The Intercept

Private Prisons Are Really Bad, but Good Enough for Immigrants, Concludes Homeland Security Report

5 December 2016 - 1:55pm

Private immigration detention facilities may be bad — but they’re probably not going anywhere.

That, in essence, was the conclusion of a much-anticipated review of the Department of Homeland Security’s reliance on private companies to detain an immigrant detainee population that’s reaching historic highs, which the president-elect is promising to escalate to even greater levels.

The report, produced by a panel of law enforcement, national security, and military experts, was commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security on the heels of a similar review by the Department of Justice in August. In that report, the DOJ found that private prisons “simply do not provide the same level of correctional services, programs, and resources,” “do not save substantially on costs,” and “do not maintain the same level of safety and security” as facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons. The Justice Department said it would begin to gradually phase out its own private contracts — which make up a fraction of private prison companies’ business when compared to federal immigration detention centers.

The DHS advisory committee report, released last week, raised similar criticisms of the billion-dollar private prison industry, but was more fatalistic in its conclusions.

“Much could be said for a fully government-owned and government-operated detention model, if one were starting a new detention system from scratch,” said the report. “But of course we are not starting anew.”

“Fiscal considerations, combined with the need for realistic capacity to handle sudden increases in detention, indicate that DHS’s use of private for-profit detention will continue,” the report concluded. Only one of the six members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council subcommittee that drafted the report, Marshall Fitz, dissented, recommending instead “a measured but deliberate shift away from the private prison model.”

But when the report — and its conclusion that private prisons were an inevitable evil — was brought to the broader HSAC committee for a vote, it sparked a contentious discussion. The committee ultimately voted 17-5 to make Fitz’s dissent the report’s recommendation to DHS.

Carl Takei, an attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project, called the vote a “stunning reversal.”

“It is tremendously important that the full Homeland Security Advisory Council voted to shift away from using private prisons to detain immigrants,” he told The Intercept in an email. “These are not immigrant rights advocates — they are a nonpartisan expert council of law enforcement, national security, military, and corporate leaders.”

“Secretary Johnson now needs to move swiftly to reduce his agency’s reliance on private prisons,” he added, “starting with facilities with longstanding records of abuse and neglect holding ICE detainees.”

Unfortunately, since HSAC serves in an advisory function only, the symbolically powerful vote is unlikely to have much effect.

According to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the DHS agency in charge of immigration detention, more than 70 percent of its detainees are held in privately run facilities. Earlier this year the average number of individuals in detention skyrocketed to an unprecedented 41,000, and immigration officials expect that number to soon hit 45,000. President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to deport 2 to 3 million immigrants when he takes office. If he plans to do so without violating due process protections, deportations on that scale would cause immigration detention numbers to rapidly skyrocket by the tens of thousands.

A spokesperson for the GEO Group, one of the two largest private prison companies, said in a statement that “in spite of the past rhetoric and inaccurate claims,” the HSAC report’s findings confirm the company’s “long history of providing culturally responsive, safe, and humane environments.”

DHS did not respond to a request for comment, but Secretary Johnson made the agency’s position clear last month when — with the HSAC review still in process —he authorized ICE “to acquire additional detention space.”

In fact, since the DOJ announced the phase-out of private prison contracts, ICE has moved to negotiate at least 15 new or expanded contracts, with both private prisons and local jails, adding more than 3,600 beds, according to research compiled by Detention Watch Network. That included quickly moving to reopen the Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, New Mexico, formerly a BOP prison run by Corrections Corporation of America, as an immigration detention center. And, as The Intercept previously reported, the DOJ itself also renewed two of its own contracts with private prisons.

“ICE should never have signed the massive new Cibola private prison contract while the HSAC review was pending,” said Takei. “Now that the full HSAC committee has made its recommendation, Secretary Johnson needs to heed that recommendation and undo ICE’s rogue contracting decision.”

Mary Small, Detention Watch Network’s policy director, said the HSAC report was disappointing but not surprising. “The investigation’s findings don’t respond to the mountain of evidence against private prison facilities, which are rife with abuse, mismanagement, and neglect,” she said. “Instead, the committee focused first on saving money, rather than ensuring the safety and dignity of people in ICE’s custody.”

Ahead of the HSAC review, Detention Watch Network released its own report on the “toxic relationship” between private prisons and U.S. immigration detention. “Throughout the system, we see evidence that these companies seek to maximize their profits by cutting costs at the expense of people’s health, safety, and wellbeing,” the report found. “[They] are not accountable and don’t experience consequences for even severe deficiencies; exert undue influence over government officials and immigration policy; and fight tooth and nail to avoid even minimal transparency.”

“While the investigation was taking place,” Small added, “ICE was recklessly expanding detention to an unprecedented level by entering into and renewing contracts with private prison companies, ultimately compromising the integrity of the investigation from the very beginning.”

Top photo: Guards prepare to escort an immigrant detainee from a “segregation cell” back into the general population at the GEO Group-managed Adelanto Detention Facility on Nov. 15, 2013, in Adelanto, California.

The post Private Prisons Are Really Bad, but Good Enough for Immigrants, Concludes Homeland Security Report appeared first on The Intercept.

Iraq Was Probably a “Mistake,” Said Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s Defense Pick

5 December 2016 - 11:02am

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense called the 2003 invasion of Iraq a “mistake,” according to a recording obtained by The Intercept.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” Mattis said, “we will probably look back on the invasion of Iraq as a mistake — as a strategic mistake.”

Mattis was one of the Iraq campaign’s most important ground commanders. He led the 1st Marine Division during the invasion and later oversaw the bloody retaking of Fallujah from insurgents in 2004.

As for the Pentagon’s view on the Iraq invasion at the time, Mattis said this: “I think people were pretty much aware that the U.S. military didn’t think it was a very wise idea. But we give a cheery ‘Aye aye, sir.’ Because when you elect someone commander in chief — we give our advice. We generally give it in private.”

Mattis’s comments came during a question-and-answer session after a keynote delivered last year at ASIS International, a conference for “global security professionals” held in Anaheim, California. A conference participant provided an audio recording of Mattis’s speech exclusively to The Intercept.

Mattis was not among the six retired generals who went on the record in 2007 to criticize Donald Rumsfeld’s management of the war. Trump himself has criticized the Iraq invasion, and falsely claimed that he spoke out against it from the beginning. His choice for national security adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn, told Der Spiegel that the invasion was a “huge error” and “strategic failure.” Elsewhere, Mattis has called the Iraq and Afghanistan wars “poorly explained and inconclusive.” But if Mattis was among those who did not agree with President George W. Bush’s decision to invade, he did a good job of hiding his personal views. His famously gung-ho message to U.S. Marines on the eve of the invasion urged them to “fight with a happy heart and strong spirit” to unseat a dictator who “murdered the Iraqi people … and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction.”

