From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse – Hands off Cuba

Markin comment:

In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like     
************
Hands off Cuba

Commentary

Defend the Cuban Revolution

 One cannot deny that the American bourgeoisie has had a long memory in regard to their defeat in Cuba by the upstart Castro guerilla army and then the longevity of his regime. Some things, like democratic rights, they forget in flash if it suits their purposes but taking a beating from their ‘inferiors’ rankles like hell. The capitalists, at least sections of them, aided by the ‘gusano’ exiles in Miami and elsewhere who refuse to move on, salivate at the prospect of bringing that little ‘off shore luxury resort’ back within the grasp of their dirty little imperialist hands. And they believe that time is on their side as the aging, ailing Castro gets set to meet his maker. The periodic ‘dancing in the streets’ at any news on Castro’s health (or no news) in Miami bears witness to that idea. They can hardly wait to ‘liberate’ Cuba.

No one over the last period has been more in a frenzy over that possibility that the current American president. Time after time in the face of strong international pressure to the contrary he has tightened the screws on Cuba whenever possible, extending the embargoes and cutting communications between Cuban here and there. But not to worry. Although Bush will not lift a finger to deal with Cuba now (including refusal of Cuban medical aid during the Hurricane Katrina crisis) he has a ‘plan’ for the post-Castro period. In a recent pronouncement before the State Department he called for setting up a ‘‘freedom fund” to aid in the restoration of capitalist rule in Cuba after Fidel’s demise. We know from Poland, the Soviet Union and elsewhere what such ‘freedom funds’ are used for-counter revolution. It is hard to say at this point what the post Castro future looks like but rest assured we will fight those who offer the freedom funds tooth and nail to save the gains of the Cuban Revolution. And I might add that the Cuban people might just have a little to say about the issue. They are not likely to warmly greet their ‘liberators’ any more than the people of Iraq did when America came calling. Remember the Bay of Pigs.  Hands Off Cuba! Defend the Cuban Revolution! End the Embargoes!         

 

 

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse – Pulling the Hammer Back on Iran

Markin comment:

In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like     

************
Pulling the Hammer Back on Iran

Anyone who thinks that we do not live in nightmarish times-think again. The latest news out of Washington is that the Bush Administration has decided to pull the hammer back on Iran. For those without a sense of recent history that means the trigger is ready to be pulled. Bush proposes a series of unilateral actions under the aegis of the ‘war of terrorism’ aimed directly at the military capacity of the Iranian state. These include essentially outlawing the Revolutionary Guard and putting the Quds Special Forces units beyond the pale. Frankly, these are acts of war, and should be treated as acts of war by the Iranian military. The only thing that I can say about that is that if I were an Iranian military leader I would be working 24/7 to get that nuclear program in place but the Americans are coming. For those with any savvy the only thing that can keep the American wolf from the door is such nuclear capacity. For all those who thought that Bush would not dare to open a three front war strategy-think again. The question really is whether we oppositionalists are capable of a three front anti-war policy. For now though- U.S. Hands Off Iran!   

 

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse – Defend the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK)

Markin comment:

In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like     

************

Defend the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK)

Commentary

Defend the right to national self-determination for the Turkish Kurds.

The minute one enters into the murky waters of Middle East politics one is immediately confronted with words like, insolvable, daunting, and hopeless. If there is one area of the world that cries out for a multi-nationally derived socialist solution it is this benighted area of the world. Practically speaking, however, that prospect is music for the future. Nevertheless some programmatic points can be put forth today that will cut across the racial, ethnic and religious divides that lead one to use the above-mentioned words of despair. One such point is not even a socialist point per se- the question of a nation’s right to self determination. Yes, that question is off the table for those nations that have already established their right to it by force of arms, or otherwise. However, in the case of the interpenetrated peoples of the Middle East some real nations have been left on the sidelines. In no case is this clearer than with the Kurds, the largest coherent population without a state of their own.

Recent headlines have highlighted this question point blank as Turkey, one of the four nations along with Syria, Iraq and Iran in the region that has significant Kurdish populations, has attempted to solve its Kurdish ‘problem’, as in the past, by militarily annihilating various guerilla operations wherever they crop up- here across the border in neighboring Iraq. I make no pretense to solve all the questions of this area in regard to the Kurdish situation, for example, militants do not today raise the right of national self-determination for Iraqi Kurds who have consciously subordinated themselves to American imperialism but the beginning of wisdom to defend those guerilla forces, mainly the Kurdish Workers Party, in their fight against their national oppressor-Turkey. More, much more on this situation as it unfolds but for now the prospective slogan is –For the right to national self-determination for the Turkish Kurds. For the future- A United Kurdistan.       

 

Books To While Away The Class Struggle By-Up Close And Personal- John Reed and The Russian Revolution Of 1917

Book Review

This is the 95th Anniversary of the Bolshevik-led Russian Revolution. It is fitting that I review a book that did much to give Westerners a bird's-eye view of what happened during that tumultuous year. Forward To New Octobers!

Ten Days That Shook The World, John Reed, New American Library Edition, New York, 1967

I, on more than one occasion, have mentioned that for a detailed history of the ebb and flow of the Russian Revolution of 1917 from February to October of that year your man is the great Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution is partisan history at its best. One does not and should not, at least in this day in age, ask historians to be ‘objective’. One simply asks that the historian present his or her narrative and analysis and get out of the way. Trotsky meets that criterion. I have also mentioned in that same context that there are other excellent sources on this subject, depending on your needs. If you are looking for a general history of the revolution or want an analysis of what the revolution meant for the fate of various nations after World War I or its effect on world geopolitics look elsewhere. E.H. Carr’s History of the Bolshevik Revolution offers an excellent multi-volume set that tells that story through the 1920’s. Or if you want to know what the various parliamentary leaders, both bourgeois and Soviet, were thinking and doing from a moderately leftist viewpoint read Sukhanov’s Notes on the Russian Revolution (hard to find these days). If you need a more journalistic account for the period of the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks and the immediate aftermath, the book under review, John Reed’s classic Ten Days That Shook the World is invaluable.

