No Path to Redemption for Devout Death Row Inmates

posted in: News | 0

Every day at 6 a.m., Will Speer’s testimony is broadcast across the airwaves on the Polunsky Unit’s radio station. He talks to his fellow prisoners about redemption, salvation, and faith. 

He is scheduled to be executed October 26.  

Speer was convicted and sent to prison for the murder of his friend’s father when he was 16 years old. While incarcerated at the Telford Unit, he killed fellow prisoner Gary Dickerson in an attempt to gain membership to a prison gang. He was sentenced to death. 

Now, as his lawyers and advocates seek clemency from Governor Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, Speer’s faith is central to their pleas. Speer is one of many on Texas’ death row who have asked for life in prison over the death penalty due to their spiritual devotion in prison—but the God-fearing state doesn’t typically grant clemency for that reason. 

Speer, now 49, was one of 28 people chosen to participate in the inaugural class of the Faith Based Program on Death Row in December 2021. He was chosen after a “rigorous” application process for the program that consisted of several classes and immersive fellowship in a special housing area. Religious pleas for mercy are common in a place like Texas. The state’s own prison system offers faith-based programs as part of its rehabilitation department, pouring resources into classes dedicated to teaching remorse and redemption. The participants in these programs—and prison administration—laud them for creating second chances and leading to safer prison environments. But when it comes to the ultimate second chance—commuting an execution to life in prison—the people with power to grant clemency are not so moved. 

Texas was the first state to offer such a religious fellowship program on death row, and according to the clemency application, the program “created a space for [Speer] to begin a meaningful spiritual journey.” 

He graduated on June 7 and was tapped to become the first inmate coordinator of the program. His appointment was the popular choice among prison administration, as well as the men he would oversee in the role. He received his execution date just a month after being named coordinator. 

Speer was moved to a separate housing area for those with upcoming execution dates, but he got special permission from the warden to continue working as coordinator—a job that would have him leave his heavily supervised housing area regularly. According to Speer’s clemency application, “this is a testament not only to the level of trust TDCJ [the Texas Department of Criminal Justice] has in Will—as no one with an execution date has previously been granted such freedom of movement—but also to Will’s sincere dedication to what he believes to be his mission: mentoring men who are as lost as he once was.”

Jedidiah Murphy’s execution earlier this month drew a fierce outpouring of support from his religious community before he was put to death, with his lawyers and other allies insisting that his faith had changed him. On October 10, as he was preparing to receive a lethal injection, his final words were a recitation of Psalm 34: “The Lord redeems the soul of his servants, and none of those who trust in him shall be condemned.” 

In June of 2022, Speer was baptized at the Polunsky Unit. The event was attended by TDCJ Field Ministers, as well as Polunsky’s then-warden Daniel Dickerson. At this point, Will had completed six months of his religious education in the faith-based program on death row. After his baptism, he was “declared a new man.” 

Now, as the Board of Pardons and Paroles weighs whether to commute Speer’s sentence, Texans will get a glimpse into whether the state’s promised paths to rehabilitation and salvation lead anywhere.  

Clemency, with its connotation of mercy and compassion, is entirely subjective—often a black-box decision made by an executive or an administrative body. But it’s also a critical tool for preventing miscarriages of justice. The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1987 that a death penalty system without “discretionary acts of leniency would be totally alien to our notions of criminal justice.” 

Clemency processes have always existed at the federal and state level. Granting clemency can look like a pardon, which undoes a criminal conviction, or a commutation, which lessens a sentence. According to Michael Heise, author of the 2003 report on the death penalty “Mercy by the Numbers,” “the constitutional Framers viewed pardons as a public act of office rather than a private act of grace.” 

That sentiment still exists to a certain extent today: Clemency decisions are affected by the political leaning of the president or governor and whether it’s an election year. 

“Clemencies in death penalty cases are difficult to predict and immune from judicial review.”

“Thus the process may be highly political,” the Death Penalty Information Center wrote. “For these reasons, clemencies in death penalty cases are difficult to predict and immune from judicial review.” 

The clemency process lies totally outside of the court system. In Texas, the Board of Pardons and Paroles—a body made up of gubernatorial appointees—decides whether to recommend clemency to the governor, who has ultimate authority to accept or deny the recommendation. But the governor can only recommend clemency if the board agrees. 

In death row cases, clemency holds a special significance: It’s the last available option to forestall an execution after all appeals have been exhausted. Overall, clemencies are rarely granted in capital cases (an average of less than two per year nationwide, according to the Death Penalty Information Center). 

