09/06/18 09/06/18 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] amy: from pacifica, this is democracy now! >> yesterday was just the opening statements -- it was only our time as committee members that we wasted on disruption and disorder over procedural matters. but today is different. protesters are arrested

again on the second day of judge brett kavanaugh's senate supreme court confirmation hearing. we will air highlights and get response from hina shamsi of the aclu andnd vince warren of ththe constititution for center r rig. then as mike pompeo and defense secretary james mattis visit india to strengthen military ties, we speak with author and activist arundhati roy in new delhi. she stands with many decry matt modi government after last week's raids on homes of five prominent critics. we will also speak with arundhati roy about the indian supreme court's historic decision legalizing gay sex. all of that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!,

democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the white house is scrambling to ferret out disloyal members of president trump's inner circle after "the new york times" published an anonymous op-ed piece on wednesday that says was written by a senior administration official claiming a quite resistance is underway seeking to constrain trump's worst impulses. in the extraordinary op-ed column, the unnamed official writes -- "many of the senior officials in his own a administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations." the unnamed author goes on to write -- " "ours is not the popular resistance of the left. we want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made america safer and more prosperous.' but we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic."

the author calls trump impulsive, erratic, ill-informed, and reckless with half-baked ideas. the author claims members of trump's cabinet discussed invoking the constitution's 25th amendment, but later decided against it. the amendment allows for the removal of a president who's unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. the op-ed column prompted fury from president trump who blasted what he called the failing "new york times" and questioned whether the undimmed official exists. this is president trtrump speakg after saving an award from the national suit -- after the national awards. pres. trump: an anonymous editorial, meaning gutless. a gutless editorial. we're doing a great job. amy: critics of the administration seized on the issue as the latest proof that president trump is unfit for office.

while others criticized "the new york times" for taking the rush that of publishing an unnamed op-ed. glenn greenwald of the intercept tweeted -- "the irony in the op-ed from the nyt's anonymous white house coward is glaring and massive: she-or-he accuses trump of being anti-democratic while boasting of membership in an unelected cabal that covertly imposes their own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate, or transparency." on capitol hill, judge brett kavanaugh supreme court confirmation hearing enters its third day today. on wednesday, he was questioned for the first time by members of the senate judiciary committee will stuff you faced questions on gun control and acknowledged he has said some semiautomatic rifle's cannot be banned. capital declined to promise he would not vote to reverse roe v. wade, the 1973 supreme court decision which legalized abortion. he also faced questions over his

expensive views on presidential powers, including the prospects of future criminal charges against president trump. this is senator patrick leahy questioning judge kavanaugh. >> the question of self pardons is something i have never analyzed. it is a question i have not written about. it is a question, therefore, that is a hypothetical question that i can't begin to answer in this context as a sitttting jude and as a nominee to the supreme court. amy: the second consecutive day, kavanaugh's confirmation hearing was repeatedly interrupted by protesters. 66 of whom stood up one by one to denounce his judicial record before being arrested by capitol police. seven others were arrested at elsewhere on capitol hill. es.e of them more red rob this followed 70 similar arrests

at the confirmation hearing that got underway on tuesday. speaking to a website, president trump suggested such protests ought to be illegal. trump said "i think it is embarrassing for the country to allow protesters you don't even know what side the protesters are on." we will have more on day two of brett kavanaugh's confirmation hearings after headlines. in afghanistan, a pair of bomb blasts tore through a sports club in kabul on wednesday, killing 20 people and wounding 70 others. among the dead were rescue workers, a journalist and a camera operator who rushed to the scene after the first explosion. there was no claim of responsibility for the attack, which appeared to target members of the hazara ethnic group, who are predominantly shia muslims. the minority group has been targeted in the past by isis. in iraq, demonstrators torched the main government building in the southern city of basra wednesday, as protests over corruption, power outages and rampant unemployment continued

