Lawsuits for Information on Drones

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Lawsuits for Information on Drones

Lawsuits for Information on Drones

by Stephen Lendman

Drones are increasingly becoming America's weapon of choice. They're used to kill and spy. Domestic warrantless surveillance is illegal.

It's done extrajudicially on a regular basis. By around 2020, eyes in the sky spying will cover America. Fourth Amendment freedoms are null and void. It states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Privacy no longer exists. Drones are now instruments of state terror. No one anywhere is safe. A previous article discussed ACLU lawsuits.

At issue is obtaining legal justification for conducting predator drone killings abroad. The ACLU sued the Defense, State, and Justice Departments. They stonewalled information requests. So did the CIA at a time Obama prioritizes killing by drones.

The ACLU wants information on "when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the US ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings." It faces stiff headwinds getting it.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also filed suit for information. On October 31, it headlined "EFF Demands Answers About Predator Drone Flights in the US: Government Shares Drones with Law Enforcement Agencies Across the Country."

On October 30, EFF sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It functions like a national Gestapo. It doesn't secure. It terrorizes ordinary Americans extrajudicially.

Muslims, immigrants, people of color, and dissidents are most at risk. EFF wants answers about how and why Predator drones are increasingly used for law enforcement.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP - a DHS division) uses UAVs to patrol borders. Video cameras, infrared ones, heat sensors and radar are used for constant spying.

Super high resolution "gigapixel" cameras enable tracking above 20,000 feet. They can monitor up to 65 enemies simultaneously. They can see targets up to 25 miles away.

Electronic transmissions can also be monitored. Cell phones, Wi-Fi networks, and text messages can be intercepted covertly.

Drone use is expanding. Greater surveillance is planned. Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies are involved. "EFF filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking for more information about these drone flights."

EFF stressed immediacy. It wants CBP records and logs on spying done with other agencies. DHS stonewalled. EFF Staff Attorney Jennifer Lynch said:

"We've seen bits and pieces of information on CBP's Predator drones, but Americans deserve the full story."

"Drones are a powerful surveillance tool that can be used to gather extensive data about you and your activities."

"The public needs to know more about how and why these Predator drones are being used to watch U.S. citizens."

On October 30, EFF also sued the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It wants "the latest data on certifications and authorizations the agency has issued for public drone flights in the U.S."

Earlier it filed suit in January. FAA agreed to provide information requested. So far EFF got far less than requested. US secrecy exceeds acceptable standards. It replicates police state levels.

Millions of documents are classified without justification. At issue is concealing what free societies make public. Lynch added:

"FAA's foot-dragging means we can't get a real-time picture of drone activity in the U.S. If officials could release their records in a timely fashion – or publish it as a matter of routine on the FAA website – we could stop filing these FOIA requests and lawsuits."

Predator drones are used to kill abroad. Unarmed UAVs are used domestically. They can be weaponized with tasers, bean bag guns, and other devices able to harm or perhaps kill.

In 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authorized spying through the National Applications Office (NOA). It was described as "the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States."

With or without congressional authorization or oversight, the executive branch may authorize state-of-the-art technology. It includes military satellite imagery and other ways to spy on Americans covertly.

Plans are to monitor virtually everyone everywhere once full implementation is achieved. By 2020, up to 30,000 UAVs may spy domestically. They'll be virtually everywhere across America round the clock.

Privacy rights are gravely impaired. Major constitutional issues are stake. Courts willingly compromise them. Congress did so years ago. It wants domestic drone use fast-tracked. So does Obama.

In February, the FAA Modernization and Reform Act (MRA) of 2012 was enacted. It provides $63.4 billion in FAA funding over four years.

An MRA provision authorizes exponentially expanded domestic drone use. Provisions to ease and quicken law enforcement licensing was approved.

By 2015, commercial operations may apply for drone use authorization. In response to EFF's January lawsuit, information gotten determined that "60 public entities and 12 private drone manufacturers sought permission to fly" drones domestically.

EFF sought but didn't obtain information on how and for what purposes these drones will be used. Federal, state and local authorities will use them extrajudicially for warrantless searches.

Privacy and transparency are on the chopping block for elimination. Big Brother wants everyone watched all the time. There's no place to hide.

The ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, EFF, and similar organizations want government agencies held accountable. It's no simple task at a time repressive laws threaten everyone.

