Anti-war news from Bay Area United Against War, an activist-oriented newsletter based in San Francisco, CA.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
BAUAW NEWSLETTER: TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2014
Urgent Update: Be there: Tues, 5 pm for evening shift! West Oakland Bart Block the Ship: Zim still hasn't unloaded cargo!!!
We successfully blockaded again this morning with about 50-60 activists.
We did it again! Details to come later. The Israeli Zim Apartheid ship has still not unloaded a single container! But the ship is still docked waiting to be unloaded. We need a stronger presence for the pm shift...please come if you can.
Bay Area activists united for Palestine have made a huge victory this week!
Urgent:
We need as many people as possible to be at West Oakland BART at 5pm
this evening to continue this historic blockade!!
NO APARTHEID SHIP IN OUR SAN FRANCISCO BAY!
Occupation is a Crime, from Afghanistan to Palestine!
Mexican Consulate: 532 Folsom Street, San
Francisco, CA (between 1st & 2nd) Sponsored by Bay Area Radical
Women, Yo Soy 132, and Freedom Socialist Party.
Mexican Consulate: 532 Folsom Street, San
Francisco, CA (between 1st & 2nd) Sponsored by Bay Area Radical
Women, Yo Soy 132, and Freedom Socialist Party.Protest the
wrongful imprisonment of Nestora Salgado, a U.S./Mexican indigenous
woman held in prison on trumped up charges. Salgado helped the poor in
her Guerrero hometown to form a defense squad to protect themselves from
narco-traffickers and their gangs. This angered corrupt politicians and
mining companies who are colluding to drive the local people off their
land. Nestora represents hundreds of people in self-defense groups who
have been jailed for defending their communities against powerful,
politically connected criminal cartels.
August 21 is the one year anniversary of Nestora’s incarceration. Mexican
Consulate: 532 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA (between 1st &
2nd) Sponsored by Bay Area Radical Women, Yo Soy 132, and Freedom
Socialist Party. Endorsers include American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, Local 3299, University of California,
Chiapas Support Committee, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
(LCLAA), SF, Latin-American and Latino/a Studies Department, CCSF;
Socialist Action; National Lawyers Guild and more.
To endorse or for more information, contact Bob at 415-864-1278 or FreeNestora.SanFrancsico@gmail.com www.freenestora.org
Click
here to see the current Freedom Socialist. To subscribe to the FS by
postal mail, email, or audio CD, visit here or send $10 for one year or
$17 for two to Freedom Socialist, 5018 Rainier Ave. S., Seattle, WA
98118.
To subscribe to the FS by postal mail, email, or audio CD, visit here. Please contribute to sustain our work. You can donate now via PayPal To
see the booklist at Red Letter Press or to find out more about the
Freedom Socialist Party, go to www.socialism.com, or reply to this
message. We would love to hear from you! Friend on Facebook | Forward to a friend Bay Area Freedom Socialist Party Keep up with FSP's activities
Our mailing address is: 747 Polk St., San Francisco, CA 94109 Telephone: 415-864-1278 baFSP@earthlink.net *---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Join Week of Action: Sat., Aug. 23 – Fri., Aug. 29, 2014
San Francisco, CA
Date/Time/Location TBD
Info: sf@defendwomensrights.org or 415-375-9502 Take Action for Women’s Equality Day Say NO to the Status Quo—Full Equality for All Women! Full Reproductive Rights Now! Free Marissa Alexander! Equal Pay for Equal Work! End Violence Against Women!
http://www.defendwomensrights.org/
Aug.
26 marks Women’s Equality Day—a celebration of the hard-fought struggle
for women’s suffrage that was won in 1918. Today, almost 100 years
later, women have made many gains in the struggle for equality. Almost
100 years later, the struggle for full equality continues.
There
is much that has not been won. In 2014, women are still paid less than
men for equal work; Latina women are paid 55 percent of what men earn,
Black women 67 percent and white women 78 percent. Worldwide, 35 percent
of women experience sexual violence. Society then sweeps sexual
violence under the rug—shaming victims and protecting attackers.
Marissa
Alexander’s case—among many others—highlights the contradictions of a
society that punishes victims of abuse when they defend themselves.
Marissa Alexander is a 33-year-old African American woman, mother, and
survivor of domestic violence. Under mandatory minimum sentencing laws,
Marissa was sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending herself
against an abuser in the same state that let George Zimmerman walk free.
Though the original sentence was thrown out by the judge, Marissa is
still being prosecuted and State Prosecutor Angela Corey has announced
she intends to seek a 60-year sentence. All charges against Marissa
should be dropped! We must stand with Marissa, demand her freedom, and
fight to end all forms of violence against women!
Recently,
reactionary politicians and groups have targeted our reproductive
rights—trying to overturn Roe v Wade through federal and state
legislation that denies women the right to abortion, denies us access to
birth control and criminalizes certain behaviors for pregnant women.
There is an ongoing offensive to defund Planned Parenthood and other
centers that provide not only reproductive health care, but also
critical preventative health services. The latest attack has come in the
form of the Supreme Court’s decision that Hobby Lobby’s owners’
religious convictions were more important than the reproductive health
care of the women who work there.
Women’s bodies belong to no one
but themselves. We should have the right to control our own bodies, and
determine how and when we get pregnant and give birth. Access to
abortion and birth control are part and parcel of reproductive health
care—and shouldn’t be isolated from health care in general. Likewise,
women look forward to the day when we are safe to walk down the street,
and when our bodies are not objectified and commodified. We are
struggling for a day when we are not paid less just because of our
gender or more likely to live in poverty because of it.
That day
is entirely possible. But is only possible if we organize and mobilize
to challenge the status quo that perpetuates and institutionalizes
inequality. Join WORD in building the struggle for full equality.
On
Women’s Equality Day, WORD (Women Organized to Resist and Defend) will
be holding speak-outs, forums and other actions to celebrate the gains
demanding “Say no to the status quo—full equality for all women!” Join
us in cities across the country between Saturday, August 23 and Friday,
August 29, 2014. Attend an event in your city or organize one.
PEOPLE'S CLIMATE RALLY in solidarity with the historic September 21 NYC event called by 350.org and hundreds of local and national environmental, trade union and social justice organizations across the country.
All Out for Sun., Sept. 21
2 pm – 5 pm
Oakland's Lake Merritt Park Amphitheater
Amphitheater is the new grassy area at the end of Lake Merritt near 12th Street, across from the Henry J. Kaiser Center, a few blocks from Lake Merritt BART Station.
The historic NYC protest on Sunday, September 21 is 2 days before the UN Climate Summit of world leaders. Tragically, more inaction or inadequate action can be expected. We want to show the world that the climate crisis can no longer be ignored, that the planet earth is burning, that massive & unprecedented measures must be taken now to assure humanity’s future.
The People’s Climate March is shaping up to be one of the largest climate justice
mobilizations in history, with organizers of the march setting a goal
of getting a half million people to demonstrate in NYC.
For additional information: http://peoplesclimatemarch.org While people all over the country are mobilizing for New York, many of us will gather in support in Oakland.
Let's make the West Coast Solidarity action a great success!
• For a world with an economy that works for people and the planet
• For a world safe from the ravages of climate change
• For a world with good jobs, clean air and water, peace and justice and healthy communities
Bay Area September 21 Coalition: Co-sponsors (Very initial list! Add your organization now!): 350 Bay Area; Sunflower Alliance; System Change Not Climate Change; KPFA; Peninsula Peace and Justice Center; Social Justice Committee/Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists; Our Place in the World; Adam Hochschild, author/founder Mother Jones magazine; Green Party of Alameda County; United National Antiwar Coalition; Democratic Socialists East Bay; Alameda County Peace and Freedom Party; No. Calif. Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism; Socialist Action; Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal; Oakland Socialist Group; Bay Area Solidarity; Dr. Jack Rasmus, Host, Alternative Visions Radio Show/Progressive Radio Network; International Socialist Organization; San Francisco Bay View newspaper; One Hundred Thousand Poets for Change; CodePink Bay Area; Multifaith Voices for Peace & Justice; Food & Water Watch; Cesar Chavez Holiday Parade and Festival; San Jose Peace and Justice Center, Bay Area IWW; 350 Santa Cruz; SF Sierra Club; Peace Action of San Mateo County; Solar Justice; Sonoma County Peace and Justice Center; Project Censored
Send your endorsement to: endorse@BayAreaSept21.org
2) Israeli ship remains at sea as thousands of protesters gather in Oakland
Blockade delayed as word spreads that ship is off the coast of California, closer to Santa Cruz, and won’t be docking that day
By Rebecca Bowe at the Port of Oakland
August 17, 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/israeli-ship-remains-at-sea-thousands-protesters-gather
An
Israeli ship that was scheduled to dock at the port of Oakland in
California on Saturday remained at sea as between 2,000 and 3,000
pro-Palestinian activists streamed towards the port entrance, chanting
and waving flags.
The protesters intended to form a picket line to prevent work crews from unloading the ship.
Activists
had originally planned to meet at 5am for a blockade of the Zim
Integrated Shipping Services vessel, but word that its arrival had been
delayed prompted organisers to push the protest back until later in the
afternoon.
The event began with a brief rally at a nearby
transit station, followed by a march to the port. Sameh Ayesh, a
21-year-old Palestinian activist with the San Francisco-based Arab Youth
Organisation, led the crowd in a chant.
“We’re gonna block the boat,” he called into a megaphone. “Block, block the boat.”
But
before the march had even reached the port entrance, an activist who
identified himself as Eyad delivered word that the Zim vessel would not
be docking that day. An online ship tracking service showed that the
vessel was off the coast of California, closer to Santa Cruz, as the
march got under way.
Activists interpreted the delay as a
victory since the schedule change seemed to have been made in response
to the planned pickets. “We have stopped the Zim Piraeus from docking on
the west coast of the United States,” said Eyad, of the Arab Resource
and Organising Center (Aroc), into a megaphone, drawing cheers from the
crowd as the march came to a halt on a bridge leading towards the docks.
“Zim Lines is the largest Israeli shipping company, and it’s a huge
flow of capital for the state of Israel,” said Lara Kiswani, executive
director of the centre, whose organisation was one of 70 to take part in
planning the blockade.
