a matchup between Biden and DeSantis.
“Just about everyone has made up their mind about Donald Trump, and some Republicans are absolutely determined to ignore absolutely everything he says or does, no matter how egregious,” Republican consultant and pollster Frank Luntz said. “Where this comes into play and where it is important is a critical swing group: women with kids in suburban areas who are economically conservative and socially moderate, but you won’t hear a peep from them until November.”
The Republican voices lamenting Tuesday’s verdict came nowhere close to approaching the full-on panic that followed the publication in 2016 of the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump bragged about unwanted sexual advances. In a deposition made public as part of the Carroll trial, Trump defended his remarks on the earlier recording that “when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything, grab them by the p---y.”
“If you look over the last million years, I guess, that’s been largely true,” Trump said in the deposition, which was videotaped. “Not always but largely, true. Unfortunately or fortunately.”
The Trump adviser described him as angered by the verdict as he huddled with aides on Tuesday afternoon. In social media posts, he denied knowing Carroll. His legal team has said they plan to appeal the verdict, and Trump’s campaign released a lengthy statement attacking Carroll, her lawyer, the judge and the evidence.
In private, Trump has dismissed Carroll as “Ms. Bergdorf,” referring to the Bergdorf Goodman department store where she said Trump attacked her. Trump also said he would not have assaulted her because she was too old — and that if he had, it would not have been in a department store dressing room but instead at one of his own properties.
The Trump campaign declined to comment on those remarks.
Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill reiterated their defense of the former president on Tuesday. Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), who has endorsed Trump, described the verdict as “yet another act in the ongoing legal circus in Manhattan to take down Donald Trump.” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) quipped: “I think you could convict Donald Trump of kidnapping Lindbergh’s baby.”
The Carroll verdict could further complicate Trump’s legal woes by deterring some attorneys from working for him, according to a person in Trump’s orbit who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be more candid about Trump’s legal challenges.
“Beating up on a rape victim for not screaming doesn’t work,” the person said. “The outcome is unfortunate, predictable and entire avoidable. Does it have any direct effect on other cases? Not really. But it certainly doesn’t help,” this person said.
Advisers and lawyers did not want Trump to testify and were caught off guard when he recently said he was going to New York while swarmed by reporters on his golf course in Scotland. There were never plans for him to go to New York, advisers said. He falsely said on Truth Social that he could not testify; Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said in court that his client waived his right to testify.
“The fact that someone assaulted a woman in that way is reprehensible,” Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who voted to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection in the 2021 impeachment trial, said Tuesday of the Carroll verdict. “Would you want it done to your spouse? To your sister? To your mother? So I hope it’s a consideration.”
Trump is scheduled to participate in a CNN town hall in New Hampshire on Wednesday. A close adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private deliberations, said he was committed to the town hall “100%” and was filming policy and fundraising videos at his club Tuesday night.
READ MORE 
Pictures and other objects are displayed in memory of slain journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, in the room that used to be her office at the Al Jazeera news channel, in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Tuesday. (photo: Ahmad Gharabli/AFP)
A Washington Post investigation, among others, found that an Israeli soldier likely fired the fatal shot — during a moment of relative calm, not in the midst of a firefight with militants, as Israel claimed. Her case fits a pattern: The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) found in a recent report that for the 20 reporters — 18 of them Palestinian — whose deaths can be attributed to the IDF since 2001, no one has been charged or held accountable.
In the year since her death, Abu Akleh’s family has demanded an independent investigation — and justice. The U.S. government pledges to protect its citizens and media freedoms. But Abu Akleh’s family is still waiting.
“Accountability means anyone and everyone involved in Shireen’s killing, whether it’s from the soldier who pulled the trigger all the way up to the chain of command, that they’re all held accountable,” Lina Abu Akleh, Shireen’s niece, said by phone. She spoke from the predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem, where the family is from. “It also means transparency. That the full truth about what happened to Shireen is public.”
The Israeli military did its own internal investigation — and in September concluded that an Israeli soldier “highly likely” fired the bullets but did so “accidentally” during “an exchange of fire” with Palestinian gunmen. As no crime was committed, Israeli authorities found, Israel issued no charges and took no disciplinary action.
