Bradley Manning supporters buoyed by incompetent over-prosecution

digg

By the Bradley Manning Support Network. July 12, 2013
The U.S. government concluded its five-week case against PFC Bradley Manning the first week of July after providing a surprising lack of evidence that the Army soldier had “aided the enemy” by passing military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. In response, Manning’s defense filed four motions to direct a verdict of not guilty on most of the greater offenses he’s charged with, including “aiding the enemy,” violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and stealing government property.
All four motions are filed under Rule for Court Martial 917 (d), which says a not-guilty verdict shall be granted in the “absence of some evidence which, together with all reasonable inferences and applicable presumptions, could reasonably tend to establish every essential element of an offense charged.” Each motion carefully lays out the ways in which the government’s own witnesses failed to confirm the prosecution’s arguments set forth in opening arguments.

“Aiding the Enemy”, Article 104

Bradley Manning faces life in prison for this charge alone. For a time, the death penalty was a possibility. Manning has been charged in this case with “Aiding the Enemy” for providing information to WikiLeaks. However, in a final pre-trial hearing this January, military Judge Denise Lind quarried the prosecutors, “Would you have pressed the same charges if Manning had given the documents not to WikiLeaks but directly to the New York Times?” Their reply: “Yes Ma’am.” In this motion, Mr. Coombs explains:

The Government has failed to adduce evidence which, together with all reasonable inferences and applicable presumptions, shows that PFC Manning had “actual knowledge” that by giving information to WikiLeaks, he was giving information to an enemy of the United States. (Sec. 3)

According to the Court’s instructions:

“Knowingly” requires actual knowledge by the accused that by giving the intelligence to the 3^rd party or intermediary or in some other indirect war, that he was actually giving intelligence to the enemy through this indirect means. This offense requires that the accused had a general evil intent in that the accused had to know he was dealing, directly or indirectly, with an enemy of the United States. “Knowingly” means to act voluntarily or deliberately. A person cannot violate article 104 by committing an act inadvertently, accidentally, or negligently that has the effect of aiding the enemy.

The Government’s evidence fails to show in any way that by giving information to WikiLeaks, PFC Manning had actual knowledge that he was giving information to the enemy. (Sec. 4)

The Government has introduced no evidence to suggest that PFC Manning was somehow independently aware that the enemy uses WikiLeaks… PFC Manning’s computer revealed no searches for the enemy, anything related to terrorism, or anything remotely anti-American. (Sec. 5)

Coombs then breaks down the arguments against the U.S. Army’s Counterintelligence Center report, which Harvard Law professor and widely cited scholar Yochai Benkler called “speculative” and “mediocre,” which he said featured prominent and glaring falsehoods, and which he said appeared to have been largely culled from open-source, publicly available information.

The Government also attempts to show that PFC Manning had actual knowledge that the enemy uses WikiLeaks by evidence and testimony related to the Army Counter-Intelligence Center (ACIC) report. (Sec. 6)

First, the title of the report is “WikiLeaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?” The question mark obviously denotes that the question is something that the U.S. government does not have an answer to. If the government had actual knowledge that the enemy uses WikiLeaks, the title of the report would [not have] a question mark. If the U.S. government does not have actual knowledge of the enemy’s use of the WikiLeaks website, then neither can PFC Manning. (Sec. 7)

Finally, Coombs notes that in online chats with Adrian Lamo, Manning explicitly disavowed interested in providing another state with the documents, and instead wanted them available for the public good.

PFC Manning’s state of mind and professed motive for releasing the charged documents to WikiLeaks belies any argument that PFC Manning had actual knowledge that by giving information to WikiLeaks, he was giving information to the enemy. Indeed, PFC Manning refused to sell the information to another country, even though he could have financially benefited by doing so, because he did not want an enemy of the United States to “take advantage of the information.” Id. The chat logs show that since PFC Manning did not intend to aid the enemy, he also did not knowingly give intelligence information to the enemy. (Sec. 10)

Computer fraud charges, Wget doesn’t exceed authorized access

The government says that Bradley Manning used the automated downloading program Wget to retrieve hundreds of thousands of State Department cables from the Net-Centric Diplomacy database, and that use of Wget alone constitutes exceeding his authorized access to data, a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Coombs explains that Manning had authorized access to all of the information he accessed, and that the government is attempting to obfuscate that central point by charging him this way.

The Government’s theory is legally deficient

The government has introduced evidence that PFC Manning used the program Wget to download the diplomatic cables. However, PFC Manning’s purported use of this allegedly unauthorized program to download the information specified in Specification 13 of Charge II does not change and cannot change the only fact that matters in the “exceeds authorized access” inquiry: PFC Manning was authorized to access each and every piece of information he accessed. The Government has not introduced any evidence to suggest that PFC Manning was not permitted to view the cables in question. The Government has not introduced any evidence to suggest that PFC Manning was not permitted to download the cables in question. The Government simply asserts that PFC Manning was not permitted to download them using a certain program, Wget. (Sec. 6)

The Government is simply incorrect in asserting that the use of an unauthorized program to download information automatically converts what would otherwise be authorized access to that information into “exceeding authorized access.” Whether or not PFC Manning used Wget to download the information he had access to is irrelevant; under the language of Section 1030, as well as this Court’s ruling and all legal authorities, PFC Manning could not have exceeded his authorized access because he was authorized to obtain the information he obtained. That is, “exceeds authorized access” is not concerned with the manner in which information to which one has access is downloaded; it is rather concerned with whether the accused was authorized to obtain or alter the information that was obtained or altered. (Sec. 8)

Coombs explains why such an interpretation is unprecedented, and therefore quite dangerous.

The ridiculousness of the Government’s theory is highlighted when one really distills what the Government is saying. If PFC Manning had downloaded the cables one-by-one (or with a program like Excel which was in the baseline package for the DCGS-A machines), then PFC Manning would not be facing a ten-year prison sentence under 18 U.S.C. §1030. However, because he is alleged to have used a program not technically approved on his DCGS-A machine, he is facing a ten-year prison sentence. A decade in jail cannot turn on what programs the Army happens to put on its “authorized software” list. While the Defense concedes that releasing the diplomatic cables was a criminal offense—one for which PFC Manning has accepted responsibility—it is not, under any stretch of the imagination, a computer crime within any rational meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1030. (Sec. 11)

There is absolutely no legal precedent for the Government’s argument that the specific program with which information is downloaded can determine whether a person “exceeds authorized access” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1030. A survey of the case law reveals that no criminal prosecutions have been maintained based on a theory in the nature of that advanced by the Government here (i.e. that the accessor was permitted to access the information, was permitted to download the information, but was not permitted to download the information using a certain program). (Sec. 13)

Coombs reminds the court that the prosecution could not present the Acceptable Use Policy that Manning signed. In fact, Capt. Thomas Cherepko, who managed Information Assurance in Manning’s unit, admitted that the AUP had been burned.

Critically, the Government has not even presented the AUP signed by PFC Manning or anyone in his brigade. Thus, it is impossible to determine exactly what PFC Manning knew or should have known in terms of limitations on access and/or use. Second, to state the obvious—the AUP refers to the Acceptable Use Policy, not the Acceptable Access Policy. This very fact shows that the policy focuses on use restrictions and not access restrictions. Third, the provision in the sample AUP regarding unauthorized software states, “Id. I will use only authorized hardware and software I will not install or use any personally owned hardware, software, shareware, or public domain software.” The fact that the word “use” appears twice in this sentence clearly shows that this is a “us” restriction and not an “access” restriction. (Sec. 21)

Further more, the fact that Wget wasn’t an officially approved program doesn’t mean much: soldiers were routinely allowed to listen to music, watch movies, play video games, all of which weren’t formally authorized but which superior officers didn’t condemn.