Mattis, who has recently been described as “outspoken” and “direct,” has openly criticized the Obama White House for not taking a harder line on Iran. But more than 10 years on, Mattis is yet to publicly question President George W. Bush’s decision to start the war, in which more than 1,000 U.S. Marines have died, despite the fact that the “weapons of mass destruction” were never found.

On the audio recording from the conference, Mattis can be heard worrying aloud about how far his views on Iraq will spread. “Dave, is this being — going out to the media?” he asks. “It could be recorded, but is that for internal …” Peggy O’Connor, a spokesperson for ASIS, said the luncheon was open to exhibitors as well as anyone else who bought a ticket. “There were several thousand people in the room,” she said, though she was not aware of any media.

The contrast between Mattis’s discrete treatment of one administration’s military approach to the Middle East and the next administration’s more diplomatic approach is striking. Some of the contrast is likely a function of seniority. Before he was reportedly fired in 2013, Mattis served Obama as head of U.S. Central Command, a role in which he would have had more input into policy than he did as a one-star general under Bush 10 years before. But Mattis’s deference to the president’s constitutional war-making powers raises the question of whether Congress should make an exception to a law that prohibits retired officers who, like Mattis, have been out of uniform for fewer than seven years, from serving as secretary of defense, a civilian office. If Trump, like Bush, attempted to start an unprovoked war of aggression, would Secretary Mattis be a stabilizing voice? Or would he say “aye aye, sir”?

“Nobody elected me,” Mattis told the audience in 2015. “But I did feel I had to be heard. And I was very blunt. And I gave my advice. But when it’s all over and done with, ladies and gentlemen, your military is obedient to the Constitution that says we obey the president. We swear an oath to protect that Constitution, and we live up to it. Loyalty only counts, we say, when there’s one hundred reasons not to be.”

Retired Marine Col. Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that Mattis’s remarks on the Iraq invasion demonstrated “a willingness to accept a hard ‘lesson learned.’ Many Republicans and military are still not willing to say that.”

In addition to comments on Iraq and the military’s role in decision-making, the speech contains some of Mattis’s most candid remarks to date on Iran. Mattis said that he read the 156-page Iran nuclear agreement twice. “It’s probably as good a document as we could have come out with,” he said, “even though it’s not one that I would have wanted to sign.” The Obama administration, Mattis said, lost its leverage with Iran after failing to follow through on a threat to use force against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for crossing an explicit “red line” prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. During the Iran negotiations, Mattis argued, “the military option was not a believable one.” Elsewhere, Mattis has suggested that there is some link between ISIS and Iran.

The recording of Mattis’s speech was provided to The Intercept by Jakob S. Boeskov, an artist in New York who attended the ASIS 2015 event as part of an art project called “Face Jagger” and paid $5,200 for a booth and an exhibitor pass, which allowed him to display what he describes as “a fictitious cyber weapon.”

“Deception has been part of military strategy since the dawn of man,” Boeskov wrote in a statement accompanying the release. “But truth is needed in the civilian parts of society. The Iraq War was based on misinformation and fabricated stories about weapons of mass destruction. All rules change when politicians lie. Not only for art but also for military leaders. When politicians lie, a military leader has the right to say no to war.”

The Trump transition team was provided with a copy of the recording late Sunday. When reached on Monday morning, a transition spokesperson did not dispute the authenticity of the recording, nor did he offer any comment.

The post Iraq Was Probably a “Mistake,” Said Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s Defense Pick appeared first on The Intercept.

Trump Adviser Kris Kobach Harassed Kansas Voters in His Failed Quest for Mass Election Fraud

5 December 2016 - 8:46am

Over Thanksgiving weekend, Donald Trump falsely claimed that millions of people had voted illegally in this year’s general election. Without a credible source to cite, Trump’s assertion set off fears that the incoming administration was laying a foundation of disinformation ahead of a potentially unprecedented push to restrict voting access across the country. After being asked to back up his claim, Trump berated journalists for being unable to prove the negative that millions of illegal votes hadn’t been cast this year — a rhetorical tactic often deployed by conspiracy theorists.

The source of Trump’s claim was apparently his immigration adviser, Kris Kobach, who on November 20 was photographed holding a “strategic plan” that appeared to call for the deportation of “a record number of criminal aliens.” Kobach quickly endorsed Trump’s claim of mass illegal voting.

As Kansas’s two-term secretary of state, Kobach himself has been a pioneer of raising the specter of voter fraud to curtail access to the ballot box. Since he is likely under consideration for some form of leadership in the Trump administration, Kansas may serve as a guide for the sort of experiments in voting restrictions the incoming administration could pursue.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach testifies during a meeting of a legislative study committee on election issues, Nov. 21, 2014, at the statehouse in Topeka, Kansas.

Photo: John Hanna/AP

In 2011, citing the need to prevent voter fraud, Kobach succeeded in pushing through legislation that requires residents to produce documents such as birth certificates to prove their citizenship before registering to vote. Voting rights attorneys argued the restriction, which went into effect in 2013, amounted to voter suppression because it disproportionately affected minorities. In September, after a federal court blocked the requirement, Kobach was on the verge of being held in contempt of court for failing to comply with a separate court order requiring that he allow thousands of eligible voters who lacked such forms of identification to cast regular ballots.

In July 2015, Kobach pulled off something of a coup by using claims of widespread voter fraud to convince the Kansas legislature to grant him prosecutorial powers. Kobach’s unprecedented move alarmed voting rights advocates, who for years had been fighting his previous attempts to restrict voting.

Yet when Kobach’s theory of mass illegal voting was finally put to the test, it came up spectacularly short.

The few cases Kobach has announced focus more on minor — and possibly unintentional — breaches of voting rules, far from the flagrant electoral manipulation he has publicly obsessed over.

Today, a year and a half after the Kansas legislature gave Kobach free reign pursue his legions of illegal voters, he has announced a mere half-dozen prosecutions related to voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, largely against elderly voters — and none involving voting by non-citizens.

Only four of Kobach’s six cases been successful.

Last April, Kobach dropped all charges against a 61-year-old woman just days before the state was scheduled to bring her to trial. In December 2015, her husband, a Vietnam veteran named Steven Gaedtke, pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count after Kobach’s office dismissed two other charges against him.

“He’s an otherwise law-abiding citizen who made a mistake,” said Gaedtke’s attorney, Scott Gyllenborg. The couple had apparently voted in both Arkansas and Kansas in 2010, but because it was not a presidential year, neither had cast multiple votes for any one candidate. In May, Kobach dropped two serious felony charges against a 77-year-old man in exchange for guilty pleas to two lesser voting-related misdemeanors.