If we do not, as mentioned above, expect our historians to be ‘objective’ then we should have a lesser expectation of those journalists who write the ‘first draft of history.’ Reed made no bones about the fact that that he was a partisan of the Bolshevik-led social revolution that he was witnessing (and a partisan of the heroic actions under extremely trying conditions of the city working- class, the uprooted peasantry, and the peasant soldier who formed the core of the Russian army saving some of his most eloquent language for their struggles, successes or failures). He, nevertheless, tells his story reasonably well for those who are not partisans but eager to understand the play between the various political, class and military forces.

Moreover Reed seemed to have been everywhere in Petersburg (and for a lesser time in Moscow and at the military fronts) during those days, those crucial first of November 1917 days (our calendar) when the axis of world politics shifted for a time and affected those politics for most of the rest of the 20^th century. One minute he was in some Cadet tea party (bourgeois liberals) where they were more afraid of the Soviets and what that meant that the Germans at the door, and acted on that traitorous conviction , the next minute at the mad house Smolny (seat of the various Soviet enclaves), the next day at the ever changing military front (with it ever changing loyalties, first to the bourgeois Provisional government, then neutral, then pro-Soviet and every possible combination depending on the political situation, who had the most to offer, or what agitator from what party just spoke well enough to win a following).

He is as likely to have been reporting from Petersburg’s Winter Palace, the seat of the Kerensky's Provisional Government, as Smolny, the seat of the insurgent Soviets. We can find him among the bourgeois politicians of the City Duma or at the Russian Army General Staff headquarters. Hell, he was also in Moscow when things were hot there as the Soviet forces tried to seize the Kremlin. He is at meetings large-Peasant Soviet size- or in some back room at Smolny with Trotsky’s Military Revolutionary Committee that directed the uprising. To that extent, as a freelancer on the move, he covers physically during this period much more territory than Trotsky could as central director of the action and thus has more first- hand observations to convey.

Reed’s style tends toward straight forward reportage with little obvious sense of irony in the various situations that he is witnessing. Of course, against Trotsky’s masterly ironic sense he is bound to suffer by comparison. Nevertheless Reed gets us into places like the City Duma and into the heads of various characters like the Mayor of Petersburg that Trotsky, frankly, displayed no interest in dealing with. Probably the greatest compliment that one could pay Reed is that he is widely quoted as a reliable source in many historical accounts from Trotsky on the winning side to someone like Kerensky on the losing side. For those who want a quick but serious overview of the dynamic of the October Revolution then here is your man. Add in his companion Louise Bryant’s separate account, Six Month In Red Russia (if you can find it), and some very good primary source poster, pamphlet and newspaper material in the appendices of Reed’s book and you are on your way.

Workers Vanguard No. 1012	9 November 2012

Free the Class-War Prisoners!

27th Annual PDC Holiday Appeal

(Class-Struggle Defense Notes)

This year marks the 27th Holiday Appeal for class-war prisoners, those thrown behind bars for their opposition to racist capitalist oppression. The Partisan Defense Committee provides monthly stipends to 16 of these prisoners as well as holiday gifts for them and their families. This is a revival of the tradition of the early International Labor Defense (ILD) under its secretary and founder James P. Cannon. The stipends are a necessary expression of solidarity with the prisoners—a message that they are not forgotten.

Launching the ILD’s appeal for the prisoners, Cannon wrote, “The men in prison are still part of the living class movement” (“A Christmas Fund of our Own,” Daily Worker, 17 October 1927). Cannon noted that the stipends program “is a means of informing them that the workers of America have not forgotten their duty toward the men to whom we are all linked by bonds of solidarity.” This motivation inspires our program today. The PDC also continues to publicize the causes of the prisoners in the pages of Workers Vanguard, the PDC newsletter, Class-Struggle Defense Notes, and our Web site partisandefense.org. We provide subscriptions to WV and accompany the stipends with reports on the PDC’s work. In a recent letter, MOVE prisoner Eddie Africa wrote, “I received the letters and the money, thank you for both, it’s a good feeling to have friends remembering you with affection!”

The Holiday Appeal raises the funds for this vital program. The PDC provides $25 per month to the prisoners, and extra for their birthdays and during the holiday season. We would like to provide more. The prisoners generally use the funds for basic necessities: supplementing the inadequate prison diet, purchasing stamps and writing materials needed to maintain contact with family and comrades, and pursuing literary, artistic, musical and other pursuits to mollify a bit the living hell of prison. The costs of these have obviously grown, including the exponential growth in prison phone charges.

The capitalist rulers have made clear their continuing determination to slam the prison doors on those who stand in the way of brutal exploitation, imperialist depredations and racist oppression. We encourage WV readers, trade-union activists and fighters against racist oppression to dig deep for the class-war prisoners. The 16 class-war prisoners receiving stipends from the PDC are listed below:

*   *   *

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a former Black Panther Party spokesman, a well-known supporter of the MOVE organization and an award-winning journalist known as “the voice of the voiceless.” Last December the Philadelphia district attorney’s office announced it was dropping its longstanding efforts to execute America’s foremost class-war prisoner. While this brings to an end the legal lynching campaign, Mumia remains condemned to spend the rest of his life in prison with no chance of parole, despite overwhelming evidence of his innocence.

Mumia was framed up for the 1981 killing of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner and was initially sentenced to death explicitly for his political views. Mountains of documentation proving his innocence, including the sworn confession of Arnold Beverly that he, not Mumia, shot and killed Faulkner, have been submitted to the courts. But from top to bottom, the courts have repeatedly refused to hear the exculpatory evidence.

The state authorities hope that with the transfer of Mumia from death row his cause will be forgotten and that he will rot in prison until he dies. This must not be Mumia’s fate. Fighters for Mumia’s freedom must link his cause to the class struggles of the multiracial proletariat. Trade unionists, opponents of the racist death penalty and fighters for black rights must continue the fight to free Mumia from “slow death” row in the racist dungeons of Pennsylvania.

Leonard Peltier is an internationally renowned class-war prisoner. Peltier’s incarceration for his activism in the American Indian Movement has come to symbolize this country’s racist repression of its native peoples, the survivors of centuries of genocidal oppression. Peltier’s frame-up for the 1975 deaths of two marauding FBI agents in what had become a war zone on the South Dakota Pine Ridge Reservation, shows what capitalist “justice” is all about. Although the lead government attorney has admitted, “We can’t prove who shot those agents,” and the courts have acknowledged blatant prosecutorial misconduct, the 68-year-old Peltier is still locked away. Peltier suffers from multiple serious medical conditions and is incarcerated far from his people and family. He is not scheduled to be reconsidered for parole for another 12 years!