The Government has presented evidence that Wget was not on the approved list of programs for the DCGS-A computer used by PFC Manning in downloading the cables. Thus, it argues that since PFC Manning downloaded the information that he was otherwise entitled to download with “unauthorized software” he thereby exceeded his authorized access within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1030. (Sec. 26)

It is clear that soldiers in the S-2 shop were permitted to add executable files to their computers and did so on a regular basis. It is also clear that the chain of command knew about this rampant practice and did nothing about it. In short, soldiers in the T-SCIF were allowed to place executable files on their computer, despite the apparent on paper prohibition against adding “unauthorized software.” In the S-2 shop, executable files were not considered “unauthorized software.” Thus, in using an executable file, Wget, to download the cables, PFC Manning did not use “unauthorized” software. Instead, he used an executable file—a practice that had been sectioned and approved of by the S-2 leadership and the chain of command. (Sec. 30)

The circumvention argument is a complete red herring. The Government’s theory is that the use of “unauthorized software” can convert what is otherwise authorized access into “exceeds authorized access” within the meaning of section 1030. The unauthorized software in this case happens to be Wget. However, the unauthorized software could be anything, including an unapproved (and more recent) version of an approved program. So, for instance, if PFC Manning had downloaded the cables in an unapproved version of Excel, under the Government’s view, he would still have exceeded his authorized access. Nothing turns on how fast or slow the download speed was—the crux of the Government’s argument is the use of unauthorized software. (Sec. 35)

It is worth noting that the Government has adopted multiple theories of “exceeds authorized access” during the course of this proceeding. If the Government cannot even figure out what the objectionable conduct is which constitutes “exceeding authorized access” how can Soldiers be expected to know which actions are considered to be a “computer crime” and which actions are not? In other words, how could PFC Manning have knowingly exceeded authorized access at the time of the alleged offense if the Government did not even identify what conduct it considered criminal until it failed in its first attempt to state an offense? The fact that the Government is clinging to a theory which hinges exclusively on the use of an apparently unauthorized program to ground imprisonment for 10 years shows just how weak this charge is. (Sec. 40)

There is not one case—not one—where any court in this country has premised criminal liability on a theory akin to the one the Government is advancing today. That fact alone speaks volumes…. It would be a sad day indeed if a decade in jail could hinge exclusively on what program an accused used to download information he was otherwise entitled to access and otherwise entitled to download. (Sec. 41)

Stealing government property, OR accessing copies of documents

Prosecutors charged Manning with “stealing,” “purloining,” or “knowingly converting” the Iraq War Logs, the Afghan War Logs, Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and the State Department’s diplomatic cables. Coombs contends that the government mischarged Manning by saying that he stole the databases themselves instead of copies of information contained within them. Throughout its cross-examination of government witnesses, the defense repeatedly established that the Army and State Department were never deprived of these databases upon Manning’s disclosures, so they cannot be said to have been “stolen.”

The Government in this case did not charge that PFC Manning stole or converted “information” or “copies”; instead it charged that he stole or converted “databases”. Such a distinction is not, in any way, a semantic one: what PFC Manning is alleged to have stolen directly impacts not only the legal focus of the alleged theft or conversion, but also the valuation prong of 18 USC 641. That is, if PFC Manning is alleged to have stolen information, the value of the information itself (and not the database) must be established. If PFC Manning is alleged to have stolen a copy of a government record, then the value of that copy must be established. Consequently, what PFC Manning’s alleged to have stolen or converted is of crucial significance. (Sec. 7)

If the Government in this case intended to charge theft of the information itself or theft of a copy of a record, instead of theft of the database, such a charge must appear in the Charge Sheet. (Sec. 9)

To sustain a theft conviction under Section 641, the Government has the burden of proving that PFC Manning wrongfully took “property belonging to the United States government with the intent to deprive the owner of the use and benefit temporarily or permanently.” (Sec. 11)

Thus, it is clear that the Government must show that PFC Manning’s alleged actions resulted in a substantial or serious interference with the Governments use of the databases in question in order for PFC Manning to be found guilty of knowing theft or conversion of databases under Section 641. The Government has failed to offer any such evidence since it is clear that PFC Manning did not steal or covert the databases in question. (Sec.. 15)

The Government has not introduced any evidence that the property in question here—the various databases—were ever moved, altered, corrupted, change or taken away from the United States government. (Sec. 16)

The Government obviously has not charged that PFC Manning stole or converted information contained within a database. Nor has it charged that PFC Manning stole or converted copies of digital records kept by the United States Government. Instead, it has charged that he stole or converted the databases themselves. Since the Government has introduced no evidence that PFC Manning stole or converted the databases in question, he must be found not guilty of section 641 offenses. (Sec. 20)

Coombs points out that even if the prosecution had intended to charge that way, or if it wants to alter its charge sheet, it is not permitted to do so.

To the extent that the Government will now argue that it intended to charge PFC Manning with knowing theft or conversion of the information contained within the databases or theft of copies of government records (rather than charging PFC Manning with theft or knowing conversion of the databases themselves), the Defense submits that the Government is not permitted to do this, as it is outside the scope of the Charge Sheet. (Sec. 24)

That the Government intended to charge and prove that PFC Manning stole the databases and not information is apparent by looking at the evidence that the Government has introduced on valuation. The Governments witnesses all discussed in detail in their stipulations of expected testimony how much it costs to establish and maintain the relevant databases and associated infrastructure in various years. This clearly shows that the Government meant to charge theft of the databases—and not the information—and accordingly should be required to prove the charges in the manner charged. (Sec. 25)

Changing the charge from stealing a “database” to stealing “information” or “copies of records” is a fundamental change which alters the very substance and identity of the offense as well as the accused opportunity to defense against the charge. (Sec. 30)

The Government is not able at this late date to change the Charge Sheet to reflect what it perhaps should have charged PFC Manning with. This Court, in other words, cannot make the Charge Sheet fit the evidence. (Sec. 32)

If the Government instead were to rely on a theory that PFC Manning stole “information” (a charge which is outside the Charge Sheet), it still has not introduced competent evidence of the value of the information allegedly stolen or converted. (Sec. 46)

Finally, to meet the threshold of a federal stealing charge instead of a lesser one, the government has to prove that Manning “stole” something valued at more than $1,000. Its own expert cannot attest to the cables’ value, and therefore there’s no available evidence of the documents’ worth.

The Government’s proffered “expert,” Mr. Lewis, candidly admitted that he did not consider himself to be an expert in valuation; had never valued information before; had not even seen the charged documents until last; had spent only a few hours “researching” in preparation for this testimony; and until last week, did not even understand why he would be testifying. (Sec. 49)

Stealing government property, an Outlook email Global Address List

Here the defense separates the charge of “stealing” the USF-I Global Address List (GAL), a collection of email addresses for U.S. soldiers in Iraq that where a part of the networked Outlook email application, apart from the other items in question. The government does not contend that Manning ever sent the GAL to WikiLeaks, it merely charges that he stole it.