for a third straight day. the protesters also say basra's water supply is heavily polluted, charging more than 20,000 people have been hospitalized from the contamination. at least one person was killed wednesday after iraqi forces fired live rounds into crowds. a day earlier, five people were shot and killed. spain has canceled plans to deliver 400 laser-guided bombs to saudi arabia oveveconcerns over the u.s.-backed, , saudi-ld assault on y yemen, which h has fueleded the world''s worstt humanitaririan crisis. a spanish defense mininistry spokesperson confirmed repor that spain will return s some $0 millioalready paidid by saudi arabia f thehe weansns. the u.n.n. says the saududi-led assault has spawned a massive cholera epidemic that's sickened over a million people while bringing millions more to the brink of famine. last month, republican leaders quashed an amendment offered by u.s. senator chris murphy that would have cut off u.s. support to the saudi-led coalition. in syria, humanitarian aid groups are warning as many as

800,000 people could be displaced d if russia anand syra proceed with a p planned offenee inin idlib province, the l last major rebel-held part of the syria. 3 million people currently live in idlib, half of whom are already internally displaced. the warning came as president trump on wednesday denied a report made e by veteran journalist bob woodward in his forthcoming book "fear: trump pn the white house," that ordered pentagon chief james mattis to assassinate sysyrian president bashshar al-asd d in april o of 2017.. pres. trump: the book is fiction. i heard somewhere where they said the assassination of president al-assad by the united states, never even discussed. the book is total of fiction. amy: north korean leader kim jong-un has reaffirmed his commitment to denuclearizing the korean peninsula by the end of donald trump's first term in office, saying his faith in the president remains unchanged. that's according to a senior

south korean diplomat who met with kim ahead of a planned summit between leaders of the north and south later this month. in remarks to the south korean envoy, kim said he was frustratated over skepticism ovr what he's called very significant and meaningful steps toward ending the prospect of war on the peninsula. india's supreme court has overturned a law criminalizing consensual gay sex in a major victory for lgbtqi groups. the ruling voids a portion of the indian penal code written by britain's colonial government in the 1860's, which, although rarely enforced, made gay sex a crime punishable by up to life in prison. back in the united states, vice president mike pence administered the oath of office wednesday to former u.s. senator jon kyl, who fills the senate seat left vacant after the death of arizona's john mccain last month. kyl is a republican who rerepresented arizona in the

senanate for 18 years. after retiring from congress in 2013, , kyl joined the prominent law fifirm covington & bururlin, where he worked as a lobbyist on behalf of clients from wall street, big pharma, and the weapapons industry. kyl l also worked to advance jue brett kavanaugh's suprpreme cout nomination through the senate. kyl has said he e will serve as arizona's junior senator until a special election i in 2020. in c chicago, jury selection is underway in the murder trial of white police officer jason van dyke, who's charged in the killing of 17-year-old african american laquan mcdonald in october of 2014. the killing was captured on a police dash cam video released under court order, which clearly contradicted police claims about the shooting. the video shows the teenagerer posing no threat and walking away from the officers before van dyke opened fire 16 times. on wednesday, about 100

protesters gathered near the cook county criminal courthouse as the trial got underway. this is activist williamam calloway. >> and if he is acquitted, it is not just going to be the south side, butjust the one every side of the state e that will rise up and will demand justice. amy: in louisiana, police arrested four people wednesday as they held a peaceful sit in protest at a construction site bayou bridge pipeline. it is being built by energy transfer partners, the same by the dakota access pipeline. all four those arrested wednesday face felony charges under harsh new i into protest loss i might louisiana's governor earlier this year. this is water protector cherri foytlin speaking as she was tackled by police.

>> we need you now. help. amy: and those are some of the headlines. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. nermeen: and i'm nermeen shaikh. welcome to all of our listeners and viewers from around the country and around the world. judge brett kavanaugh's supreme court confirmation hearing enters its third day today. on wednesday, capitol police arrested 73 people protesting his nomination. the protests began almost immediately when senate judiciary committee chair chair chuck grassley tried to begin the hearing. >> yesterday was just the opening statements. it was only our time as committee members that we wasted on disruption and disorder over procedural matters. but today is different. nermeen: protesters included women's march organizers from 26 states. among them was a teenager who