Texas’ clemency process has a blotchy permanent record. In 1999, Amnesty International declared that, because of issues of secrecy and a lack of training of board members, “Texas has turned the final safeguard of executive clemency into nothing more than an empty gesture.”

This declaration came just one year after one of the most well-known religious-based clemency appeals in Texas history failed.

In 1998, the Washington Post referred to Karla Faye Tucker as “the Pickax Killer turned born-again Christian.” Tucker, who was sentenced to death after murdering Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton in Houston in a drug-fueled frenzy in 1983, gained international notoriety for her dramatic religious conversion while on death row. 

“Texas has turned the final safeguard of executive clemency into nothing more than an empty gesture.”

In the weeks leading up to her execution date in February of 1998, Pope John Paul II even appealed for mercy in her case. But the pardons board declined her application for clemency. Then-Governor George W. Bush would have had the power to grant her a 30 day stay of execution, but he refused, saying “May God bless Karla Faye Tucker and may God bless her victims and their families.”

Tucker became the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War. 

A contemporary account in Texas Monthly summed up the inherent friction between the death penalty and religious appeals for clemency: “The many around the world who protested believed that Tucker had been redeemed and that her life should be spared, but that belief has no standing in a courtroom.” 

Religious appeals for clemency aren’t unusual, but they’re not the majority of cases either, says Mark Osler, professor at St. Thomas School of Law and renowned clemency and legal scholar.

“In clemency work, if we have a good case, often we’re talking about someone who’s changed their life in some way,” he told the Texas Observer. “Because of the nature of faith, often that does have to do with a religion they’ve either adopted or reembraced.” 

But even if someone has changed their life, there’s almost no way to change their sentence. 

Osler wrote the book Jesus on Death Row to explore the legal processes behind Jesus’ crucifixion in the Bible. In doing so, he hoped to speak directly to devout Christians who support the death penalty, despite there being “a wrongful conviction right there at the center” of the religion. 

“People don’t put the two things in juxtaposition. They don’t hold them together,” he said. “They don’t think about Holy Week when they think about executions. They don’t think about the Eucharist when they think about the last meal of a condemned person.” 

In Texas, only three men have ever been granted clemency from a death sentence by the governor: Thomas Whitaker in 2018, Kenneth Foster in 2007, and Henry Lee Lucas in 1998. (Other death row prisoners have had their sentences commuted because of U.S. Supreme Court rulings or other external circumstances.) 

Clemency requests can focus on innocence claims—as in Lucas’ case—or the supposed unfair application of the law. In Foster’s case, he was sentenced to death after a botched robbery ended in a murder, but he was just the getaway driver. In Whitaker’s case, his lawyers appealed to the more discretionary aspect of the clemency process.

In 2003, Whitaker was involved in a plot to kill his mother, father, and 19-year-old brother for inheritance money. Then 23, he conspired with his roommate, Chris Brashear, who ambushed the family at their home one night. Brashear shot and killed Whitaker’s mother and brother, but his father, Kent Whitaker, survived the attack. 

Kent Whitaker, a devout Christian, would spend the next 15 years pleading for his only remaining son’s life. 

Whitaker’s attorney Keith Hampton focused not on the religious ideals of the man on death row, but appealed to the Christian sensibilities of his father and the board members. 

“My view of clemency is that it’s sort of the moral fail-safe where the courts have gotten it wrong, or the courts can’t do anything to provide justice,” Hampton told the Observer. Hampton, who has represented two of the three men who have received discretionary clemency in Texas history, said the most successful appeals have an emotional core. 

He said because the pardons board has read all about the crime that landed the person on death row, they’re “a tough audience.” 

“The only way to reach them is an upfront, honest, verifiable appeal to mercy,” he said. 

“The only way to reach them is an upfront, honest, verifiable appeal to mercy.”

In the clemency application, he summarized the biblical story of Cain and Abel, the ill-fated sons of Adam and Eve. Cain kills Abel, the story goes. While the Bible doesn’t go into specifics, the application notes that Eve “did not cry out for his execution as God’s answer to her grief.” God goes on to mark Cain “for his crime, as well as for Cain’s own protection” and sends him to “restlessly wander the world.” 

“Commutation means that we as a society do not forgive or execute [Whitaker],” the clemency application states. “We will instead mark him to wander his own mind within the desolation of his own cell. And this punishment will continue until God decides otherwise.”

Whitaker was scheduled to be executed on February 22, 2018. In an exceedingly rare event, the Board of Pardons and Paroles voted unanimously to grant Whitaker clemency. Governor Abbott agreed. 