The Government has adduced forensic evidence that email addresses containing the term “.mil” were found in the unallocated space in PFC Manning’s personal Macintosh computer. (Sec. 5)

The Government’s own witness testified that the USF-I GAL contained 160,000 email addresses and that the number of email addresses found in the unallocated space of PFC Manning’s computer totaled 24,000. (Sec. 7)

Perhaps the Government intends to argue that PFC Manning stole or converted part of the USF-I GAL or that PFC Manning stole or converted the Division GAL. However, the Government has not charged PFC Manning with stealing or converting part of the USF-I GAL or with stealing or converting the Division GAL—it has charged him with stealing the USF-I GAL itself. (Sec. 8)

The Government has not adduced any evidence that the .mil addresses on the unallocated/deleted space on PFC Manning’s computer were transmitted to anyone, much less anyone not authorized to receive it. In particular, the Government has not present any evidence that the .mil addresses were transmitted by PFC Manning to WikiLeaks. (Sec. 10)

The Government has not adduced any evidence that PFC Manning was not permitted to look at, save, or download the .mil addresses. (Sec. 11)

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence could show that PFC Manning lawfully downloaded .mil addresses from what appears to be the Division GAL and subsequently deleted the document. This would be equivalent to, say, an attorney downloading the AKO addresses of other attorneys in the JAG Corps, doing noting with that information, and then subsequently deleting that information. The Government’s own witness, CW4 Rouillard, testified that this was perfectly acceptable. (Sec. 16)

Dangerous precedent

Bradley Manning has been up front about his actions, taking responsibility for releasing documents as an act of conscience, in a declaration that could put him in jail for up to 20 years.
This wasn’t enough for military prosecutors – under pressure from an administration that has overseen an unprecedented attack on whistleblowers and already deemed Manning guilty – who instead egregiously over-charged Manning in an effort to set an example and instill a chilling effect on potential future leakers.
The lack of evidence supporting this over-prosecution gives Manning’s supporters hope that military judge Col. Denise Lind will follow the law and reject these greater offenses that would otherwise set dangerous precedents for military service members and our democracy.
Its worth noting that even if some or all of these charged are not dismissed outright as a result of these motions, Judge Lind could still find Manning not guilty of these same charges during the normal ruling process.

This overview was prepared by Nathan Fuller and Jeff Paterson for the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Standing by Bradley: My conversations with supporters attending the court martial

digg

Farah Muhsin Al Mousawi

By Farah Muhsin Al Mousawi, Bradley Manning Support Network. July 11, 2013
One of the many things that I love about being part of the Bradley Manning Support Network is the ability to attend the court martial since it started on June 3rd, 2013. The pleasure of sitting down on the defense side of the room, capturing a glimpse of Bradley’s face and fighting the urge to pass the guards, who usually build a human wall between him and the spectators, to give him a hug and thank him for his bravery. But perhaps what I like more is looking around the courtroom and seeing all the friendly, kind faces of supporters who often travel for miles to be here, standing by Bradley, donning their “truth” t-shirts and engaging in active conversations when court is in recess . . . just as Bradley hoped the world would do.

Over 70 supporters packed the courtroom and overflow trailer on July 8, 2013.

My favorite part of my work day is to get to meet and know these supporters and, feeding my personal curiosity as well as doing my job, learn what brought them here and why they want to support Bradley Manning.
Among our supporters are members of the Center on Conscience and War (CCW) who have been attending at least one day per week since the court martial began. They came to a pretrial hearing a few months ago, too. “We want to be there as a show of support for Bradley and his defense team,” said CCW director Maria Santelli. “We want to show the judge that the whole world is watching and that she is accountable. I feel like I’ve just always known about Bradley since his arrest, at least. As an organizer against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since before they began, and as a counselor on the GI Rights since 2008, I tried to keep up on the news related to the wars.”
Each week, Maria comes with CCW Program Assistant Rebecca Joliff and Counseling Coordinator Bill Galvin, as well as summer intern Cymone Copeland. They have been attending diligently, carrying their notepads and writing notes through the court session. They sit down patiently on the defense side of the courtroom. Every now and then, I look at the crowd and I see the CCW crew look at Bradley and smile, admiring his courage and resilience.
When asked why it’s important for CCW members to attend the trial, Maria says, “It’s important that the soldiers at Ft. Meade see us there. Sometimes I think civilians, especially those with a leftward slant, feel like we share little common ground with people in the military. As a counselor on the GI Rights Hotline, I talk to active duty service members every day. We share more in common than either of us knows. I know that there are service members who strongly stand with Bradley.”
“The CCW was founded in 1940, when the first peacetime draft law was enacted in the United States. Conscientious Objectors (COs) who lived through WWI were treated so cruelly and inhumanely that our founders wanted to take the necessary steps, once it was clear that the US would enter WWII, to prevent COs from ever having to endure such terrible treatment again. CCW was at that time known as the National Service Board for Religious Objectors/NSBRO, because only those individuals whose opposition to war was based on religious beliefs could legally be classified as COs. NSBRO ran the Alternative Service Program, placing drafted men in nonviolent ‘work of national importance,’ instead of war. Since then, the law has evolved, and anyone with a moral or ethical objection to war can apply for CO status.
“Today, and since the end of the draft era, CCW provides technical and other support to Conscientious Objectors seeking discharge from the US military. We also assist immigrants to the US who refuse, for reasons of conscience, to take the standard citizenship oath in which one pledges to take up arms for the United States. And we provide support for young men who resist Selective Service Registration for reasons of conscience.”
June 24th marked the fourth week of Bradley Manning’s trial. As I looked around the courtroom, I saw a few new young faces, sitting with anticipation, waiting for the judge to walk in and start the trial.
The new supporters are high-school students from Oxford Academy, Westbook, CT, who after learning about a trip to Ft. Meade to experience what it feels like to be at this trial decided to sign their names up and join this effort, which was put together by two passionate school teachers: Ben Taylor, History and Economics teacher, and Josh Katz, head of the Math department.
I had the pleasure to sit down with the students and their teacher and ask them a few questions.
“So, what brought you here?” I asked. “Well, we are all interested in this trial and what is happening to Bradley manning” said Edward, a sharp 17 year old Senior originally from England. Edward and his schoolmates are attending summer school at Oxford Academy and when they heard about a trip to come to Fort Meade and attend two days of the historic trial, they signed up right away to join this trip.”
“I followed the trial from the beginning and have been aware of Bradley Manning since 2010 and the controversy that took place after, if he is a true whistleblower or he joined the military to intentionally wreak havoc. It is important to observe the ethical response of the US military overseas, the case of killing innocent civilians with no repercussion. This is a concern to me because I do have friends who joined the military and I feel like I need to understand if we are going to fight for freedom and democracy. We ought to understand what we are doing and what we are fighting for.” Edward added, “The media is often polarized in America, even if they openly reported the trial, the media is still biased and because of that I needed to come and get a better understanding of this case.”
William, who is 18 and also a bright senior student at Oxford Academy, and whose mother escaped the violence in Lebanon during the civil war during the 1980s, he had another interesting reason as to why he wanted to be on this trip.
“With the way the image of the military is presented, of how honorable it is and how the military service is glorified, I wanted to be that person, I wanted to be part of it. And the reason why I don’t want to do it anymore is because I don’t want to fight for something I don’t believe in, especially when the wars that are fought now are not for the right reason.” William added, “I wanted to be here because I wanted to observe and learn. I wanted to figure out the truth of what has been told about Bradley because it is hard to believe the news. I want to be here to support him.”
Eli, an eloquent 14-year-old freshmen said, “The idea of glorifying gender roles is an old one. Back in the ‘50s, if you went to a toy store you find that boys had plastic guns and fake military stuff, and girls had their dolls. Culture today still segregates between boys and girls and continues to glorify the military.”
I also spoke to Ben Taylor and Josh Katz, the two teachers who came up with the idea of bringing few of their students to attend the trial.
Ben Taylor, who is a History and Economics teacher, said, “This is a very significant event, regardless of the side you agree with, it is important to be here and show up. Last fall we had a course on current events, and though current issues around the world are integrated into other courses one way or another, both Josh Katz and I felt that we needed to bring in a more current issue and make it present for the students to be more engaged and informed. So, we had three topics our students research and give presentations on, one was about the Pentagon Papers, the second was on whistleblowers and the third was on Bradley Manning. After that we decided we needed to do something maybe for the summer and that’s when we came up with the idea of making this trip and bringing at least five students who are interested in the subject.”
Josh Katz, who is the math teacher and the head of the Math department said, “Sitting in the office and I was thinking how could I be a teacher but also help people participate in the world? Its not enough to have a current events course, students have be involved in the world.
“The image of somebody going to school with other events are happening in the same country, writing a paper about that event, all this makes me feel as if it is happening in a foreign country.
“As a math teacher, I try to bring in other topics related to social issues but also connected to math in one way or another. For instance, I talk about the relation between math and democracy or math and cryptology, and while doing that it is hard not to delve into the issue of ethics in relations to these important topics. And while the educational system seems to teach our students what they want them to learn, at our school we try and give them the liberty to make up their minds and construct their own knowledge.”
The following weeks of the court martial, we witnessed a large presence of supporters from all over the country. During the last week of the prosecution’s argument, more than 50 supporters filled the courtroom and the overflow trailer. And during the first day of the defense’s argument, nearly 80 supporters filled the courtroom and the overflow trailer.
As an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network, people often ask me, “How can we support Bradley? What can we do to help?” And there are so many ways I could answer these questions, and though the first response I could think of is, “Do you have a magic wand that can set him free?” I know that is impossible! However, I encourage people to come and attend the court martial if they can. The presence of the supporters have been helpful in such way that we are able to tell the court, and the world, that what Bradley did was the right thing and it is time for the government to do the same thing, too by setting him free!
Yesterday, the defense rested its case and Bradley Manning confirmed that he did not wish to testify. The government said it intends to present a rebuttal case next week. (To read more updates from the trial, please visit: http://www.bradleymanning.org/category/news/courtroom-notes-news)
As we anticipate the sentencing phase will culminate in August, we will be demonstrating in front of Maj. Gen. Buchanan’s office demanding him to do the right thing by freeing Bradley Manning, as Maj. Gen Buchanan is the Convening Authority who oversees the proceedings at Ft. Meade. If you wish to continue to show support for Bradley, please consider joining us at this last chance to protest during Bradley’s trial.
For more details on this event, please visit: https://orders.bradleymanning.org/support_events/protest-in-front-of-maj-general-buchanans-office