stood on a chair and said -- "i'm 18, and i'm here for the youth of the country. you're ruining my future." when questioned about judicial independence, kavanaugh said "no one is above on the law in our constitutional system." but he refused to answer senator diane feinstein about whether a president has to respond to a subpoena. >> my time is going to run out very quickly. let me just ask you this. can a sitting president be required to respond to a subpoena? >> so that is a hypothetical question about what would be an elaboration or a difference from 's precise holding. and i think going with the justice ginsburg principle, which is really not the justice ginsburg alone principle, it is on thee's principle i' grid supreme court and is a matter of the canons of judicial independence. i can't give you an answer on that hypothetical question. amy: judge kavanaugh also faced

questions on gun control and review -- roe v. wade, which he called "an important precedent of the supreme court that has been reaffirmed many times." senator lindsey graham asked for clarity about kavanaugh's outlook on military use of force after the 9/11 attacks. >> so when somebody says post-9/11 that we have been at war and it is called the war on terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept? do, senator, because congress passesed thee auauthorization fofor use of military force, which is still in effect. amy: from more we are joined by two guests here in new york. hina shamsi is the director of the american civil liberties union's national security project. she recently wrote a piece titled "on national security, kavanaugh has a history of extreme deference to the president." and vince warren is the executive director of the center for constitutional rights, which joined more than 180 groups in a statement opposing judge kavanaugh's confirmation, saying he is an ideological extremist who lacks the fair-mindedness necessary to serve a lifetime

appointment on the supreme court. we welcome both of you back to democracy now! this letter you wrote, what so dedeeply concerned a about judge kavavanaugh? >> if you look back at his record, what you see is someone who was deeply, deeply hostile for the right. republicans will talk about him as a centrist, as some one who is here, 72 follows the law. but they're looking at it the wrong way. if you look at this particular nominee on the spectrum -- are they in favor of presidential and state power and corporate power versus are they in favor of people power, almost invisibly, he will go as deeply as he can toward state and corporate power, whether we're talking about reproductive rights for racial justice, voting rights -- it is a disaster. important timen for us because with anthony kennedy vacating the seat, we are really looking at several decades of very hard right supreme court that is going to

be a real challenge for the legal organizations that are trying to vindicate the rights of the people. nermeen: in addition to what he siding withabobout the state and corporate power, your piece is called "on national security, kavanaugh has a history of extreme deference to the president." talk about your concerns with him in respect to the positions he has taken in cases he has been involved in on national security issues. matter ofu is a policy does not take positions for against supreme court nominees, but we do think it is incredibly report for congress and the public to be informed about their record. we analyzed judge kavanaugh's national security cases and found that he has extreme deference to presidential claims of unchecked authority the name of war and national security, a hostility to enforcing constraints imposed by binding to a national law and government

action, again in the name of war and national security, and an unwillingness to recognize judicial rememedies for indivividuals who hahave been hd by constitutional and human rights violations. amy: speaking of human rights violations, judge kavanaugh said under oath during his 2006 confirmation to the appellate court in d.c., he is not involved in the bush administration's rules governing detention of combatants. senator dick durbin pushed back on this claimim at wednesesday's hearing, but kavanaugh stitill insiststed his testimony was accurate. >> you're involved in the discussions about access to counsel for detainees. -- you confirm this in my meeting and the office and are multiple reports as well.. you wewere involved in discussis regarding detained combatants. you confirmed that in our meetings and he males support that -- and emails support that.

you were involved with president bankroll,5, inhuman, degrading treatment of detainees and you confirm that in the meeting. there were no exceptions in your answer given to me in 2006, not for litigation or detainee access to counsel or the mccain torture amendment, so if those three, based on the limited documents which we have been given, are obvious, what we trying to tell me here? did you really disclose accurately your role? >> yes. i understood the question then and my answer then and i understood -- [indiscernible] >> i understood the question then and the answer then and i understand the question now in

the answer now. to be 100% accurate. in ago that was judge kavanaugh when he was asked again abobout his role in the bush of administration's torture program, the torture report released by the senator feinstein showed he was not aware of the programs will stop >> the policies that are reflected and described in senator feinstein's extensive thorough report were very controversial, as you know, senator, the enhanced interrogation techniques and the legal memos that were involved in justifying some of those techniques also were very controversial when they were disclosed in 2004. and i was not involved -- i was not read into that program, not involved in crafting that program, nor crafting the legal justifications for that program.