Will Speer actually submitted a testimonial in favor of Whitaker’s clemency. “Of all the people I have met over the years Thomas Whitaker is the person I believe deserves clemency the most,” he wrote to the board. “He is one of the best liked inmates on this farm by the guards and other inmates, and he has worked the hardest to rehabilitate himself.” 

Per Speer’s own clemency application, his goal, if granted clemency, would be to become a field minister. To do so, he would complete a four-year bachelor of arts in applied ministry through the prison system’s education program. It’s one of the many faith-based rehabilitation programs offered by TDCJ. 

In 1997, Gary Dickerson’s sister was a witness in the sentencing phase for Speer’s capital murder trial. Recently, she spoke out in support of clemency.

“In my heart, I feel that he is not only remorseful for his actions but has been doing good works for others and has something left to offer the world,” she said in a public appeal. “After all I have learned about Mr. Speer, I respectfully request that his sentence be changed to life in prison where hopefully he can continue to help others and make amends for his past crimes.” 

The post No Path to Redemption for Devout Death Row Inmates appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Chief prosecutor of Jan. 6 rioters describes ‘pervasive’ threats to his office

posted in: Politics | 0

The federal prosecutors who have brought charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters are seeing an uptick in violent threats and harassment directed toward their office, the office’s lead prosecutor told congressional investigators.

Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for Washington, said the threats come from around the country and have become “pervasive,” though he did not elaborate on their substance or whether any law enforcement agency is investigating them.

Graves’ comments, documented in a transcript obtained by POLITICO, came in a closed-door interview on Oct. 3 with the House Judiciary Committee about the Hunter Biden probe. In the interview, Republican investigators pressed Graves on allegations that his office refused to assist the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is leading the probe into the president’s son. Graves declined to answer some of the investigators’ questions about his personnel, citing threats to his office.

The threats he described appear to be part of a broader trend of law enforcement officials grappling with security concerns while working on politically charged cases.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which is running two federal prosecutions of Donald Trump, spent nearly $2 million for U.S. marshals protection from November to March, according to a person familiar with the spending granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. Fani Willis, the Georgia prosecutor leading a separate prosecution of Trump, reported receiving 150 personal threats in the two months following her indictment of the former president and his allies.

And Thomas Sobocinski, an FBI agent connected to the Hunter Biden probe, previously told congressional investigators that law enforcement personnel working on that investigation have faced threats — and that their families have, as well.

“People are trying to fuel the sentiment of stoking ire against these dedicated civil servants,” Graves said in the interview with the House Judiciary investigators. “And you really don’t even know the extent of it because it’s not group affiliated.”

Graves repeatedly declined to name subordinates in his office who were involved in the decision last year not to team up with David Weiss, the Delaware prosecutor who has long been investigating Hunter Biden on tax and gun issues. Linking his deputies to Weiss’ probe could put them at risk, Graves said.

“I’m already dealing with enough threats and harassment of my assistant United States attorneys who are career prosecutors,” he said.

He alluded to unspecified “mitigation measures” that he has put in place to protect himself and other people in his office.

Graves did not describe the source or the nature of the threats. But the most nationally prominent work he’s helmed — by far — stems from the violent breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Justice Department has charged more than 1,100 people with crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack, and Graves’ office has played a central role in coordinating the nationwide undertaking. A spokesperson for the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

In his interview, Graves also defended his interaction with Weiss, who was designated as a special counsel in August. Whistleblowers have said that Weiss indicated Graves refused to partner with him in bringing a case against Hunter Biden in Washington, hindering the investigation. Graves, however, told investigators that he offered Weiss as much logistical support as he requested. And he said that when the two U.S. attorneys spoke on the phone about the case, he suggested that they partner — only to decide several weeks later that it would not be the right move.

Is the Patriots’ health improving before Sunday’s Bills game?

posted in: News | 0

The Patriots were down just three players at Friday’s practice, the last before they will host the Bills on Sunday for a 1 p.m. kickoff.

Related Articles

New England Patriots |


Patriots mailbag: What changes are coming in the next year?

New England Patriots |


Callahan: Bills QB Josh Allen has become Bill Belichick-proof

New England Patriots |


Patriots release 2023 NFL Draft pick, freeing up roster spot

New England Patriots |


Patriots’ Jabrill Peppers received special attention from Bill Belichick this week

New England Patriots |


Patriots’ Jalen Mills breaks silence on tweet over lack of playing time

Outside linebacker Josh Uche, defensive lineman Keion White and offensive tackle Riley Reiff were absent, indicating they will miss Sunday’s game after sitting out all three practices this week.