Students from Oxford Academy

Take action for Bradley on July 27, 2013

digg

International call to action July 27, 2013!

By the Bradley Manning Support Network. June 27, 2013.
Please join us in what will likely be the last internationally coordinated show of support for Bradley before military judge Col. Denise Lind reads her final verdict–which we expect some time in August.
On July 26 there will be a rally for Bradley Manning in Washington, DC in front of Maj. General Buchanan’s office. Buchanan is the new convening authority in the trial and he has the power to reduce any possible sentence given to Bradley should he be found guilty.

The July 27 ”International Day of Action” coincides with the anticipated sentencing phase of Bradley’s trial. The outcome of that phase of the trial will result in Bradley receiving any outcome from time served to life in prison.
A thousand supporters marched on Fort Meade at the start of Bradley Manning’s trial. Now we are asking supporters to organize events in communities across the globe.
The end of July also marks the third anniversary of the release of the Afghan War Diary which revealed the realities of pain and abuse suffered by many thousands in Afghanistan.
Looking for an idea for an event? Consider putting on this street theatre performance written by Claire Lebowitz which was performed at NYC Pride and other solidarity events. It only requires 2 performers and its a wonderful way to charge your event and catch peoples interest!
Contact campaign organizer Emma Cape at emma@bradleymanning.org if you are interested in organizing a solidarity event or action in your community. Help us send a message to Judge Lind that millions stand with Bradley!
View list of solidarity events around the world.
July 26th
Washington, DC. Protest in front of Maj. Gen. Buchanan’s office
July 27th

Vancouver, BC.	Rally and banner drop. (pdf poster)
Los Angeles, CA.	Solidarity Rally.
Boston, MA.	Solidarity with Bradley Manning Stand Out.
Portland, ME.	Support Bradley Manning Rally.
Brussels, Belgium.	March for Bradley Manning.
Minneapolis, MN	July 27th Solidarity Rally for Bradley Manning
Oklahoma, OK	Rally and Vigil to Honor Truthteller Bradley Manning
Berkeley, CA	Join CODEPINK Women for Peace to say “Free Bradley”
London, UK.	Peaceful vigil in front of the Amnesty International Secretariat office.
London, UK.	International Day of Action for Bradley.
Peterborough, UK	Standout in Solidarity
Fairford, UK.	Air Warrrrrrr!
Perth, Australia.	Education and Awareness-Whistleblowers.

***Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night –Raymond Chandler’s The Lady In The Lake

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

The Lady In The Lake, Raymond Chandler, Vintage Books, New York, 1976

Yah, they don’t make P.I.’s, private dicks, snoopers, gumshoes, peepers, shamuses, or whatever they call private detectives in your neighborhood, like Philip Marlowe anymore. Oh sure there are tough-minded guys (and gals) who aren’t afraid to take a punch or seven, maybe take a little slug or two for the cause out there in novelistic or cinematic private detective land. Or who aren’t afraid to till at windmills to get at the bad guys or at least keep them in check. But today’s P.I.s carry an arsenal of technological gizmos from computers, DNA kits, and infrared devices to ultra-chic high-powered weapons that make their hunt kind of child’s play. Marlowe just toughed it out with brains, a little brawn, and an off-hand slug or two.

We know either the old or new way the bad guys are going down, or are held in check, but it is kind of nice to see an old time pro work out of the seat of his pants trying to get a little justice, or maybe just a little private quiet in this wicked old world. We know for example that our boy took down a rough and tough gambler and all-around hood and his boys when he took down Eddie Mars in The Big Sleep, taking more than a few punches (and kisses) along the way to bring that cretin to heel. We know that he also took those same punches, and a good doping too, maybe some morphine fix, in order to bring some wayward femme named Velma to heel. So we know that Brother Marlowe will be doing some heavy lifting in this wartime detective trying to find some Mayfair swell’s wayward wife out in those Hollywood hills.

See our Mayfair swell, a guy named Kingsley, a big guy in the perfume business, brings in Marlowe to find his wayward wife last seen a month before up in their getaway cabin. Apparently said wife had, as they say, her own life, got her own kicks her own way, including with other guys, so this Kingsley didn’t panic until it dawned on him that if wifey meal ticket disappeared eventually he was going to have earn his own coffee and cakes for real. And maybe, just maybe too those West Coast coppers, might finger him for her disappearance since he was playing footsy with his fetching (Marlowe’s description, okay) secretary just like a lot of guys do, a lot of guys in the crime noir world anyway.

So our boy, in serious need of some dough to purchase his own coffee and cakes, takes the case and as usual runs all over Southern California trying to figure out where the hell Mrs. Kingsley is. Naturally there are a ton of false leads, including the identity of that lady found in that lake mentioned in the title of the book, a little other misdirection, a smattering of social commentary, a few wise and unwise cops, some police shenanigans, the average number of Marlowe knocks on the head, a few frame-ups, a couple of off-hand killings and then Marlowe justice. And the beauty, the real beauty of the thing is that our boy mainly did leg work, car work, and brain work, to close this one out. Can you believe that? Enough said.

Oh well, not exactly enough. I forgot to mention the author, famed crime noir writer Raymond Chandler, who back in the day just so happened to, along with Dashiell Hammett, to grab detective fiction from the clutches of drawing room amateur sleuths fit for gentile afternoons and introduce world- weary and wise tough guys tilting at those big old windmills. Not bad Brother Chandler, not bad.