in addition to senator feinstein's report, the justice department did a lengthy office of professional responsibility report about the legal memos that had been involved to justify some of those programs. my name is not in that report, senator. into that program and not involveved. amy: that is judge kavanaugh speaking at the hearing, which was continually interrupted by protesters decrying everything from human rights and many other issues. hina shamsi, can you translate this all for us? what do we know and what don't we know about kavanaugh's involvement in these decisions during the bush administration, whom he served for a number of years, what documents have been released, what haven't, what is on the record, and what about what he actually was willing to admit? little is oningly the record. part of the reason for that is democratic senators have pointed out they have -- they do not have the majority of the records come judge kavanaugh's time in

the white house. he held to different positions in the white house, and they don't have the majority of records from that time. one important thing to point out -- amy: because? >> because they have been withheld on claims of privilege. there is a set of unusual and unprecedented refusals to provide information, and that is a problem because we need congress to exercise its authority here. and the public also needs to know about this man who is said to hold a position that will be so important. one important clarification that senator feinstein issued after judge kavanaughgh talked about t being mentioned in the torture report and senator feinstein talked about how limited the scope of the report was because the senate intelligence committee did not get white house rerecords. so it would not have discussed any role capital might have played. it if i may, what we do know i s providing -- to

opening the courthouse doors to victims of human rights abuses like torture in case after case, including one where we represented the a.c.l. -- the aclu represented a man who was detained and abused i fbi agents abroad, three different countries and the horn of africa . the panel refused to say he could seek a remedy in court because they said it was in the context of a counterterrorism investigation overseas. judge kavanauaugh went out of hs way to write a separate opinion saying there should not be a remedy recogognized for any kind of these investigations overseas. so that in itselelf is a problemamatic opinion. nermeen: can i ask about one of the cases you raise in your case? you 2010

mention international law, his position on the jurisdiction of international law in the u.s. if you could speak spepecificaly about what the impact of his position was on the aumf, the authorization use of military force, saying it was not limited by principles of international law? and in other case cases, what judge kavanaugh has town is his hostility binding international law, including the geneva conventions , as a constraint on government action, whether by president or congress. and in his view, courts should congressional statutes, for example, with a reference to international law's constraint unless congress specifically says they should. and whwhat that does outside of the judicial mainstream and

outside of long-standing doctrine where the supreme court has said that in f fact courts should ensure that they construe domestic law consistent with international law unless congress says otherwise. so that is really turning a standard on its head. and judge kavanaugh's opinions, which would argue for presidential authority to detain prisoners even without congressional authorization and other constraints, that would give the presisident extreme por , unchecked power, and that is a problem. amy: i want to turn to senator patrick leahy questioning judge kavanaugh during wednesday's hearing about whether he lied during previous sworn testimony about his knowledge of warrantless surveillance. >> when you were in the white house, did you ever work with john yoo on the constitutional implications of any warrantless

surveillance program? --right in thee wake of september 11, it was all hands on deck on all fronts. amy: senator patrick leahy questioning judge kavanaugh during the hearing. i also want to say thatleahy tweeted yesterday between 2001 and 2003, republican staffers hacked into install 4670 files inin conontroversial bush judicl nominees from six democrats, including me." he went on --

so there are two different issues. one is the surveillance. if you could respond to that? >> absolutely. with remember after 9/11, as judge kavanaugh said, there was a massive surveillance program that began in the united states. the aclu and others had litigated and continue to litigate in various ways some of those cases. what we're looking at is the question here is whether -- what his involvement was in that massive surveillance program. i think what is deeply troubling is then as now, we have not clear on the record answers about high level or even low-level officials' participation in these programs. they are always pushing the question aside. i think this is s a key issue because now we have a supreme court nominee who arguably played a role in facilitating and thinking up and moving