In short, Kobach’s vaunted voter fraud amounts to no more than “American citizens with homes in two states voting in both states,” said Mark Johnson, a lecturer at the University of Kansas School of Law who has litigated voting rights cases against Kobach. Johnson said that Kobach’s adversarial approach to voting simply added to Kansans’ overall feeling of uneasiness with the electoral process.

“In the 17 months that the secretary has had that prosecutorial power,” said Johnson, “he hasn’t brought a single case of voter impersonation or alien registration or voting.”

Top photo: Election Clerk Marilin Malson marks the spot for a voter signature with a presidential ruler on Nov. 4, 2014, in Hayes Township, Kansas.

The post Trump Adviser Kris Kobach Harassed Kansas Voters in His Failed Quest for Mass Election Fraud appeared first on The Intercept.

Abin tem megabanco de dados sobre movimentos sociais

5 December 2016 - 4:00am

Você provavelmente nunca terá ouvido falar no GEO-PR, um megabanco de dados criado durante a gestão Lula na Presidência da República com o propósito de proteger territórios indígenas, terras de pequenos agricultores e o meio ambiente. Dificilmente, você saberá também que dezenas de órgãos públicos dos três níveis de governo aceitaram ceder a esse sistema o acesso direto a seus próprios bancos de dados. O GEO-PR não é apenas um projeto que quase ninguém conhece.

The Intercept Brasil revela com exclusividade que o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional (GSI) e a Agência Brasileira de Inteligência (Abin) transformaram esse superbanco de dados em uma poderosa ferramenta de vigilância de movimentos sociais, a maior conhecida até o momento. Alimentado coletivamente por ministérios e autarquias, o sistema teve, com o passar dos anos, o seu uso expandido. Um documento oficial do GEO-PR obtido por The Intercept Brasil mostra que ele  foi usado para monitorar comunidades indígenas e quilombolas, assentamentos rurais, além de ONGs, mobilizações, greves e manifestações que ocorreram no país.

Especialistas ouvidas por The Intercept Brasil afirmam ser preocupante que o governo ainda adote a prática comum em regimes autoritários de vigiar movimentos sociais e monitorar qualquer tipo de ação coletiva da sociedade. Informações deste tipo, dizem, são convertidas em instrumentos que facilitam a repressão quando caem em mãos erradas. Segundo elas, surpreende ainda que esse tipo de vigilância tenha sido ocorrido mesmo durante um governo dito de esquerda.


O GEO-PR (sigla de Sistema Georreferenciado de Monitoramento e Apoio à Decisão da Presidência da República) foi instituído pelo governo Lula em 2005 sob a gestão do Gabinete de Segurança Institucional (antiga Casa Militar). O programa não era secreto. Contudo, na época, o GSI não falava publicamente em vigiar greves, manifestações, ONGs ou qualquer outra ação coletiva de setores da sociedade.

Capa do Manual do Usuário do GEO-PR do Gabinete de Segurança Institucional

Foto: reprodução

A justificativa para a sua  criação era aparentemente nobre: o GSI afirmava carecer de mais informações para processar de maneira eficaz os pedidos de concessão de exploração mineral em faixas de fronteira, como é de sua atribuição. Ainda de acordo com as alegações originais, com mais dados à mão, o órgão não correria o risco de permitir a abertura de minas dentro de terras indígenas, reservas ambientais ou projetos de assentamento.

Quem poderia ser contra uma ferramenta que, além de melhorar a gestão pública, protegeria índios, pequenos agricultores e o meio ambiente? Assim, de maneira aparentemente generosa e benfazeja, o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional começou a alimentar o  seu megabanco de dados.

O protótipo do sistema foi feito com a ajuda de técnicos da Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) de Campinas (SP). Com o programa já pronto, o GSI convenceu a Fundação Nacional do Índio (Funai), o Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (Incra) e o Departamento Nacional de Produção Mineral (DNPM) a disponibilizarem suas informações para o banco de dados.


Os resultados iniciais foram animadores e ratificaram as premissas que originaram o programa. No primeiro ano de atividade, o GEO-PR permitiu detectar que, dos 273 processos de concessão de exploração mineral analisados entre setembro de 2004 e setembro de 2005, 15 previam a abertura de minas em áreas proibidas. A excelência do GEO-PR foi então reconhecida com um honroso 6º lugar no Prêmio Nacional da Gestão Pública, em 2010.Em pouco tempo, porém, a destinação do GEO-PR seria bem diferente da registrada na proposta original.

A partir de 2010, segundo o próprio GSI informou a The Intercept Brasil, o sistema “evoluiu para permitir a consolidação de informações relevantes para o Estado Brasileiro”. Traduzindo: o banco de dados passou a reunir informações das áreas mais variadas possíveis – de foguete a alfinete, como diz o ditado popular. O sistema passou registrar, entre outros, dados sobre corrupção, obras do Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC), políticas públicas, brasileiros residentes no exterior e até danos causados pelo terremoto no Haiti. Foi utilizado, por exemplo, em operações de segurança pública desenvolvidas durante os Jogos Pan-americanos de 2007 e Copa do Mundo de 2014. Também serviu de apoio em projetos de infraestrutura (trem de alta velocidade Rio-São Paulo) e ações na área de saúde e educação.

Por fim, como comprova o “Manual do Usuário do GEO-PR” obtido por The Intercept Brasil, o sistema começou a ser abastecido com dados sobre movimentos sociais, tais como “manifestações”, “greves”, “mobilizações”, “questões fundiárias”, “questões indígenas”, “atuação de ONG” e “quilombolas”. De ferramenta concebida para apoiar os processos de concessão de exploração mineral, o banco de dados do Gabinete de Segurança Institucional assumiu os contornos do “Grande Irmão“, personagem de George Orwell, do romance “1984”, que a todos vigiava.

Banco de dados reunia informações sobre índios e quilombolas

Foto: Marcelo Camargo / Agência Brasil


O passo seguinte do GSI para conseguir expandir nacionalmente a abrangência dessa vigilância foi buscar parceiros externos que pudessem fornecer informações para o sistema. Oficiais superiores do gabinete  começaram a peregrinar pelo país em busca de  convênios com autarquias, órgãos federais e governos estaduais e municipais. The Intercept Brasil perguntou ao Gabinete de Segurança Institucional quais parceiros forneceram dados ao GEO-PR. Estranhamente, o GSI respondeu que o sistema “não inseria dados de órgãos externos a este Gabinete”. Contudo, de acordo com o Relatório de Gestão do GSI referente a 2010, naquele ano, o GEO-PR contava com informações de bancos de dados – incluindo imagens de satélites – de 46 órgãos dos três níveis de governos.