***American Pyscho #247 –With Dial 1119 In Mind

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

Yah the kid, Marshall Lloyd to give him a name, a name that you might recognize if you were from Los Gatos out on the coast during World War II, the big one, the one where lots of guys did lots of things, screwy and heroic, somebefore they were able to shave. Marshall drew the screwy card, no, the crazy-ass pyscho card, the card drawn by a long line of guys in the great American night, especially the western no more land to move on from nightwhere everything got bottled up and a spring got sprung sometimes. And I, Guy Lowe, should know since I covered more than my fair share of these wacko deeds as a stringer reporter for the Los Gatos Gazette in my time including Marshall’s first episode, his first bid to be the king hell king of the bizarre western edged night. I was there when they finally did him in, the cops bringing in the whole damn force to take him down, and keep him down.

This Lloyd kid maybe started out like a million other kids, no worse, no better, when his number came up in the big human tide that was World War II. But somehow they, the guys down at the induction center walked very gingerly around this kid and told him no way that this man’s army needed a kid who was as unhinged as Marshall although they never told him that in so many words. He might have flipped out right there and then on them. But Marshall was a guy, an over-focused guy to be kind, who did not take lightly the notion that he was not fit for military service and so he went out to prove the point by killing about six good citizens of Los Gatos figuring in his own twisted mind that action would show his ability as a stone-cold killer. So, yah, I was there when old Doc Levine of all people, the cop shrink, at trial, pleaded for the kid’s life, saying he was too mixed to be responsible for his actions. Now Doc didn’t want him sprung, ever probably, but he also didn’t want him up in Q either. He got the judge to send him up to Santa Lora, the big insane asylum for serious crazy criminal guys to see if he could get straightened out even if he never could get out again.

But see that is where guys like Doc, do-gooders really although they usually mess more stuff up than they correct in the end, was not wise to what this Marshall kid was all about. He didn’t have a clue that the army rejection triggered a lot of stuff in Marshall, a lot of resentment, against the world, Los Gatos, and eventually especially Doc. Doc, the guy that saved his damn neck. So Marshall spent a couple, maybe three years, letting that army stuff fester inside him, diluted himself that instead of an average psycho he was some kind of military hero, some kind of guy who should be feted not locked up. In short he wanted a word with Doc about stuff. And so in the course of things he escaped from that mental institution and headed back to Los Gatos to do, do whatever.

Here’s where I blame the coppers though. They never figured once they got word that Marshall had flown the coop that the kid would just take a convenient bus back to town. They had it all figure that he was going to blow up north somewhere, maybe Frisco and melt into the crowd, so they were blindsided when the word got out that Marshall had killed the bus driver at the Los Gatos bus station for the gun he carried on board in case things got dicey. He, the bus driver, never knew what hit him as Marshall walked away, clear away without any muss or bother, no regrets. Yah, it was starting again, the stone-cold killer doing what he did best, or maybe the only thing he did.

See he was searching back for Doc, first at his office where he got a “no go” and then at his apartment, again a “no go.”Then the kid spied the old Oasis bar, a place where he had been humiliated one night during that last spree when a soldier who knew what Marshall had been talking about concerning his efforts with the troops over in Europe was hooey and drew a couple of slugs out in the back alley for his efforts. That same night, at that same bar, that the serviceman was wasted with no remorse and left out back, some girl, a girl that Marshall had known over at the high school and was performing barmaid services there, laughed at him when he asked her, maybe innocently, for a date. She soon learned as we all did that laughing at Marshall was not good for one’s health. After the joint closed down he followed her up the street, dragged her into an alley, waited for some passing cars to make enough noise going by to mute the sound and put a couple in her as well.

So Marshall knew the joint, knew that he needed to go there to wait for Doc and see what was going on, keeping off the prying eye cops streets until he could talk to his man. Of course staking out a corner seat, alone, in a sparely populated on an off night presented its own problems. Especially when Jimmy Jacks, the hustling shuffling bartender trying to hustle a few drinks, and a few tips, to keep the landlady off his back tried to pitch a few whiskey sours Marshall’s way. Worse the joint as a draw particularly for the Friday night fight crowd had a big screen television set on for the patrons. Old Jimmy Jacks made the mistake of turning the channels to the local news periodically while Marshall was doing his waiting. In one segment the damn thing blasted Marshall’s escape and murder of the bus driver all over the screen so Marshall did what any self-respecting psycho would do-take some hostages against the inevitable police onslaught.

It had been a light night, the usual slow Monday night after the blizzard of business on the weekend, but there were five bar-flies there that night, five patrons who wished maybe they had stayed home or been elsewhere that night. See Jimmy Jack, after a while, recognized the kid and was ready to call the cops, maybe with the idea of some reward in his head, when Marshall came up behind him, turned him around, and placed a pair of slugs between his eyes. No more land lady troubles for one ex-bartender James Jacks, and no reward either. Needless to say the bar-flies panicked when Jimmy went down trying to flee the place like rats on a sinking ship But Marshall had the situation well in hand, as well as having that little gun with a goodly supply of ammo and Jimmy face down on the floor and so they succumbed to Marshall’s very pointed argument .

With the hostages in hand he called the coppers looking for Doc, looking for him and threatening if Doc was a no show then the hostages were done for, one by one. Given Marshall’s history who wanted to argue the finer points of that premise, certainly no the cowering almost hysterical men and women being held hostage. One of the guys, an older guy who remembered Marshall’s last spree, asked to go to the restroom to relieve himself and Marshall just laughed at him

The head of the hostage rescue operation, Inspector Grant, called Doc, called Doc to get him to talk to Marshall and maybe let the hostages go after it became apparent that Marshall was not going to come out alone, was not going to do anything but kill each patron in turn, and was more than willing to take a cop or two down in the process. And so, and I will give it to old Doc that he had some courage, some courage to his convictions, because he went right into the Oasis and talked to Marshall, or tried to. See Marshall couldn’t see where Doc wanted him to go about his army fantasy, to confess that he was a reject, he just wouldn’t let the military hero thing go. Doc was determined that he wouldn’t let him keep his illusions. But we know already, already know by heart, that Marshall was stone-cold on that issue and so Doc bought a pair of slugs right in the heart.

And with that last gasp effort the cops decided the only way to deal with Marshall was blast him out, literally with dynamite, and to try to save as many hostages as possible. The cops drew a break in their efforts because one of the bar patron’s, a middle- aged woman, a regular, knew that Jimmy Jack had a gun behind the counter that the kid never checked for. So between the blast and the bravery of one patron they finally, mercifully, got one Marshall Lloyd dead six ways to Sunday. And I got a king hell of a story. See I was one those hostages, one of those not brave hostages, the guy that asked to go to the toilet because he was scared witless and I ain’t afraid to admit it. But what a story about the life and times of another American psycho bursting into flames I wrote for the Gazette.

 

***Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night-From Rags To Riches- John Garfield’s Blues- “Force Of Evil”-A Film Review

***Out In The 1940s Crime Noir Night-From Rags To Riches- John Garfield’s Blues- “Force Of Evil”-A Film Review

Force Of Evil, starring John Garfield, Thomas Gomez, M-G-M, 1948

No question I am a film noir, especially a crime noir, aficionado. Recently I have been on a tear reviewing various crime noir efforts and drawing comparisons between the ones that “speak” to me and those that, perhaps, should have been better left on the cutting room floor. The classics are easy and need no additional comment from me their plot lines stand on their own merits, although I will make some comment here. Others, because they have a fetching, or wicked, for that matter, femme fatale to muddy the waters also get a pass. Some, such as the film under review from the late 1940s starring John Garfield, Force of Evil, offers very little of either. It is not for lack of trying but rather that the stilted dialogue of the main characters, relentlessly hammering us with clear cut choices between good and evil when a lot of life is very gray, very gray indeed, gets in the way. And it is certainly not that John Garfield can not carry off a crime noir film. Hell, he and femme fatale Lana Turner burned up the screen in the film adaptation of James M. Cain’s crime novel The Postman Always Rings Twice, a film that I will review in the near future in this series. The plot line and dialogue just got in the way here. It is as simple as that.