Tight end Hunter Henry (ankle) and cornerback Jonathan Jones (ankle) were non-participants on Wednesday and Thursday, but took the field to start Friday’s practice. It’s unclear whether they will be able to suit up against Buffalo.

The Patriots will release their final injury report after 4 p.m. Friday.

‘I Just Saw the Lack of Debate’: Why Josh Paul Quit the Biden Administration Over Israel’s War

posted in: News | 0

Until this week, Josh Paul was a figure little-known beyond diplomatic and military circles. He had spent more than 11 years at the State Department as a civil servant, focusing heavily on the issue of arms transfers from the United States to other countries. He’d watched as the United States sent weapons to many troublesome regimes, but he thought his input had helped keep the system from thoughtless overreach.

The U.S. rush to arm Israel in its battle against Hamas militants proved a breaking point for Paul. The 45-year-old, an American who grew up in London and speaks with a distinctive British accent, quit his position in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs. He posted a resignation letter that he said resonated with many inside the State Department. In it, he condemned the Hamas attack as a “monstrosity” but wrote that he believes the military response Israel is taking will only lead to more and greater suffering.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an issue Paul has studied academically, writing a master’s thesis on Israeli counterterrorism and civil rights, and he has also lived in the West Bank. In a conversation with POLITICO Magazine, Paul laid out why he thinks the U.S. approach to this war is wrongheaded and why Israel should pursue options beyond an invasion of the Gaza Strip. He even read some excerpts of the emails he sent to his former superiors.

This conversation has been edited for clarity.

Nahal Toosi: Have you received more negative or more positive responses to your resignation?

Josh Paul: Overwhelmingly more positive. I’ve been really surprised and touched by the outreach I’ve received from both colleagues, or former colleagues, I guess, across the interagency and in the legislative branch, as well as just strangers who’ve reached out. It’s been really moving.

Toosi: And what have they been saying?

Paul: What struck me the most about the outreach, particularly from colleagues, is that I didn’t expect there would be much. This issue and criticism of Israel tends to be a bit of a third rail. And I thought people would want to stay as far away from it as they can. But so many colleagues have reached out to say, “We understand where you’re coming from. We support you. We feel the same way. This is really difficult, and we’re really struggling with this, too.” And that’s been really significant. Really eye opening. And then there’s just people around the world just saying nice things, which is also encouraging.

Toosi: What was the tipping point for you these last several days? Did something specific happen? Was there a particular moment of clarity?

Paul: It wasn’t a specific moment. I’ve been watching events since the horrors of Oct. 7 and participating, of course, in the State Department and interagency discussions about how to respond, what we would do. Over that period, I just saw the lack of debate. Normally when we have controversial arms transfer decisions, those are hashed out intensively and sometimes over a period of weeks or months, or sometimes even years. There just wasn’t any space for that sort of discussion. I attempted it on a number of occasions, in emails and conversations and discussions and meetings. But there was no response, just, “OK, got it. Let’s move on. We’re doing this.”

Seeing that and recognizing that also, unlike with previous controversial arms transfers, where Congress has had a bite at the apple and has held cases or has debated cases, or has voted on cases, there also wouldn’t be a space for debate in the congressional sphere, I realized that the only opportunity to raise this issue and to press it was in the public sphere and that required me standing down.

Toosi: Weren’t you also on some pre-planned leave at the time?

Paul: I was on leave, but since Covid, leave hasn’t really meant leave. We all telework, and I was constantly on email, on the phone. There was a degree of distance, which was, I think, was quite helpful for me because it allowed me to stand back and see everything that was going on with a bit of perspective, but I was not at all left out of the discussions.

Toosi: Did you make the arguments that you lay out in your letter internally before quitting? And did you consider other methods to voice your disagreement, such as the State Department’s dissent channel? 

Paul: Yeah. As early as, I think it was the Monday after Hamas’ attacks, I sent out an email to a number of folks in leadership positions and said we need to think about this and, rather than rushing to provide security assistance, think about why this hasn’t worked in the past and what we can do differently this time. And we should not rush to provide military equipment, but we should take a more thoughtful stance.

That was met with — well, from some colleagues, offline words of agreement, but with no substantive response and everything just moved forward. And then over the course of the week, I raised the point again, on a number of calls with colleagues, including bureau leadership. I didn’t participate in a dissent channel in this instance. I find the dissent channel an important channel, but not a particularly effective one.