Eight MOVE members—Chuck Africa, Michael Africa, Debbie Africa, Janet Africa, Janine Africa, Delbert Africa, Eddie Africa and Phil Africa—are in their 35th year of prison. They were sentenced to 30-100 years after the 8 August 1978 siege of their Philadelphia home by over 600 heavily armed cops, having been falsely convicted of killing a police officer who died in the cops’ own cross fire. In 1985, eleven of their MOVE family members, including five children, were massacred by Philly cops when a bomb was dropped on their living quarters. After more than three decades of unjust incarceration, these innocent prisoners are routinely turned down at parole hearings. None have been released.

Lynne Stewart is a radical lawyer sentenced to ten years for defending her client, a blind Egyptian cleric imprisoned for an alleged plot to blow up New York City landmarks in the early 1990s. For this advocate known for defense of Black Panthers, radical leftists and others reviled by the capitalist state, her sentence may well amount to a death sentence as she is 73 years old and suffers from breast cancer. Originally sentenced to 28 months, her resentencing more than quadrupled her prison time in a loud affirmation by the Obama administration that there will be no letup in the massive attack on democratic rights under the “war on terror.” This year her appeal of the onerous sentence was turned down.

Jaan Laaman and Thomas Manning are the two remaining anti-imperialist activists known as the Ohio 7 still in prison, convicted for their roles in a radical group that took credit for bank “expropriations” and bombings of symbols of U.S. imperialism, such as military and corporate offices, in the late 1970s and ’80s. Before their arrests in 1984 and 1985, the Ohio 7 were targets of massive manhunts. Their children were kidnapped at gunpoint by the Feds.

The Ohio 7’s politics were once shared by thousands of radicals during the Vietnam antiwar movement and by New Leftists who wrote off the possibility of winning the working class to a revolutionary program and saw themselves as an auxiliary of Third World liberation movements. But, like the Weathermen before them, the Ohio 7 were spurned by the “respectable” left. From a proletarian standpoint, the actions of these leftist activists against imperialism and racist injustice are not a crime. They should not have served a day in prison.

Ed Poindexter and Wopashitwe Mondo Eyen we Langa are former Black Panther supporters and leaders of the Omaha, Nebraska, National Committee to Combat Fascism. They were victims of the FBI’s deadly COINTELPRO operation under which 38 Black Panther Party members were killed and hundreds more imprisoned on frame-up charges. Poindexter and Mondo were railroaded to prison and sentenced to life for a 1970 explosion that killed a cop, and they have now spent more than 40 years behind bars. Nebraska courts have repeatedly denied Poindexter and Mondo new trials despite the fact that a crucial piece of evidence excluded from the original trial, a 911 audio tape long-suppressed by the FBI, proved that testimony of the state’s key witness was perjured.

Hugo Pinell, the last of the San Quentin 6 still in prison, has been in solitary isolation for more than four decades. He was a militant anti-racist leader of prison rights organizing along with George Jackson, his comrade and mentor, who was gunned down by prison guards in 1971. Despite numerous letters of support and no disciplinary write-ups for over 28 years, Pinell was again denied parole in 2009. Now in his 60s, Pinell continues to serve a life sentence at the notorious torture chamber, Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit in California, a focal point for hunger strikes against grotesquely inhuman conditions.

Send your contributions to: PDC, P.O. Box 99, Canal Street Station, New York, NY 10013; (212) 406-4252.

WHEN THE WORLD DID NOT TURN UPSIDE DOWN-THE DEFEATED IN THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION

BOOK REVIEW

THE EXPERIENCE OF DEFEAT-MILTON AND SOME CONTEMPORIES, CHRISTOPHER HILL, PENGUIN BOOKS, NEW YORK, 1984

As I have noted in previous reviews of the work of Professor Hill although both the parliamentary and royalist sides in the English Revolution, the major revolutionary event of the 17th century, quoted the Bible, particularly the newer English versions, for every purpose from an account of the Fall to the virtues of primitive communism that revolution cannot be properly understood except as a secular revolution. The first truly secular revolution of modern times. The late pre-eminent historian of the under- classes of the English Revolution has taken the myriad ideas, serious and zany, that surfaced during the period between 1640-60, the heart of the revolutionary period and analyzed their contemporary importance. Moreover, he has given us, as far as the surviving records permit, what happened to those ideas, the people who put them forth and their various reactions to the defeat of their ideas in the late revolutionary period and at the Restoration. And through it all hovers Hill’s ever present muse for the period, John Milton- the poet who tried to explain in verse the ways of God to humankind at the failure of the ‘revolution of the saints’.

As been noted by more than one historian there is sometimes a disconnect between the ideas in the air at any particular time and the way those ideas get fought out in political struggle. In this case secular ideas, or what would have passed for such to us, like the questions of the divinity of the monarch, of social, political and economic redistribution and the nature of the new society (the second coming) were expressed in familiar religious terms. That being the case there is no better guide to understanding the significance of the mass of biblically-driven literary articles and some secular documents produced in the period than Professor Hill. Here we meet up again, as we have in Hill's other numerous volumes of work, with the democratic oppositionists: the Levelers; the Diggers, especially the thoughts of their leader Gerrard Winstanley, in many aspects the forerunner of a modern branch of communist thought; the Ranters, Seekers and Quakers who among them challenged every possible orthodox Christian theory and the usual cast of individual political and religious radicals like Samuel Fisher and, my personal favorite, Abiezer Coppe.