Freedom in America is fast disappearing. It's no exaggeration saying police state justice replaced it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Syria: Tightening the Noose

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Syria: Tightening the Noose

Syria: Tightening the Noose

by Stephen Lendman

Since conflict erupted last year, Washington, other NATO states, and regional allies recruited, armed, funded, trained and directed Syrian insurgents.

Public admissions emerge slowly. Language conceals what's been ongoing all the time. On November 29, CNN said Washington is "weighing whether or not to provide arms to the Syrian opposition."

US Syrian ambassador, Robert Ford, said Obama "never (took) the provision of arms off the table." They've been supplied regularly under it covertly.

On December 9, Los Angeles Times columnist Doyle McManus headlined "A call to arms for Syria's rebels."

Within days, Washington is expected to recognize the illegitimate opposition coalition as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people." In November, Britain and France announced support.

The EU moved closer to official recognition. Member state foreign ministers extended their endorsement. At the same time, Germany expelled four Syrian embassy staff members.

Assad's ambassador was forced out in May. Britain, France, Italy and Spain took similar actions.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said:

"Shortly ahead of" the December 12 Friends of Syria meeting in Morocco, "the EU has given another clear signal of the upgrade and support of the coalition."

He added that doing so "promote(s) the erosion of the Assad regime."

EU members previously accepted Syrian National Council (SNC) 2.0 members (National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces) as representatives of Syrian "aspirations."

They did so despite strong internal Assad support. Majority "aspirations" don't matter. Washington diktats overrule them. That's how imperialism works.

Increased funding and other aid will be provided. US officials argue "that the new national coalition won't succeed in winning support on the ground unless it amasses more of the currency of power in any insurrection: military supplies."

Until September, Frederic C. Hof helped direct State Department policy on Syria. "We need to exercise some leadership and a management role in the arms business," he said.

"We need to try to dominate the logistics and the decision making on who gets what and who doesn't. We need to do it working hand in glove with others; you don't want it to be seen as an exclusively American effort."

He added that public posturing about not wanting to "further militarize the situation….no longer (is) relevant." Of course, it never was. The mask slowly comes off. Reasons why conflict erupted and continues are suppressed.

On December 9, the London Sunday Times said Washington decided to supply Syrian insurgents with heavy weapons. They include rocket-propelled grenades, anti-tank missiles, and anti-aircraft heat-seeking SA-7 missiles.

State Department officials maintain daily contact with insurgent commanders. Obama authorized covert CIA and special forces help months earlier. It's been ongoing for months. Increased aid is planned.

On December 10, the London Guardian headlined "Army's plans to support Syrian rebels," saying:

UK military chiefs drew up "contingency plans to provide Syrian rebels with maritime, and possibly air, power in response to a request from (Prime Minister) David Cameron, senior defense sources said on Monday night."

They added that Britain won't intervene unless America does. At the same time, concerns about doing so were raised.

One unnamed source said, "We are a long way from doing anything. The US is leading the way. We are not there yet."

In November, UK defense chief General David Richards met with senior military officials from America, France, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, and other Gulf states. Strategy was discussed at length.

Other UK officials have been meeting with Western and regional counterparts. At issue is destroying Syria entirely.

Most high-level UK military officials say intervening is far more complex than against Libya last year.

On December 11, the London Independent headlined "Exclusive: UK military in talks to help Syria rebels," saying:

An "independent coalition including Britain" plans to support Syrian insurgents "with air and naval power…."

Washington, key NATO partners, and Gulf allies believe conflict "reached a tipping point and it has become imperative" to help insurgents "make a final push against" Assad.

Western boots on the ground aren't planned. Libya 2.0 appears likely. Doing so will circumvent Security Council authorization.

Installing offensive Patriot missiles in Turkey "camouflage(s) intervention." Claims about doing so for defensive purposes don't wash.

US, British, French, and other NATO officials say intervention "is now inevitable." It's just a matter of when.

On December 9, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) asked, "What comes first - a Syrian chemical attack or a US-led military showdown?"

Fabricated claims about Assad using chemical weapons continue. DF says US, Israeli, Jordanian and Turkish special forces are operating in Syria.

They're armed with special protective gear. They're positioned near alleged "convoys carrying canisters, shells or bombs loaded with poison gas…."

Concerns about non-conventional weapons belie the fact that disquiet about them wasn't raised before nor was anything done about them. Whether destroying them ahead of full-scale Western intervention remains to be seen.

On December 8, Der Spiegel interviewed Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi. He was asked about looming full-scale war on Syria.