Kiswani said the action was meant to
generate momentum for a broader campaign calling for boycott, divestment
and sanctions against the Israeli government as a response to violence
in Gaza. “With the recent attacks on Palestine … there’s been a lot of
discussion locally, particularly with Aroc, on how to escalate our
tactics,” she said.
A similar blockade against a Zim vessel took
place in 2010, when pro-Palestinian activists formed picket lines in
response to Israel’s attack on a flotilla ferrying humanitarian outreach
workers to Gaza. “After the flotilla was attacked by the state of
Israel, we successfully were able to block the Zim Lines ship here, with
the ILWU,” Kiswani said. “So for years we were working with ILWU, with
rank and file, and with the leadership, to try and raise awareness about
the plight of Palestinians.” In 1984, she added, “ILWU took a position
against apartheid, and the workers refused to unload that ship”.
As
the march reached the port entrance, where activists had originally
planned to stage a picket, they encountered a line of police officers
standing in formation. Protesters erupted into chants of, “hands up,
don’t shoot!” – echoing chants sounded in response to police violence
directed against street protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, in the wake of
the fatal police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
Several
others made statements linking recent acts of police brutality with the
conflict in Gaza. “On Twitter, we’ve seen people in Gaza tweet to
protesters in Ferguson how to cope with teargas,” said Mohamed Shehk,
who helped organise the blockade with the Oakland-based nonprofit
Critical Resistance. “They’re saying things like, ‘as Palestinians, we
know what it’s like to be targeted and killed for being of the wrong
ethnicity’.”
The Guardian is seeking comment from the port of Oakland and the Zim shipping company.
3) Police in Ferguson Arrest Protesters Who Defied Curfew
FERGUSON,
Mo. — Hours after Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri imposed a midnight-to-5
a.m. curfew on Saturday in this small city, a group of protesters defied
the order and violence flared briefly on Sunday morning, a week after
demonstrations erupted over the killing of an unarmed black teenager by a
white police officer.
A clash between the protesters and dozens
of police officers in riot gear began less than 30 minutes after the
curfew took effect and ended about 45 minutes later with the arrest of
seven people, all charged with “failure to disperse,” officials said.
The
protesters had moved toward the officers — some of whom rode in armored
vehicles — and chanted: “We are Mike Brown! We have the right to
assemble peacefully!” invoking the name of the 18-year-old who was shot
and killed by the Ferguson officer.
“You are violating the
state-imposed curfew,” a police officer told the demonstrators as rain,
heavy at times, passed through the area.Protesters tossed at least one
bottle rocket, the police said, and at the apparent sound of gunshots
from a restaurant at the end of one street, demonstrators scrambled to
safety.
Despite an earlier pledge by Capt. Ronald S. Johnson,
the state Highway Patrol commander who is overseeing security in
Ferguson, the police eventually began firing smoke grenades and some
tear gas.
At a news conference
about 3 a.m. on Sunday, Captain Johnson explained that some tear gas
had been used because the police had learned that armed men were inside a
barbecue restaurant. One man with a gun had moved to the middle of the
street, Captain Johnson said, but escaped. Another man, who was not
identified, was shot by an unknown assailant and taken by companions to a
hospital, where he was reported to be in critical condition. A police
car was fired upon, the captain added, but it was not immediately clear
if it was hit.
As the news briefing ended, Captain Johnson was asked whether the curfew would continue, but he did not answer.
The
initial curfew announcement came at another news conference, on
Saturday afternoon, when Governor Nixon declared a state of emergency
here.
“This is not to silence the people of Ferguson, but to
address those who are drowning out the voice of the people with their
actions,” Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, told reporters and residents at a
church in Ferguson. “We will not allow a handful of looters to endanger
the rest of this community. If we’re going to achieve justice, we must
first have and maintain peace.”
Mr. Nixon added: “This is a test. The eyes of the world are watching.”
The
announcement prompted cries of protest and anguish from some members of
the public who attended the news conference, with many of them arguing
that a curfew would lead only to new confrontations. Some people begged
to be able to go into the streets to try to calm any violence, but
Captain Johnson said the curfew would be put in place and enforced.
“We
won’t enforce it with trucks, we won’t enforce it with tear gas, we
will enforce it with communication,” Captain Johnson said. “We will be
telling people, ‘It’s time to go home.’ ”
Mr. Nixon’s
announcement, at the Greater St. Mark Family Church, near the site of
the unrest, came a week after the death of Mr. Brown, who was shot by
Officer Darren Wilson, a six-year police veteran. The police said that
Mr. Brown had been stopped for walking down the middle of the street and
that a scuffle had ensued, ending in gunfire; other eyewitnesses have
disputed that account.
At times during the news conference on
Saturday, Mr. Nixon and Captain Johnson both appeared chagrined by the
spectacle, the governor curtly telling one prospective questioner, “I’ll
let you yell at me next.”
Mr. Nixon described the looting and
violence as the work of an isolated few, but emphasized that a curfew
was necessary to restore order in a community where residents have
complained that basic services, like summoning an ambulance through a
911 call, have been disrupted.
The curfew came under quick attack
from some people in the church and from protesters whom Captain Johnson
credited with assisting the police in maintaining order.
“Right
now, I want to make sure that my people don’t get hurt tonight,” said
Malik Z. Shabazz of Black Lawyers for Justice. He said his group would
bring a lawsuit challenging the treatment of Ferguson residents by the
police in the initial days of turmoil.
He added: “It’s Saturday
night. Midnight is an early time, and I have to be able to go to my
people with credibility in order for them to come out of those streets.
Twelve midnight is early. I cleared it Thursday at 1:30, no problem. But
if I can get till 1:30, 2 tonight, it would all go peacefully, no
problem. Twelve midnight is a problem.”
Some residents shouted at
the governor, including one man who said, “We will not get sleep until
we get justice for Michael Brown!”
But the announcement was
greeted with relief from some elected officials, who have struggled to
hold off the faction of protesters who have engaged in looting.
“I
don’t know what the answer is, but there has to be some type of
response because it’s only getting worse out there,” Patricia Bynes, a
black Democratic committeewoman for Ferguson Township, said. “People are
fed up with police brutality and police harassment. There is still so
much racism and discrimination in this region, ingrained in the business
world and the communities. This is what happens when institutional
racism continues.”
Mr. Brown’s shooting is being investigated by
the Justice Department. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
have been flooding into Ferguson, seeking witnesses. Locally, the case
is being handled by the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert McCulloch,
but there have been calls to have the case shifted to a special
prosecutor, in part because of criticism that Mr. McCulloch has not been
rigorous in prosecuting law enforcement officers in high-profile cases.
Since last Sunday, Ferguson has seesawed between extremes: order and unrest, protests and looting.
It
has seen peaceful demonstrations by day and often ugly clashes at night
between highly militarized police officers and angry protesters calling
for justice for Mr. Brown. On Thursday, President Obama urged an end to
the violence and the governor ordered the state Highway Patrol to take
over security.
Residents have taken to the streets each day,
holding placards condemning what they say is a long history of
harassment and abuse of African-Americans at the hands of the largely
white Ferguson police force. Groups of people have silently confronted
police officers, facing them with their hands in the air, as witnesses
said Mr. Brown did before he was shot.
And late at night, a small
number of unruly people in the crowd have turned violent, smashing shop
windows and stealing hair supplies and liquor. For several days,
television networks have replayed clips of people looting, burning down a
convenience store and throwing glass bottles and gasoline bombs at
heavily armed police officers, drawing comparisons to scenes from a
war-ravaged city.
Earlier, Chief Jon Belmar of the St. Louis
County Police Department had dismissed the idea of a curfew, saying that
such an action would not hinder people determined to cause violence,
while negatively affecting residents engaging in innocent activity, like
walking home from the bus stop after a late shift of work.
But Mr. Nixon, increasingly desperate to bring the situation in Ferguson under control, said he embraced the tactic reluctantly.
Earlier
Saturday, in a new sign of discord among the authorities over the
handling of the investigation into Mr. Brown’s death, the Justice
Department said that it had opposed the release of a video that the
Ferguson Police Department said showed the teenager apparently involved
in a robbery at a convenience store.
The Justice Department asked
the Ferguson Police Department not to release the video because of
concerns that “it would roil the community further,” a United States law
enforcement official said on Saturday. The Ferguson department released
the video on Friday and the Justice official said it “occurred over the
objection of federal authorities.” The official said a copy of the
video had been in possession of federal investigators, as well, “and
there were never any plans by the federal investigators to release that
copy.”
The dispute showed further divisions among the authorities
in the handling of the case. The surveillance video appeared to show
Mr. Brown stealing a box of cigarillos. Shortly after the release of the
video, Captain Johnson expressed his displeasure, saying he had not
been told that the police planned to release it.
Mr. Brown’s
family and many protesters accused the police of trying to harm the
teenager’s reputation and to divert attention from the officer who
killed him. The police have said that Officer Wilson was not aware of
what had happened at the convenience store when he encountered Mr.
Brown. The police identified the officer for the first time on Friday;
he has been put on administrative leave and his whereabouts was unknown.
Neighbors on his block in Crestwood, a suburb of St. Louis, said that
he left his home several days ago and has not been seen since. On
Saturday, the house appeared deserted, the blinds in the windows closed
tightly.
Emma G. Fitzsimmons contributed reporting from New York, Charlie Savage from Washington and John Eligon from Ferguson.
5) Deep Tensions Rise to Surface After Ferguson Shooting
"The St. Louis County Police Department fired a white lieutenant last
year for ordering officers to target blacks in shopping areas. That
resulted in the department’s enlisting researchers at the University of
California, Los Angeles, to study whether the department was engaging in
racial profiling."
11) Arizona Loose With Its Rules in Executions, Records Show
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/arizona-loose-with-its-rules-in-executions-records-show.html?ref=us
PHOENIX
— In an execution in 2010 in Arizona, the presiding doctor was supposed
to connect the intravenous line to the convict’s arm — a procedure
written into the state’s lethal injection protocol and considered by
many doctors as the easiest and best way to attach a line. Instead he
chose to use a vein in an upper thigh, near the groin.
“It’s my preference,” the doctor said later in a deposition,
testifying anonymously because of his role as a five-time executioner.
For his work, he received $5,000 to $6,000 per day — in cash — with two
days for practice before each execution.