Dentre as chamadas “fontes competentes de informação” que proviam  dados ao GEO-PR estavam ministérios (Justiça, Educação, Desenvolvimento Social e Agrário etc.), governos estaduais (Rondônia, Pará, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, entre outros), prefeituras (Santos, Rio de Janeiro e São Paulo), órgãos públicos (Funai, Incra, Polícia Rodoviária Federal, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística – IBGE) e bancos públicos (Caixa Econômica Federal). Segundo apurou The Intercept Brasil, nem todas as parcerias propostas pelo GSI foram aceitas sem resistência. Alguns órgãos simplesmente não concordaram em ceder ao gabinete o acesso a suas informações internas.

Apresentação do GSI mostra órgãos que alimentavam o sistema GEO-PR

Foto: Reprodução

Especialista em regimes autoritários da América Latina, a historiadora Samantha Viz Quadrat, da Universidade Federal Fluminense (UFF), qualifica como “gravíssimo” o fato de o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional ter aproveitado a parceria com outros órgãos para monitorar movimentos sociais. Segundo ela, “é preciso que seja esclarecido que tipo de informação foi fornecida e qual uso foi dado a elas”.

As informações de interesse do GEO-PR eram elencadas em um menu chamado “Mosaico de Segurança Institucional”. Em 2014, esse mosaico era composto por 700 temas – ou, na linguagem técnica, “cenários de segurança institucional”.[17] Quem definia os cenários definia, portanto, quem seria vigiado. Os responsáveis por escolher esse menu eram justamente o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional e a Abin. Em 2013, por exemplo, os dois órgãos  fizeram nada menos do que 829 reuniões para atualizar os temas do mosaico.

Sede da Agência Brasileira de Inteligência, em Brasília

Foto: Divulgação / Abin

Subordinado ao GSI, o serviço secreto não apenas participou da escolha do que seria monitorado. A Agência Brasileira de Inteligência também operava o sistema, como revelam documentos da própria Abin e do GSI. Vejamos três indicativos desta atividade:

1_ Em 2012, agentes da Abin receberam treinamento do GSI  “nas ferramentas geoespaciais contidas no GEO-PR”;

2_ Em seu Relatório de Gestão de 2012, a Abin destacou que, naquele ano, uma de suas “principais iniciativas” havia sido o “monitoramento sistemático de mais de 630 Cenários Institucionais para manter [o] Sistema Georreferenciado de Apoio à Decisão da Presidenta da República (GeoPR)”;

3_ Em 2013, a Abin informou, em seu relatório de gestão, ter atingido 100% da meta de “cenários publicados” e “cenários atualizados” no GEO-PR. No mesmo documento, confirmou ter realizado “o monitoramento sistemático de mais de 695 cenários institucionais do Sistema Georreferenciado de Apoio à Decisão da Presidenta da República (GeoPR)”.


Idealizado para rodar na intranet do Executivo Federal (rede fechada de computadores), o GEO-PR já teve pelo menos dois endereços ( e  O sistema foi desenhado para ser facilmente manuseado. Ele tem a  mesma linguagem de código utilizada pelo Facebook  e pelo WordPress na interface do usuário e o mesmo sistema de gerenciamento de enormes bancos de informação, como Instagram, Reddit, TripAdvisor e Netflix.  O acesso às informações é permitido apenas a usuários cadastrados e com senha e não é irrestrito a todos eles. Os usuários são classificados em  níveis diferentes de acesso.

As pessoas que possuem  acesso irrestrito ao sistema podem não apenas cruzar dados fornecidos por dezenas de órgãos públicos como ter  acesso a análises, avaliações de cenários com indicação de graus de tensão além de anexos (documentos, material difundido por veículos de comunicação, links etc.). Os dados são apresentados no formato geoespacial, ou seja, com a devida localização geográfica apontada em mapas, fotos aéreas e imagens de satélite.

Manual do Usuário do GEO-PR mostra como devem ser indicados os graus de tensão dos cenários monitorados

Foto: Reprodução

Em um trabalho apresentado no III Congresso Consad de Gestão Pública, em Brasília, em 2010, a oficial superior da Marinha Nadima Sayegh Ezarani, então lotada no GSI, deu um exemplo de uso do GEO-PR. A militar mostrou passo a passo como seria uma consulta no sistema para verificar a possível existência de recursos minerais na Reserva Indígena Raposa Serra do Sol, em Roraima:

Utilizando o GeoPR para constatar o que existe, de fato, na área de conflito [Reserva indígena Raposa Serra do Sol], são realizados os seguintes procedimentos:

1_ realizar sua autenticação pessoal, visando o acesso ao sistema;

2_ selecione a opção “zoom”, conduzindo o mouse até a área desejada (Estado de Roraima);

3_ na lista de temas disponíveis, selecionar a camada “FUNAI/Terra Indígena/Terra Indígena Demarcada”;

4_ selecione a opção “zoom”, conduzindo o mouse até a área desejada (terra indígena Raposa Serra do Sol);

5_ selecionar na camada “Roraima/dados do estado/minerais”;

6_ selecionar na camada “DNPM/Mineradoras/Mineradoras do Brasil”.

O produto resultante desses procedimentos mostra visualmente a existência de uma grande quantidade de recursos minerais na Reserva indígena Raposa/Serra do Sol. Complementarmente, também são visualizadas as informações dos grupos indígenas que lá habitam, a quantidade dessa população, os tipos de minerais lá existentes e os dados de todas as mineradoras que lá fizeram a prospecção.

Toda a consulta feita pela militar levou cerca de 3 minutos para ser realizada, desde a autenticação inicial. Ela nos dá apenas uma pista do que o sistema poderia fazer e nos leva a imaginar o tipo de informação que o serviço secreto teria à disposição com o cruzamento de dados de mais de quarenta órgãos públicos.

Um segundo exemplo real de consulta ao sistema pode ser visto em uma apresentação do GEO-PR, em formato de slide, feita em 2008 pelo Gabinete de Segurança Institucional. Na tela do computador, em uma imagem de satélite do programa LandSat, o Brasil aparece banhado por um oceano Atlântico em tom azul bebê. O operador dá um zoom, e o Estado de Santa Catarina surge no painel. À medida que a navegação avança, o mapa ganha vida: exibe limites municipais e rodovias e aponta a localização exata de portos e aeroportos, linhas de transmissão, termelétricas, terras indígenas etc.

O operador clica então na aba “assentamentos”, o que faz pular uma enormidade de pontinhos pretos no mapa. Um deles é escolhido. Mais um clique e chegamos ao pequeno município de Santa Terezinha (menos de 10 mil habitantes), mais especificamente ao assentamento 25 de Maio. Um quadro então surge na tela e informa dados técnicos do assentamento como data de desapropriação da terra, registro, fase atual do projeto, capacidade de instalação e o número de famílias que lá vivem.


A historiadora Nina Schneider, que estuda regimes autoritários na Universidade de Colônia, na Alemanha, afirma que a notícia de que os movimentos sociais continuam a ser monitorados no Brasil não chega a ser uma novidade, ainda que seja uma prática escandalosa. “O que surpreende”, diz ela, “é que um governo ‘de esquerda’ não tenha sido capaz de mudar essa prática”.