He said Assad poses "no threat to the region or world peace."

"Military forces infiltrating Syria" want the conflict "internationalize(d). If the region goes up in flames, then they have achieved their objective."

Without "a sense of proportionality," Western and regional states "will fall into the trap of the extremists."

He knows Washington backs them. US hardliners want pro-Western Islamofacist regimes throughout the region. They want Assad and Iran's government ousted. They'll stop at nothing to achieve their aims. They risk potentially catastrophic conflict.

On December 10, Voice of Russia (VoR) interviewed Damascus Research Center director Bassam Abu Abdullah. He called so-called Friends of Syria its enemies. Washington largely controls them.

"Their goal is to destroy the country by force and use its strategic geographical location for their own purposes."

He called supplying humanitarian aid to Syria "one big lie." So are claims about insurgent successes. Media scoundrel misinformation reports them. It's done to enlist public support and raise opposition forces' morale. Seizing one tank means nothing.

"They suffer hundreds of times more losses, but al Jazeera and al Arabiya are keeping silent about this."

"And as soon as one regular army soldier is killed, they boost, as if they have won a victory over a whole military unit."

"The only problem of the Syrian army is their infinite number of suicide bombers."

He repeated what other Syrian officials said many times. Damascus has no intention of using chemical weapons. At the same time, he fears insurgents may use them "to accuse the Syrian regime of doing this."

Damascus agrees with Russian proposals for peaceful conflict resolution and fair elections. "(T)his is the kind of democracy" that Washington and other Western states forgot, he added.

They deplore it at home and abroad. Washington and key NATO allies want one independent country after another attacked and destroyed. They're willing to ravage the entire region to control it.

Body counts and human misery don't matter. Imperial rogues want dominance at any cost. They used death squads against Libyans. They murdered thousands of Syrians.

Civilians suffer most of all. Assad loyalists are most vulnerable. Dozens or hundreds die daily. At the same time, Syrian forces inflict heavy losses on terrorists. Scoundrel media misinformation suppresses what readers and viewers most need to know.

Washington planned war on Syria years ago. Other countries are enlisted, pressured or bullied to go along. Last year it was Libya. Earlier it was Iraq and Afghanistan.

Proxy wars rage against Yemen, Somalia, and drone-targeted Pakistan areas. Occupied Palestine is attacked multiple times daily. America’s dirty hands are involved. US special forces operate covertly in over 120 countries. CIA elements are everywhere.

Longstanding US policy bears full responsibility for regional carnage and beyond. One war begets others. Obama has lots of governments he wants ousted.

He's got another four years to destroy them one at a time. Perhaps he plans two or more simultaneously. He's America's most belligerent president in history.

He outdid George Bush. He's a war criminal multiple times over. He has years of blood on his hands to answer for. His second term may eclipse his the worst of his first.

At the same time, he's ravaging social America to feed Washington's war machine, enrich corporate favorites, and enforce police state harshness on resisters.

Where this ends who knows. It bears repeating. America never was beautiful. It's no fit place to live in. It's unsafe for anyone opposing government for the privileged few alone. The worst of times approaches. It won't be pretty when it arrives.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Waging War on US Workers

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Waging War on US Workers

Waging War on US Workers

by Stephen Lendman

America's war on workers dates from the 19th century. Labor learned the hard way what it takes to win.

It requires organizing, pressing demands, taking to the streets, going on strike, holding boycotts, battling police and National Guard forces supporting management, as wells paying with blood and lives to get results.

They came. Workers got an eight hour day, a living wage, important benefits, pensions, and passage of the landmark 1935 Wagner Act. For the first time, labor could bargain collectively with management on equal terms.

Grassroots struggles prevailed. Management and government give nothing unless forced to. Today, virtually everything gained was lost. Federal, state and local Republicans and Democrats wage war on worker rights.

Obama did straightaway in office. Serving business ahead of workers became policy. In March 2009, he told auto executives, "We cannot, must not, and will not let this industry vanish."

His message was clear. Business got bailed out. Labor got sold out. Rank and file members were forced to make painful concessions.

They include permanent job losses, temp or part-time employment in place of full-time work, lower wages, fewer benefits, gutted work rules, forfeited security through pensions and retirement benefits, as well as other sacrifices.

Obama showed Democrats can trash worker rights like Republicans. He wants them treated with 19th century harshness.