That improvisation is
not unusual for Arizona, where corrections officials and medical staff
members routinely deviate from the state’s written rules for conducting
executions, state records and court filings
show. Sometimes they improvise even while a convict is strapped to a
table in the execution chamber and waiting for the drugs coursing
through his veins to take effect.In 2012, when Arizona was scheduled to
execute two convicted murderers, its Corrections Department discovered
at the last minute that the expiration dates for the drugs it was
planning to use had passed, so it decided to switch drug methods. Last
month, Arizona again deviated from its execution protocol, and things
did not go as planned: The convicted murderer Joseph R. Wood III took
nearly two hours to die, during which he received 13 more doses of
lethal drugs than the two doses set out by the state’s rules.
While
it is unclear whether the constant changes have led to cruel and
unusual punishment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit became so disturbed in 2012 about the expired drugs that it chastised the state,
saying Arizona “has insisted on amending its execution protocol on an
ad hoc basis.” While the court permitted the two executions to proceed
and they went off without a hitch, the Ninth Circuit nonetheless
observed that Arizona had a “rolling protocol that forces us to engage
with serious constitutional questions and complicated factual issues in
the waning hours before executions.”
Douglas A. Berman, an expert
on criminal sentencing at Ohio State University, said corrections
officials tended to have a cavalier attitude that might now be
backfiring on them. As Mr. Berman archly put it, “What’s the big deal,
as long as the guy ends up dead and I’m not literally torturing the guy
along the way?” Prison officials and execution teams, he said, “don’t
see any adjustment that they are making as likely to cause unnecessary
suffering or pain.”
There are, however, signs that suggest
otherwise. Mr. Wood, 55, gasped — seemingly for air — more than 600
times before he died on July 23; his execution is now the subject of an
independent investigation commissioned by the state. In January in
Oklahoma, Michael Lee Wilson, 38, said, “I feel my whole body burning”
right after the drugs used in his execution — a mix meant to paralyze
him, render him unconscious and stop his heart — began flowing through
his veins. He died moments later.
Courts are starting to show
frustration with the constant changes in the protocols themselves, some
of which have been prompted by the increasing difficulty in obtaining
execution drugs. On Aug. 8, a federal judge extended a moratorium on
lethal injections in Ohio over concerns with a protocol change that the
state had made this year.
Legal cases in Arizona, which has been a
particular target of death penalty opponents, offer an unusual window
on execution protocols and actual practices. There have been 37
executions in Arizona since 1992, of which 14 were overseen by the
current director of the Corrections Department, Charles L. Ryan.
Mr.
Ryan, who has no medical training, has said in depositions that the
state’s protocol gave him virtually unlimited discretion to deviate from
the written guidelines, essentially making him the ultimate arbiter in
executions. He personally authorized the repeated doses of drugs given
to Mr. Wood, who had murdered his estranged girlfriend and her father.
Five of the 15 doses of lethal drugs were administered to Mr. Wood while
his lawyers pleaded to a federal judge to stop the execution, which by
then had dragged on for well over an hour.
“There’s the protocol
that’s in place and there’s what happens, and those aren’t necessarily
the same thing,” said Dale A. Baich, an assistant federal public
defender who represented Mr. Wood. “What we’ve learned from this
execution is that the Department of Corrections was making it up as it
went along.”
Mr. Ryan has affirmed that the length of Mr. Wood’s
execution — one hour and 57 minutes — and the amount of drugs Mr. Wood
received comply with state law, which calls for the administration of
“an intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal
quantity sufficient to cause death.” He declined a request for an
interview; a spokesman, Doug Nick, said this was because of the
continuing search for an independent team to assess Mr. Wood’s
execution.
Logs detailing the sequence of events in the execution
of Mr. Wood, as well as hundreds of pages of filings and depositions
linked to five other executions in Arizona, describe a process whose
rules are open to interpretation. And the rules are frequently amended,
as the Ninth Circuit noted in its 2012 decision. Mr. Baich of the
federal public defender’s office said that as a result of the court’s
concerns, the Corrections Department had begun allowing witnesses to see
through closed-circuit monitors the intravenous lines being placed on
convicts during executions.
In other cases that deviated from
state protocol, criminal records for members of execution teams went
unchecked and a lack of qualifications was ignored, according to a 2011
filing by the federal public defender’s office. In four executions, a
Corrections Department employee got to lead the medical team in charge
of setting intravenous lines even though the employee could not recall
inserting an IV line since the time he trained as an emergency medical
technician for the military years earlier.
In the 2011 execution
of Donald Beaty, convicted of killing a 13-year-old newspaper carrier in
Tempe, Mr. Ryan, the corrections director, asked the medical team about
replacing one of the three drugs with another. The medical team leader
did so, concluding that the drugs were “essentially equivalent” based on
information he read in their packages and on the Internet, according to
a filing in a federal lawsuit brought by another death row inmate.
In
a 2010 execution, according to the anonymous deposition by the doctor
who led the medical team, Mr. Ryan asked that the extra supplies of the
drugs be injected into the inmate’s body. “The director preferred that
all the chemicals be given, if possible,” the doctor said. He advised
against doing so, because if the patient’s heart had stopped, “the vein
might rupture, and then they would just go inside the abdominal cavity,”
the doctor testified. But Mr. Ryan “indicated he wanted us to try.”
When injecting the drugs proved problematic, the doctor recalled, “I
looked at him and I said, ‘I don’t think that this is a good idea.’ And
he said, ‘O.K., that’s fine, stop.’ ”
Mr. Berman of Ohio State
University said Arizona was not the only state whose loose adherence to
lethal injection protocols had led to problems in the courts. After a
series of problematic executions in Ohio, Judge Gregory L. Frost of
United States District Court stayed the execution of a killer, Kenneth
Smith, writing that the state had not stuck to its own policies in
carrying out executions and was “haphazard” in its application of the
process.
Judge Frost went on, “Ohio pays lip service to standards
it then often ignores without valid reasons, sometimes with no physical
ramification and sometimes with what have been described as messy if
not botched executions.”
Dr. Jay Chapman,
who devised the first lethal injection protocol in Oklahoma in 1977,
has questioned the problems with executions in the years since. “It
seems to me that it would not be that difficult to find people that are
competent to carry out the tasks,” he said by telephone.
Fernanda Santos reported from Phoenix, and John Schwartz from New York.
13) National Guard Troops Fail to Quell Unrest in Ferguson
By Minica Davey, John Eligon and Alan Blinde
August19, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/ferguson-missouri-protests.html?ref=us
FERGUSON,
Mo. — Violence erupted here once more overnight, even as Missouri
National Guard troops arrived, the latest in a series of quickly
shifting attempts to quell the chaos that has upended this St. Louis
suburb for more than a week.
In the days since an unarmed black
teenager, Michael Brown, was shot to death by a white police officer
here on Aug. 9, an array of state and local law enforcement authorities
have swerved from one approach to another: taking to the streets in
military-style vehicles and riot gear; then turning over power to a
Missouri State Highway Patrol official who permitted the protests and
marched along; then calling for a curfew.
Early Monday, after a
new spate of unrest, Gov. Jay Nixon said he was bringing in the National
Guard. Hours later, he said that he was lifting the curfew and that the
Guard would have only a limited role, protecting the police command
post.
Although the tactics changed, the nighttime scene did
not.Late Monday night, peaceful protests devolved into sporadic
violence, including gunshots, by what the authorities said was a small
number of people, and demonstrators were met with tear gas and orders to
leave. Two men were shot in the crowd, officials said in an
early-morning news conference, and 31 people — some from New York and
California — were arrested. Fires were reported in two places. The
police were shot at, the authorities said, but did not fire their
weapons.
FERGUSON, Mo. — Violence erupted here once more
overnight, even as Missouri National Guard troops arrived, the latest in
a series of quickly shifting attempts to quell the chaos that has
upended this St. Louis suburb for more than a week.
In the days
since an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, was shot to death by a
white police officer here on Aug. 9, an array of state and local law
enforcement authorities have swerved from one approach to another:
taking to the streets in military-style vehicles and riot gear; then
turning over power to a Missouri State Highway Patrol official who
permitted the protests and marched along; then calling for a curfew.
Early
Monday, after a new spate of unrest, Gov. Jay Nixon said he was
bringing in the National Guard. Hours later, he said that he was lifting
the curfew and that the Guard would have only a limited role,
protecting the police command post.
Although the tactics changed,
the nighttime scene did not.Late Monday night, peaceful protests
devolved into sporadic violence, including gunshots, by what the
authorities said was a small number of people, and demonstrators were
met with tear gas and orders to leave. Two men were shot in the crowd,
officials said in an early-morning news conference, and 31 people — some
from New York and California — were arrested. Fires were reported in
two places. The police were shot at, the authorities said, but did not
fire their weapons.
Mr. Obama said he had told Mr. Nixon in a phone call on Monday that the Guard should be “used in a limited and appropriate way.”
He
added that he would be closely monitoring the deployment.“I’ll be
watching over the next several days to assess whether in fact it’s
helping rather than hindering progress in Ferguson,” said Mr. Obama, who
emphasized that Missouri, not the White House, had called in the Guard.
He again tried to strike a balance between the right to protest and approaches to security.
“While
I understand the passions and the anger that arise over the death of
Michael Brown, giving in to that anger by looting or carrying guns and
even attacking the police only serves to raise tensions,” Mr. Obama
said.
As darkness set in along West Florissant Avenue, one of the
city’s main thoroughfares and a center of the weeklong protests,
demonstrators were required to keep moving.
After more than an
hour of peaceful protests, some in the crowd began to throw bottles at
the police, who brought out armored vehicles and tactical units. But
many peacekeepers in the crowd formed a human chain and got the
agitators to back down.
At another point, as protesters gathered
near a convenience store, some of them threw objects; the police
responded with tear gas.
And near midnight, the police began
announcing over loudspeakers that people needed to leave the area or
risk arrest after what the police said were repeated gunshots and a
deteriorating situation.
A few blocks away, at the police command
post, National Guard members in Army fatigues, some with military
police patches on their uniforms, stood ready but never entered the area
where protesters were marching. State and local law enforcement
authorities oversaw operations there.
Residents seemed puzzled
and frustrated by the continually changing approaches, suggesting that
the moving set of rules only worsened longstanding tensions over
policing and race in this town of 21,000.