As I have noted elsewhere a key to understanding that plebian entry onto history's stage and underscores the widespread discussion of many of these trends is Cromwell's New Model Army where the plebian base and the frustrated professional middle class, for a time anyway, had serious input into the direction that society might take. Some have criticize Hill on the question of how important this was in the overall scheme of things but the last word on the impact of those ideas and their influence has not been spoken. In any case, as these radicals were moved to the margins of political society they has various reactions familiar as well in later revolutions- passivity, silence, a personally opportunistic acceptance of the new order and in too few cases a fight to save the revolutionary gains. In many ways Professor Hill's book is a study of what happened when the, for lack of a better term, Thermodorian reaction- the ebb of the revolution sets in and a portion of those 'masterless' men had to deal with the consequences of defeat for the plebian masses during the Protectorate and Restoration. The heroic attempts to save the revolution in danger by the Fifth Monarchy uprisings, composed of former soldiers, and the return of Quakers to the Army in 1659 only underscore that point. Those of us on today’s embattled plebian left now know we had some honorable predecessors.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - As The Spainish Class Struggle Heats Up – THE OTHER SIDE IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR- ROME HONORS FRANCO’S ‘MARTYRS’

Markin comment:

In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like

************
THE OTHER SIDE IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR- ROME HONORS FRANCO’S ‘MARTYRS’

COMMENTARY

Under ordinary circumstances I do not give a tinker’s damn about the internal ceremonies of the Roman Catholic Church, or for that matter, any church but a recent news item hit me square in the eye. On Sunday October 28, 2007 at Vatican City some 498 priest and nuns killed just prior to or during the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 were given a mass of beatification. Apparently beatification is a direct step in the process to sainthood- the Catholic Hall of Fame. Unfortunately the article did not give a list of reasons why these ‘martyrs’ were chosen other than the fact that they had been killed, presumably by forces that supported the lawfully designated Republican government, in the Civil War.

But wait a minute- this is Spain, this is the Spanish Civil War-what the hell- these are General Franco’s agents who fell all over themselves to aid his rebellion and ultimately led to forty years of hell. Those are the kinds of people that the Roman church is giving its blessing to. Let us further set the historical record straight - these were agents of that Romish church that owned significant lands and assumed all the prerogatives of feudal landlords in relationship to their peasant tenants. This, I might add, is the church of the Inquisition; the church that oppressed the poor, downtrodden and other wise confused people of Spain for centuries. Yes, there seems to be some symbolic ‘justice’ here as Mother Church honors her most trusted agents.

Popular anti-clericalism had a long tradition in Spain, justifiably so from any fair reading of the history of that benighted land. Many times during social turmoil ignited by the fed up peasantry and the plebes in the smaller cities prior to the Civil War the first plebian act was to go lay waste to the local church and scatter or otherwise harm the clergy. The period of the Spanish Civil War was no different in that sense. Except that by that time the anti-clerics had also taken on an anarchist or anarcho-syndicalist coloration. In fact during this period they made church vandalism into an art form. Thus this batch of ‘martyred’clergy were likely the victims of that tradition, although a stray irate republican, insolent socialist or undisciplined communist may have gotten caught up in it depending on the furies of the local population. Ernest Hemingway in his Spanish Civil War novel For Whom the Bells Toll has one of his characters narrate a very graphic description of what anti-clerical (and anti-central government) revenge was like in one locale.

Historically attacks on churches are an elemental first reaction by the plebian masses in a revolutionary period. In the English Revolution the yeomen of the Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army made a regular practice of reducing churches (for their silverware to be used as ammunition as well as an expression of rage). In the French Revolution the same thing occurred although on a less disciplined basis. Thus Civil War Spain is hardly an exception to that general trend. However socialists, especially Marxist socialists, have always drawn the line on the question how to deal with religion differently. We stand in solidarity with such elemental acts against the oppressions brought by religion however that is not our program. We recognize that we must change the whole material basis of society in order to get rid of the ‘need’ for religion as solace for an unjust and chaotic world. Hey, we are the “religion is the opiate of the people” guys, remember? Thus we spill no tears over the fate of these Popish ‘martyrs’ but neither do we advocate such action to create social change. We go after the big guns- the capitalists.

While we are on the question of honoring those who died in the Spanish Civil War we have our own heroes to recognize. Like those who fought under the banner of the Central Committee of the Anti-Fascist Militias and saved the republic, in the short haul, as Franco’s rebellion reared its ugly head. Or those far- flung legions of‘pre-mature” anti-fascists who came from all over Europe and the Americas and formed the International Brigades that did valiant service on the Ebro, the Jarama and elsewhere. Or those who defended Madrid in its hour of need so that Franco should not pass. And the anarchist Friends of Durritti (to speak nothing of Durritti himself) and the rank and file fighters of the Party of Marxist Unification (POUM) who were ready to give their all in the last ditch effort to save the revolution in the May Days in Barcelona in 1937. Yes, those are OUR kindred spirits. They stand in no need of beatification. However, in the end the best way to honor their efforts is to fight for socialism. Then we can put religions in the museums as historical curiosities

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse – THE CULTURE WARS- PART 247-WOODSTOCK 2007

 

Markin comment:

In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like

************
THE CULTURE WARS- PART 247-WOODSTOCK 2007

COMMENTARY

As a political writer who stands well outside the traditional political parties in this country I do not generally comment on specific politicians or candidates, unless they make themselves into moving target. Come on now, this politics after all how can I justify not taking a poke at someone who has a sign on his chest saying –Hit Me. Lately Republican presidential hopeful Arizona Senator John McCain has fallen all over himself to meet that requirement.

And what is the fuss about. Studied differences about how to withdraw from Iraq? No. Finding ways to rein in the out of control budgets deficits? No. A user- friendly universal health care program? No. What has sent the good Senator into spasms is a little one million dollar funding proposal (since killed in the Senate) that would have partially funded a museum at Woodstock, site of the famous 1969 counter-cultural festival. His view is that the federal government should not be funding projects that commemorate drug, sex and rock and roll. Well so be it. However, the topper is this. In order to sharply draw the cultural war line in the sand he mentioned (just in passing, I’m sure) to the Republican audience that he was speaking to that he did not attend that event as he was ‘tied up’ elsewhere.

Unlike his draft dodging fellows, like Bush Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al in the Bush Administration McCain saw action in Vietnam. Of course that action was as a naval pilot whose job it was to attempt to bomb North Vietnam back into the Stone Age, a task in which they very nearly succeeded. Through the fortunes of war he was shot down and spent several years in a POW camp. That comes with the territory. In the summer of 1969 this writer also had other commitments. He was under orders to report to Fort Lewis, Washington in order to head to Vietnam as a foot soldier. That too comes with the territory. The point is why rain on someone else’s parade just because you want to be a hero. Moreover, it is somewhat less than candid to almost forty years later belly ache about it.

