*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
U.S. Out Now! From Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all U.S. bases around the world; End all U.S. Aid to Israel; Get the military out of our schools and our communities; Demand Equal Rights and Justice for ALL!
TAX THE RICH NOT THE POOR! MONEY FOR HUMAN NEEDS NOT WAR!
Bay Area United Against War Newsletter
Table of Contents:
A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
C. ARTICLES IN FULL
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Appeals court to hear Pinkney defense June 9, 2009
By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
The Michigan Citizen
http://www.michigancitizen.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=1&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=7344&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1070&hn=michigancitizen&he=.com
To sign a petition in support of Pinkney:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/624471377
On June 9, the State Appeals Court of Michigan will hear defense arguments in the case of Rev. Edward Pinkney. Pinkney, who is the leader of the Benton Harbor Black Autonomy Network of Community Organizers (BANCO), was convicted by a Berrien County, all-white jury in March 2007 on trumped-up charges related to false allegations of voter fraud.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan has taken Pinkney's case and was successful in winning his release on bond in December 2008, pending the outcome of the appeal.
Pinkney was convicted of four felony counts and one misdemeanor after heading a successful recall campaign against a City Commissioner.
As a result of the recall, the courts in Berrien County overturned the election results citing irregularities. The first trial against Pinkney ended in a hung jury in 2006. The charges were reinstated leading to Pinkney's conviction and subsequent house arrest. He was initially sentenced to one year in jail and four years probation by Berrien County Judge Alfred Butzbaugh.
Pinkney was placed on a tether and not allowed to step outside of his home. His phone calls were monitored and he was prohibited from engaging in community or church activities in Berrien County.
When Pinkney published an article in the Chicago-based People's Tribune newspaper criticizing Judge Butzbaugh's actions in his case, Berrien County hauled Pinkney into courtroom in December of 2007. He was charged with threatening the life of the trial judge and sentenced to three to 10 years in state prison because in the article he had quoted the Book of Deuteronomy 28:14-22.
Over the next year Pinkney was transferred to over six correctional facilities throughout the state.
A nationwide campaign in his defense drew worldwide attention to the pastor's plight as a political prisoner. Even though Pinkney was released on appeal bond on December 24, 2008, his conditions of probation are draconian.
Rev. Pinkney's bond hearing was held in the same Berrien County court system. Under his appeal bond he is denied the right to preach, grant interviews, write articles, address crowds or engage in politics.
Support Builds for Appeals Hearing
In March three friend-of the court briefs were filed in support of overturning the conviction of Rev. Pinkney. A broad-based group of religious organizations, law professors and free speech advocates submitted the legal documents.
"We are thrilled with the overwhelming support from the religious community, constitutional scholars and free speech organizations," said Michael J. Steinberg, ACLU of Michigan Legal Director. "The groups persuasively argue for the fundamental American principle that a preacher cannot be thrown in prison for his religious speech even if some find it offensive."
The religious freedom brief encompasses the views of numerous faith-based organizations.
Another brief was submitted by 18 law professors from various universities including Wayne State Law School, University of Detroit Law School and the Thomas M. Cooley Law School. The brief states that "In this country, under this Constitution, and on this Court's watch, he must not be imprisoned for speaking his conscience."
Also the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression argued in its brief that "In finding that Rev. Pinkney's newspaper editorial violated his conditions of probation, the lower court punished speech at the core of First Amendment protection: public criticism of the judiciary."
Berrien County and American Apartheid
This southwest Michigan county is a stark representation of racism and national oppression in the United States. Benton Harbor, which is over 90 percent African American, is one of the most underdeveloped cities in the state of Michigan. In neighboring St. Joseph, a nearly all-white city, the standard of living is much higher and it is the seat of the county where the court is located.
Over the last several years a so-called development project, Harbor Shores, has unveiled plans to take control of large sections of Benton Harbor to construct a golf course and residential enclave for the wealthy. These plans, along with astronomical foreclosure and unemployment rates, are forcing many residents of Benton Harbor to leave the area.
According to an article published by Dorothy Pinkney, the wife of the persecuted minister, the presiding trial Judge Butzbaugh has interests in the Harbor Shores development project. The Whirlpool Corporation, which is highly-influential in the region, is major promoter of the Harbor Shores scheme.