“It almost seems like
they can’t decide what to do, and like law enforcement is fighting over
who’s got the power,” said Antione Watson, 37, who stood near a
middle-of-the-street memorial of candles and flowers for Mr. Brown, the
18-year-old killed on a winding block here.“First they do this, then
there’s that, and now who can even tell what their plan is?” Mr. Watson
said. “They can try all of this, but I don’t see an end to this until
there are charges against the cop.”
The latest turn in law
enforcement tactics — the removal of a midnight-to-5 a.m. curfew imposed
Saturday and the arrival of members of the Guard — followed a chaotic
Sunday night. Police officers reported gunfire and firebombs from some
people among a large group, and they responded with tear gas, smoke
canisters and rubber bullets.
By Monday, the police seemed intent
on taking control of the situation long before evening and the expected
arrival of protesters, some of them inclined to provoke clashes. The
authorities banned stationary protests, even during the day, ordering
demonstrators to continue walking — particularly in an area along West
Florissant, not far from where the shooting occurred. One of those told
to move along was the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson.
Six members of the
Highway Patrol, plastic flex-ties within easy reach, stood guard at a
barbecue restaurant that has been a hub of the turmoil. Just north of
the restaurant, about 30 officers surrounded a convenience store that
was heavily damaged early in the unrest. Several people were arrested
during the day, including a photographer for Getty Images, Scott Olson,
who was led away in plastic handcuffs in the early evening.
Explaining
his decision to call in the National Guard, Mr. Nixon recounted details
of the unrest on Sunday night and described the events as “very
difficult and dangerous as a result of a violent criminal element intent
upon terrorizing the community.”
Yet Mr. Nixon also emphasized
that the Guard’s role would be limited to providing protection for the
police command center, which the authorities say was attacked. Gregory
Mason, a brigadier general of the Guard, described the arriving troops
as “well trained and well seasoned.”
“With these additional
resources in place,” said Mr. Nixon, a Democrat in his second term, “the
Missouri State Highway Patrol and local law enforcement will continue
to respond appropriately to incidents of lawlessness and violence and
protect the civil rights of all peaceful citizens to make their voices
heard.”While Mr. Obama and other leaders called for healing and more
than 40 F.B.I. agents fanned out around the city to interview residents
about the shooting, emotions remained raw, and the divide over all that
had happened seemed only to be growing amid multiple investigations and
competing demonstrations.
A recent survey by the Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press showed that Americans were deeply
divided along racial lines in their reaction to Mr. Brown’s killing. It
showed that 80 percent of blacks thought the case raised “important
issues about race that need to be discussed,” while only 37 percent of
whites thought it did.
Blacks surveyed were also less confident
in the investigations into the shooting, with 76 percent reporting
little to no confidence, compared with 33 percent of whites.
Supporters
of Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who fired the fatal
shots, gathered outside a radio station in St. Louis over the weekend.
Mr.
Brown is now the subject of three autopsies. The first was conducted by
St. Louis County, and the results were delivered to the county
prosecutor’s office on Monday. That report showed evidence of marijuana
in Mr. Brown’s system, according to a person briefed on the report who
was not authorized to discuss it publicly before it was released.
Another autopsy, on Monday, was done by a military doctor as part of the Justice Department’s investigation.
On
Sunday, at the request of Mr. Brown’s family, the body was examined by
Dr. Michael M. Baden, a former New York City medical examiner.
Dr.
Baden’s autopsy showed that Mr. Brown was shot at least six times in
the front of his body and that he did not appear to have been shot from
very close range, because no powder burns were found on his body. But
that determination could change if burns are found on his clothing,
which was not available for examination.
In a news conference on
Monday, family members and Dr. Baden said that the autopsy confirmed
witness accounts that Mr. Brown was trying to surrender when he was
killed.
Daryl Parks, a lawyer for the family, said the autopsy
proved that the officer should have been arrested. The bullet that
killed Mr. Brown entered the top of his head and came out through the
front at an angle that suggested he was facing downward when he was
killed, Mr. Parks said. The autopsy did not show what Mr. Brown was
doing when the bullet struck his head.
“Why would he be shot in
the very top of his head, a 6-foot-4 man?” Mr. Parks said. “It makes no
sense. And so that’s what we have. That’s why we believe that those two
things alone are ample for this officer to be arrested.”
Piaget
Crenshaw, a resident who told reporters that she had witnessed Mr.
Brown’s death from her nearby apartment, seemed unsurprised by the
eruptions of anger, which have left schools closed and some businesses
looted. “This community had underlying problems way before this
happened,” Ms. Crenshaw said. “And now the tension is finally broken.”
For
businesses here, the days and long nights have been costly and
frightening. At Dellena Jones’s hair salon, demonstrators tossed
concrete slabs into the business as Ms. Jones’s two children prepared
for what they had expected to be a first day back to school.
“I
had a full week that went down to really nothing,” she said of her
business, which has been mostly empty. “They’re too scared to come.” As
she spoke, a man walked by and shouted, “You need a gun in there, lady!”
In
his news conference, Mr. Obama said that most protesters had been
peaceful. “As Americans, we’ve got to use this moment to seek out our
shared humanity that’s been laid bare by this moment,” he said.
Frances Robles and Tanzina Vega contributed reporting from Ferguson, and Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Matt Apuzzo from Washington.
14) Family of Michael Brown Says Autopsy Confirmed Witness Account
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/family-of-michael-brown-says-autopsy-confirmed-witness-account.html?ref=us
Lawyers for the family of Michael Brown said Monday that the preliminary results of an independent autopsy
answered basic questions that had gone unanswered since the fatal
confrontation between Mr. Brown, 18, and a police officer on Aug. 9.
The
lawyers spoke at a news conference on Monday inside the Greater St.
Mark Missionary Baptist Church that was attended by the family and the
forensic scientists who conducted the autopsy that had been requested by
the family. Benjamin L. Crump, the lead lawyer for the family, said the
autopsy also confirmed witness accounts that Mr. Brown was trying to
surrender when he was killed by an officer in Ferguson, Mo.
“It
verifies that the witness accounts were true, that he was shot multiple
times,” Mr. Crump said. “And it’s going to be one of those things that
we have to get all the witness statements out and look at all the
autopsies and all the evidence to put this picture together.”“But his
family knows that the witnesses, what they were telling them about him
being shot multiple times in broad daylight, was accurate,” he said.
Daryl
Parks, another lawyer for the family, said the autopsy proved that the
officer should have been arrested. The bullet that killed Mr. Brown
entered the top of his head and came out through the front at an angle
that suggested his head was facing downward when he was killed, Mr.
Parks said. What the autopsy did not show was what Mr. Brown was doing
at the moment he was struck in the head.
“Why would he be shot in
the very top of his head, a 6-foot-4 man?” he said. “It makes no sense.
And so that’s what we have. That’s why we believe that those two things
alone are ample for this officer to be arrested.”
The autopsy
report released on Sunday said that Mr. Brown was shot at least six
times, all from the front and at a distance, including two shots that
struck him in the head. The report’s author, Dr. Michael M. Baden, said
all the gunshots were survivable except for the one that hit Mr. Brown
at the top of the head and entered his brain.
Dr. Baden said it
was unusual that the authorities in St. Louis had not released most of
the information “on Day 1” after the county medical examiner completed
her autopsy, especially considering the heightened interest in the case,
which involved an unarmed black teenager being killed by a white police
officer.
“My impression is that like in most medical examiners’
offices, when an autopsy is completed, the medical examiner can release
it, most of it at least, pending the prosecutor’s wishes,” he said.
Getting the information out quickly “calms community and family concerns
of a cover-up of not being told the truth.”
The report left some
questions unanswered, including whether there had been a struggle
between the teenager and the police officer. Dr. Baden said he needed to
examine the clothes Mr. Brown was wearing and to gain access to a
medical examination of the officer conducted shortly after the shooting.
Another
outstanding question was whether Mr. Brown was struck as he ran away
from the police officer. Prof. Shawn L. Parcells, a pathologist
assistant based in Kansas who assisted Dr. Baden, said that one of the
wounds on Mr. Brown’s arm could have been caused by a bullet fired from
in front or behind.
Mr. Baden said Mr. Brown did not suffer pain after he was struck in the head.
The
autopsy is one of three to be conducted on Mr. Brown. The St. Louis
County medical examiner’s report was released shortly after the news
conference. (Toxicology tests were still pending.) The Department of
Justice was expected to conduct its own autopsy in the coming days.
Mr.
Crump said the family members requested an independent autopsy because
they had been unsure that the federal government would get involved and
did not want to rely on information from law enforcement agencies in St.
Louis, “the same individuals they feel are responsible for executing
their son in broad daylight.”
He said that after Mr. Brown’s
mother, Lesley McSpadden, received the autopsy, she had asked, “What
else do we need to give them to arrest the killer of my child?”
15) Not Just Ferguson: National Guard Has a Long History With Civil Unrest
By Alan Flippen
Use of the National Guard to quell civil disturbances, especially race-related ones as in Ferguson, Mo., has a long history in the United States. It even technically predates the National Guard itself.
The National Guard, in its modern form, dates from 1903, when Congress passed a law to regulate state militias and coordinate them with the regular Army, in the wake of the Spanish-American War and the ensuing Philippine insurrection.
But
the militias themselves have existed almost since the beginning of
European settlement, and the term “National Guard” appears to have been
in popular use for them since before the Civil War; a New York Times
article from 1855 mentions the “National Guard” as one of the military
units suppressing a riot by German residents of Chicago who were objecting to a law banning taverns from opening on Sundays and increasing fees for liquor licenses.
While
The Times’s archive is not a comprehensive source of information about
the National Guard’s involvement in such episodes, it does show that
confrontations fueled by labor unrest preoccupied the Guard in the last
decades of the 19th century; coal miners and railroad workers
were among those whose efforts to organize and strike led governors to
call out their Guard units. But state militias were also called out to
quell racial disturbances in, among other places, Wilmington, N.C., in 1898 and Springfield, Ill., in 1908.National
Guard troops also played a role in the civil rights struggles of the
1950s and early 1960s. Gov. Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out the
National Guard to bar black students from Little Rock Central High School in 1957
(later withdrawing them under pressure from President Eisenhower), but
National Guard troops under federal control enforced desegregation of
the University of Mississippi in 1962 and the University of Alabama in 1963, and protected marchers in Selma, Ala., in 1965.