The United States also led a forensic and ballistics analysis. The U.S. security coordinator (USSC) in Jerusalem, who liaises with Palestinian security services and oversaw the investigation, did not itself interview any soldiers or witnesses. In July, the State Department similarly concluded the killing was “tragic” and unintentional.
But numerous news organizations and rights groups, along with The Post, found no evidence of fighting or crossfire. Other evidence suggests the journalists were even targeted. Abu Akleh’s family in July accused the United States of “skulking toward the erasure of any wrongdoing by Israeli forces.”
In December, the Al Jazeera requested the International Criminal Court investigate Israel for the potential war crime of targeting and killing their correspondent. A team of U.N. human rights experts in May of last year said that her killing “may constitute a war crime,” as she was “clearly performing her duties as a journalist” and that authorities failed “to properly investigate killings of media personnel.”
Neither Israel nor the United States accept the jurisdiction of The Hague-based ICC and both opposed Al Jazeera’s case.
Initially, President Biden called for “a full and transparent accounting” and pledged “to stand up for media freedom everywhere in the world” in July while visiting the region. That month, Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Abu Akleh’s family. Two months before, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said the agency wanted “an immediate and thorough investigation and full accountability. Investigating attacks on independent media and prosecuting those responsible are of paramount importance.”
But the United States has done little to advance the cause, and if anything, has backed off. In September, Price said the top U.S. diplomat was “not looking for criminal accountability” after the U.S. and Israeli investigations found Abu Akleh’s death “the tragic result of a gunfight.” Accountability in this case, he said, meant “steps put in place” so “the possibility that something like this could happen again is profoundly mitigated.”
Last week, State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said at a news briefing that the United States has “continued to press Israel to closely review its policies and practices on rules of engagements and consider additional steps to mitigate risk of civilian harm and protect journalists,” without going into detail.
“We are determined to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future and continue to engage with Israel in this regard,” a State Department spokesperson said in a statement.
The response is not good enough for some members of Congress, who in letters and legislative amendments have pressed for an independent investigation into why a U.S. citizen and journalist was gunned down with apparent impunity. Nearly half of Democrats in the Senate signed a letter to Biden in June reiterating the United States’ “obligation to ensure that a comprehensive, impartial, and open investigation into her shooting death is conducted.”
Abu Akleh’s death has spurred calls for conditions on Washington’s $3.8 billion annual military aid to Israel — a long-standing demand by Palestinian activists and some progressive Democrats. “Whether her killing was intentional, reckless, or a tragic mistake, there must be accountability,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who sponsored an act in his name that prohibits Washington from giving military aid to human rights violating countries, said in a statement in September. “And if it was intentional, and if no one is held accountable, then the Leahy Law must be applied.”
Some in Congress are also calling for full transparency around two government reports in the works, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told The Post on Monday. An FBI investigation is underway, with which Israel said it would not cooperate. The USSC recently submitted a report to the State Department — but Van Hollen said the State Department plans to make “unspecified changes” before sharing it with Congress. Last week, he sent a letter to Blinken calling for the release of the unedited version.
“There are a lot of people who would like this to go away,” he told The Post. “And we need to make sure that this isn’t swept under the rug.”
Abu Akleh’s advocates face an uphill battle keeping her high-up on Washington’s agenda as the Biden administration tries to keep strong ties with Israel while contending its far-right government — and as a new phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict unfolds. Abu Akleh was one of nearly 150 Palestinians killed in 2022 by Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and 94 more have been killed as of May 1, according to the United Nations, the highest rates in years. At least 17 Israelis and one foreign national have been killed in Palestinian attacks. Grimly, the anniversary of her death comes amid another deadly escalation in Gaza.
If her aunt were not Palestinian and killed by Israel, Lina Abu Akleh said, justice may have already been served.
“We honestly feel that because Shireen is a Palestinian American there has been a different way of handling the situation,” she said. “If she was killed in another part of the world, then of course it would have been handled in a totally different way.”
The State Department said Israel has “the wherewithal and the capabilities to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation.” But when it comes to journalists, and in particular Palestinian ones, the CPJ report “found a pattern of Israeli response that appears designed to evade responsibility.”
From Jerusalem to Washington, memorials are being held this week for a journalist remembered as much for her compassion as her reporting.