A note on Woodstock as an icon of the 1960s. The slogan-Drugs, sex, and rock and roll. We liked that idea then, even those of us who were rank and file soldiers. Not everyone made it. Some recoiled in horror later, including some of those today on the right wing of the culture wars. And others who did not inhale or hang around with people who did. Those experiments and others like communal living, alternative lifestyles and ‘dropping out’ were part of the price we felt we had to pay if we were going to be free. And creative. Even the most political among us felt those cultural winds and counted those who espoused this vision as part of the chosen. Those who believed that we could have a far-reaching positive cultural change without a fundamental political change in society proved to be wrong long ago. But, these were still our people.

Note this well. Whatever excesses were committed by the generation of ’68, and there were many, were mainly made out of ignorance and foolishness. Our opponents, exemplified by one Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States and common criminal, and today by John McCain spent every day of their lives as a matter of conscious, deliberate policy raining hell down on the peoples of the world, the minorities in this country, and anyone else who got in their way. Forty years of ‘cultural wars’ in revenge by them and their protégés is a heavy price to pay for our youthful errors. Enough.

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse – A Labor Note (2007) As Michigan Goes “Right To Work”

 

Markin comment:

 In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like      

************

FORD UAW AUTOWORKERS CONTRACT- VOTE NO

COMMENTARY

NO TWO- TIER WAGE RATES- EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

The big labor news this fall has been the fight by the United Auto Workers (UAW) for new contracts with General Motors, Chrysler and now Ford.  I have already discussed the GM and Chrysler settlement and now as of Friday, November 3, 2007 Ford and the UAW have reached a tentative agreement. That agreement is along the same lines as those ratified by GM and Chrysler (barely) - a new two- tier wage system for new hires who will get one half the average pay of senior autoworkers and union takeover of the health and pension funds. As I have lamented previously these contracts are a defeat for the autoworkers. Why? The historic position of labor has been to fight for equal pay for equal work. That apparently has gone by the boards here. Moreover the pension and health takeovers are an albatross around the neck of the union. No way is this an example of worker control not at least how any labor militant should view it. After all the givebacks its time to fight back even if this is a rearguard action in light of the previous votes. Any illusions that the give backs will by labor peace and or/avoid further layoffs, closedowns or outsourcing got a cruel comeuppance in the previous contract negotiations. No sooner had those contracts been ratified, and well before the new contracts were even printed, Chrysler announced layoffs of 8000 to 10, 000 and GM had previously announced about 1500 layoffs. FORD AUTOWORKERS VOTE NO ON THIS CONTRACT.       

I HAVE REPOSTED THE NOTES ON THE GM AND CHRYSLER SETTLEMENTS TO GIVE A PERSPECTIVE OF HOW THE HOPES THAT ORGANIZED LABOR COULD FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE TIDE OF GLOBALIZATION HAVE FADED AS THE PROCESS HAS GONE ON THIS FALL.

A Short Note On the Chrysler Autoworkers Contract Settlement

Commentary

The Wal-martization of the Once Proud UAW

Yes, I know that we are in the age of ‘globalization’. That is, however, merely  the transformation of the same old characters like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler in the auto industry that we have come to know and love moving away from mainly nationally- defined  markets to international markets. In short, these companies allegedly are being forced to fight their way to the bottom of the international labor wage market along with everyone else. As least that was the position of these august companies in the on-going labor contract negotiations with the United Auto Workers (UAW). And the labor tops bought the argument. In the General Motors settlement GM was nicely absolved from having to administer its albatross health and pension funds. Now autoworkers are held responsible for deciding what autoworkers get what benefits. This is not my idea of workers control, not by a long shot. Based on those provisions alone that GM contract should have been soundly defeated. That it was not will come back to haunt the GM autoworkers in the future.

Now comes news that, as of October 27, 2007, the Chrysler workers have narrowly (56%) ratified their contract, although some major plants voted against it and the labor skates pulled out all stops to get an affirmative vote. If anything that contract is worst than the GM contract because it also contains a provision for permitting a two-wage system where ‘new hires’ will be paid approximately one half normal rates. So much for the old labor slogan of 'equal pay for equal work'. If the GM contract will come back to haunt this one already does today. Remember also that Chrysler was bought out by a private equity company that has a history of selling off unprofitable operations, driving productivity up and then selling the profitable parts for huge profits. That, my friends, is what the global race to the bottom looks like in the American auto industry. This contract should have been voted down with both hands. Ford is up next and based on the foregoing that contract should also be voted down.

Look, every militant knows that negotiations over union contracts represent a sort of ‘truce’ in the class struggle. Until there is worker control of production under a workers government the value of any negotiations with the capitalists is determined by the terms. Sometimes, especially in hard times, just holding your own is a ‘victory’. Other times, like here, there is only one word for these contracts-defeat. Moreover, this did not need to happen. Although both strike efforts at GM and Chrysler were short-lived (intentionally so on the part of the leadership) the rank and file was ready to do battle. The vote at Chrysler further bolsters that argument. So what is up?

What is up is that the leadership of the autoworkers is not worthy of the membership. These people are so mired in class collaborationist non-aggression pacts and cozy arrangements (for themselves) that they were easy pickings for the vultures leading management. The epitome of this is the ‘apache’ strategy of negotiating with one company at a time. If in the era of Walter Reuther, at a time when there were upwards of a million union autoworkers, that might have made some sense today with reduced numbers it makes no sense at all. Labor’s power is in solidarity and solidarity means, in this case, ‘one out, all out’.  Beyond that it is clear a new class struggle leadership is needed, just to keep even, and it is needed pronto. Those rank and filers and, in some cases, local union leaders who called for a no vote at Chrysler are the starting point for such efforts.   

 

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse - FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?

Markin comment:

In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like      

************

On Mitt Romney

A recent announcement out of the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, apparently forced out of his vanishing prospects in Iowa, has it that he will make a speech about his Mormon faith. This prospect evokes, at least formally, the idea Jack Kennedy used in the 1960 presidential campaign about his Roman Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant country and to affirm his commitment to a secular democratic state. Romney’s play is another kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell,  have we come to when a major political party in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18^th century England and its exclusion clauses for Catholics and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. In any case, here is a little commentary written earlier in the year that gives some thought into the Mormons and particularly Brother Romney’s forbears. DOWN WITH RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR POLITICAL OFFICE- DEFEND THE ENLIGHTENMENT  

FIVE WIVES AT THE SAME TIME SHOW REAL EXECUTIVE ABILITY-RIGHT?