Procurada pela reportagem, a ex-presidente Dilma Rousseff afirmou, por intermédio de sua assessoria de imprensa, que nunca autorizou o GSI ou a Abin a monitorar movimentos sociais e que desconhece que tenha ocorrido esse tipo de vigilância por intermédio do GEO-PR.

Questionado por The Intercept Brasil sobre o estágio atual do GEO-PR, o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional afirmou que o sistema foi “descontinuado” no ano passado e que seu acervo foi doado” à Abin “para aproveitamento do conteúdo”. Oficialmente, portanto, o GEO-PR foi desativado há um ano, mas seus dados permanecem à disposição do serviço secreto. Com isso, a Abin herdou um vasto conjunto de informações sobre movimentos sociais levantado com o auxílio de  terceiros entre 2010 e 2015, pelo menos. Um banco de dados que, na definição do “Manual do Usuário do GEO-PR”, “provê uma visão inédita” dos cenários monitorados.

Para Priscila Carlos Brandão Antunes, historiadora da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) que estuda a área de inteligência, a transferência do acervo do GEO-PR para a Abin é “uma estratégia dos militares para assegurar acesso e controle sobre um conjunto determinado de dados”e “reflete o nosso pouco republicanismo”. Samantha Viz Quadrat bate na mesma tecla: “é mais uma ação de extrema gravidade que demonstra a fragilidade da democracia ”.

Além da mudança de propósito do GEO-PR ao longo dos anos, causa estranhamento também como foi feito o seu desmonte. A “descontinuação” do sistema , segundo o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional, teria ocorrido em outubro de 2015. No mesmo mês, a Abin, de acordo com ela própria, também tirou  de sua pauta de trabalho os “cenários de segurança institucional”, aquele menu do GEO-PR que incluía temas como “manifestações”, “greves”, “mobilizações”, “questões fundiárias”, “questões indígenas”, “atuação de ONG” e “quilombolas”.

Ou seja, em ações concomitantes , o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional interrompeu os trabalhos do GEO-PR, que reunia dados sobre movimentos sociais, e a Abin tirou da sua agenda de trabalho os “cenários de segurança institucional”, que também previam o monitoramento de movimentos sociais.

Um terceiro evento ocorrido em outubro de 2015 pode ser a causa das ações sincronizadas: naquele mês  o Gabinete de Segurança Institucional, órgão de caráter militar, foi extinto pela então presidente Dilma e suas funções foram absorvidas por um órgão eminentemente civil, a Secretaria de Governo. Com a alteração, a Abin passou a responder não mais a um general quatro estrelas, mas sim a um civil.

A historiadora Samantha Viz Quadrat não acredita que a ocorrência simultânea desses três fatos seja uma simples coincidência. Para ela, isso mostra que a vigilância de movimentos sociais está ganhando “um grau maior de autonomia e de sigilo”. De fato, há sinais evidentes de que, passados 31 anos do fim da ditadura civil-militar (1964-85), o serviço secreto brasileiro e as Forças Armadas seguem monitorando movimentos sociais. Prova disso são os relatórios confidenciais de missões da Abin que volta e meia vazam na imprensa e o flagrante de agentes infiltrados em manifestações. Em setembro passado, aconteceu de novo: o capitão William Pina Botelho, agente do setor de inteligência do Exército, foi surpreendido quando agia infiltrado, com nome falso de Baltazar Nunes, no movimento “Fora Temer” de São Paulo.

De acordo com  Viz Quadrat, a área de inteligência ainda preserva a cultura institucional dos tempos da ditadura, que identifica o os movimentos sociais, as atividades sindicais e as novas formas de militância (como as ONGs) como “inimigos da nação”. Avaliação semelhante é feita por Priscila Carlos Brandão Antunes: “No Brasil os conflitos sociais internos não são vistos, modo geral, como demandas legítimas para as quais se deve encontrar uma solução possível. Aqui, faz parte da `ordem´ a negação do conflito, o que muitas vezes implica sua supressão. Isto é o que explica a vigilância, o controle e o isolamento de muitos tipos de organização social”.

Quando Michel Temer assumiu interinamente a Presidência da República, em maio deste ano, uma de suas primeiras medidas foi recriar o GSI, agora sob o comando do general-de-Exército Sérgio Etchegoyen. E, junto com a remilitarização do serviço secreto, a vigilância de movimentos sociais voltou à pauta. Questionado sobre a existência deste monitoramento, o ministro da Defesa, Raul Jungmann, disse que é papel do serviço de inteligência “monitorar a conjuntura, a situação nacional, para informar os chefes militares e o ministro da Defesa,” tal como foi feito nos governos anteriores. Segundo Jungmann, essa vigilância não chega a interferir em direitos e garantias destes movimentos. No entanto, o Senado achou melhor pedir esclarecimentos ao ministro sobre a atuação dos militares.

A historiadora Nina Schneider considera preocupante que, sob o governo Michel Temer, a Abin tenha em mãos o banco de dados do GEO-PR. “Nas mãos erradas, esses dados sensíveis podem facilitar a repressão política. Esperamos que isso não aconteça, porém há indícios preocupantes que exigem a nossa atenção”, diz ela.

The post Abin tem megabanco de dados sobre movimentos sociais appeared first on The Intercept.

Donald Trump’s White House Counsel Is Proud “Architect” of America’s Corrupt Big Money Politics

4 December 2016 - 9:34am

Don McGahn, soon to be Donald Trump’s White House counsel, bears as much responsibility as any single person for turning America’s campaign finance system into something akin to a gigantic, clogged septic tank.

From 2008 to 2013, McGahn was one of the six members of the Federal Election Commission, the government agency in charge of civil enforcement of campaign finance laws. While there, he led a GOP campaign that essentially ground enforcement of election laws to a halt.

“I’ve always thought of McGahn’s appointment as an FEC commissioner as analogous to appointing an anarchist to be chief of police,” said Paul S. Ryan, vice president at Common Cause. “He’s largely responsible for destroying the FEC as a functioning law enforcement agency, and seemingly takes great pride in this fact. McGahn has demonstrated a much stronger interest in expanding the money-in-politics swamp than draining it.”

Elaine Weintraub, a current FEC commissioner, overlapped with McGahn’s entire tenure. McGahn and his two fellow GOP appointees, she recalled, possessed a “very strong ideological opposition to campaign finance laws in general.”

This ideology – that essentially all limits on campaign contributions and spending are unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment – was developed by a loose affiliation of conservative lawyers including McGahn, beginning in the late 1990s. It started bearing fruit a decade later with a series of court decisions, including the Citizens United ruling in 2010. McGahn’s page on his law firm’s website describes him as one of the “architects of the campaign finance revolution.”