forward some of the spying programs, which of course can have found to be deeply problematic and unconstitutional. i think that is relevant for congress to be able e to determe whether this is a viable nominee to sit on the supreme court. it is likely that under this administration that we will be seeing similar types of activities, even perhaps ones that the courts have said were not a problem. it might give this administration a second bite at the apple. youeen: hina shamsi, could respond what we know if kavanaugh's position on mass surveillance in the context of the 2003's note -- 2013 snowdon revelations? and where he stood relative to other judges on the d.c. circuit on that question? >> absolutely. in 2015, judge kavanaugh issued a decision that he went out of his way to analyze -- it was not joinined by any other judge on e d c circuit and it was in a case that arose out of edward

snowden's disclosures in 2013 that the government -- that the nsa had been conducting full surveillance programs of americans phone records. judge kavanaugh dedefended thats constitutiononal. he did that in a couple of ways that are problematic. that the bulk collection program under section 2015 of the patriot act did not even amount to a search under the fourth amendment because it involved collection of americans phone numbers, in essence, as opposed to the content of their call. but in doing so, he relied on a similarly and a 1970's case that involved the supreme court upholding war is collection of an individual criminal suspect's phone records over a a limited period of time for three days, and that is a very different context than a bulk program

collecting phone records of millions of americans. he also said that even if the fourth amendment were to apply, the search would be reasonable because claims of national security outweighed the impact on individual americans s priva. amy: can you talk about the significance of his positions in the bush white house? what it means to be in the white house counsel's office, what it means to be staff secretary? why this is so key and the fact ththat well over one of a thousd documents have not been released is so significant? know, those are significant positions in the white house at a time when the bush administration was carrying out some of its most abusive policies or programs in the post-9/11 era. what we don't know is the extent to which judge kavanaugh had a basis for participating

war whether if, as he seems to have conveyed this, he was essentially acting as traffic cop without weighing in on the substance of opinion. the what congress does not have and what the public does not from thate records time in order to be able to know for sure one way or the other. >> i want to add in the white house counsel context, anybody that works in a law office knows these are not solitary -- you don't sit in your office and don't tell anybody what you are doing. people will go to other folks and say, what do you think of this c concept? how should i address this question? diverge or the fact is to invest not appear necessarily on memos does not mean he doesn't have involvement, particularly in with the legal deer is going to be. amy: enemies a lot of people know w what his views are on the issues. >> yes. amy: let's talk about judge kavanaugh and roe v. wade. >> one of the important things

to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know. and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirms and plan parent versus casey in 1992. amy: judge kavanaugh at his hearing and one of the few moments he was not interrupted at that second by someone been taken out. there were more thaha the what, 66 protesters in the room, seven protesters outside who were arrested. >> on the protest note, in listening to trying to respond and hearing people being dragged out of the chamber, i mean, that is what our democracy sounds like. it was extraordinary moment will stop i think it was quite good. frankly, i think the nominees need to be a little rattled, particularly when giving answers like this one. senator feinstein asked him point blank about his view prior to his view about women being harmed and women being killed and asked what his view was on

that. hehe gave a very pat answer, whh is everybody knows roeoe v. wade is important precedent. i'm not sure what was talking about planned parenthood versus casey as being precedent. i'm not sure what that means. at what he did not say is s he d not sasay he will uphold eitherf those two precedents. he recognized they were important. you did not say he recognized that women are in jeopardy if they don't have access to those rights, and he did not say that the state could be constrained in their denial of those rigighs at any particular way. it was a very artful nonanswer that was troubling and should continue -- should not give anybody any sense of peace around that question. nermeen: i want to go to another issue people have raised concerns about. at wednesday's confirmation hearing, vermont democratic senator patrick leahy asked judge kavanaugh weather trump has an absolute right to pardon himself.