"My husband was denied due process and the right under state law to an impartial decision maker because the trial judge, Alfred Butzbaugh, had a financial interest in the development of Harbor Shores. This huge development project is what motivated my husband to seek the recall of the corrupt Benton Harbor City Commissioner Glen Yarbrough," Dorothy Pinkney wrote.
She continues by pointing out that "The trial court's financial interest in the Harbor Shores project was not known to my husband until after the trial. The Harbor Shores project which has been primarily pressed by Cornerstone Alliance on behalf of Whirlpool Corporation began in 1998 when the community economic development corporation was formed by John Dewane of the law firm Butzbaugh and Ryan." (BANCO website, April 2009)
The Michigan Emergency Committee Against War and Injustice (MECAWI), the Michigan Welfare Rights Organization (MWRO) and the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights (MCHR) are mobilizing people to attend the appeals hearing for Rev. Pinkney on June 9.
The hearing will take place in Grand Rapids at the Court of Appeals Building, 350 Ottawa St at 9:00 a.m.
For information on transportation from the Detroit area please call MECAWI at 313.680.5508. [For other Michigan transportation, contact
lynnmeadows@provide.net]
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Hundreds Join Recession March Against
Budget Cuts to Poor and Working San Franciscans
When: Wednesday, June 10th, 2009 3:00 pm
Where: Hallidie Plaza, Market Street near 4th Street, march to and around San Francisco City Hall via UN Plaza/Civic Center Plaza
San Francisco - Recession effectees join with city workers and working poor San Franciscans to march against Mayor Gavin Newsom's proposed city budget. Marchers are asking the city to "invest in us" and demanding a more equitable budget that protects economically and politically vulnerable San Franciscans.
City Departments that serve the most vulnerable San Franciscans have been asked to shoulder the lion's share of the budget deficit. The Department's responsible for the social safety net for the city's poorest residents, including Health Department, Human Service Agency, Violence Prevention, Commission on Status of Women, and DCYF represent 48% of budget reductions requested by the Mayor's Office. At the same time, progressive revenue options have not been sought, and the budget ax seemed to have missed police, fire, high paid executives and public relations staff inside the Mayor's office.
For example, the Health Department was targeted for $167 million in budget reductions, and while identifying $97 million in revenue above inflation, regulatory and structural adjustments, there is a total of $70 million in actual health department cuts. The target of $167 million for DPH represents 40% of the health department's general fund. Proposed reductions include elimination of health care staff, and de-skilling of health care workers. Reductions to Community Behavioral Health and HIV/AIDS, is potentially resulting in thousands of people losing HIV/AIDS prevention, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment and homeless services. Rents are being raised for AIDS patients, and rooms for homeless people eliminated.
The Human Service Agency has received a combined total of $29 million in revenue and reductions, of that $19 million are reductions to Human Service Agency programs. This represents a 23% reduction to their general fund. Funding reductions impact homeless programs significantly, including reductions in entitlement and foster care program staff, closure of a drop-in center for homeless people, closure of shelters during the day, and the large reductions to a successful job training and placement program for formerly homeless people.
With hundreds losing their jobs within the Health Department and contract agencies, police and fire are seeing zero layoffs. The proportion of reductions to the general fund for police and fire are around 12.5%.
Meanwhile, these departments have been seeing massive increases in need. For example, there has been an increase in people losing their health insurance, and many have lost their homes. Family shelters have seen their waitlists double, and homeless resource centers have seen a 50% increase in population served. Soup kitchens have also seen increases, as well, with one large soup kitchen (not funded by the city) seeing the number of meals serve approaching 3,000 a day towards the end of the month. This is largely a result of unemployment in San Francisco climbing up to 9%, as of March 31, 2009, from 4.7% a year ago in the same months. There has also been a 5.2% increase in County Adult Assistance applications and significant rises in food stamp applications.
According to Eric Quesada of the Immigrant Rights Defense Committee, "This is not the time to cut the services that San Franciscans are relying on now more then ever. The Mayoral Administration is not seeking progressive revenue to balance the budget, and is instead targeting economically and politically vulnerable populations and the services they need to survive and flourish."
The event is being sponsored by Budget Justice, a group of organizations representing vulnerable populations being hit hard by budget reductions. Member organizations include Coleman Advocates, Coalition on Homelessness, Housing Justice, Council of Community Housing Organizations, Senior Action Network, Immigrant Rights Defense Committee, Planning for Elders in the Central City, SEIU, San Francisco Human Services Network, and more.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
AROC} Board of Supervisors Hearing Monday 6/15 on Police
Action at Protests
To: AROC Announcements
When: Monday June 15th at 11am
Where: City Hall, Main Chambers (at the top of big stairs)
Who: Supervisors Campos, Mirkarimi, and Aliota-Pier... and you.