Later that decade, the Guard would revert to its traditional role of suppressing unrest: in the Watts section of Los Angeles in 1965, in Cleveland and Dayton, Ohio, in 1966, Detroit and Newark, N.J., in 1967 and nearly everywhere in the country
after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. A search
of The Times archive for the terms “Negroes” (as African-Americans were
referred to then) and “National Guard” for the six most tumultuous
years of that era (1965 through 1970) turns up 655 articles, most having
to do either with racial disturbances or with desegregation of the National Guard itself.
Indeed,
if there’s any comfort to be taken in the recent events in Ferguson, it
is how rare such unrest has become in recent years. The Times’s archive
in the most recent six years contains only 30 articles with the terms
“National Guard” and “African-Americans” or “blacks,” and none of them
refer to actual, current racially motivated confrontations except for
those in Ferguson.
The Upshot provides news, analysis and graphics about politics, policy and everyday life. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
After
three years of litigation, Jabbar Collins, a man who spent 15 years in
prison for a murder he did not commit, has reached a $10 million
settlement with New York City.
Mr. Collins had been convicted of
the 1994 killing of an Orthodox rabbi. He was released from prison in
2010, when a federal judge vacated his conviction and criticized the
district attorney’s office for its handling of Mr. Collins’s trial.
The
settlement is notable because it exposed questionable policies under
the former Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes. Along the way,
Mr. Collins’s lawyer, Joel B. Rudin, deposed Mr. Hynes and his top
assistants, providing a rare look at how a powerful district attorney
ran his office.Among the things Mr. Rudin accused the office of, after
depositions of top aides, were detaining reluctant witnesses
in hotel rooms until they agreed to testify, and advising his lawyers
not to take notes when prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent
statements, so as to avoid potentially exculpatory evidence. The city’s
lawyers have challenged these claims.
The settlement is also notable for its size: Mr. Collins will receive about $667,000 per year served, a little less than the five men exonerated in the Central Park jogger case, who settled with the city earlier this summer for about $1 million for each year in prison.
The case was scheduled to go to trial in October.
Mr. Collins, 42, began fighting his conviction while at Green Haven State Prison, tracking down witnesses
who had testified against him and filing Freedom of Information Law
requests. After Mr. Rudin joined the case, a 2010 hearing was held in
Federal District Court in Brooklyn over Mr. Collins’s attempt to vacate
his conviction. One witness who testified then said he had been
threatened by a top prosecutor. At that hearing, the district attorney’s
office agreed to vacate the murder conviction and not to retry Mr.
Collins.
The wrongful-conviction settlement is one of several
the city has settled this year, including a $6.4 million settlement for
David Ranta, a man who spent 23 years in prison for a murder he did not
commit. The city is facing several more such lawsuits as erroneous
convictions from the crime-ridden 1980s and 1990s continue to be
vacated.
In July, Mr. Collins settled with the state under the unjust conviction act for $3 million.
Mr.
Collins said in a statement that his goals were to “expose the illegal
practices of District Attorney Hynes and to help drive him from office,”
to “obtain personal vindication and to demonstrate my innocence,” and
to receive compensation to balance the years in prison and the harm done
to him and his family.
Mr. Rudin said, “Ironically, the
revelations in Jabbar Collins’ groundbreaking lawsuit of pervasive
misconduct in Brooklyn led to more cases being overturned, but had the
effect of making settlement of his lawsuit harder.”
NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, a personal hero of mine, has recently filed to renew his asylum in Russia. Exiled thousands of miles from friends and family, he awaits his fate. He learned from the example of another top hero of mine, Chelsea Manning.
Manning helped inspire his revelations that if he released his vital
information while in this country he would have been held incommunicado
in isolation as Chelsea was for over ten months—in Snowden’s case
probably for the rest of his life. And facing comparable charges to
Chelsea’s, he would have no more chance than Chelsea to have a truly fair trial—being
prevented by the prosecution and judge (as I was, forty years ago) from
even raising arguments of public interest or lack of harm in connection
with his disclosures. Contrary to the hollow advice of Hillary Clinton
or John Kerry, if he were to return to America he would not be able to
“make his case” neither “in court,” nor “to the public” from a prison
cell.
I am immensely thankful to both these young whistle-blowers
who have so bravely stood up against the powerful forces of the US
government in order to reveal corruption, illegal spying and war
crimes. They were both motivated by their commitments to democracy and
justice. They both chose to reveal information directly to the public,
at great cost to themselves, so that citizens and taxpayers could be
fully informed of the facts. They also revealed the amazing potential
of new technologies to increase public access to information and
strengthen democracy. It saddens me that our current political leaders,
rather than embracing this potential, have chosen to tighten their
strangleholds on power and information, turning away from both progress
and justice.
Shockingly, the Obama administration has prosecuted more whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act than every previous president combined. These
heroes do not deserve to be thrown in prison or called a traitor for
doing the right thing. Obama’s unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse
of the Espionage Act—as if it were a British-type Official Secrets Act,
never intended by Congress and a violation of our First Amendment—and
Manning’s 35-year prison sentence will have a chilling effect on future
citizens’ willingness to uncover hidden injustices. The government has
already brought comparable charges against Snowden.
The only remedy to this chilling precedent, designed to
effect government whistle-blowers as a whole, is to overturn the Manning
verdict. Given that Manning’s court martial produced the
longest trial record in US military history, it will take a top legal
team countless hours to prepare their defense. But as an Advisory Board
member for the Chelsea Manning Support Network, I was inspired by the
way citizens around the world stepped forward to help fund a strong
defense during Manning’s trial. I remain hopeful that enough people
will recognize the immense importance of these appeals and will
contribute to help us finish the struggle we started. That struggle, of
course, is for a just political system and freedom for our
whistle-blowers.
Chelsea Manning has continued to demonstrate uncommon bravery and character, even from behind bars. With the New York Times
Op-Ed she published last month, she has cemented her position as a
compelling voice for government reform. Working as an intelligence
analyst in Iraq, Manning was privy to a special view of the
inner-workings of our military’s propaganda systems. Despite her
personal struggles, she felt compelled to share her knowledge of what
was happening in Iraq with the Americans people. If the military hadn’t
hidden the number of civilian casualties and incidences of torture
detailed in the Iraq Logs she released, we would have known far sooner
to expect the civil war that has gripped Iraq fully today. Her exposure
of US knowledge of the corruption in Tunisia, by the dictator our
government supported, was a critical catalyst of the non-violent
uprising which toppled that dictator, in turn directly inspiring the
occupation of Tahrir Square in Egypt and then the Occupy movement in the
US
I personally am inspired by Chelsea Manning as I am by
Edward Snowden, which is why I have spent countless hours advocating for
both of them. I’m asking you to join me today in supporting what I
believe to be one of the most important legal proceedings in our
country’s history. We are fortunate to have a truly impressive legal team that has agreed to partner with us. Already, our new appeals attorney Nancy Hollander and her team have begun to research legal strategies, and are collaborating with Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the international news media to highlight the significance of this case.
Chelsea is only 26 now, younger than I was when I learned to
recognize the injustices of the Vietnam War. She wishes to complete her
education, as I did, and go into public service. Imagine what great things she could both learn and teach the world if she were free. Now
imagine if our corrupt government officials are allowed to get their
way, holding her behind bars until life has almost passed her by, and
extraditing Snowden to suffer the same outcome. What a sad result that
would be for our country and our humanity.
I have been waiting forty years for a legal process to at long last
prove the unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act as applied to
whistle-blowers (the Supreme Court has never yet addressed this issue).
This appeals process can accomplish that, and it can reduce Chelsea’s
sentence by decades. But unfortunately, without your help today it will
not happen. We must raise $100,000 by September 1st, to ensure
that Chelsea’s team have the resources to fully fight this stage of the
appeals process.
Unless Manning’s conviction is overturned in appeals, Snowden
and many other whistle-blowers, today and in the future, will face a
similar fate. And with them will perish one of the most
critical lifelines for our democracy. But you can join me in fighting
back. I’m asking you to do it for Chelsea, to do it for Snowden, and to
do it because it’s the right thing to do to preserve our democracy. We
can only win this great struggle with your help. Please contribute to help us fund Chelsea’s legal appeals today.
It’s time we band together on the right side of history once again.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------* Only an Innocent Man Would Voluntarily Return to Prison to Fight Against his Life Sentence and For Exoneration — That Courageous Man is Lorenzo Johnson.
The PA Attorney General’s Office Agrees to Investigate New Facts and Witnesses — Send Your Message Now to PA AG Kathleen Kane: Dismiss the Charges! Free Lorenzo Johnson!
On
January 29, 2014 Lorenzo Johnson’s attorney, Michael Wiseman, met with
representatives of PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane to discuss the new
evidence of Lorenzo Johnson’s innocence contained in legal filings now
pending in the Pennsylvania courts. This includes affidavits confirming
Johnson’s presence in New York City at the time of the Harrisburg murder
and the identity of the actual killers, as well as police and
prosecutorial misconduct.
Attorney Wiseman said Kane’s office
promised to investigate these new facts in order to assess whether they
merit the relief that Lorenzo Johnson seeks in his PCRA petition.
Speaking
to AP reporter Mary Claire Dale on February 11, 2014 Wiseman said, “We
believe the witnesses we presented to them are credible, and give a
coherent version of the events. I take them at their word, that they’re
going to do a straightforward, honest review.” Kane spokesman Joe
Peters confirmed the meeting to AP “but said the office won’t comment on
the new evidence until the court filing,” (referring to the March 31,
2014 date for the AG’s response to Johnson’s October 2013 court filing).
It
is the Office of the PA Attorney General that is responsible for the
false prosecution of Lorenzo Johnson from trial through appeals. And
just a few months ago, the Attorney General’s office opposed a federal
petition based on this new evidence saying there was no prima facie
claim for relief. This resulted in the denial of Lorenzo Johnson’s
Motion to File a Second Writ of Habeas Corpus in the federal court.
On
December 18, 2013 a press conference called by the Campaign to Free
Lorenzo Johnson protested these actions of the PA Attorney General and
delivered petitions demanding dismissal of the charges and immediate
freedom for Lorenzo. Tazza, Lorenzo’s wife, declared, “1,000 signatures
means we are not in this alone…I won't stop until he’s home. There is
nothing and no one that can stop me from fighting for what’s right.”
