Skip to content


Beyond Hutto: Reforming Immigrant Detention

This interview appeared on The New Texas Radical, the Rag Blog, and in the November 2009 issue of Z Magazine.

Activists Reflect on “Pushing Back” Against Immigrant Detention Centers.

In response to mounting criticism of harsh policies, the Obama administration announced in August that the United States would begin reforming the government’s immigrant detention system. Although details are sketchy and changes will be introduced slowly, one immediate and appreciable shift in policy was the announcement that Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will no longer send immigrant families to the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas, just northwest of Austin.

That the administration mentioned Hutto specifically is not surprising; news media, religious groups, and progressive activists have criticized the facility for locking up children since Hutto began detaining families in May 2006. In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against ICE on behalf of families detained at Hutto, which led to improved conditions at the facility. After investigating the prison in June 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights announced in a press release that, even though conditions had improved since the ACLU lawsuit, the continued detention of asylum seekers and their children at Hutto violated principles of international law.

In addition to the ACLU and the IACHR, the organizations Grassroots Leadership and Texans United for Families have helped lead the charge against the Hutto facility. Below, Bob Libal of Grassroots Leadership and Lauren Martin of Texans United for Families discuss Hutto, the Obama administration’s announcement, and prospects for future organizing.

Bob Libal is the Texas coordinator for Grassroots Leadership, a southern based social justice organization taking on private prisons, and an activist in the movement to end immigrant detention at Hutto. Lauren Martin is a member of Texans United for Families, an Austin-based coalition working to end family detention, and is a PhD student in geography at the University of Kentucky. Continued…

Posted in Interviews, Journalism.

Tagged with , .


Hollman Morris at UT

Last month, independent Colombian journalist Hollman Morris spoke at UT-Austin about his news program Contravia, which covers the impact of Colombia’s long-running internal conflict on marginalized sectors of Colombian society such as peasants, Afro-Colombians, and indigenous persons. My thesis dealt with the New York Times‘ coverage of this conflict and the U.S. role in it, which is research I’m now polishing up to hopefully get published. I’ve just now stumbled across a story in which I was quoted by student reporter Eva Menezes, another JGrad:

Matthew Tedrow, a third-year doctoral student in journalism, attended Morris’ talk and spoke about the uniqueness of the journalist’s work.

“The prestige press obscures important dimensions of the conflict, but when you see a Colombian helicopter, as we did [in video excerpts] today, just destroying these farmers’ livelihood, it puts a human face on the press in a way that you don’t really get here [in the U.S.],” he said. “I’m glad I came.”

This is the first time I’ve been quoted in a news story because of my research rather than my activism. Kinda neat. Figured I would document it here.

A leading recipient of U.S. military aid since 1997, Colombia is the worst human rights abuser in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most dangerous countries on the planet for working journalists. Contravia, which is a very good program from what I can tell, can be viewed on YouTube. My Spanish is weak, but some shows are subtitled. The documentary Unwanted Witness, which I saw the day Morris spoke at UT, is a good film about Morris’ work in Colombia.

(I struggled with learning Spanish for years in both high school and college, but it never took. So as a gringo I research U.S. media, not Spanish-language media.)

EDIT, 10/29/09: Fancy – the article was also translated into Spanish:

Matthew Tedrow, un estudiante de tercer año de doctorado, fue a la charla de Morris y habló de lo único que es su trabajo. “La prensa convencional oscurece importantes dimensiones del conflicto, pero cuando ves un helicóptero colombiano, como vimos en el video de hoy, destruyendo las tierras de estos campesinos, esto pone una cara humana que de otra manera uno no ve aquí [en Estados Unidos]”, dijo. “Fue bueno haber venido”.

Posted in In the News.

Tagged with , .


Apparently I speak German!

Can’t read a word of it, actually, which is why I was very startled to find that an interview I conducted with Michael Albert was actually translated for the German version of ZNet last April:

http://zmag.de/artikel/parecon-und-anarchosyndikalismus

Crazy! The original (still worth reading) can be found at:

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/15035

Ironically, I once shot an email off to ZNet because they described me (and continue to describe me) as a German anarchist on their Anarchism & Parecon page:

http://www.zmag.org/zparecon/qaanarchism.htm

Sigh. Now that the German translation is up, maybe I’ll never convince the Z Team that they should fix their Q&A page.

Posted in Activism, Interviews, Journalism.

Tagged with , .


Keep the CIA out of UT

I co-wrote the column below with fellow graduate student Robert McDonald. It appears in the op-ed page of the Sept. 30, 2008 issue of UT-Austin’s Daily Texan student newspaper.

Keep CIA off campus
Matt Tedrow & Robert McDonald
Daily Texan Guest Columnists

On Sept. 24, Campus Antiwar Movement to End the Occupation protested the CIA’s presence at the Liberal Arts Career Services center, which hosted an RSVP-only event with CIA recruiters. CAMEO’s concerns were straightforward: Since its inception, the agency has committed countless crimes that would be considered acts of terrorism if U.S. enemies had carried them out. We consider the University an inappropriate place to recruit members for an institution with such a long, sordid history.

Since 1945, the United States has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow at least 40 different foreign governments and has suppressed more than 30 populist-nationalist movements. It has installed or propped up several authoritarian rulers, including Fulgencio Batista, Pol Pot, Francisco Franco, Ferdinand Marcos, Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein. In addition, U.S.-backed state-terrorist regimes in countries such as South Africa, Indonesia, Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala and Chile have murdered and forcibly disappeared hundreds of thousands of people.