Organized labor is a shadow of its former self. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder delivered the latest blow. On December 11, he signed right-to-work legislation. It takes effect in April. More on Michigan below.

Twenty-three other states have similar laws.The 1947 Taft-Hartley Labor-Management Relations Act precipitated labor's decline. It's one-sidedly pro-corporate.

Harry Truman called it a "slave labor bill." He hypocritically used it 10 times. No president since matched him. It destroyed hard won Wagner Act benefits.

Union violators face stiff penalties. Corporate bosses at most get hand slaps. "Unfair (union) labor practices" were enacted.

They include jurisdictional strikes (relating to job assignments), secondary boycotts (against firms doing business with companies struck), wildcat strikes, sit-downs, slow-downs, mass-picketing against scabs, closed shops (mandating union membership), and more.

At the same time, Taft-Hartley legalized employer interventions aimed at preventing union organizing. Doing so seriously eroded union bargaining power. Workers were headed on a slippery slope toward losing all rights.

Presidents are empowered to halt strikes by court-ordered injunction for 80 days. They can claim national security or whatever reasons they invent.

Under Section 14(b), states may enact laws exempting workers from union membership as a condition of employment.

Right-to-work laws prohibit unions and workers from entering into agreements requiring they join. They also forbid mandating dues and fees be paid to stay employed.

Although union shops are allowed, states can proscribe them. Non-union members in companies having them get the same benefits as organized workers. Unions call them "free riders."

Right-to-work advocates argue that union membership shouldn't be a condition of employment. Organized labor believes that right-to-work laws let "free riders" benefit at the expense of union members.

Unions also say these laws weaken organized labor en route to destroying it altogether. They attack collective bargaining and worker rights. They earn on average $1,500 less pay and fewer benefits.

Mostly southern and western states have these laws.

Northern ones include Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and now Michigan. Once it was one of the most unionized states in America. No longer.

Less than 20% of its public and private workers are organized. Right-to-work legislation assures many more will lose out.

Indiana, under Republican Governor Mitch Daniels, became the first midwest state to adopt right-to-work. It was the first state to do so since Oklahoma in 2001.

Union bosses bear much responsibility. They resist weakly, then yield. They accept false notions that lower wages and fewer benefits make companies and states more competitive. They betray their rank and file in the process.

A race to the bottom heads workers toward near wage slave status. In November 2003, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) offered hope. It went nowhere during Bush's tenure. Obama was no friendlier.

In July 2009, he and Senate Democrats agreed to eliminate EFCA's "card check" provision from pending legislation.

It would have required employers to recognize the right to organize once most workers signed union cards freely and openly. Hope for passage died. So did worker rights.

Union bosses side more with management than rank and file. So do government officials. The UAW reflects organized labor's decline. At about 380,000, its membership barely exceeds one-third its total eight years ago.

In the 1950s, about 35% of workers were organized. In 1979, it was around 24%. At the end of the Reagan era, it was 16.8%. In 2007, it was 12%. In 2011, it was 11.8% and declining.

Public union membership is about 37%. Less than 7% of private workers are organized. It's the lowest percentage in over 100 years. Unionized worker membership is the lowest since Depression era organizing struggles.

Democrats, Republicans and union bosses conspire to let workers live or die by market-based rules rigged against them.

Michigan is the latest battleground. Right-to-work was enacted. United Auto Workers (UAW) bosses did nothing to block it. They betrayed their rank and file. They did numerous times before.

Other union heads operate the same way. They feign worker support while conspiring against them behind their backs. They're well compensated for selling out.

They're not about to sacrifice their own welfare for rank and file members they represent.

Workers have been ill-represented for decades. The 1981 PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) strike was seminal. It was a shot across organized labor's bow.

Over 11,000 workers lost jobs. AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland conspired with Ronald Reagan in union-busting. During the 1980s alone, coal miner, steel worker, bus driver, airline worker, copper miner, auto worker, and meatpacker strikes were defeated.

Union bosses sold out worker interests. They virtually abandoned their most effective weapon. They rarely strike. They block collective struggle.

They tell rank and file members one thing, then spurn them privately. UAW president Bob King conspired with Michigan Governor Snyder the way he and other union bosses do with management.

Dues workers pay goes to anti-worker Democrats. It also affords union bosses substantial six-figure salaries, generous benefits, and affluent lifestyles.

In January, King spent thousands of dollars of union dues traveling to Davos, Switzerland. He participated in the 2012 World Economic Forum.