McGahn’s perspective manifested itself consistently at the FEC. Previously, when the agency received outside complaints alleging violations of the law, its general counsel’s office was responsible for conducting a preliminary examination of the issues and then making a recommendation to the commission members about the legal issues involved and whether to proceed with a full investigation.

McGahn was so extreme that he attempted to block the general counsel’s staff from reading news reports, using Google or looking at a campaign’s web site without prior authorization from a majority of the FEC commissioners. Had the measure passed, because the FEC has six members at full capacity and no more than three can be from one political party, Republicans would effectively have controlled what FEC lawyers were allowed to read.

McGahn also attempted to prevent the FEC’s staff from doing something it had done as a matter of course in the past: respond to requests for internal records from the Justice Department, which is responsible for criminal prosecution of campaign finance crimes, without formal approval from the commissioners. “He just did not want us to have a more cooperative relationship with the Justice Department,” Weintraub said.

McGahn’s losing battle nevertheless led the agency’s general counsel at the time to resign in frustration.

Now, as Trump’s White House lawyer, McGahn will provide crucial advice on the nomination of judges, including to the Supreme Court. While Trump  has criticized Citizens United, and called the Super PACs that sprang up in its wake “horrible” and a “total phony deal,” McGahn is a vociferous defender of the ruling.

Trump praised McGahn as possessing “a deep understanding of constitutional law.”

A White House’s lawyer essentially serves as the president’s conscience, and is in charge of the ethics rules. “I was hoping that the sea of conflicts of interest that surround Donald Trump and many of his appointees would convince Trump that he needs to pursue sweeping ethics reforms, especially for incoming administration officials,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen. “The selection of McGahn to be the chief ethics cop strongly suggests the new administration is likely to be scandal-ridden and eventually perceived by the public as business as usual.”

Ryan considers McGahn to be “a very skilled lawyer who knows campaign finance and ethics laws like the back of his hand” and hence will give Trump accurate advice. Therefore, says Ryan, “when President-elect Trump engages in any questionable ethics practices, we’ll know he’s doing so with full knowledge of ethics standards. President-elect Trump has no excuses.”

McGahn began his career at Squire Patton Boggs, a famed D.C. law firm and lobby shop. The late Tommy Boggs, one of its cheerfully mercenary name partners, said that the firm’s moral code was “We pick our clients by taking the first one who comes in the door.”

In 1999, McGahn became chief counsel of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which coordinates campaigns for GOP members of the House of Representatives. While there he also represented House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas in investigations into some of DeLay’s incredibly labyrinthian fundraising schemes.

One of these schemes led to DeLay being convicted of money laundering and sentenced to prison. (The conviction was later overturned.) But McGahn helped DeLay escape any consequences for another, in which the U.S. Family Network, a dark money nonprofit close to DeLay, received $1 million that DeLay’s former chief of staff told others came from Russian oil and gas executives. According to the president of U.S. Family Network, DeLay’s chief of staff said this money was specifically intended to buy his support for a 1998 International Monetary Fund bailout of the Russian economy. DeLay voted for the bill but later claimed the U.S. Family Network donation had nothing to do with it.

There’s no question that Americans loathe the way big money controls the U.S. political system. Many Trump supporters presumably believed they were voting to halt it in its tracks. Instead, all evidence suggests that Don McGahn will now be stomping on the accelerator.

The post Donald Trump’s White House Counsel Is Proud “Architect” of America’s Corrupt Big Money Politics appeared first on The Intercept.

The Smear Campaign Against Keith Ellison is Repugnant but Reveals Much About Washington

4 December 2016 - 8:48am

Ever since he announced his candidacy to lead the Democratic National Committee, Keith Ellison, the first American Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, has been the target of a defamation campaign that is deceitful, repugnant, and yet quite predictable. At first expressed in whispers, but now being yelled from the rooftops by some of the party’s most influential figures, Ellison is being smeared as both an anti-Semite and enemy of Israel – the same smears virtually any critic of the Israeli government reflexively encounters, rendered far worse if the critic is a prominent American Muslim.

Three days ago, the now-ironically-named Anti-Defamation League pronounced Ellison’s 2010 comments about Israel “deeply disturbing and disqualifying.” What was Ellison’s “disqualifying” sin? He said in a 2010 speech that while he “wanted the U.S. to be friends with Israel,” the U.S. “can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM.”

As the full speech makes clear, he was referring to the indisputable fact that while Israel continues to take billions of dollars every year from the U.S. – far more than any other country receives in aid – it continually disregards and violates U.S. requests to stop ongoing expansion of illegal Israeli settlements, often in ways seemingly designed to impose the greatest humiliation on its benefactor:

Stop, you know why are we sending a mill-, $2.8 billion dollars a year over there when they won’t even honor our request to stop building in East Jerusalem? Where is the future Palestinian state going to be if it’s colonized before it even gets up off the ground?. . . .

Now you got Clinton, Biden and the President who’s told them – stop. Now this has happened before. They beat back a President before. Bush 41 said – stop, and they said – we don’t want to stop, and by the way we want our money and we want it now. [Ellison laughs.] Right? You know, I mean we can’t allow, we’re Americans, right? We can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM. Right? And so we ought to stand up as Americans.

Equally sinful in the eyes of the ADL was this statement on U.S. foreign policy:

The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? [A male says “no”]. Is that logic? Right? When the people who, when the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.

As J.J. Goldberg of the Forward noted, Ellison there wasn’t lamenting the insidious influence of U.S. Jews – as the ADL shamefully claimed – but rather was “plainly describing how American Muslims could have greater influence on American policy if they learned to organize.”

And agree or disagree with those positions, it is an indisputable fact that Israel receives far more in U.S. aid than any other country yet continually does exactly that which numerous U.S. President have insisted they not do, often to the detriment of U.S. interests. And many prominent foreign policy experts – including David Petraeus – have warned that excessive U.S. support for the worst actions of the Israeli government endangers U.S. national security by alienating Arabs in the region and fueling support for anti-American terrorism. The idea that a member of Congress is not permitted to debate these policies without being branded an anti-Semite is sheer insanity: malicious insanity at that.

But that insanity is par for the course in Washington, where anyone who even questions U.S. policy toward Israel is smeared in this way – from James Baker to Howard Dean to Bernie Sanders and even Donald Trump. So pernicious is this framework that the U.S. Senate just enacted legislation expressly equating what it regards as unfair criticism of the Israeli government with “anti-Semitism.” And when one is an American Muslim, ugly stereotypes and pervasive Islamophobia are added to this toxic brew to make the smears worse by many magnitudes.