“We will continue seeking all avenues to achieve justice for Shireen and to make sure that such a crime doesn’t happen again,” the niece said. “Because we know that this is what Shireen would have done if it was any of us or any of her colleagues.”
“When there’s no action,” she said, “there’s no accountability.”
READ MORE 
Shelves where disinfectant wipes are usually stocked are nearly empty at a Target store on 2 March 2020, in Novato, California. (photo: Justin Sullivan)
Researchers say wipes contain chemical group called ‘quats’, which are linked to serious health problems
But as schools reopened, a group of toxic chemical researchers grew concerned as they heard reports of kids regularly using disinfectant wipes on their classroom desks, or teachers running disinfectant foggers.
The researchers knew the disinfectants did little to protect consumers from Covid, and were instead exposing kids at alarming levels to what they say are a dangerous chemical group – quaternary ammonium compounds, also known as QACs, or “quats”.
Quats are common components in popular disinfectant wipes and sprays, especially those that claim to “kill 99.9% of germs”. But in a new peer-reviewed paper, the researchers assembled the conclusions from a fast-growing body of quat studies that point to several main issues: the chemicals are linked to serious health problems, they contribute to antimicrobial resistance, they pollute the environment and they are not particularly effective.
The chemicals “might not be efficacious, but also might be harmful”, said Courtney Carignan, a co-author on the paper and toxicologist at Michigan State University.
“We did the review to answer the question of ‘What do we really know?’ and what was most surprising was there was a lack of health hazard data in the majority of QACs, and the few that have been studied have red flags,” Carignan added.
The paper – developed by a group of toxics researchers from academia, government agencies and non-governmental organizations – highlights quats’ risks and calls on regulators to eliminate the chemicals for non-essential uses.
QACs are a class of hundreds of chemicals also used in paints, pesticides, hand sanitizers, personal care products and more. Among other health issues, recent research has linked them to infertility, birth defects, metabolic disruption, asthma, skin disorders and other diseases.
The main exposure is through disinfectants, and most Americans are thought to have some level of the chemicals in their blood. Recent research that checked the serum of more than 200 Indiana residents before and after the pandemic started found quat levels roughly doubled, and while about 83% had detectable levels before the pandemic, 97% did after.
Humans can end up with quats in their bodies through several routes. The chemicals can be dermally absorbed or orally ingested after one touches a disinfectant wipe, or when they stick around on surfaces after the use of disinfectants. Inhalation is also a risk, especially with spray disinfectants, and the chemicals are also known to attach to dust and go airborne.
Among the groups most at risk are small children because the wipes are so frequently used in daycares or schools, elderly folks in supervised care, healthcare workers, cleaning professionals and others who frequently use disinfectants.
The chemicals are persistent and thought to be bioaccumulative, meaning they accumulate in human bodies and the environment. Quats have been found to be toxic to fish and “a substantial body of evidence” suggests they probably contribute to the creation of superbugs, or antibiotic-resistant pathogens, the paper states.
It also calls into question quats’ efficacy. Disinfection with quats often has only a small benefit over plain soap and water when it comes to killing germs, research suggests, and neither is thought to be needed to stop the transmission of Covid, which happens through the air.
“Disinfectant will get rid of more germs, but there’s a question of ‘How much more?’” Carignan said.
Still, companies continue to use quats and consumers buy the disinfectants in high volume, which Carignan said may be a “a market demand situation where maybe there’s some confusion about when you need to disinfect versus when you just need a cleaner.”
Soap and water is safest for general cleaning purposes, she added, and some resources offer alternatives to harsh cleaners. Disinfectants should generally be reserved for when someone has the stomach flu or other illnesses for which disinfectants are effective, and even then they should “not be used in a cavalier way”, Carignan said.
The paper stresses the need for regulatory agencies to protect consumers. Labeling requirements are inconsistent among product classes – they must be included on pesticide labels, they do not need to be included on paint labels, and they appear to only be sometimes listed on disinfectant labels, Carignan said.
The paper calls on regulatory agencies to provide more clarity around the chemicals, including more research on quats’ health effects, better labeling and elimination of non-essential uses.
“Chemicals of concern should only be used where their function is necessary for health and safety, or is critical for the functioning of society, and no safer alternatives exist,” the study states.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.