In a recent interview on CBS's Sixty Minutes Republican presidential hopeful ex- Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a professed Mormon, declared that he thought that the fact that his great-grandfather took (or was ordered to take) five wives was ‘terrible’. As the fiercely persecuted Mormons settled in Utah apparently the numerical balance between men and women was off and polygamy was therefore encouraged. Naturally, being a male-dominated religious variant of Christianity that necessary was couched in theological terms, as well. The practice was officially banned by that denomination in 1890. However, the practice, as witnessed by some recent court cases in the West, still flourishes in some areas amount Old -Style Mormons.  

One can see that for someone who is running on a ‘family values’ platform highlighted by support for the proposition that marriage is between one man-one woman and is touting personal fidelity to one wife and children in order to grab the brass ring of the presidency that such a family history may in fact be 'terrible'.  But step back a minute Mitt, aside from being very disrespectful to your family line, what is the harm of having five, or for that matter, ten wives? Or a woman having ten husbands? As long a there is effective consent among and between the parties whose business is it anyway? And why be ashamed of that ‘skeleton’ in the family closet?

We socialists are not as squeamish as brother Romney appears to be about either the details of his family history or about how people arrange their personal lives. There has been a great hue and cry lately in the West over some Old- Style Mormon instances of polygamy, including the usual allegations of coercion. Coercion or forcing “shot gun” weddings, singly or in multiples, is not what we mean by effective consent. However, absent coercion it is not the state’s business to interfere. We may have a different take than Mormons on what we think personal relationships will look like under socialism once the nuclear family (or what today stands for that proposition) recedes into the background as the basis unit of society but for now the variety of human experiences in interpersonal relationships is way beyond the scope of what the state needs to interfere in.

 

I, personally, want to learn more about old Great-Grandpa Romney and Joseph Smith-the founder of Mormonism and a Free Soiler candidate for office before he was murdered in the 1840’s. On the face of it those individuals seem, unlike Mitt, interesting personalities.  Certainly everyone must concede that old Great-Grandfather Romney seems more interesting than his progeny. And had to have more real executive ability than latter monogamous Romneys. Hell, I had my hands full when, back in the days, I had two girlfriends at one time.  Hands Off the Old Style Mormons! Government Out of the Bedrooms!

 

 

 

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse -NO TO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE - FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE (2007)

Markin comment:

 

In 2007-2008 I, in vain, attempted to put some energy into analyzing the blossoming American presidential campaign since it was to be, as advertised at least, a watershed election, for women, blacks, old white anglos, latinos, youth, etc. In the event I had to abandon the efforts in about May of 2008 when it became obvious, in my face obvious, that the election would be a watershed only for those who really believed that it would be a watershed election. The four years of the Obama presidency, the 2012 American presidential election campaign, and world politics have only confirmed in my eyes that that abandonment was essentially the right decision at the right time. In short, let the well- paid bourgeois commentators go on and on with their twitter. I, we, had (have) better things to do like fighting against the permanent wars, the permanent war economies, the struggle for more and better jobs, and for a workers party that fights for a workers government . More than enough to do, right? Still a look back at some of the stuff I wrote then does not a bad feel to it. Read on if you like      

 

NO TO RELIGIOUS TESTS FOR OFFICE - FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE 

Every once in a while left wing propagandists, like this writer, are forced to comment on odd ball political or social questions that are not directly related to the fight for socialism. Nevertheless such questions must be addressed to in the interest of preserving democratic rights, such as they are.  I have often argued that socialists are, or should be, the best defenders of democratic rights, hanging in there long after many bourgeois democrats have thrown in the towel especially on constitutional questions like abortion and warrantless searches and seizures.

A good example from the not too distant past,  which I am fond of citing because it seems so counter intuitive, was opposition to the impeachment of one William Jefferson Clinton, at one time President of the United States and now potentially the first First Lady’s man. How, one might ask could professed socialists defend the rights of the Number One Imperialist –in-Chief. Simple, Clinton was not being tried for any real crimes against working people but found himself framed by the right- wing cabal for his personal sexual preferences and habits. That he was not very artful in defense of himself is beside the point. We say government out off the bedrooms (or wherever) whether White House or hovel. We do no favor political witch hunts of the highborn or the low.  Interestingly, no one at the time proposed that he be tried as a war criminal for his very real crimes in trying to bomb Serbia, under the guidance of one Wesley Clark, back to the Stone Age (and nearly succeeding). Enough said.  

Now we are confronted with another strange situation in the case of one ex-Governor of Massachusetts and current Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney on the question of his Mormon religious affiliation and his capacity to be president of a secular state.  Romney, on Thursday December 6, 2007 fled down to Houston, apparently forced by his vanishing prospects in Iowa, and made a speech about his Mormon faith, or at least his fitness for office. This speech evoked in some quarters, at least formally, Jack Kennedy’s use in the 1960 presidential campaign of the same tool concerning his Roman Catholicism as a way to cut across anti-Catholic bigotry in a mainly Protestant country and to affirm his commitment to a democratic secular state. I pulled up that speech off the Internet and although Kennedy clearly evoked his religious affiliation many times in that speech he left it at that, a personal choice. He did not go on and on about his friendship with Jesus or enumerate the virtues of an increased role for religion in political life.  

Romney’s play is another kettle of fish entirely. He WANTS to affirm that his Mormon beliefs rather than being rather esoteric are in line with mainstream Protestant fundamentalist tenets. In short, Jesus is his guide. Christ what hell, yes hell,  have we come to when a major political party in a democratic secular state has for all intents and purposes a religious test for its nominee for president. A cursory glance at the history of 18^th century England and its exclusion clauses, codified in statutes, for Catholics and dissenters demonstrates why our forbears rejected that notion. It is rather ironic that Romney evoked the name of Samuel Adams as an avatar of religious toleration during some ecumenical meeting in 1774. Hell, yes when you are getting ready to fight for a Republic, arms in hand, and need every gun willing to fight the King you are damn right religion is beside the point. Revolutions are like that. Trying to prove your mettle as a fundamentalist Christian in order to woo the yahoo vote in 2007 is hardly in the same category. Nevertheless on the democratic question- down with religious test for political office, formal or otherwise.