Here is the scoop. John Garfield, through his brother’s Great Depression-era sacrifice went to law school and became a high-priced lawyer (silly brother, right?), made the New York City big time. A Wall Street lawyer big time. Well, almost big time, because the way he got there was through a very lucrative association with a crime boss who was looking to control the numbers racket in 1940s New York City (the numbers racket, now called the lottery, is now respectably controlled by the state, whatever state) and make it a legal business like any other self-respecting capitalist adventure. The trouble is said sacrificing brother is running a numbers “bank” slated for the dustbin as part of the crime boss’s consolidation plan. Capitalism 101, okay. This makes Brother Garfield queasy and filled with self-doubts and regrets (in between bouts of greed fueled by the dough to be made by a poor boy New York City slum corner boy). The tension between those two forces (ah, good and evil, got it) aided by a “girl next door-type (good force, right?) gnawing at his innards forces dear John to come clean at the end. Especially when said crime boss, through another criminal associate, offs his brother. Like I said, a little thin in the story line.

What is not thin though, and as is usually the case when New York City is the locale, is the black and white cinematography that gives some very interesting footage to the dramatic tension here- the good versus evil thing mentioned above. Additionally “the girl next door” character almost breaks out and becomes something of a human we can recognize when money, wealth and fame enter the picture. Although she never quite does break out of the good angel stuff. Still it is always good to hear John Garfield struggling with some cosmic message in his corner boy heart. But wait and see him in Postman if you want really gritty, attention-getting performance. This one is just very, very average.

From The Marxist Archives- Democratic"Germany: "Imperialism and the Lie of Collective Guilt

Workers Vanguard No. 885 2 February 2007 TROTSKY LENIN Democratic" IGermany: "mperialism and the Lie of Collective Guilt (Quote of the Week) In the wake of World War II, the Fourth International denounced the lie propounded by the capitalist “democracies,” as well as by the Social Democrats and Stalinists, that the German proletariat and the German people as a whole were guilty of the monstrous crimes of Hitlerite fascism. Expressing their solidarity with the working people of ravaged Germany, the Trotskyists reasserted the necessity to sweep away the barbaric capitalist world order through proletarian revolution. Truth demands that we tell the world proletariat Hitler-fascism was not a pure “German” phenomenon, but the most violent dictatorship of German monopoly capitalism against the German working people.... The guilt of international capitalism in supporting Hitler-fascism is only underlined in retrospect when it plasters the label of “guilty” on the German people in order to squeeze billions in reparations out of them. Truth further demands that we note the Second World War broke out when Hitler attempted in the interests of German monopoly capitalism to secure a world redivision of markets and spheres of influence. If Hitler, representing belated German imperialism on the world market, appears as the aggressor, the other imperialists cannot thereby be labelled peace-loving democrats, since they simply defended imperialist robberies made at an earlier stage.... We International Communists therefore denounce as the main culprit above all the capitalist system which creates war and fascism. We say to the German proletariat and all other workers that the fall of Hitler-fascism has not assured world peace. Peace can be secured only through the struggle for socialism and the Socialist United States of the World.... In the final analysis the victorious imperialists, as well as the defeated Hitler-fascists and the now hypocritically democratic German bourgeoisie all find their main enemy to be the proletarian revolution. The treatment of the German people on the principle of collective-guilt provides the fascists precisely with new possibilities to fish in the murky waters of nationalism. The danger is all the greater since if the German people are collectively guilty then the Nazis who are the real guilty ones can logically hope to escape punishment. We warn the German proletariat not to trust this bourgeoisie which now declares itself to be democratic. These new “anti-fascists” in reality are the same capitalist cliques who are already utilizing their connections with the international trusts to reorganize their class front against the German proletariat, and who want to make a pact with the foreign imperialists to load German reparations on the backs of the German people. —“International Solidarity With the German Proletariat,” Fourth International (January 1946)

From The Archives-The Struggle To Win The Youth To The Fight For Our Communist Future

 

 

Markin comment on this series:

One of the declared purposes of this space is to draw the lessons of our left-wing past here in America and internationally, especially from the pro-communist wing. To that end I have made commentaries and provided archival works in order to help draw those lessons for today’s left-wing activists to learn, or at least ponder over. More importantly, for the long haul, to help educate today’s youth in the struggle for our common communist future. That is no small task or easy task given the differences of generations; differences of political milieus worked in; differences of social structure to work around; and, increasingly more important, the differences in appreciation of technological advances, and their uses.

There is no question that back in my youth I could have used, desperately used, many of the archival materials available today. When I developed political consciousness very early on, albeit liberal political consciousness, I could have used this material as I knew, I knew deep inside my heart and mind, that a junior Cold War liberal of the American For Democratic Action (ADA) stripe was not the end of my leftward political trajectory. More importantly, I could have used a socialist or communist youth organization to help me articulate the doubts I had about the virtues of liberal capitalism and be recruited to a more left-wing world view. As it was I spent far too long in the throes of the left-liberal/soft social-democratic milieu where I was dying politically. A group like the Young Communist League (W.E.B. Dubois Clubs in those days), the Young People’s Socialist League, or the Young Socialist Alliance representing the youth organizations of the American Communist Party, American Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (U.S.) respectively would have saved much wasted time and energy. I knew they were around but not in my area.

The archival material to be used in this series is weighted heavily toward the youth movements of the early American Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (U.S). For more recent material I have relied on material from the Spartacus Youth Clubs, the youth group of the Spartacist League (U.S.), both because they are more readily available to me and because, and this should give cause for pause, there are not many other non-CP, non-SWP youth groups around. As I gather more material from other youth sources I will place them in this series.

Finally I would like to finish up with the preamble to the Spartacist Youth Club’s What We Fight For statement of purpose:

"The Spartacus Youth Clubs intervene into social struggles armed with the revolutionary internationalist program of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. We work to mobilize youth in struggle as partisans of the working class, championing the liberation of black people, women and all the oppressed. The SYCs fight to win youth to the perspective of building the Leninist vanguard party that will lead the working class in socialist revolution, laying the basis for a world free of capitalist exploitation and imperialist slaughter."

This seems to me be somewhere in the right direction for what a Bolshevik youth group should be doing these days; a proving ground to become professional revolutionaries with enough wiggle room to learn from their mistakes, and successes. More later.
****************

Leon Trotsky

The First Five Years of the Communist International

Volume 1

---

May Day Manifesto of the ECCI

To working men and women of all countries

ANOTHER year has passed and in not a single country in the whole world apart from Russia can the working class boast of victory. The capitalists of every country are rejoicing. They feel more sure of themselves than they did last year and behave as though convinced of their final triumph. “Yet another year has passed by and we have still not shaken off our yoke” – say the workers.