>> the question of self pardons is something i have never analyzed. it is a question i have not writteten about. it is a question therefore that is hot a hypothetical question ---- that is a hypothehetical questition. it's in this context. nermeen: can you respond to that, weather trump has the right to pardon himself and why that is especially significant? >> it t is an important issue legally because there are folks that disagree on whether the president can or cannot. so while i don't agree with judge kavanaugh on virtually anything else that he said, i think this is actually a reasonable answer to say i have not researched that question. no one has raised it before. it is not necessarily something you would d want to have answerd here. but what he should have said is that that is an open question. i would look into that very, very sous league if that issue gets raised. and i would find it troubling if

we did live in a republic where the president has such power that he could commit crimes and then pardon himself for doing them, at least in terms of the federal crimes. that is the answer i would like to hear, but of course would never hear any hearing like ththat. i think that is the right way to analyze the question. wyatt is important is we are more likely than ever to see that scenario go from the hypothetical he is the talking about in this hearing to reality. we might be facing that in the next couple of years. amy: i want to end with this op-ed piece that has shocked the nation, the white house scrambling to ferret out disloyal members of president trump's inner circle after "the new york times" published an anonymous op-ed column that says it was written by a senior administration official claiming that a quiet resistance is underway seeking to constrain trump's worst impulses. in this extraordinary fees, the unnamed official writes -- on

"many of the senior officials in the zone administration are working diligently to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations and goes on to write -- the author calls trump's impulsive erratic and ill-informed, reckless with half-baked ideas and claims members of trump's cabinet discussed invoking the constitution's 20 for the memos but later decided againstt it. the mm and allowing for the removal of a president who is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. vince warren? would is both extraordinary and outrageous. i think what is extraordinary is there are people within the administraration that are workig

to undermine this president. that is not nothing. particularly when you talk about the 25th amendment, which was passed in the 1960's, it has only been invoked x times but never section 4. in which the vice president can ask for the removal of the president because president cannot do his job. that is s never been invokeded before. although it has been discussed in the regular administration in 1987, 1988, discussion about it, apparently. what is outrageous i think is number one that that inside official would dare to call his or herself part of t the resistance. that is not the resistance. ands not only a popular -- think about what they are resisting. they are resisting what we are resisting, which is transferable, ill-conceived, impetuous urges. what they are not resisting are the horrible, cruel policicies that administratioion is puttitg in. themselvesgh fiving

when they criticize immigrants, when they're getting rid of the epa, when they are turning public education on its head. to them that is a victory. so part of me says, if it is so outrageous, why did everybody else in america realize that he was going to be the disaster that he was but you decided you wanted to go work there? amy: i think they're clearly saying they want to push that agenda forward. trump'se other parts of personality that our concern supporting that agenda.. >> if you're jumping ship, that means you got on the boat to begin with. that is part of the problem. not surprisingly, president trump comes out and says, we demand that you turn over the names of these people. that is simply not going to happen. it could very well be another case that is going to the supreme court, as we've seen in terms of "new york times" versus sullivan. that t op-ed g gave

us nothing that we did not already know, but he gave us a little more context into how desperate this administration is. frankly, i think it is crumbling internally. i think we can mark this moment historically to say this is the beginning of the end. amy: we want to thank you both for being with us. vince warren is the executive director of the center for constitutional rights. hina shamsi is the directotor of the american civil liberties union's national security project. when we come back, well, james mattis and secretary of state pompeo a are in india. we will go to new delhi and speak with arundhati roy, among other things, about the raids on dissidents' homes. stay with us. ♪ [music break]

amy: "total destruction to your mind" byby swamp dogg. this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. nermeen: secretary of state mike pompeo and defense secretary jim mattis are in india today to talk about deepening military and trade ties between the two countries. india is the largest weapons importer in the world. pompeo spoke earlier today in delhi.i.

>> shared d values of democracy, civil rights. nermeen: pompeo and mattis' trip comes just a week after the indian government conducted raids across the country targeting prominent human rights activists, lawyers, poets and critics of the narendra modi government. at least five people were arrested. the indian government has accused them of inciting violence and having suspected links to maoist rebels. amy: critics say the arrests are part of a broader attempt by modi's government to silence dissidents ahead of next year's general election. we go right now to new delhi, india, where we are joined by the prize winning author a and activist arundhati roy to talk about u.s.-indian ties, last week's raids and today's historic judgment by the indian supreme court legalizing gay sex. the court today overturned a 157-year-old colonial-era law known as section 377.