Global high-level business, political, media, academic, think tank, and union bosses met. Each year, they flaunt predatory capitalism and party. They plot year ahead strategies.

They advance their own interests at the expense or workers and others losing out. They do it annually. Showing up makes union bosses complicit in securing the divine right of capital.

No wonder unionism today is a shadow of its former self. It's headed for extinction without committed worker activism to save it.

Union bosses are their enemies, not allies. Rank and file members are on their own to fight back. They won’t regain lost rights any other way.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

From The American Left History Blog Archives (2007-08) - On American Political Discourse – Stalinist Bric-a-Brac (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      

************
Stalinist Bric-a-Brac

On more than one occasion in the recent past I have had to reflect on the devilish harm that Stalinism has done, and still does, to the international working class movement. Here I am not just reflecting on the political gangsterism, the labor camps, the freezing of political life in the Soviet Union and elsewhere where Stalinists had influence. Those things certainly occurred under various Stalinist regimes but I refer here to the underlying crime, from a political perspective, of the conscious effort on the part of those regimes and parties to act as a road block to an international socialist society-the only way out of the crisis facing humankind in the age of international imperialism. The net result is that the fight for socialism has been pushed back, way back, and our fight is infinitely harder than it was at the start of the last century. With that in mind here are a couple of random comments on Stalin and Stalinism:

I have been recently reading Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore (Knopf, New York, 2007), which I will review more fully later, about the early years of this much misunderstood figure in world socialist history. Misunderstood? Yes. I have long argued that the Bolshevik revolutionary Leon Trotsky, among others including myself, never took the full measure of this foe. That lack showed itself in Trotsky’s writings on Stalinism placing it as simply a counter-posed reformist trend, like post World War I social democracy, in the international workers movement. Further evidence can be found in his sense that Stalin was, in the end, merely a rather vicious representative of another reformist trend in the movement. I confess that I also have shared those same misunderstanding even at the times when I was very close ideologically to Stalinism (especially my infatuation with the ‘third period’ Stalinism of the early 1930’s).

 Here is what has always perplexed me about the figure of Stalin. How did a professed follower of Marx, a Bolshevik revolutionary of some merit and ability who faced all the usual exiles and other hardships that Lenin, Trotsky and others faced under Czarism and one presumably committed to a socialist future turn all of those ideas on their heads in the process of creating what in the end was a weak national variant of ‘socialism’. The book under review delves into some of those points concerning Stalin’s personality and his not unique combination of mafia don and committed revolutionary we have found in the history of revolutionary movements. A closer look at his time at the Tiflis Russian Orthodox Seminary, seemingly a training school for atheists and revolutionaries perhaps will shed some light. Thus far in my reading though, although  Montefiore uses  recent sources opened up in various Soviet archives, most of the material about Stalin/Koba’s youth were things known to me through Trotsky’s and other writings. I will just pose the question here for now with the same quizzical feeling that I started with long ago.    I am definitely looking for comments on this issue.       

Welcome Home, Gorby

 Recent news, reported by the Associated Press, out of Moscow is that former Soviet Premier and General Secretary of the All Russian Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev has been elected to lead the Russian Union of Social Democrats. Well, the chickens have finally come home to roost. After doing everything in his power to hand back East Germany to the German imperialists Gorbachev  then did everything in his power to hand back the then Soviet Union to international imperialism. His milk toast theory that somehow ‘market socialism’ would save the Soviet economy rather than a necessary extensive international socialist centralized planning helped grease the skids. Yes, we  were all glad for any opening of the political scene in the last period before the demise  but in the end this combination of economic reform and de-icing of the political scene proved too little too late along the Stalinist path.

And that is exactly the point. These Stalinist bureaucrats, and third generation Soviet bureaucrats at that, could only envision some kind of social-democratic merging of the Soviet economy with Western ‘social’ capitalism. Well we know that all those convergence theories, no matter how appealing for public consumption, were houses of cards.  Christ, in the end they could not even envision saving their own hides.

When the deal went down, as Lenin and all serious Bolsheviks knew, over the long haul either socialism or imperialism had to win. We have reaped the sorrows of that defeat for the international working class.  