This smear campaign against Ellison received a major boost Friday night when the single largest funder of both the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, said at the Brookings Institution, a part of which he funds: “if you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted, he is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.” Saban added: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”

That Saban plays such a vital role in Democratic Party politics says a great deal. To the New York Times, this is how he described himself: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” In late 2015, Ali Gharib wrote in the Forward: “Saban’s top priority isn’t a liberal vision of American life. It’s Israel.” When Hillary Clinton in 2015 condemned the boycott movement aimed at ending Israeli settlements, she did it in the form of a letter addressed personally to Saban.

The Democratic Party’s central reliance on billionaire funders like Saban is a key reason that debates over Israel policy are not permitted within the party. It’s why any attempt to raise such issues will prompt systematic campaigns of reputation destruction like the one we’re witnessing with Ellison.

To get a sense for just how prohibited are the most benign and basic debates when it comes to Israel, consider the quotes from Ellison’s college days dug up by CNN as supposedly incriminating. In 1990, while a student at the University of Minnesota, Ellison blasted the university president for condemning a speaking event featuring the anti-Zionist civil rights icon Kwame Ture (also known as Stokely Carmichael); Ellison’s argument was that all ideas, including Zionism, should be regarded as debatable in a college environment:

The University’s position appears to be this: Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with — like South Africa. This position is untenable.

In other words, Ellison – 26 years ago, while a college student – simply argued that college campuses should not be deemed “safe spaces” in which debates over Israel are barred: an utterly mainstream view when the topic to be debated is something other than Israel.

Leave aside the bizarre attempt to use someone’s college-aged political activism against them three decades later. As my colleague Zaid Jilani very ably documented several days ago, even the most inflammatory of Ellison’s campus statements – including his long-ago-renounced praise for the Nation of Islam – were grounded in righteous opposition to “white supremacy and the policies of the state of Israel” and “show him expressing sympathy for the plight of underprivileged whites and making clear that he was not antagonistic toward Jewish people.” Writing about the smear campaign circulating on the internet against Ellison, the Forward’s Goldberg said he found “the evidence to be either frivolous, distorted or simply false.”

As CNN itself acknowledged when digging up these old Ellison quotes: “None of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself.” How is that, by itself, not the end of the controversy?


The reason why it isn’t is a glaring irony. With the advent of Donald Trump and policies such as banning all Muslims from the country, Democrats this year incorporated anti-Islamophobia rhetoric into their repertoire. Yet what is being done to Ellison by the ADL, Saban and others is Islamophobia in its purest and most classic form.

Faiz Shakir is a Senior Advisor to Harry Reid, who previously worked for Nancy Pelosi and the ThinkProgress blog at the Center for American Progress. He explains, from personal experience, that the vile treatment to which Ellison is now being subjected is common for American Muslims in political life:

Keith Ellison is being smeared like so many before him. If you're Muslim in public life or even sympathetic to Muslim concerns, watch out!

— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016

I was literally called a terrorist by a right-wing publication when I joined @NanyPelosi's office.

— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016

At @thinkprogress, we were absurdly labeled anti-Semitic because we supported Obama admin stances. That cheapens "anti-semitic" charge

— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016

Just Google what Frank Gaffney was saying about Suhail Khan and Faisal Gill in the Bush White House.

— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016

See how even @GroverNorquist has been unfairly treated by right-wing smear agents because of who he's married to.

— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016

Now it's Ellison's turn. At some point, this has to stop. So glad @SenSchumer, @rweingarten, others are not backing down to pressure.

— Faiz (@fshakir) December 3, 2016

In that last tweet, Shakir is referring to the fact that, to their credit, other Democratic voices – such as American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, J Street, and, most important, Chuck Schumer – continue to defend Ellison. J Street’s statement made the critical point: “It is time to retire the playbook that aims to silence any American official seeking high office who has dared to criticize certain Israeli government policies.”

But even these commendable defenses of Ellison illustrate highlight how constricted the permissible range of views on Israel is within the Democratic Party. J Street vouched for Ellison by saying that he “is and has long been a friend of Israel” and is “a champion of pro-Israel, pro-peace policies.” Schumer went further, saying that while he disagrees with Ellison on numerous issues, “I saw him orchestrate one of the most pro-Israel platforms in decades.” Notably, demonstrating steadfast support for the polices of the Israeli government is literally a job requirement to lead the Democratic National Committee – and for every other significant position in Washington.

But Ellison has actually fulfilled that requirement. Even his opponents admit: “Ellison unambiguously self-identifies as pro-Israel, supports a two-state solution without reservation, has repeatedly said that Israel has a right to defend itself and expressed the importance of protecting and maintaining Israel’s security, and there is no evidence that he has ever supported or advocated for BDS.” It’s true that, as Jay Michaelson wrote in an excellent Daily Beast column, Ellison “has been critical of Israeli settlements, of right-wing Israeli governments, and of America’s unconditional support for Israel.” But even his Israel advocacy is rather banal, as Goldberg wrote:

It must be acknowledged that Ellison’s first loyalty in the Middle East is not to Israel. He is a Muslim, and he makes no secret of his sympathy for the Palestinians. That said, he is a Muslim peacenik. Since entering politics, he has consistently spoken out in favor of the two-state solution, by which he means Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security. He’s been active on that front, frequently partnering with J Street and other liberal Zionist groups on efforts to promote peace and security.

In other words, Ellison is a mainstream liberal Democrat, albeit situated on the left wing of the party as it is currently constituted in Congress (which is not very far to the left given that Nancy Pelosi resides in a nearby ideological precinct).

What makes him such an easy and vulnerable target for smear campaigns such as the one Saban and the ADL are pursuing is that he is Muslim – a black Muslim to boot. Just look at the obvious codes in this paragraph from Michael J. Koplow, the policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, writing in Haaretz under the headline “Keith Ellison Has a Real Israel Problem”:

Ellison is not a figure whom anyone would normally expect to be a supporter of Israel. He is an African-American Muslim who did not grow up in a particularly Jewish area of the country, came of age after 1967, when Israel’s image as a David began shifting to that of a Goliath, did not have any prominent Jewish mentors, and has a background in radical politics. As a student, he was harshly critical of Zionism and its legitimacy.

Those are the demographic attributes giving the fuel to this revolting campaign. As Michaelson, who previously worked with the ADL, acknowledged: “there’s plenty of Islamophobia within my Jewish community as well,” and “the ADL is a perfect example,” citing the group’s shameful opposition to the construction of a mosque in lower Manhattan.

If you’re a Democrat, it’s easy to embrace the language of anti-Islamophobia when it comes to condemning Donald Trump and other Republicans. It’s more difficult, but more important, to do so when that poison is coming from within the Democratic Party itself.

One of the few silver linings of the ugly Trump rhetoric on Muslims can and should be (and has been) a unified rejection of this sort of toxicity, regardless of where it comes from. Democrats who are sincere about wanting to oppose anti-Muslim bigotry can do so by defending Keith Ellison from these incredibly ugly, baseless and defamatory attacks.