arundhati roy won the booker prize in 1997 for her first novel "the god of small things." her most recent book is a novel titled "the ministry of utmost happiness." welcome back to democracy now! why don't you start off by talking about top u.s. officials coming to firm up military ties with india just as you and a number of critics have held a news conference after the modi government rated critics' homes. talk about what is taking place in india today. guess it is not a contradiction because india is becoming a militarized state. and the militarization is not necessarily just aimed at countries outside like pakistan, it is aimed at controlling a very diverse population, you

know, the modi administration, modi himself as will as many of his ministers, belong to organization of which i've spoken many times call the iss, who want india to become what is known as a hindu nation, which would involve the sort of clampdown on an a array of different voices, on minorities, people who think differently. in a way, india is a country of andrities we look at caste ethnicity and religion. weapons import would be important to control the home population as well as the outside. and while pompeo and mattis are here, maybe you would like us to keep them for you here since they cling to be these great evangelical christians. i mean, they are marking the

10th anniversary of the massacre of christians a hindu vigilante groups. in fact, before he became the prime minister, modi was banned from coming to the u.s.. technically, the reason was that the attack on muslims, but the attack on christians, which goes unabated. maybe they would like to talk about that, too, while they are here. nermeen: i want to point out the scale of the increase of u.s. arms sales to india in the last years. arms imports from the u.s. to 557% rose no less t than between 2008-2012, and 2013-2017, the u.s. now the number two weapons supplier to india after russia. i want to turn to the concerns you raised about these weapons imports.

targeting not just pakistan and others outside india, but what are perceived increasingly the large numbers of people within india who are perceived as a threat to the modi government, among them these activists who were arrested last week. now you have said the situation in india today following these arrests constitutes more or less a coup against the constitution and also that it could potentially be more dangerous than the emergency in 1975.t was declared so could you talk about some of your concerns and what you think this means for where india is headed? >> well, yes i said that because while the emergency was a terrible moment in the 1970's for the people of this country and civil rights was suspended

and hundreds of people were arrested and put into prison, what you are seeing now is a different scenario. it is a script that was written almost 100 years ago. and you are seeing this administration right now at its most dangerous because polls and analysis revealed, the voting data showed a sharp dip in its popularity. the reasons for that are not the spreading of the manifesto of hatred, but also the fact that modi's announcement of the monetization, diluted legislation of 80% of the -- ancy in november 2016 few days ago a bank came out with figures which were shocking them at which s said 99% of t te currency has returned to the banking system.

cost was a story about a india 1.5 million jobs in the gdp dropped by perhaps a whole percent, a percentile. there is that. there is a m massive scandal brewing about the purchase of fighter jets from france, which the scale of who's correction seems to be unimaginable. -- at thislot of time they seek to change the script. by wresting the very well known lawyer and activist, people who are versa for us, people who represent the most vulnerable populations both in court as well as in the media and so on, it is a way of silencing a massive population. you know? thatght sound very minor

you just put people under house arrest while the court decides whether or not they can be arrested now because the matter is in court, but actually, it is a very, very serious thing. and most significant is that there is a huge unrest -- the muslims have been targeted and fromor less erased electoral mathematics. the others a huge amount of unrest among the dalit community. these activists are being accused of maoists. a big rally took place in and on the 31st of december. it is a way of targeting dalit --insulting their aspirations by imputing, oh, it is all created by these maoists.

these are professors, lawyers, people who are working very openly, and whose beliefs are pretty clear and have been writing for years about the things they believe in. mischiefis a deep afoot. and it is a very, very dangerous situation. of course, initially, they accused these five people of being part of fomenting violence on december 31. then it turned out, oh, they were not -- and they claim they were part of an assassination plot against modi, which is of right fromld theme 2005. there have been these claims and people have also been just executed extrajudicially of people who are called terrorists plotting to kill modi.