Leon Trotsky once called Stalinists Mensheviks (Social Democrats) of the second mobilization. That is, as the revolutionary energy of the Russian Revolution ebbed and the Stalinists usurped power and changed the purposes for which the Soviet Union was created their political positions resembled the old Menshevik (and post World War I  European social democratic)  positions of limiting the fight for socialism to some far away future.  I have long argued that Stalinism without state power is just another garden variety reformist façade. As an example, in America, where the Communist Party was historically weak, it was hard to tell the difference between them and an average Democrat, except for the goon squads they brought into play when they wanted to protect the ‘liberals’ from those to their left.  And that, my friends, is why Gorby’s new post is an appropriate place for him. As for us- we fight for new Octobers.           

 

Pardon Private Manning Stand-Out-Central Square, Cambridge, Wednesday December 19th, 5:00 PM

Stand In Solidarity With Private Manning As We Celebrate His Birthday (December 17^th)

Let’s Redouble Our Efforts To Free Private Bradley Manning-President Obama Pardon Bradley Manning -Make Every Town Square In America (And The World) A Bradley Manning Square From Boston To Berkeley to Berlin-Join Us In Central Square, Cambridge, Ma. For A Stand-Out For Bradley- Wednesday December 19th From 5:00-6:00 PM

***********

The Private Bradley Manning case is headed toward a mid- winter trial now scheduled for March 2013. The recent news on his case has centered on the many (since last April) pre-trial motions hearings including defense motions to dismiss for lack of speedy trial (Private Manning’s pre-trial confinement is now entering 900 plus days), dismissal as a matter of freedom of speech and alleged national security issues (issues for us to know what the hell the government is doing either in front of us, or behind our backs) and dismissal based on serious allegations of torturous behavior by the military authorities extending far up the chain of command while Private Manning was detained in Kuwait and at the Quantico Marine brig for about a year ending in April 2011. Some recent news from the November 2012 pre-trail sessions is the offer by the defense to plead guilty to lesser charges (wrongful, unauthorized use of the Internet, etc.) in order to clear the deck and have the major (with a possibility of a life sentence) espionage /aiding the enemy issue solely before the court-martial judge (a single military judge, the one who has been hearing the pre-trial motions, not a lifer-stacked panel).    

For the past several months there has been a weekly stand-out in Greater Boston across from the Davis Square Redline MBTA stop (renamed Pardon Bradley Manning Square for the stand-out’s duration) in Somerville on Friday afternoons but we have since July 4, 2012 changed the time and day to 4:00-5:00 PM on Wednesdays. This Wednesday December 19th  at 5:00 PM  in order to continue to broaden our outreach we, in lieu of our regular Davis Square stand-out, are meeting in Central Square , Cambridge, Ma.(small park  at the corner of Massachusetts Avenue  and Prospect Street) for a stand-out for Private Manning. President Obama Pardon Private Manning Now!  

 

Join us at the Fort Meade hearings to stand with Brad

digg

Alleged WikiLeaks whistle-blower PFC Bradley Manning is back in court soon for his next pre-trial motion hearing. We encourage everyone to attend! The next scheduled court dates are:

• January 8-11 – various motions, including the government’s motion to exclude Bradley Manning’s motive from the merits portion
• January 16–17
• February 5-8
• Trial to start either March 6 or March 18, depending on pending motions and hearings

On hearing days, we usually hold a vigil from 8:00 am to 9:30 am in front of the Fort Meade Main Gate at Reece Road and US 175 (Google map). Afterwards, we enter Fort Meade (via the Visitor Control Center), and go to the courtroom.
It has been over two years since his arrest, and the government is continuing to delay and extend the trial timeline. Help us show Bradley we care by filling the court room!
To enter Fort Meade, bring a government issued ID, such as a state issued drivers license or passport. Non-US passports are accepted. Be prepared to remove any shirts or buttons that show support for Bradley Manning while on base.
If you are driving onto Fort Meade, make sure to:

• Have your up-to-date vehicle registration
• Have your up-to-date vehicle insurance (printed copy–not a electronic version on your mobile phone)
• Obey posted speed limits (they are strictly enforced by military police–especially for “special visitors”)
• Be prepared to cover “political” bumper stickers on your vehicle with tape

Unlike most trials, the government is refusing to release any official transcripts of the trials. It is up to the public to attend, and comment on, what happens inside the otherwise secretive court room. Thank you for your support and please join us at Fort Meade!
Getting there:

From Washington, D.C.

• Take MD-295 NORTH towards BALTIMORE to US 175 EAST. Take 175 EAST until you come to the Reece Road intersection (there is a traffic light). Turn right at the traffic light onto Reece road, and proceed to the Visitor Control Center to your right.