A year has passed during which the helm still remains in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Over this period the bourgeoisie could have shown what it was capable of creating. The world more than at any other time previously resembles a smoking ruin. In the defeated capitalist countries, in Germany, Austria and Hungary famine has appeared. These countries are increasingly becoming the victims of the international predators who buy up the last meagre belongings of the defeated with weak currencies. The local exploiters thereby do some good business while the want of the working masses grows daily. High prices have long since exceeded wages, and despite the shops being crammed with goods, millions of people do not know how to feed their children or to cover their nakedness.
What then is the situation in the victor countries? Four million out of work in America and two million in Britain. In France economic chaos is growing. In Britain one strike wave follows close on another. Lloyd George is forced to gather together an entire horde which will have lead and iron at the ready for the striking coal-miners should the latter bring out the railwaymen and transport workers on strike. The mobs of tyrants of the Paris, London and New York stock exchanges thought that they would be able to turn the population of half the world into beggars and continue calmly to hold sway. They have made a mistake. Beggars cannot spend money; but then neither can Armstrong, Vickers, Schneider-Creusot nor the Bethlehem Steel Corporation grow fat on the products of their industry. More than two and a half years have passed and world capital has proved incapable of organizing the world economy. On the contrary the only thing it has known how to do is to add new contradictions to the old ones. Foch crosses the Rhine in order to grab the German bourgeoisie by the scruff of the neck and fleece its pockets under the guise of compensation for crimes during the war for which Entente capital feels itself as innocent as a new-born babe. The consequences of the world war are not yet liquidated and yet a new war is being prepared. With growing disquiet and distrust the British bourgeoisie follows the naval armament programme of the United States of America. Against whom are they arming themselves? Against Britain or against Japan? Britain and Japan for their part are getting ready too. The wild beast of world war is preparing for a new leap; it is baring its claws and stretching out its paws towards fresh proletarian prey. If the world proletariat does not brace itself, if it does not seize capitalism by the throat then it will not only go to meet its ruin and enslavement but it will also have to be convinced that it will once again be dragged to the battlefield and forced to shed blood in the interests of world capital. The traitors to the working class, the Scheidemanns, Renaudels and the Hendersons again make the discovery that it is a question of the “defence of the fatherland and democracy”. Only recently Vandervelde, the leader of the Second International and a minister of the crown of Belgium, cynically and openly gave his consent for France to dispatch Senegalese troops across the Rhine against the blood-drenched German people. Meanwhile the heroes of the Two-and-a-Half International are again finding opportunities to discuss what “special conditions” of each country make the betrayal of the proletariat explicable and how and why the proletariat must save its gunpowder for better times rather than hurl a bomb at the heart of dying capitalism.
But the question is not posed in the way that capitalists and social-democrats think. The world proletariat is not defeated, the world revolution goes forward. Its advance, consisting if only in the fact that capitalism shows itself increasingly incapable of assuring the proletariat even an orderly life of slavery, also consists in the fact that yet broader, stronger and more conscious masses are gathering under the banner of the Third International. Precisely because the bourgeoisie proves in practice its incapacity to order the world, yet more new masses press forward along the road of revolution and more firmly close their ranks. Soviet Russia, the haven of revolution, does not let world reaction conquer it. Britain, the stronghold of counter-revolution, has been obliged to conclude a trade agreement with the “Moscow robbers and plunderers”. And though seven years of war have seriously weakened Russia, though the want of the proletarian masses is great in Russia too, their vanguard stands loyally under the banner of the Soviet government and from the wavering and weary masses it is able to mobilize new fighters. This vanguard is doing everything that its heroic organization is capable of to destroy the new weapon of the counterrevolution – the weariness of the Russian people. The White Terror reigning in Spain and Serbia proves how unsure of themselves the local masters feel.
In Italy the bourgeoisie, by unleashing fascist bands, is sowing a storm. The German Orgesch serves as a perpetual reminder to the German workers: “Arm yourselves! Don’t lose heart from your defeat! Strike if you don’t wish to be struck!” In Poland 7,000 communists are sitting behind bars but strike follows strike: this shows that there will be no calm until a bridge is thrown across from revolutionary Russia to revolutionary Germany. In France, the land drunk with victory, the land of nationalist inebriation, hundreds of thousands of workers have become familiar with communism. No amount of persecution will stop the triumphal march of communist ideas in the country where the idea was not only born but has been sanctified with the blood of the victims of July and the martyrs of the Paris Commune. The Communist International is preparing for its Third Congress. This congress will not be concerned with the melancholic contemplation of the successes of world reaction as the leaders of the Two-and-a-Half International, the Adlers, the Bauers, the Longuets, the Dittmanns, the Hilferdings and the Wallheads were in Vienna, but will be devoted to the steeling of the weapon and to the destruction of all those elements who are seeking to blunt that weapon.
No softening of our attacks, but an offensive by broad columns along a still broader front: that is the slogan with which we appeal to you on May Day. It is vital everywhere to place ourselves at the head of the masses outside the party in their struggle to better their condition. In the course of this struggle the working masses will come to see how the reformists and centrists are daily deceiving them. They will see that the Scheidemanns and the Hilferdings, the Turatis and the D’Aragonas, the Renaudels and the Longuets, the Hendersons and the MacDonalds do not wish to, and are incapable of fighting either for the dictatorship of the proletariat or even for a crumb of stale bread for the workers. The workers will recognize that the communists are not splitting the proletariat but represent its unifiers in the fight for a better future. They will recognize that the capitalists cannot, nor wish to, allow the workers even what the peasant allows his horse: sufficient rest and an adequate amount of bread, the necessary to recover strength for more work. In this way the desire of workers to overthrow capitalism and to smash its power will grow every day. Any day there can come a moment when workers will no longer be willing to put up with the suffering and torment that moribund capitalism dooms them to.
Any day there can come a moment when the brave assault movement of the communist vanguard will carry with it the broad masses of the working class and when the struggle for the conquest of power will become the task of the hour. The Communist International calls on you for the maximum concentration of forces, and for the greatest unity and readiness for battle. We are moving not towards a period of slow agitational and propaganda work but a period of ever sharpening mass revolutionary battles. The increase in unemployment, the growing brazenness of counter-revolution, and the danger of new wars will not permit the revolutionary stirrings of the toiling masses to cease. The task of communists in every country is to be their strike battalion, to be that cadre which unites them in struggle. The function of our blood-soaked banner consists not in being the symbol of a future struggle standing ahead of us in the distance but in going forward to great revolutionary conflicts today and tomorrow.
On May Day we wish to show our readiness to do battle with the world bourgeoisie.
On May Day we shall hoist our red banner on the factories and works; we shall carry it forward in mass demonstrations so that its inscription will radiate far and wide proclaiming to the oppressed proletarian masses:

“Close your ranks, all oppressed and tormented, all those exploited and under attack!

“Down with the open and the secret servants of the bourgeoisie!

“Long live the Communist International, the red army of the world revolution!

“Down with the capitalist state, down with the bourgeoisie!

“Long live Soviet Russia, the stronghold of the world revolution!

“Long live the world revolution and the international union of proletarian Soviet Republics!”

The Executive Committee of the Communist International

Pravda, No.86, April 21, 1921

 

***“Ain’t Got No Time For Corner Boys, Down In The Streets Making All That Noise”

The Mean Streets Of Working- Class Times- “The Fighter”- A Film Review

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

know the mean streets of Lowell, Massachusetts, although of late that geographical reference point would center on a more literary sense of the place around the figure of 1950s beat novelist/poet Jack Kerouac. I do not, by the way, mean that I know Lowell from actually growing up in that old-time textile mill town that has seen better days, mainly. I mean I know Lowell because I know the double-deckers, the triple-deckers, the seedy bowling alleys, the back lot gyms, the mom and pop variety stores, the ethnically-tinged bars, the biker hang-outs, and the flop houses that dot that working- class town and form the backdrop to the cultural life of that place. I grew up on the southern side of Boston in North Adamsville. That past its prime working- class town (formerly a shipbuilding center rather than Lowell's textiles but they shared the same ethos) had its full compliment of tight housing, rundown stores, sparse entertainment possibilities and cramped view of life’s prospects just like Lowell.

I know Mickey Ward (Wahlberg) and, more importantly, I know Dickie Eklund (Bale) and their mother Alice (Leo). I do not mean that I know any of them personally but I know their ilk. See North Adamsville also had its fair share of club fighters (or other sports king wanna-bes), working out of some third floor back door gym that smelled of tiger’s balm and other liniments, looking to make it out of the dead-end town and on to the big tent, whether they actually left North Adamsville or not. And most didn’t and most did not even get a shot at hitting someone like Sugar Ray Leonard down on some matted ring floor like Dickie did. Frankly, I spent most of my time as a youth being attracted too but ultimately trying to run, run very hard, away from the Dickie guys, the street-wise corner boys who fall sort of catching the brass ring. While they may be street-wise corner boys, unlike in this film, they are strictly bad-ass cut your throat for a dime characters best left behind. That was a hard lesson to learn back in the day, back in the late 1950s, early1960s day and as the film makes clear, now too.