so really they are lucky they are alive. the script keeps changing. what they're accused of keeps changing. so right now we are being told, oh, they are purchasing immense amount of weapons and planning unrest across the city. i don't know how to explain how , to accusehis is them of this is just corny. amy: arundhati roy, it is not only these prominent people, as you point out, but there of thousands of people being arrested in different states in india. if you could talk about the significance of this and what states are particularly in targeted? >> there are scenarios which are

complex and different. one is, as i said, the press conference and in my press release that today in india to be murdered is a crime. to be lynched is a crime. to be poor is a crime. to speak up for the disadvantaged makes you part of a plot to overthrow the government. so you have on the one hand sort of a whole scenario, a landscape in which there are visual into mobs -- vigilante mobs who have death, have putle to needs videos on youtube, have been honored by ministers for doing so when they come out of their very short spells in jail. you have an administration that gives them -- it doesn't itself involve itself in killing, but it has made it very clear that on are notobs and so

going to be punished. you can imagine in a country like this with a level of unrest, the level of poverty, becausel of frustration there are no jobs, you can imagine what this kind of immunity creates. yesterday there was an article in the newspaper saying 3000 0 d students and 28,000 graduates in the for jobs as peons police department with a qualification was class iv, you had to have passed up to class v should know how to write a bicycle. this is just an example of the extent of frustration that can spill over into violence. when you say you have impunity and if you're not getting a job could be them almost to death,

that is the situation. the new have the displacement that i've written about and spoken about on your show many times. huge areas of the forest court owned off while the forests are thought to be cleared, indigenous people being pushed off their lands. the forests are now isolated, lawyers, journalists, activists have been pushed out. so one doesn't know what is going on. and now they're going after what they call urban maoists. that means everybody who disagrees with them. and they don't want to name indigenous communities or dalit communities, because unlike the muslims, they need what they call the vote bank. so now you don't even give them the dignity of people fighting for their own rights, their own aspirations. then you go after them.

these two boats at one time. hand being-- on one sensitive go and the other hand undermining them completely. we will comei roy right back. arundhati roy, the prize-winning author, activist, speaking to us from new delhi. when we come back, we're going to speak to you about the indian supreme court's decision today, this historic decision legalizing gay sex. back in a minute. ♪ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman with nermeen shaikh. d'amico india supreme court has overturned a law criminalizing consensual gay sex in a major victory for lgbtqi groups. voids a portion written in the 1860's, which although briley and force, made a crime punishable of to life in prison. activist are holding celebrations across india. we're not criminals. we can live our life is whwho we are. we are really happy. thank you, supreme court. amy: arundhati roy is our guest

today, activist and author, speaking to us from new delhi, author of "the god of small things" as well as her latest book. your response? >> well, what can i say? how badly we needed this. i think it is phenomenal judgment coming at this point in time when things are closing down on people. i hope it is the beginning of something wonderful. i could not be happier about this. of -- it is a sign a sign of. this is something that is .gainst the grain of people it is a wonderful thing that has happened, totally wonderful

thing at a time, let's not forget, when people are being beaten to death for what they call love jihad. when you have a relatitionship with someone who is not of your can gette as you, you beheaded. these are the love laws which i wrote about in "the god of small things." this particular moment is a beautiful moment. but i hope it becomes a moment that changes the nature of the way we look at love. , as theserundhati roy thousands of people were protesting, are protesting today, the state supreme court ruling, thousands and thousands of people yesterday were marching -- workers and peasants were marching in central delhi opposing the modi government. could you explain what those protests w were abouout a countr

protest taking place in some states today that have been organized by upper-class people? amy: the people today celebrating the supreme court decision. yes kind of protesting. nermeen: oh, i'm sorry. >> there was a massive march in .elhi there was a wonderful moment of celebration. it yesterday, you're right, there was a march in which about 100,000 farmers marched from across the country because after the distress in the agricultural sector, absolute distress. we have more than 200,000 farmers who have been in debt and committed suicide. you have a situation in which agriculture is being made almost unviable. so farmers are marching,

demanding a minimum support price for their crops. this that islived closing down on this government. newall of us await the fireball that will fall on us to distract people from these very real issues that are affecting them in real-time. mean, how need -- i much of her propaganda the media puts out, however many lives -- lies are told on certain sections of the mainstream tv channels, the point is, ultimate league, people are experiencing this for themselves. they don't need news anchors to tell them everything is all right, you know? people don't have jobs. -- i'mwho were promised not sure what it is and dollars, but it is a large amount of money when modi campaign.

instead -- amy: we have to go. we have to break that we will go back to part two of our discussion with arundhati roy the au