Now to get nasty. Isn’t it about time we started running these religious nuts back into their hideouts? I have profound differences with the political, social and economic organization of this country. However, as stated above I stand for the defense of the democratic secular state against the yahoos when they try, friendly with Jesus or not, to bring religion foursquare into the ‘public square’. We have seen the effects of that for the last thirty or forty years and, hit me on the head if I am dreaming, but isn’t the current occupant of the White House [George W. Bush, for those who have forgotten] on some kind of first name basis with his God. You know, all those faith-based initiatives  Look, this country is a prime example of an Enlightenment experiment, and tattered as it has become it is not a bad base to move on from. Those who, including Brother Ronmey, want a faith-based state- get back, way back. In the fight against religious obscurantism I will stand with science, frail as it is sometimes, any day- Defend the Enlightenment, and let’s move on.   

Live from Ft. Meade: courtroom updates, 12/11/12

digg

Courtroom sketch by Clark Stoeckley.

December 11, 2012 – Bradley Manning’s Article 13 motion hearing continues today in Ft. Meade, MD, as the defense and government will make their closing arguments. Yesterday, the witnesses portion culminated with Quantico brig commander CW2 Denise Barnes, Army Captains Joe Casamatta and Bruce Williams, and Quantico Deputy IG Maj. Timothy Zelek.
CW2 Barnes testified that she was told after removing Manning’s underwear on March 2, 2011, that future changes to his handling instructions would need to be approved first by three-star General George Flynn. Cpt. Casamatta testified that he was never told that psychiatrists recommending removing Bradley from restrictive conditions, and that if he had, he would have done more to intervene or at least understand why he was kept on those conditions. Check in here throughout the day for live updates, as courtroom reporter Nathan Fuller writes from Ft. Meade. Send questions and corrections to nathan@bradleymanning.org , and follow us on Twitter at @SaveBradley.
3:14 PM — Article 13 concludes. The government painted a portrait of Bradley as someone who’s baseline behavior was erratic — citing his Kuwait breakdown, his intake statement about suicide that he was “always planning, never acting,” his January 18, 2011, anxiety attacks, and his comment on March 2, 2011, that if he really wanted to, he could kill himself with the elastic band of his underwear. He said the brig staff tried to understand Bradley on a daily basis, and his lack of communication prevented that rapport. While never directly asked to communicate more, the government says Bradley had ample opportunity to speak up.
The government conceded that Quantico was “cautious,” but that considering Cpt. Webb’s suicide at the brig earlier and Bradley’s behavior, they were properly concerned for his health. The government also believes that the judge should give Manning seven days credit for those he was improperly held on Suicide Watch, from August 7-11 and January 19-20.
The defense replied, quickly reviewing each of the brig’s stated reasons for keeping Manning on POI. He conceded that Bradley viewed the staff as very professional, but said, ” you can be very professional and still violate Article 13,” and that there was ” substantial evidence to show their response was exaggerated” — whether due to higher officials’ influence, concern for media interest, or to protect themselves in the event of something happening to Manning.
We return to court at 9:30 AM ET on January 8, for a hearing through January 11, 2013. Judge Lind will take the arguments under advisement, and she didn’t announce when she’d rule.
1:43 PM– Quick recess. Government arguing that the brig did what it had to to protect Bradley Manning. They argued that having checks every five minutes instead of every second afforded him at least five minutes of “potential privacy.”
They cited Manning’s poor communication and the incidents in Kuwait to explain the extensive POI. The judge asked if there was ever a time if, after months of no additional factors, those events would no longer reasonably warrant POI. The government said yes, but that this was not the case here — prosecutor Ashden Fein said Bradley Manning was “not like others” and had a pattern of behaviors that the brig tried to figure out how to handle on a daily basis. Recess ending — Fein will resume in a minute.
12:43 PM — About to end lunch recess. Told by those in the courtroom that Coombs’ powerpoint, show in to the audience there, was even more detailed than his oral argument. The courtroom looked much more full than it has in several days. Jesselyn Radack, DOJ whistleblower, is here again, as she has for nearly all of this hearing. Government will make its closing argument now. That should conclude this Article 13 hearing.
12:08 PM — Breaking for lunch, 45 minutes. Defense concluded arguments. Coombs stressed that the most amazing thing about this is that given his conditions, Bradley Manning didn’t totally break down. He laid out the case that Gen. Flynn told his inferior officers that he though Manning was a suicide risk from the start, and no one wanted to act differently. They chose the easy option, the status quo, and they silenced the only critic of this treatment, Cpt. Hocter.
Coombs said that the government relied on events months prior in Kuwait to justify nine months of POI, along with reasons that Bradley could never change. When he finally did talk to someone he thought he was getting through to, they removed his underwear.
The judge asked him what the substantive difference would be if he were put on medium security protective custody, and Coombs rattled off a bunch of small reasons that added up to a big difference. He said essentially Manning wouldn’t have been treated like a “zoo animal” — he wouldn’t have been in shackles, would’ve got an hour outside, he wouldn’t have had to ask for toilet paper, he wouldn’t have been observed by the booth every second of every day.
He compared Bradley’s treatment in Quantico with that in Ft. Leavenworth, where Bradley’s been on medium custody and hasn’t once tried to harm himself. Coombs asked, if Bradley was still at Quantico, “What status would he be in today?”
9:54 AM – Court is scheduled to begin at 10:00 AM ET today. About a dozen of us in the media room today, including Associated Press, Washington Post, FireDogLake, Huffington Post, Courthouse News, Agence French-Press, and more. Military legal consultant Lt. Hughes tells us that the defense will make its closing argument first, and the government will follow. He doesn’t expect military judge Col. Denise Lind to rule this week, so we may not hear the result until the next hearing. We usually get a recess after every hour or every hour and a half — if arguments are brief, we may wrap up this Article 13 hearing within a few hours. Stay here for updates.

Quantico staff denied outsiders facts on Bradley Manning’s treatment

digg

Four witnesses today and their contrasting testimony reveal a Quantico brig staff more interested in appearances of legal compliance than Bradley’s human rights. The witness portion of this Article 13 motion is done, and tomorrow parties will make their closing arguments.
By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. December 10, 2012.

Defense lawyer David Coombs speaks to military judge Col. Denise Lind. Courtroom sketch by Clark Stoeckley.