From Baltimore, M.D.

• Take MD-295 SOUTH towards WASHINGTON DC to US 175 EAST. Take 175 EAST until you come to the Reece Road intersection (there is a traffic light). Turn right at the traffic light onto Reece road, and proceed to the Visitor Control Center to your right.

Visitor Control Center

• Fort Meade is a ‘closed’ post, all visitors should go to the Visitor Control Center at the Reece Road gate for access information. This information may change from day to day. There is a parking lot outside of the Visitor Control Center.

Courtroom

• After entering Fort Meade at Reece Road, drive or walk to the Magistrate Court, 4432 Llewellyn Avenue, Fort Meade, MD. It is 2 miles from the Visitor Control Center. There is usually parking available near the courtroom. There are no electronic devices allowed through the security check to enter the courtroom–you must leave your mobile phone in your vehicle (or someone’s vehicle).

If you have any questions about attending the court room proceedings, and the vigil please contact emma@bradleymanning.org

Update 12/10/12: Bradley Manning is the Guardian’s 2012 Person of the Year, and the NYT finally appears in court to cover the trial.

digg

Outside All Souls Unitarian church during the presentation by Bradley Manning’s attorney David Coombs. Read more about it.

Bradley Manning, the heroic whistle-blower who exposed war crimes through WikiLeaks, has won the Guardian’s Person of the Year 2012. He received an astounding 70% of the vote, revealing an incredible amount of public support. (Read more…)
Last week, the NYT public editor wrote a scathing editorial criticizing the lack of coverage by the NYT of the Bradley Manning hearing. The piece, titled “The Times Should Have a Reporter at the Bradley Manning Hearing” , points out that given the importance of these hearings, it is certainly odd that the NYT would not cover them. (Read more…)

Thankfully, pressure and protest of the lack of coverage was heard,

The New York Times “finally assigned a reporter, Scott Shane, to the courtroom, for part of one day, last Friday, but only after a barrage of criticism, including from the paper’s new public editor, Margaret Sullivan” writes Greg Mitchell in the Nation. After initially covering the Bradley Manning story in depth, reporting extensively on the documents published by WikiLeaks, the NYT was mysteriously absent during the last year, and particularly during some of the most important testimony in the hearing – including the testimony of Bradley Manning himself . The lack of coverage spurred much protest, and after the NYT public editor joined in the criticism, a reporter was finally sent to cover the trial. (Read more…)

But…

Jesselyn Radack, of the Government Accountability Project, rips into the NYT piece, pointing out severe contradictions and context that were missed by the NYT reporter who only spent one hour at the hearing (which included two weeks of testimony). She writes, “On the ninth day of Manning’s torture hearing–one of the most important legal proceedings of the past decade–I was heartened to see that the New York Times finally showed up to cover the case.” She argues that had the reporter stayed longer, he would never have taken the testimony he heard at face value. So while thankful that the NYT did send a reporter, it is obvious that more pressure needs to be exerted on the Times. Reports based on one hour of testimony cannot begin to put into context. Radack points out that the testimony of Barnes contradicted that of other guards who had testified earlier in the week, and the NYT article missed this completely. The most glaring contradiction being that Barnes argued that Bradley Manning was not forced to stand naked outside his cell, when other testimony clearly showed he had. She writes,

“In her direct testimony, Barnes contradicted the testimony of multiple other prosecution witnesses on a number of key issues. One of the most glaring contradictions is that she testified that Manning, whose underwear was being confiscated at night, had been given his clothes back every morning, but for some reason decided to stand for morning count naked. (Everyone else testified that his clothes had not been returned to him that morning, but that he should have “known” to cover himself with his blanket. Manning testifies that he did cover himself with a blanket, but dropped it after being told he was not properly standing at parade rest.”