Toosi: When you were saying, ‘We need to be more thoughtful about this,’ what was the argument you were making as to why we need to be more thoughtful about this?

Paul: If you’ll bear with me, I’ll refresh my memory by bringing up my email. If I can quote to you?

Toosi: Yes, please.

Paul: I said, “It’s been clear for decades that the only route to that future” — that future being peace — “is not through military victory, but through diplomatic compromise, not through creating fear, but through building trust, not through killing enemies, but through making friends, not through imposing suffering, but through inspiring hope. On all these counts, what is happening now in Israel is a tragedy not only for lives it is taking and also for the future, whose possibility it is foreclosing upon for yet another generation. … In this conflict everyone loses, and the longer it lasts, the greater the losses will be.”

Toosi: This is what you were telling your superiors in your email?

Paul: Yeah.

Toosi: That’s the email you sent them?
 

Paul: Yes. “I know this is an unpopular opinion and too soon, but maybe the best thing for Israel right now is not security assistance in the sort of volume that makes them think they can afford to just ignore the Palestinian question and hope that, cordoned off, it will go away. Or to put it another way, if we weren’t giving them billions a year for decades, is it more or less likely they would have found it in their interest for the Oslo process to work and we wouldn’t be where we are today.”

Toosi: You wrote that in an email to your bosses? 

Paul: Yeah. They’re used to it.

Toosi: You mean you’ve made these arguments before? 

Paul: Yes, and not just on Israel. On a host of controversial arms transfers with partners that are difficult.

Toosi: And their reaction this time was, “Thanks. We’re moving on.” 

Paul: Yup. Exactly.

Toosi: Could you tell me who you sent the emails to? 

Paul: I’d rather not single out individuals.

Toosi: Did the secretary of State … ? 

Paul: No. The secretary of State was not one of those.

Toosi: Over the years, you’ve helped facilitate arm sales to many regimes with poor human rights records. Why is Israel different? Is it worse than Egypt, worse than Saudi Arabia?

Paul: No. I’m not making an argument that Israel is worse than Egypt, worse than Saudi Arabia. You said I’ve facilitated many arms sales to that sort of regime. I would say I’ve hindered and delayed many arms sales to that sort of regime. The fundamental difference here is that there was no appetite, no opportunity, no space for that sort of policy discussion, which can have a difference. It can draw out the timelines, it can introduce opportunities to mitigate arms sales. There’s just none of that here. 

Toosi: But just to be clear, is Israel different from Egypt or Saudi or elsewhere? I mean, are they different in terms of how they use our weaponry?

Paul: I mean, every unhappy country is unhappy in its own way. It’s a fundamentally different situation. The people the Saudis are hurting the most are the Saudis, the people the Egyptians are hurting the most are the Egyptians. The people the Israelis are hurting is not the Israelis.

It is a different situation in that regard and in many others, but I’m not going to quantify degrees of awfulness. 

Toosi: In your letter explaining your resignation, you wrote that the Biden administration’s approach has been “an impulsive reaction built on confirmation bias, political convenience, intellectual bankruptcy and bureaucratic inertia.” Can you further explain what you mean by that? 

Paul: So obviously impulsive, right, because it was a response to the horrific — make no bones about that — absolutely horrific, horrendous Hamas attack. That’s the impulsive aspect.

The confirmation bias — we always talk about Israel has a right to defend itself. And let’s provide Israel with the Iron Dome, which by the way, I entirely support. They should not have to live under rocket fire.

But we never turned it around and think about the threat to Palestinians from Israeli incursions into their villages in the West Bank on a constant basis, from bombardment from Israel against homes in Gaza, or housing demolitions in the West Bank. We always approach this problem from one perspective, and I think that’s part of the problem.

Political convenience? I think the Biden administration doesn’t want a battle with Republicans in particular, but also internal to the Democratic Party about Israel and are we pro-Israel enough and who’s the most pro-Israel?

Intellectual bankruptcy in the sense that we’ve seen for over 20 years that the commitment we made to Israel of security for peace, essentially, has not led to security or peace and in fact, leads to insecurity and makes peace further away.

Bureaucratic inertia? Well, it’s Israel. Let’s move it. Inertia in the sense that this is what we always do, so let’s keep doing it. Rather than thinking, pausing, discussing.

Toosi: What is the alternative? Stop arming Israel? You yourself denounced what Hamas did as a monstrosity of monstrosities. Wouldn’t tempering support for Israel only give Hamas and other extremists more incentive to attack again?