The post The Smear Campaign Against Keith Ellison is Repugnant but Reveals Much About Washington appeared first on The Intercept.

Enquanto a Ponte para o Futuro desaba, instituições seguem brigando normalmente

4 December 2016 - 5:48am

“Descontraído, Temer fumou um charuto cubano oferecido por Eunicio. Ele ficou alguns momentos desfrutando seu charuto e conversando com Renan Calheiros (PMDB-AL) e Aécio Neves (PSDB-MG) em uma rodinha restrita.”

“Entre pratos de camarão ao molho branco, filé, salgadinhos, vinho e whisky, o clima era de descontração.”

“O presidente do Senado foi um dos primeiros a chegar. Segundo relatos, estava bem humorado e contou piadas envolvendo o ex-presidente durante a ditadura militar Emílio Garrastazu Médici.”

“Sarney estava bastante disposto, caminhando entre as rodas de conversa e trocando ideias. Por muitos foi chamado de ‘professor’”

Justamente no dia em que o mundo parou para chorar e homenagear as vítimas da tragédia da Chapecoense, parte do senado brasileiro participava de uma festinha de confraternização de fim de ano. Como podemos ver na reportagem de O Globo – que, junto de outros veículos de mídia, parece estar abandonando o governo ferido estrada – o clima era de muita descontração.

Depois de manobrar durante o dia para aprovar as “10 medidas contra a corrupção” alteradas pela Câmara, Renan estava muito bem humorado à noite. Aécio, o principal articulador da urgência manobrada pelo presidente do Senado, estava lá,  sorvendo a fumaça do charuto cubano. Alguns senadores da oposição também confraternizaram, registre-se.

Do outro lado, os promotores da Lava Jato, munidos de suas famosas convicções, resolveram entrar de sola no jogo político. Não que essa sanha seja novidade, mas é que agora botaram o time inteiro no ataque. Em um país com instituições sólidas, não deveria ser da alçada do Ministério Público propor alteração de leis e, muito menos, promover uma campanha messiânica por ela. Apesar de ser apresentado como iniciativa popular, o pacote foi criado por meia dúzia de procuradores e levado às ruas para colher assinaturas de apoio. Com o país atolado na corrupção, quem ousaria não assinar um documento a favor de medidas anticorrupção apresentado por um moço de bem?

Não há consenso no meio jurídico em relação às medidas. Portanto, diferentemente do que querem fazer crer Dallagnol e seus companheiros, ser contra o pacote não te coloca automaticamente a favor dos corruptos. Até Janaína Paschoal, alçada à condição de grande expoente do moralismo brasileiro, é contra. O juiz Marcelo Semer, membro da Associação Juízes para a Democracia, considera o pacote “ruim, confuso e oportunista”. Em conversa por email, ele considerou as “10 medidas” um projeto de poder, porque aumenta o crescimento do estado penal e, consequentemente, as desigualdades:

“O projeto é em si artificial. Não se tratava de um projeto, mas de vários. Essa reunião de inúmeras propostas, bem mais do que dez, se deu por um motivo de marketing, inaceitável para o trato de uma questão tão séria como a alteração de leis que repercutem na vida de todos. A concepção das propostas, mascaradas com o “abaixo assinado” genérico (ninguém sabia efetivamente o conteúdo das propostas), era fundamentalmente um projeto de poder. Ampliação de competências do Ministério Público, amputação de atribuições do juiz e esmagamento da defesa.”

Num jogo de cena que jamais caberia para integrantes do MP, procuradores da Lava Jato ameaçaram abandonar os cargos após as modificações feitas pela Câmara. Mas, segundo Semer, o Frankstein criado pelos deputados não seria possível se não fosse a confusão do projeto inicial:

“Juntar num mesmo guarda-chuva propostas tão diversas, acabou permitindo os equívocos que se sucederam, ou seja, a inserção durante a comissão de outras matérias pelo Relator, e por deputados por emenda. Como o “projeto” era amplo, tudo cabia dentro dele, até mesmo a esdrúxula redação do crime de responsabilidade.”

De qualquer forma, os procuradores têm razão em se preocupar com a movimentação dos que pretendem “estancar a sangria” da Lava Jato. A famosa expressão que revela os motivos ocultos do impeachment, aliás, já está sendo usada por Dallagnol. As recentes ações do grupo político que tomou o poder confirmam a narrativa do golpe nos seus mais mínimos detalhes. Tirando a previsão de que Aécio seria o “primeiro a ser comido pela Lava Jato”, praticamente todas as outras falas do famoso áudio de Jucá & Machado estão se cumprindo. Cada frase do diálogo parece ser uma profecia

Diante da confusão instalada entre as instituições, o ex-ministro do STF, Joaquim Barbosa tuitou:


Bem, eu avisei!!!

— Joaquim Barbosa (@joaquimboficial) 30 de novembro de 2016


E ele havia avisado mesmo. Logo após a votação do impeachment na Câmara – que ele chama de “impeachment Tabajara” -, disse: “Aquilo ali foi uma encenação para justificar a tomada do poder. (…) Meu temor é que se torne banal tirar um presidente do cargo. Basta que ele contrarie interesses de meia dúzia de parlamentares poderosos”

Em entrevista à Folha nesta semana, o ex-ministro afirmou que as investigações da Lava Jato correm risco e que a grave crise institucional atual é consequência do impeachment:

“No momento em que o Congresso entra em conluio com o vice para derrubar um presidente da República, com toda uma estrutura de poder que se une não para exercer controles constitucionais mas sim para reunir em suas mãos a totalidade do poder, nasce o que eu chamo de desequilíbrio estrutural. Essa desestabilização empoderou essa gente numa Presidência sem legitimidade unida a um Congresso com motivações espúrias. E esse grupo se sente legitimado a praticar as maiores barbáries institucionais contra o país”.

Nessa briga de foice entre Lava Jato, políticos e juízes parece que todo mundo está um pouquinho certo, mas também muito errado. O Brasil está completamente perdido. Ficou claro que, diferente do que vinha sendo propagado até pouco tempo pelo governo e imprensa, as instituições seguem conflitando intensamente, movidas mais por objetivos corporativistas do que pelo fortalecimento da democracia. Enquanto a economia continua a afundar sem perspectivas de melhora, as instituições se engalfinham. Mas o grande problema do país eram as pedaladas fiscais, não é mesmo? Era só tirar a Dilma e construir a maravilhosa Ponte para o Futuro. Bem, os arquitetos do impeachment não estão mais conseguindo manter a ilusão de pé. A ponte está desabando, mas certamente haverá gente fumando charuto, escorada nos escombros.

The post Enquanto a Ponte para o Futuro desaba, instituições seguem brigando normalmente appeared first on The Intercept.