Radack concludes by pointing out that Barnes was the Chief Officer, and responsible for Bradley’s care – but that she ordered the removal his underwear not out of concern with his well being, but to punish him unlawfully. Further, her and Averheart (her predecessor), both ignored the advice and recommendations of multiple mental health professionals, ignored military regulations, and did not care about Bradley Manning’s well being. (Read more…)
Kevin Gosztola, a journalist at FireDogLake who has covered the Bradley Manning hearing extensively from the beginning, also answered the NYT with a piece titled “New York Times Finally Shows Up to Cover Bradley Manning Proceedings (And Their Story Is Sloppy).” He points out a few errors in the NYT article, such as reference to unlawful pretrial punishment in Kuwait – and he asserts that the Defense made it clear during the proceedings that they only sought to address the unlawful pretrial punishment of Bradley Manning during his incarceration at Quantico. Gosztola points out that while the NYT article reports on much, there was no way they could have known this as the reporter only spent 1 hour at the day long hearing before leaving. Most importantly, Gosztola addresses the lack of context in the article surrounding the testimony by CWO2 Barnes, where the Times missed the inconsistencies and contradictions that had been revealed over the course of two weeks of testimony. (Read more…)

Nonetheless…

The New York Times writes “In WikiLeaks Case, Defense Puts the Jailers on Trial.” In the last two weeks, the article points out that the defense has turned the tables on the government. The authors write,

“Mr. Coombs, a polite but relentless interrogator who stands a foot taller than his client, has laid bare deep disagreements inside the military: psychiatrists thought the special measures unnecessary, while jail commanders ignored their advice and kept the suicide restrictions in place. In a long day of testimony last week, Private Manning of the Army, vilified as a dangerous traitor by some members of Congress but lauded as a war-crimes whistle-blower on the political left, heartened his sympathizers with an eloquent and even humorous performance on the stand.

Let’s hope coverage continues to improve, as public support continues to grow for the heroic whistle-blower. (Read more…)

“My name is Robert Barker. I am retired and worked for thirty years as a Lutheran pastor, as well as being a chaplain in the U.S. Army Reserve for seven years. I support Bradley Manning and his leaking the Collateral Murder video and other material to Wikileaks thus exposing the U.S. war crimes in Iraq. This was on a par with Daniel Ellsberg leaking The Pentagon Papers.”

Submit your photo to the ‘I Am Bradley Manning’ campaign.

Hearing that detailed Bradley’s torture closes

digg

The defense and prosecution made closing arguments yesterday in the motion hearing addressing the unlawful pretrial punishment of Bradley Manning. The defense contended that the influence of a three-star general broke down the chain of command, allowing those responsible for Bradley Manning to treat him ‘like a zoo animal’ while the prosecution argued that while Bradley was not treated normally, the actions of Quantico officers were simply ‘cautious.’

Closing arguments. Live blog

By the Bradley Manning Support Network. December 12, 2012.
Defense attorney David Coombs made his closing arguments yesterday in the motion hearing addressing the unlawful pretrial punishment of Bradley Manning at the Quantico Marine brig. The defense’s motion, which was published last July on Coombs’s blog, seeks to dismiss all the charges against Bradley, or alternatively, to give a 10-1 sentencing credit. Bradley Manning was held in “Prevention of Injury” maximum custody for 9 months, which was effectively solitary confinement. Mental health professionals working with Bradley testified that his treatment was akin to that used by interrogators and worse than that given to prisoners on death row. They also testified that they frequently recommended the restrictive status be removed and that he be allowed to socialize with other inmates, else his condition could worsen. The recommendations of mental health professionals were ignored – and the testimony revealed that this was due to command influence from above. As both mental health provider Cpt. Hocter and attorney David Coombs pointed out, it was a testament to Bradley Manning’s strong character that he did not break down completely during his nine-month incarceration at Quantico.
At the start of the defense’s closing arguments, Judge Lind asked Coombs to detail how Bradley Manning’s treatment amounted to unlawful pretrial punishment. Coombs carefully laid out evidence that had emerged in nearly two weeks of testimony. First, nine months in POI status, he said, was unheard of. Testimony revealed that at any other facility, detainees would not be held in such a status for more than four days, after which if there was still a concern that they might harm themselves, they would be transferred to a mental health facility where appropriate treatment would be administered. Second, three mental health professionals testified that nine months in solitary confinement could be severely harmful to Bradley Manning. During his detention these experts frequently advised the brig to remove Bradley Manning from POI status, and these recommendations were intentionally ignored. That brig officers ignored their own mental health experts also ran contrary to the Head of Marine Corrections’ testimony on correct brig protocol. As Coombs argued, “logic somehow did not ever get into the world of Quantico when it came to the case of PFC Manning.”
Read complete notes from the closing arguments. Also see Ed Pilkington’s article in the Guardian. And in case you missed them here are our daily reports:

Day 1.
Day 2.
Day 3.
Day 4.
Day 5.
Day 6.
Day 7 & 8.
Day 9.
Day 10.
Day 11.

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!