Paul: No. There are several aspects here. There is first of all a broader political question — this approach has not worked. Honestly, you hear Netanyahu and Israel talking about “This is going to be a military operation to destroy Hamas.” Maybe you can destroy the organization of Hamas, but you cannot destroy what Hamas is and sort of the resistance that it represents through military means. There has to be a political solution, and the military means move us further away from the political solution.

That said, Israel certainly has the capability to take out the al-Qassam Brigades and the leaders of Hamas. It has demonstrated this capability. We’ve seen various Israeli operations from the assassination of Yahya Ayyash, with the cellphone, to the poisoning in Amman of a Hamas’ leader to Israel’s response to the 1972 Olympics, where it said that it would hunt down and kill everyone who had taken part in that, and it did.

So there are options for Israel that do not involve displacing 600,000 civilians. There are options for Israel that do not involve killing thousands of civilians. I don’t know how many Palestinian civilians have to die per Israeli civilian killed, but I think there are other ways of doing this that are actually more productive for Israel’s own interests.

Toosi: You actually know a lot about this conflict. You’ve seen this issue up close, having lived in Ramallah and establishing connections with both Israelis and Palestinians. What aspect of it do you think more people need to understand?

Paul: I think most people would say the historical context, but I don’t think that’s right. I think what more people need to understand is the day-to-day experience of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, which are very different from each other but horrible in their own ways.

People need to understand that there are just a lot of innocent human beings, civilians, on both sides. In fact, the majorities of both populations just want to live in peace, just want to live their lives, raise their families.

It’s not that simple, of course. But I think people don’t grasp the day-to-day realities, and tend to only see one side of the conflict, because that’s the side that’s easy to access, that is media savvy, that is in many ways more relatable from an American perspective.

Toosi: If this does become a regional war — one that involves, say, Iran — doesn’t the United States have an obligation to militarily support its allies?

Paul: That’s a separate question, right? Now you’re not talking about security assistance in the way that I have been in terms of arms transfers. You’re talking about U.S. military involvement.

Toosi: Let’s limit it to arms transfers, because that’s what you know. Shouldn’t we be doing this because of the threat of regional war as well? This is not just a deterrent for Hamas, it’s a deterrent for Iran, etc.

Paul: Well, first of all, we’ve done that. The Biden administration has done that effectively by sending, it looks like two carrier strike groups to the Eastern Mediterranean. That sends a deterrent message to Hezbollah and to Iran.

When we talk about arms transfers what arms are we talking about? Are we talking about firearms? Are we talking about joint direct attack munitions, are we talking about small diameter bombs? Because each of those is very different sort of target sets. What units are we talking about? Are we talking about units with a track record of civilian casualties? Or are we talking about the units that have a track record of being more discriminatory? Are we talking about units that are involved in long-range strike capabilities, or are we talking about units that are involved in cross-border attacks? There’s a lot of complexity that goes into it. If that’s the question, then those need to be discussed rather than again, just saying, carte blanche, “Here’s everything you want.”

Toosi: What’s your advice to the Biden administration then about how it should move forward on this crisis? 

Paul: Specifically to the arms transfer issue, I would encourage the Biden administration to heed its own policies. They issued the Conventional Arms Transfer Policy of this administration in February, which raises the standard — to its credit — for the consideration of human rights in arms exports, including saying that we will not authorize the transfer of arms when it is more likely than not that they will be used for violations of international humanitarian law, international law and various other human rights violations. There’s a track record when it comes to Israel and Gaza, of them being used for purposes that they were not provided. And I encourage the Biden administration to hold itself to its own standard, which it does everywhere else in the world.

More broadly, there has to be a push for a political solution. There is an acute military aspect to this, but there’s not a military solution. And the displacement of hundreds of thousands, the collective punishment of the Palestinians, a sort of a tightening of the noose does not get Israel its safety, its security. We have a responsibility, as a friend of Israel, to point this out to them and to lean on them.

Toosi: You’re an American citizen who grew up in London. Does that background give you a different perspective on this issue then many of your colleagues at the State Department?

Paul: No. As I said, I’ve been surprised and really moved by how many colleagues have reached out to me and said we’re with you, and we feel the same way. There are a lot of people who do feel the same way. And they have grown up in Kansas or wherever it might be.

Toosi: What’s next for you?

Paul: Well, for now, I don’t know what the long term is. But I’ll keep advocating on this issue in the immediate term, and we’ll see what comes.