Today was the 10th day of testimony at Ft. Meade, MD, for the defense’s Article 13 motion to dismiss charges due to unlawful pretrial punishment. After Brig Commander Denise Barnes finished testifying, we heard from Quantico’s Deputy Investigator General Major Timothy Zelek, Army Captain Bruce Williams, and Army Captain Joseph Casamatta, Bradley’s Company Commander. Chief Warrant Officer Barnes, the second Officer-in-Charge of Quantico while Bradley was there, gave long, often circular, and clearly defensive testimony to justify her decision to keep Bradley on Prevention of Injury (POI) watch during the duration of her command and to remove his underwear starting on March 2, 2011. She appeared to be on edge throughout her time on the stand, suspicious of defense questions and repeatedly emphatic about both her interest in Bradley’s safety and her authority to handle his conditions however she chose.
Her guarded demeanor and rambling responses starkly contrasted with Cpt. Casamatta’s seemingly genuine interest in Manning’s health and simple, direct answers to questions on the stand
As brig commander, CW2 Barnes answered to Colonels Oltman and Choike, who then reported up to three-star General George Flynn with weekly updates on Bradley’s conditions. As revealed in previous testimony, General Flynn was likely a conduit for the Pentagon at large. CW2 Barnes thus felt her career depended on maintaining safety and security at the brig, as well as squashing any questions as to whether brig operations had been conducted improperly: she told the defense, when interviewed before this hearing, that she worried if something happened on her watch she’d lose her job with no retirement options – a risk her more-experienced predecessor, CW4 Averhart, didn’t have to take.
Cpt. Casamatta, however, was in Bradley’s command chain in the Army, so he could focus on Bradley’s well-being at the Marine brig, as opposed to Quantico’s reputation. A member of Bradley’s command met with Bradley at least every two weeks, to interview him privately in an attempt to ensure he was being treated well. Cpt. Casamatta conducted most of these sessions, and Bradley told him in September 2010 that he didn’t want to be on POI watch. Bradley also notified Cpt Casamatta of his underwear removal in March, and he told the captain at nearly every official interview that he didn’t understand the reasoning behind his restrictive treatment. Unlike Bradley’s jailers, Cpt. Casamatta said he had a good rapport with Bradley, who he found engaged throughout their discussions.
When told about Bradley’s comment that resulted in CW2 Barnes removing his underwear, that everything else had been taken away and if he really wanted to, he could use his skivvies’ elastic band, Cpt. Casamatta understood it as sarcastic. He testified today, “He’s an intelligent and articulate person. Quite frankly I didn’t believe he would have such thoughts as to actually kill himself with his underwear.”
The Army captain reached out to inquire about Bradley’s conditions multiple times, including to CW4 Averhart and the Special Court-Martial Convening Authority Col. Carl Coffman.
Col. Coffman told Cpt. Casamatta that he would address the underwear removal within his command, but it would seem that the colonel failed to follow through. CW4 Averhart and the other Quantico staff told Cpt. Casamatta that Manning was on POI to ensure that he wouldn’t harm himself or others. Cpt. Casamatta was satisfied for the time being as he felt that Bradley’s best interest was driving the brig’s unusual actions. However, it was revealed through court testimony today that brig staff did not give the captain all the facts regarding the treatment about which Bradley complained. No one at Quantico or elsewhere told Cpt. Casamatta that for nine months, multiple brig psychiatrists advised the jailers to remove Bradley from his restrictive conditions, which kept Bradley in the 6×8 ft cell for 23 hours a day. These psychiatrists testified in court two weeks ago that leaving Bradley on POI watch was actually detrimental to his psychological health. Asked when he learned that the doctors wanted Bradley to be treated normally, Cpt. Casamatta said, “Once this trial started.”
Cpt. Casamatta said that if he’d been informed of the psychiatrists’ opinions while Bradley was at Quantico, he would’ve readdressed the issue within his and Quantico’s command structures. He emphasized in court today, that “As commander I should’ve been privileged to that info, if only for another avenue to speak” on the soldier’s behalf, and that if he could, “I’d [have] like[d] to be part of the decision-making process.”
Cpt. Casamatta was never given enough information to understand the full severity of the treatment Bradley endured at Quantico, and thus could never evaluate it properly.
Maj. Zelek’s couldn’t either, though it’s possible he never wanted to. Maj. Zelek, who worked under Col. Choike, noticed a surge in phone calls and emails calling for better treatment for Bradley in December 2010. He noticed what he thought was sensationalist media coverage and wanted to get to the bottom of it, as he headed inspections and investigations. Maj. Zelek approached Marine Headquarters with the idea for an investigation into Bradley’s conditions at Quantico, only to discover they had no interest in such a thing. Dissatisfied and eager to clarify what he thought was confusion about Manning’s treatment, Maj. Zelek convinced Col. Choike to let him investigate the brig himself.
Maj. Zelek spent less than two hours at Quantico, during which CW4 Averhart showed him the special quarters where the detainees lived, including a guided viewing of the inside recreation room, the outside rec area, the cafeteria and and the library. But Maj. Zelek never interviewed Bradley, and also did not review his custody or classification. He never knew that Bradley was allowed only 20 minutes outside, or that when he did get some sunshine, he was forced to keep metal shackles on his legs, precluding meaningful exercise. Like Cpt. Casamatta, he never saw the psychiatrists’ recommendations to end the abusive conditions. Instead, he merely made sure that the treadmill belt spun, the food wasn’t rancid, and the showers were clean. It didn’t occur to Maj. Zelek to investigate whether Bradley was treated like the other detainees, or whether his behavior warranted all of his assigned restrictions.
And Quantico, of course, had no interest in providing this information to Maj. Zelek, or Cpt. Casamatta. It might have been that Maj. Zelek’s review was doomed from the start: after all, its results only mattered if Col. Choike, who as Quantico base commander reported to Gen. Flynn, was influenced by the investigation’s results to change Bradley’s treatment. But Cpt. Casamatta, in the Army, could’ve had a real impact if he knew that the psychiatrists felt Bradley’s status should be downgraded and his restrictions relaxed. It certainly seemed like he wanted to – as he left the stand today, “prosecution witness” Cpt. Casamatta passed government lawyer Ashden Fein with hardly a glance, and strided over to the defense table where he shook Bradley’s hand before he left.