This
is Lorenzo Johnson’s second fight for his innocence and freedom. In
January 2012, after 16 years of court battles to prove his innocence, a
federal appeals court held his sentence was based on insufficient
evidence – a judicial acquittal. Lorenzo was freed from prison. But
after a petition filed by the PA Attorney General the U.S. Supreme Court
reinstated Lorenzo Johnson’s conviction and he was re-incarcerated to
continue serving a life sentence without parole for a murder he did not
commit.
This innocent man drove himself back to prison in June
2012—after less than five months of freedom—leaving his new wife and
family, construction job and advocacy on behalf of others wrongfully
convicted. The reason Lorenzo Johnson voluntarily returned to prison?
Because he is innocent and fighting for full vindication.
In the
words of Lorenzo Johnson, “A second is too long to be in prison when
you are Innocent, so eighteen years … is Intolerable.”
Add your voices and demand again: Dismiss the charges against Lorenzo Johnson. Free Lorenzo NOW!
SIGN LORENZO JOHNSON'S FREEDOM PETITION
CONTRIBUTE TO HELP TAZZA AND THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS VISIT LORENZO AND STAY IN CONTACT!
Write: Lorenzo Johnson DF 1036 SCI Mahanoy 301 Morea Rd. Frackville, PA 17932
Email: Lorenzo Johnson through JPAY.com code: Lorenzo Johnson DF 1036 PA DOC
U.S.
Court of Appeals Rules Against Lorenzo Johnson’s
New Legal Challenge to His Frame-up Conviction!
Demand the PA Attorney General Dismiss the Charges!
Free Lorenzo Johnson, Now!
The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Lorenzo Johnson’s motion to
file a Second Habeas Corpus Petition. The order contained the outrageous
declaration that Johnson hadn’t made a “prima facie case” that he had new
evidence of his innocence. This not only puts a legal obstacle in Johnson’s
path as his fight for freedom makes its way (again) through the state and
federal courts—but it undermines the newly filed Pennsylvania state appeal that
is pending in the Court of Common Pleas.
Stripped
of “legalese,” the court’s October 15, 2013 order says Johnson’s new
evidence was not brought into court soon enough—although it was the prosecution
and police who withheld evidence and coerced witnesses into lying or not coming
forward with the truth! This, despite over fifteen years and rounds of legal
battles to uncover the evidence of government misconduct. This is a set-back
for Lorenzo Johnson’s renewed fight for his freedom, but Johnson is even more
determined as his PA state court appeal continues.
Increased
public support and protest is needed. The fight for Lorenzo Johnson’s freedom
is not only a fight for this courageous man and family. The fight for Lorenzo
Johnson is also a fight for all the innocent others who have been framed and
are sitting in the slow death of prison. The PA Attorney General is directly
pursuing the charges against Lorenzo, despite the evidence of his innocence and
the corruption of the police. Free Lorenzo Johnson, Now!
—Rachel
Wolkenstein, Esq.
October 25, 2013
For
more on the federal court and PA state court legal filings.
Hear
Mumia’s latest commentary, “Cat Cries”
Go
to: www.FreeLorenzoJohnson.org for more information, to sign the petition, and
how to help.
We
are working to ensure that the ACCJC’s authority is not renewed by the
Department of Education this December when they are up for their 5-year
renewal. Our campaign made it possible for over 50 Third Party Comments to be
sent to the DOE re: the ACCJC. Our next step in this campaign is to send a
delegation from CCSF to Washington, D.C. to give oral comments at the hearing
on December 12th. We expect to have an array of forces aligned on the other
side who have much more money and resources than we do.
So
please support this effort to get ACCJC authority revoked!
LEGAL
CAMPAIGN
Save
CCSF members have been meeting with Attorney Dan Siegel since last May to
explore legal avenues to fight the ACCJC. After much consideration, and
consultation with AFT 2121’s attorney as well as the SF City Attorney’s office,
Dan has come up with a legal strategy that is complimentary to what is already
being pursued. In fact, AFT 2121’s attorney is encouraging us to go forward.
The
total costs of pursuing this (depositions, etc.) will be substantially more
than $15,000. However, Dan is willing to do it for a fixed fee of $15,000. He
will not expect a retainer, i.e. payment in advance, but we should start
payments ASAP. If we win the ACCJC will have to pay our costs.
PLEASE
HELP BOTH OF THESE IMPORTANT EFFORTS!
Checks
can be made out to Save CCSF Coalition with “legal” in the memo line and sent
to:
16
Years in Solitary Confinement Is Like a "Living Tomb"
American
Civil Liberties Union petition to end long-term solitary confinement:
California
Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard: We stand with the prisoners on hunger
strike. We urge you to comply with the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in
America’s Prisons 2006 recommendations regarding an end to long-term solitary
confinement.
In
California, hundreds of prisoners have been held in solitary for more than a
decade – some for infractions as trivial as reading Machiavelli's "The
Prince."
Gabriel
Reyes describes the pain of being isolated for at least 22 hours a day for the
last 16 years:
“Unless
you have lived it, you cannot imagine what it feels like to be by yourself,
between four cold walls, with little concept of time…. It is a living tomb …’ I
have not been allowed physical contact with any of my loved ones since 1995…I
feel helpless and hopeless. In short, I am being psychologically tortured.”
That’s
why over 30,000 prisoners in California began a hunger strike – the biggest the
state has ever seen. They’re refusing food to protest prisoners being held for
decades in solitary and to push for other changes to improve their basic
conditions.
California
Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard has tried to dismiss the strikers and
refuses to negotiate, but the media pressure is building through the strike. If
tens of thousands of us take action, we can help keep this issue in the
spotlight so that Secretary Beard can’t ignore the inhumane treatment of
prisoners.
Sign
the petition urging Corrections Secretary Beard to end the use of long-term
solitary confinement.
Solitary
is such an extreme form of punishment that a United Nations torture rapporteur
called for an international ban on the practice except in rare occasions.
Here’s why:
The
majority of the 80,000 people held in solitary in this country are severely
mentally ill or because of a minor infraction (it’s a myth that it’s only for
violent prisoners)
Even
for people with stable mental health, solitary causes severe psychological
reactions, often leading people to attempt suicide
It
jeopardizes public safety because prisoners held in solitary have a harder time
reintegrating into society.
And
to add insult to injury, the hunger strikers are now facing retaliation – their
lawyers are being restricted from visiting and the strikers are being punished.
But the media continues to write about the hunger strike and we can help keep
the pressure on Secretary Beard by signing this petition.
Sign
the petition urging Corrections Secretary Beard to end the use of long-term
solitary confinement.
Our
criminal justice system should keep communities safe and treat people fairly.
The use of solitary confinement undermines both of these goals – but little by
little, we can help put a stop to such cruelty.
Thank
you,
Anthony
for the ACLU Action team
P.S.
The hunger strikers have developed five core demands to address their basic
conditions, the main one being an end to long-term solitary confinement. They
are:
-End
group punishment – prisoners say that officials often punish groups to address
individual rule violations
-Abolish
the debriefing policy, which is often demanded in return for better food or
release from solitary
-End
long-term solitary confinement
-Provide
adequate and nutritious food
-Expand
or provide constructive programming and privileges for indefinite SHU inmates
Sources
“Solitary
- and anger - in California's prisons.” Los Angeles Times July 13, 2013
“Pelican
Bay Prison Hunger-Strikers' Stories: Gabriel Reyes.” TruthOut July 9, 2013
“Solitary
confinement should be banned in most cases, UN expert says.” UN News October
18, 2011
Read
the transcription of hero Bradley Manning's 35-page statement explaining why he
leaked "state secrets" to WikiLeaks.
March
1, 2013
Alternet
The
statement was read by Pfc. Bradley Manning at a providence inquiry for his
formal plea of guilty to one specification as charged and nine specifications
for lesser included offenses. He pled not guilty to 12 other specifications.
This rush transcript was taken by journalist Alexa O'Brien at Thursday's
pretrial hearing and first appeared on Salon.com.
You
Have the Right to Remain Silent: NLG Guide to Law Enforcement Encounters
Posted
1 day ago on July 27, 2012, 10:28 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Occupy
Wall Street is a nonviolent movement for social and economic justice, but in
recent days disturbing reports have emerged of Occupy-affiliated activists
being targeted by US law enforcement, including agents from the FBI and
Department of Homeland Security. To help ensure Occupiers and allied activists
know their rights when encountering law enforcement, we are publishing in full
the National Lawyers Guild's booklet: You Have the Right to Remain Silent. The
NLG provides invaluable support to the Occupy movement and other activists –
please click here to support the NLG.
We
strongly encourage all Occupiers to read and share the information provided
below. We also recommend you enter the NLG's national hotline number
(888-654-3265) into your cellphone (if you have one) and keep a copy handy.
This information is not a substitute for legal advice. You should contact the
NLG or a criminal defense attorney immediately if you have been visited by the
FBI or other law enforcement officials. You should also alert your relatives,
friends, co-workers and others so that they will be prepared if they are
contacted as well.
You
Have the Right to Remain Silent: A Know Your Rights Guide for Law Enforcement
Encounters
What
Rights Do I Have?
Whether
or not you're a citizen, you have rights under the United States Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment gives every person the right to remain silent: not to
answer questions asked by a police officer or government agent. The Fourth
Amendment restricts the government's power to enter and search your home or
workplace, although there are many exceptions and new laws have expanded the
government's power to conduct surveillance. The First Amendment protects your
right to speak freely and to advocate for social change. However, if you are a
non-citizen, the Department of Homeland Security may target you based on your
political activities.