Many of these crimes were either facilitated or carried out by the CIA. The agency has been a key player in toppling democratically elected leaders, trafficking drugs, kidnapping and assassinating political figures and provoking acts of sabotage and unrest. It has armed and trained murderers such as the Contras in Nicaragua and the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, who later formed al-Qaida. More recently, the agency tried to depose Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in a failed 2002 coup d’etat, and in conjunction with USAID, it has very likely been involved in Bolivia’s recent separatist violence. The CIA was complicit in providing the Bush administration with faulty intelligence as a pretext for invading Iraq and has participated in acts of torture and extraordinary rendition throughout the war on terror. Needless to say, these actions are gross violations of both U.S. and international law.

According to the United States Federal Criminal Code, Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18, terrorism is defined as “activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and … appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and … occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, [or] the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce….” Even by U.S. standards, it is impossible not to draw the conclusion that the CIA is a leading terrorist organization.

If its violent history reveals its future, the agency will continue to sow misery so long as it operates. It has no place in a society ostensibly committed to upholding democracy and liberty and should be abolished.

Among its core values, the University includes “Responsibility — to serve as a catalyst for positive change in Texas and beyond.” CAMEO members asked an employee with Liberal Arts Career Services why the CIA was allowed to recruit on campus when its activities clearly contradict this value. We were told that, in the interest of fairness, the University is obligated to allow the agency to recruit on campus. When we asked whether any businesses were barred from recruiting, on the other hand, we were told that knife manufacturer Cutco could not. It boggles the mind to think that an organization known to be complicit in the murders of thousands of people can seek job applicants on campus when cutlery vendors cannot.

CAMEO opposes this tacit endorsement of the CIA’s core values of murder, disruption, assassination and destruction. If the University is to live up to its own core values, it cannot condone CIA recruitment on campus. And if the students should embody the same core values, we cannot allow it.

Tedrow is a journalism graduate student, and McDonald is a communications graduate student. Both are members of CAMEO. You can contact the organization at antiwarcampus@yahoo.com

Posted in Activism, Op-Eds.

Tagged with , .


Saving Jeff Wood

The column below appeared in the August 22, 2008 edition of UT-Austin’s Daily Texan newspaper. I’d like to note two corrections: Wood was condemned to death in 1997, not 1996 (my fault); and in the print version, I’m listed as a board member of CEDP, which is false (not my fault). Hooman Hedayati recently asked me to join SADP as a board member.

Anti-death-penalty activists and the friends, family and supporters of Jeff Wood scored a tremendous victory yesterday when a federal judge granted him a stay of execution. Though Wood’s struggle against the state is far from over, gross injustice was not allowed to carry the day.

Wood was condemned to death in 1996 for the murder of Kris Keeran, even though there is a consensus that Wood did not murder, intend to murder or know that a murder was going to take place. He was sentenced to death under the Law of Parties, section 7.02 of the Texas Penal Code, which holds co-defendants criminally responsible for a crime if they act as conspirators. Put another way, the Law of Parties allows for guilt by association. In Wood’s case, he was forced to drive a getaway vehicle after Keeran’s actual killer, Daniel Reneau, shot Keeran during a convenience store robbery in 1996. Wood was not even in the building when the killing occurred. Bill Bunker, the store’s assistant manager who helped plot and even encouraged the robbery, was never charged with any crime. Reneau was executed in 2002.

Yesterday, Jeff’s family and friends, activists and supporters from around the world clogged Gov. Rick Perry’s inboxes and phone lines with demands that Wood be spared. Even Kris Keeran’s father asked that Wood’s sentence be commuted. Last summer, Perry set a precedent for Wood’s case when he commuted the sentence of Kenneth Foster, who received the death penalty under similar circumstances.

But even though Wood is safe (for now, at least), his example raises hard questions about the Law of Parties and about capital punishment itself. The statute is clearly being used in an unjust and abusive manner when bit players are forced to pay the ultimate price.

It is time to demand that our state’s legislators correct this monstrous injustice. The examples of Kenneth Foster and Jeff Wood are not flukes in an otherwise fair system. Foster and Wood represent the sad tale of most death row inmates: indigence and poverty, inadequate representation, withheld testimony, forced confessions and so on. Even if capital punishment were fair, its overall application reeks of bias and flaws – especially in Texas, which leads the nation in executions.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime, and study after study has shown that it actually costs taxpayers more money than life in prison without possibility of parole, after court fees and prison time are factored in.

Currently, an anti-death-penalty sentiment is gripping the nation, mainly due to the fact that more and more Americans realize that there are serious problems when it comes to meting out the ultimate punishment. However, the problem ultimately rests on the fact that states have been given the right to kill people, not in any particular flaws with the death penalty’s application.

The use of violence, force or coercion by the state demands a high burden of proof. In Wood’s case, it falls on the state to show that the death penalty can be justified only in terms of what is necessary to guarantee the population’s safety or survival. The right to kill people, in other words, is such a powerful concession to the state that it cannot be justified intrinsically. As it happens, there are viable alternatives to the death penalty that also prevent murderers from being released into the general population: namely, life in prison without parole. There is no reason to execute people in the name of protecting others.

It is time that we enter the 21st century – or even the 20th century – by abolishing capital punishment now and forever. We’ve successfully delayed the state-sponsored murder of Jeff Wood. But we still have a long way to go in this state, and our work is certainly cut out for us.

Visit savejeffwood.com for more information about Jeff Wood’s case.

Tedrow is a journalism graduate student and a member of Campaign to End the Death Penalty.

Posted in Op-Eds.

Tagged with , .