That said about the social realities of working- class life what is there not to like about a film that highlights Mickey Ward, one of our own, getting out from under by sheer perseverance, wit, and his own sense of street smarts, mainly on his own terms. And to be a bloody stubborn Irishman to boot. Some of the stuff concerning his family connections, his eight million family connections, the “us against the world (you do not air your dirty linen in public, period)” while hard to take at points rang true. As did many of the confrontation scenes with Mickey’s high-flying girlfriend Charlene, when she tried to break her man out of the family’s grip. Finally, the acting from Wahlberg’s conflicted (between family and career, between being a “stepping stone” and a champ) boxer, to Bale’s mad monk ex-boxer who had gone a long way down from those Sugar Ray days (a not uncommon fate for those who are just not good enough to wear the crown, whatever the crown might be) to Leo’s (Alice)one-dimensional family worldview (with nine kids, seven of them girls, that might have been the beginning of wisdom in her case) was uniformly fine. Still, I am glad, glad as hell that I made a left turn away from those Lowell, oops, North Adasmville, corner boys down in the streets making all that noise. But it was a close thing, a very close thing, no question.
 

From The Pages Of The Communist International- In Honor Of The Anniversary Of The Founding Of The Communist International (1919)

From The Pages Of The Communist International- In Honor Of The Anniversary Of The Founding Of The Communist International (1919)

 

 

Click on the headline to link to the Communist International Internet Archives"

Markin comment from the American Left History blog (2007):

BOOK REVIEW

‘LEFT-WING’ COMMUNISM-AN INFANTILE DISORDER, V.I. LENIN, UNIVERSITY PRESS OF THE PACIFIC, CALIFORNIA, 2001

An underlying premise of the Lenin-led Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 was that success there would be the first episode in a world-wide socialist revolution. While a specific timetable was not placed on the order of the day the early Bolshevik leaders, principally Lenin and Trotsky, both assumed that those events would occur in the immediate post-World War I period, or shortly thereafter. Alas, such was not the case, although not from lack of trying on the part of an internationalist-minded section of the Bolshevik leadership.

Another underlying premise, developed by the Leninists as part of their opposition to the imperialist First World War, was the need for a new revolutionary labor international to replace the compromised and moribund Socialist International (also known as the Second International) which had turned out to be useless as an instrument for revolution or even of opposition to the European war. The Bolsheviks took that step after seizing power and established the Communist International (also known as the Comintern or Third International) in 1919. As part of the process of arming that international with a revolutionary strategy (and practice) Lenin produced this polemic to address certain confusions, some willful, that had arisen in the European left and also attempted to instill some of the hard-learned lessons of the Russian revolutionary experience in them.

The Russian Revolution and after it the Comintern in the early heroic days, for the most part, drew the best and most militant layers of the working class and radical intellectuals to their defense. However, that is not the same as drawing experienced Bolsheviks to that defense. Many militants were anti-parliamentarian or anti-electoral in principle after the sorry experiences with the European social democracy. Others wanted to emulate the old heroic days of the Bolshevik underground party or create a minority, exclusive conspiratorial party.

 Still others wanted to abandon the reformist bureaucratically-led trade unions to their then current leaderships, and so on. Lenin’s polemic, and it nothing but a flat-out polemic against all kinds of misconceptions of the Bolshevik experience, cut across these erroneous ideas like a knife. His literary style may not appeal to today’s audience but the political message still has considerable application today. At the time that it was written no less a figure than James P. Cannon, a central leader of the American Communist Party, credited the pamphlet with straightening out that badly confused movement (Indeed, it seems every possible political problem Lenin argued against in that pamphlet had some following in the American Party-in triplicate!). That alone makes it worth a look at.

I would like to highlight one point made by Lenin that has currency for leftists today, particularly American leftists. At the time it was written many (most) of the communist organizations adhering to the Comintern were little more than propaganda groups (including the American party). Lenin suggested one of the ways to break out of that isolation was a tactic of critical support to the still large and influential social democratic organizations at election time. In his apt expression- to support those organizations "like a rope supports a hanging man".

However, as part of my political experiences in America around election time I have run into any number of ‘socialists’ and ‘communists’ who have turned Lenin’s concept on its head. How? By arguing that militants needed to ‘critically support’ the Democratic Party (who else, right?) as an application of the Leninist criterion for critical support. No, a thousand times no. Lenin’s specific example was the reformist British Labor Party, a party at that time (and to a lesser extent today) solidly based on the trade unions- organizations of the working class and no other. The Democratic Party in America was then, is now, and will always be a capitalist party. Yes, the labor bureaucrats and ordinary workers support it, finance it, drool over it but in no way is it a labor party. That is the class difference which even sincere militants have broken their teeth on for at least the last seventy years. And that, dear reader, is another reason why it worthwhile to take a peek at this book.

***********

V. I. Lenin

First Congress of the Communist International

---

Delivered: March 2-6, 1919
First Published: (see details at the end of each section); 1920 (in full)
Source: Lenin Collected Works, Volume 28 (p. 455-477)
Transcription\Markup: Brian Baggins
Online Version:Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000

Background and Description of the First Congress

---

Speech at the Opening Session of the Congress

March 2

On behalf of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party I declare the First Congress of the Communist International open. First I would ask all present to rise in tribute to the finest representatives of the Third International: Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg . ( All rise .)
Comrades, our gathering has great historic significance. It testifies to the collapse of all the illusions cherished by bourgeois democrats. Not only in Russia, but in the most developed capitalist countries of Europe, in Germany for example, civil war is a fact.
The bourgeois are terror-stricken at the growing workers’ revolutionary movement. This is understandable if we take into account that the development of events since the imperialist war inevitably favors the workers’ revolutionary movement, and that the world revolution is beginning and growing in intensity everywhere.
The people are aware of the greatness and significance of the struggle now going on. All that is needed is to find the practical form to enable the proletariat to establish its rule. Such a form is the Soviet system with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship of the proletariat—until now these words were Latin to the masses. Thanks to the spread of the Soviets throughout the world this Latin has been translated into all modern languages; a practical form of dictatorship has been found by the working people. The mass of workers now understand it thanks to Soviet power in Russia, thanks to the Spartacus League in Germany and to similar organizations in other countries, such as, for example, the Shop Stewards Committees in Britain . All this shows that a revolutionary form of the dictatorship of the proletariat has been found, that the proletariat is now able to exercise its rule.
Comrades, I think that after the events in Russia and the January struggle in Germany, it is especially important to note that in other countries, too, the latest form of the workers’ movement is asserting itself and getting the upper hand. Today, for example, I read in an anti-socialist newspaper a report to the effect that the British government had received a deputation from the Birmingham Workers’ Counsel and had expressed its readiness to recognize the Councils as economic bodies. ^[A] The Soviet system has triumphed not only in backward Russia, but also in the most developed country of Europe—in Germany, and in Britain, the oldest capitalist country.
Even though the bourgeoisie are still raging, even though they may kill thousands more workers, victory will be ours, the victory of the worldwide Communist revolution is assured.
Comrades, I extend hearty greetings to you on behalf of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party. I move that we elect a presidium. Let us have nominations. ^[B]

First published in 1920, in German, in the book “Der I. Kongress der Kommunistischen Internationale. Protokoll” in Petrograd. First published in Russian in 1921 in the book “First Congress of the Communist International. Minutes” in Petrograd.

---