Standing
Up For Free Speech
The
government's crusade against politically-active individuals is intended to
disrupt and suppress the exercise of time-honored free speech activities, such
as boycotts, protests, grassroots organizing and solidarity work. Remember that
you have the right to stand up to the intimidation tactics of FBI agents and
other law enforcement officials who, with political motives, are targeting
organizing and free speech activities. Informed resistance to these tactics and
steadfast defense of your and others' rights can bring positive results. Each
person who takes a courageous stand makes future resistance to government oppression
easier for all. The National Lawyers Guild has a long tradition of standing up
to government repression. The organization itself was labeled a
"subversive" group during the McCarthy Era and was subject to FBI
surveillance and infiltration for many years. Guild attorneys have defended
FBI-targeted members of the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement,
and the Puerto Rican independence movement. The NLG exposed FBI surveillance,
infiltration and disruption tactics that were detailed during the 1975-76
COINTELPRO hearings. In 1989 the NLG prevailed in a lawsuit on behalf of
several activist organizations, including the Guild, that forced the FBI to
expose the extent to which it had been spying on activist movements. Under the
settlement, the FBI turned over roughly 400,000 pages of its files on the
Guild, which are now available at the Tamiment Library at New York University.
What
if FBI Agents or Police Contact Me?
What
if an agent or police officer comes to the door?
Do
not invite the agents or police into your home. Do not answer any questions.
Tell the agent that you do not wish to talk with him or her. You can state that
your lawyer will contact them on your behalf. You can do this by stepping
outside and pulling the door behind you so that the interior of your home or
office is not visible, getting their contact information or business cards and
then returning inside. They should cease questioning after this. If the agent
or officer gives a reason for contacting you, take notes and give the
information to your attorney. Anything you say, no matter how seemingly
harmless or insignificant, may be used against you or others in the future.
Lying to or misleading a federal agent is a crime. The more you speak, the more
opportunity for federal law enforcement to find something you said (even if not
intentionally) false and assert that you lied to a federal officer.
Do
I have to answer questions?
You
have the constitutional right to remain silent. It is not a crime to refuse to
answer questions. You do not have to talk to anyone, even if you have been
arrested or are in jail. You should affirmatively and unambiguously state that
you wish to remain silent and that you wish to consult an attorney. Once you
make the request to speak to a lawyer, do not say anything else. The Supreme
Court recently ruled that answering law enforcement questions may be taken as a
waiver of your right to remain silent, so it is important that you assert your
rights and maintain them. Only a judge can order you to answer questions. There
is one exception: some states have "stop and identify" statutes which
require you to provide identity information or your name if you have been
detained on reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime. A lawyer
in your state can advise you of the status of these requirements where you
reside.
Do
I have to give my name?
As
above, in some states you can be detained or arrested for merely refusing to
give your name. And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and
refusing to give your name may make them suspicious or more hostile and lead to
your arrest, even without just cause, so use your judgment. Giving a false name
could in some circumstances be a crime.
Do
I need a lawyer?
You
have the right to talk to a lawyer before you decide whether to answer
questions from law enforcement. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer if you
are considering answering any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer
present during any interview. The lawyer's job is to protect your rights. Once
you tell the agent that you want to talk to a lawyer, he or she should stop
trying to question you and should make any further contact through your lawyer.
If you do not have a lawyer, you can still tell the officer you want to speak to
one before answering questions. Remember to get the name, agency and telephone
number of any investigator who visits you, and give that information to your
lawyer. The government does not have to provide you with a free lawyer unless
you are charged with a crime, but the NLG or another organization may be able
to help you find a lawyer for free or at a reduced rate.
If
I refuse to answer questions or say I want a lawyer, won't it seem like I have
something to hide?
Anything
you say to law enforcement can be used against you and others. You can never
tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information might be used or manipulated
to hurt you or someone else. That is why the right not to talk is a fundamental
right under the Constitution. Keep in mind that although law enforcement agents
are allowed to lie to you, lying to a government agent is a crime. Remaining
silent is not. The safest things to say are "I am going to remain
silent," "I want to speak to my lawyer," and "I do not consent
to a search." It is a common practice for law enforcement agents to try to
get you to waive your rights by telling you that if you have nothing to hide
you would talk or that talking would "just clear things up." The fact
is, if they are questioning you, they are looking to incriminate you or someone
you may know, or they are engaged in political intelligence gathering. You
should feel comfortable standing firm in protection and defense of your rights
and refusing to answer questions.
Can
agents search my home or office?
You
do not have to let police or agents into your home or office unless they have
and produce a valid search warrant. A search warrant is a written court order
that allows the police to conduct a specified search. Interfering with a
warrantless search probably will not stop it and you might get arrested. But
you should say "I do not consent to a search," and call a criminal
defense lawyer or the NLG. You should be aware that a roommate or guest can
legally consent to a search of your house if the police believe that person has
the authority to give consent, and your employer can consent to a search of
your workspace without your permission.
What
if agents have a search warrant?
If
you are present when agents come for the search, you can ask to see the
warrant. The warrant must specify in detail the places to be searched and the
people or things to be taken away. Tell the agents you do not consent to the
search so that they cannot go beyond what the warrant authorizes. Ask if you
are allowed to watch the search; if you are allowed to, you should. Take notes,
including names, badge numbers, what agency each officer is from, where they
searched and what they took. If others are present, have them act as witnesses
to watch carefully what is happening. If the agents ask you to give them
documents, your computer, or anything else, look to see if the item is listed
in the warrant. If it is not, do not consent to them taking it without talking
to a lawyer. You do not have to answer questions. Talk to a lawyer first.
(Note: If agents present an arrest warrant, they may only perform a cursory
visual search of the premises to see if the person named in the arrest warrant
is present.)
Do
I have to answer questions if I have been arrested?
No.
If you are arrested, you do not have to answer any questions. You should
affirmatively and unambiguously state that you wish to assert your right to
remain silent. Ask for a lawyer right away. Do not say anything else. Repeat to
every officer who tries to talk to or question you that you wish to remain
silent and that you wish to speak to a lawyer. You should always talk to a
lawyer before you decide to answer any questions.
What
if I speak to government agents anyway?
Even
if you have already answered some questions, you can refuse to answer other
questions until you have a lawyer. If you find yourself talking, stop. Assert
that you wish to remain silent and that you wish to speak to a lawyer.
What
if the police stop me on the street?
Ask
if you are free to go. If the answer is yes, consider just walking away. If the
police say you are not under arrest, but are not free to go, then you are being
detained. The police can pat down the outside of your clothing if they have
reason to suspect you might be armed and dangerous. If they search any more
than this, say clearly, "I do not consent to a search." They may keep
searching anyway. If this happens, do not resist because you can be charged
with assault or resisting arrest. You do not have to answer any questions. You
do not have to open bags or any closed container. Tell the officers you do not
consent to a search of your bags or other property.
What
if police or agents stop me in my car?
Keep
your hands where the police can see them. If you are driving a vehicle, you
must show your license, registration and, in some states, proof of insurance.
You do not have to consent to a search. But the police may have legal grounds
to search your car anyway. Clearly state that you do not consent. Officers may
separate passengers and drivers from each other to question them, but no one
has to answer any questions.
What
if I am treated badly by the police or the FBI?
Write
down the officer's badge number, name or other identifying information. You
have a right to ask the officer for this information. Try to find witnesses and
their names and phone numbers. If you are injured, seek medical attention and
take pictures of the injuries as soon as you can. Call a lawyer as soon as
possible.
What
if the police or FBI threaten me with a grand jury subpoena if I don't answer
their questions?
A
grand jury subpoena is a written order for you to go to court and testify about
information you may have. It is common for the FBI to threaten you with a
subpoena to get you to talk to them. If they are going to subpoena you, they
will do so anyway. You should not volunteer to speak just because you are
threatened with a subpoena. You should consult a lawyer.
What
if I receive a grand jury subpoena?
Grand
jury proceedings are not the same as testifying at an open court trial. You are
not allowed to have a lawyer present (although one may wait in the hallway and
you may ask to consult with him or her after each question) and you may be asked
to answer questions about your activities and associations. Because of the
witness's limited rights in this situation, the government has frequently used
grand jury subpoenas to gather information about activists and political
organizations. It is common for the FBI to threaten activists with a subpoena
in order to elicit information about their political views and activities and
those of their associates. There are legal grounds for stopping
("quashing") subpoenas, and receiving one does not necessarily mean
that you are suspected of a crime. If you do receive a subpoena, call the NLG
National Hotline at 888-NLG-ECOL (888-654-3265) or call a criminal defense
attorney immediately.
The
government regularly uses grand jury subpoena power to investigate and seek
evidence related to politically-active individuals and social movements. This
practice is aimed at prosecuting activists and, through intimidation and
disruption, discouraging continued activism.
Federal
grand jury subpoenas are served in person. If you receive one, it is critically
important that you retain the services of an attorney, preferably one who
understands your goals and, if applicable, understands the nature of your
political work, and has experience with these issues. Most lawyers are trained
to provide the best legal defense for their client, often at the expense of
others. Beware lawyers who summarily advise you to cooperate with grand juries,
testify against friends, or cut off contact with your friends and political
activists. Cooperation usually leads to others being subpoenaed and
investigated. You also run the risk of being charged with perjury, a felony,
should you omit any pertinent information or should there be inconsistencies in
your testimony.
Frequently
prosecutors will offer "use immunity," meaning that the prosecutor is
prohibited from using your testimony or any leads from it to bring charges
against you. If a subsequent prosecution is brought, the prosecutor bears the
burden of proving that all of its evidence was obtained independent of the
immunized testimony. You should be aware, however, that they will use anything
you say to manipulate associates into sharing more information about you by
suggesting that you have betrayed confidences.
In
front of a grand jury you can "take the Fifth" (exercise your right
to remain silent). However, the prosecutor may impose immunity on you, which
strips you of Fifth Amendment protection and subjects you to the possibility of
being cited for contempt and jailed if you refuse to answer further. In front
of a grand jury you have no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, although you can
consult with a lawyer outside the grand jury room after each question.
What
if I don't cooperate with the grand jury?
If
you receive a grand jury subpoena and elect to not cooperate, you may be held
in civil contempt. There is a chance that you may be jailed or imprisoned for
the length of the grand jury in an effort to coerce you to cooperate. Regular
grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, which can be extended up to a
total of 24 months. It is lawful to hold you in order to coerce your
cooperation, but unlawful to hold you as a means of punishment. In rare
instances you may face criminal contempt charges.
What
If I Am Not a Citizen and the DHS Contacts Me?
The
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is now part of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and has been renamed and reorganized into: 1. The
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS); 2. The Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection (CBP); and 3. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). All three bureaus will be referred to as DHS for the
purposes of this pamphlet.
?
Assert your rights. If you do not demand your rights or if you sign papers
waiving your rights, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may deport you
before you see a lawyer or an immigration judge. Never sign anything without
reading, understanding and knowing the consequences of signing it.
?
Talk to a lawyer. If possible, carry with you the name and telephone number of
an immigration lawyer who will take your calls. The immigration laws are hard
to understand and there have been many recent changes. DHS will not explain
your options to you. As soon as you encounter a DHS agent, call your attorney.
If you can't do it right away, keep trying. Always talk to an immigration
lawyer before leaving the U.S. Even some legal permanent residents can be
barred from returning.
Based
on today's laws, regulations and DHS guidelines, non-citizens usually have the
following rights, no matter what their immigration status. This information may
change, so it is important to contact a lawyer. The following rights apply to
non-citizens who are inside the U.S. Non-citizens at the border who are trying
to enter the U.S. do not have all the same rights.
Do
I have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any DHS questions or
signing any DHS papers?
Yes.
You have the right to call a lawyer or your family if you are detained, and you
have the right to be visited by a lawyer in detention. You have the right to
have your attorney with you at any hearing before an immigration judge. You do
not have the right to a government-appointed attorney for immigration
proceedings, but if you have been arrested, immigration officials must show you
a list of free or low cost legal service providers.
Should
I carry my green card or other immigration papers with me?
If
you have documents authorizing you to stay in the U.S., you must carry them
with you. Presenting false or expired papers to DHS may lead to deportation or
criminal prosecution. An unexpired green card, I-94, Employment Authorization
Card, Border Crossing Card or other papers that prove you are in legal status
will satisfy this requirement. If you do not carry these papers with you, you
could be charged with a crime. Always keep a copy of your immigration papers
with a trusted family member or friend who can fax them to you, if need be.
Check with your immigration lawyer about your specific case.
Am
I required to talk to government officers about my immigration history?
If
you are undocumented, out of status, a legal permanent resident (green card
holder), or a citizen, you do not have to answer any questions about your
immigration history. (You may want to consider giving your name; see above for
more information about this.) If you are not in any of these categories, and
you are being questioned by a DHS or FBI agent, then you may create problems
with your immigration status if you refuse to provide information requested by
the agent. If you have a lawyer, you can tell the agent that your lawyer will
answer questions on your behalf. If answering questions could lead the agent to
information that connects you with criminal activity, you should consider
refusing to talk to the agent at all.
If
I am arrested for immigration violations, do I have the right to a hearing
before an immigration judge to defend myself against deportation charges?
Yes.
In most cases only an immigration judge can order you deported. But if you
waive your rights or take "voluntary departure," agreeing to leave
the country, you could be deported without a hearing. If you have criminal
convictions, were arrested at the border, came to the U.S. through the visa
waiver program or have been ordered deported in the past, you could be deported
without a hearing. Contact a lawyer immediately to see if there is any relief
for you.
Can
I call my consulate if I am arrested?
Yes.
Non-citizens arrested in the U.S. have the right to call their consulate or to
have the police tell the consulate of your arrest. The police must let your
consulate visit or speak with you if consular officials decide to do so. Your
consulate might help you find a lawyer or offer other help. You also have the
right to refuse help from your consulate.
What
happens if I give up my right to a hearing or leave the U.S. before the hearing
is over?
You
could lose your eligibility for certain immigration benefits, and you could be
barred from returning to the U.S. for a number of years. You should always talk
to an immigration lawyer before you decide to give up your right to a hearing.
What
should I do if I want to contact DHS?
Always
talk to a lawyer before contacting DHS, even on the phone. Many DHS officers
view "enforcement" as their primary job and will not explain all of
your options to you.
What
Are My Rights at Airports?
IMPORTANT
NOTE: It is illegal for law enforcement to perform any stops, searches,
detentions or removals based solely on your race, national origin, religion,
sex or ethnicity.
If
I am entering the U.S. with valid travel papers can a U.S. customs agent stop
and search me?
Yes.
Customs agents have the right to stop, detain and search every person and item.
Can
my bags or I be searched after going through metal detectors with no problem or
after security sees that my bags do not contain a weapon?
Yes.
Even if the initial screen of your bags reveals nothing suspicious, the
screeners have the authority to conduct a further search of you or your bags.
If
I am on an airplane, can an airline employee interrogate me or ask me to get
off the plane?
The
pilot of an airplane has the right to refuse to fly a passenger if he or she
believes the passenger is a threat to the safety of the flight. The pilot's decision
must be reasonable and based on observations of you, not stereotypes.
What
If I Am Under 18?
Do
I have to answer questions?
No.
Minors too have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested for refusing
to talk to the police, probation officers, or school officials, except in some
states you may have to give your name if you have been detained.
What
if I am detained?
If
you are detained at a community detention facility or Juvenile Hall, you
normally must be released to a parent or guardian. If charges are filed against
you, in most states you are entitled to counsel (just like an adult) at no
cost.
Do
I have the right to express political views at school?
Public
school students generally have a First Amendment right to politically organize
at school by passing out leaflets, holding meetings, etc., as long as those
activities are not disruptive and do not violate legitimate school rules. You
may not be singled out based on your politics, ethnicity or religion.
Can
my backpack or locker be searched?
School
officials can search students' backpacks and lockers without a warrant if they
reasonably suspect that you are involved in criminal activity or carrying drugs
or weapons. Do not consent to the police or school officials searching your property,
but do not physically resist or you may face criminal charges.
Disclaimer
This
booklet is not a substitute for legal advice. You should contact an attorney if
you have been visited by the FBI or other law enforcement officials. You should
also alert your relatives, friends, co-workers and others so that they will be
prepared if they are contacted as well.
NLG
National Hotline for Activists Contacted by the FBI
"Checkpoint" is based on the
oppression and discrimination Jasiri X witnessed firsthand during his
recent trip to Palestine and Israel "Checkpoint" is produced by Agent of
Change, and directed by Haute Muslim. Download "Checkpoint" at https://jasirix.bandcamp.com/track/ch.... Follow Jasiri X at https://twitter.com/jasiri_x LYRICS Journal of the hard times tales from the dark side Evidence of the settlements on my hard drive Man I swear my heart died at the end of that car ride When I saw that checkpoint welcome to apartheid Soldiers wear military green at the checkpoint Automatic guns that's machine at the checkpoint Tavors not m16s at the checkpoint Fingers on the trigger you'll get leaned at the checkpoint Little children grown adults or teens at the checkpoint All ya papers better be clean at the checkpoint You gotta but your finger on the screen at the checkpoint And pray that red light turns green at the check point If Martin Luther King had a dream of the checkpoint He wake with loud screams from the scenes at the checkpoint It's Malcolm X by any means at the check point Imagine if you daily routine was the checkpoint Separation walls that's surrounding the checkpoint On top is barbwire like a crown on the checkpoint Better have ya permits if your found at the checkpoint Gunmen on the tower aiming down at the checkpoint The idea is to keep you in fear of the checkpoint You enter through the cage in the rear of the checkpoint It feels like prison on a tier at the check point I'd rather be anywhere but here at this checkpoint Nelson Mandela wasn't blind to the check point He stood for free Palestine not a check point Support BDS don't give a dime to the checkpoint This is international crime at the checkpoint Arabs get treated like dogs at the checkpoint Cause discrimination is the law at the checkpoint Criminalized without a cause at the checkpoint I'm just telling you what I saw at the checkpoint Soldiers got bad attitudes at the checkpoint Condescending and real rude at the checkpoint Don't look em in they eyes when they move at the checkpoint They might strip a man or woman nude at the checkpoint Soldiers might blow you out of ya shoes at the checkpoint Gas you up and then light the fuse at the checkpoint Everyday you stand to be accused at the checkpoint Each time your life you could lose at the checkpoint If Martin Luther King had a dream of the checkpoint He wake with loud screams from the scenes at the checkpoint It's Malcolm X by any means at the check point Imagine if you daily routine was the checkpoint At the airport in Tel Aviv is a checkpoint They pulled over our taxi at the checkpoint Passport visa ID at the checkpoint Soldiers going all through my things at the checkpoint Said I was high risk security at the checkpoint Because of the oppression I see at the checkpoint Occupation in the 3rd degree at the checkpoint All a nigga wanna do is leave fuck a checkpoint
"Fukushima,
Never Again" tells the story of the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdowns in
north east Japan in March of 2011 and exposes the cover-up by Tepco and the
Japanese government.
This
is the first film that interviews the Mothers Of Fukushima, nuclear power
experts and trade unionists who are fighting for justice and the protection of
the children and the people of Japan and the world. The residents and citizens
were forced to buy their own geiger counters and radiation dosimeters in order
to test their communities to find out if they were in danger.
The
government said contaminated soil in children's school grounds was safe and
then
when
the people found out it was contaminated and removed the top soil, the
government and TEPCO refused to remove it from the school grounds.
It
also relays how the nuclear energy program for "peaceful atoms" was brought
to Japan under the auspices of the US military occupation and also the criminal
cover-up of the safety dangers of the plant by TEPCO and GE management which
built the plant in Fukushima. It also interviews Kei Sugaoka, the GE nulcear
plant inspector from the bay area who exposed cover-ups in the safety at the
Fukushima plant and was retaliated against by GE. This documentary allows the
voices of the people and workers to speak out about the reality of the disaster
and what this means not only for the people of Japan but the people of the
world as the US government and nuclear industry continue to push for more new
plants and government subsidies. This film breaks
the
information blockade story line of the corporate media in Japan, the US and
around the world that Fukushima is over.
NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, a personal hero of mine, has recently filed to renew his asylum in Russia. Exiled thousands of miles from friends and family, he awaits his fate. He learned from the example of another top hero of mine, Chelsea Manning.
Manning helped inspire his revelations that if he released his vital
information while in this country he would have been held incommunicado
in isolation as Chelsea was for over ten months—in Snowden’s case
probably for the rest of his life. And facing comparable charges to
Chelsea’s, he would have no more chance than Chelsea to have a truly fair trial—being
prevented by the prosecution and judge (as I was, forty years ago) from
even raising arguments of public interest or lack of harm in connection
with his disclosures. Contrary to the hollow advice of Hillary Clinton
or John Kerry, if he were to return to America he would not be able to
“make his case” neither “in court,” nor “to the public” from a prison
cell.
No comments:
Post a Comment