The below hearing is a space for public testimony to be witnessed by 3
members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It will be a place
to receive information from the Police Commission on their protocol at
protests and first amendment activities, and for community members to
speak up about their experiences.
Please respond by email if you would like more information, or to
attend the preparation meeting happening this week. Or call
415-861-7444.
Hearing on Police Protocol at Demonstrations (Protests, marches, and rallies):
we have a right to demonstrate free from harm,
We have a right to have our voices heard!
Save the Date: Mon. june 15th at 11am
Have you witnessed or experienced:
Police brutality at protests?
Police use of racist language towards demonstrators?
Excessive use of force or bullying?
Video or camera monitoring of activists?
Unwarranted arrests?
Do you believe in our right as community members to protest free from
fear of repercussions?
Come testify at the SF Board of Supervisors Public Safety Committee on
what you’ve seen or experienced, and what you want to see changed.
When: Monday June 15th at 11am
Where: City Hall, Main Chambers (at the top of big stairs)
Who: Supervisors Campos, Mirkarimi, and Aliota-Pier... and you.
Why: 2009 has seen an escalation in police tactics at protests and
marches. Attacks on protesters are a deliberate way to repress our
freedom of expression and ability to change our communities through
direct action. As police and military forces continue their daily
assault on our communities here and abroad, we must defend our rights
as community members to organize in the streets free from harm—knowing
that if we don’t, this daily repression will only continue to
escalate.
For more information contact the Arab Resource and Organizing Center:
415-861-7444 or info[at]araborganizing.org
Arab Resource and Organizing Center ~ AROC
522 Valencia St
San Francisco, Ca 94110
415.861.7444 ~ www.adcsf.org ~ arabamericanlegal@gmail.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
San Francisco, CA, June 15, 2009: Public Rally for the Cuban Five
Monday, June 15, 2009, 4:30 pm
New Federal Building
Seventh St., between Mission & Jessie Sts.
San Francisco
On Mon., June 15, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on whether or nor to accept the Cuban Five’s appeal. This is a crucial time for the Five, who have been unjustly imprisoned in the United States for almost 11 years.
The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five is making an appeal to everyone to join the S.F. picketline on the day of the expected Supreme Court decision. Regardless of how the court rules, the struggle to free the Cuban anti-terrorist heroes will continue until they are free. Please join us on June 15, raise your voice for the Cuban Five’s freedom!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Urgent News
Hearing on Death Penalty June 30, Sacramento
Please: SIGN-UP TO ATTEND!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1265/t/5820/signUp.jsp?key=4279
On May 1st, the State of California announced that it is moving forward with developing execution procedures in order to comply with a recent legal ruling and resume executions, which have been on hold for more than three years.
The State will be holding a hearing on Tuesday, June 30th from 9am to 3pm in Sacramento to hear public comments about the proposed execution procedures.
Death Penalty Focus, along with our allies, will be organizing a critical Day of Action to End the Death Penalty on June 30th.
What You Can Do to Help:
1. Please plan to attend the hearing on June 30th in Sacramento. We will be organizing buses from the SF Bay Area (more details to be announced very soon).
Please: SIGN-UP TO ATTEND!
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1265/t/5820/signUp.jsp?key=4279
We need to pack the room with more than 300 hundred supporters. More than one hundred individuals will be needed to give public comment. If they cannot accommodate everyone who signs up to speak, it is possible they will have to schedule another hearing.
After the hearing, we will head to the Capitol to share ours views with elected officials.
2. Please plan to submit a written comment to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In just a few days we will be sending out suggestions for your comments and instructions on how to submit your comments. The CDCR is required by law to review and respond to every written comment. We need to generate thousands of comments from across the state, country and globe. We need to flood them with paperwork.
Please help us make this Day of Action a success!
Legislative Successes
Colorado
Colorado came very close to ending the death penalty this month when their State Senate voted 17-18 in favor of replacing the death penalty with life without parole and redirecting funding to solve murders. The State House has already passed the bill by a vote of 33-32.
Connecticut
On May 13, the Connecticut House voted 90-56 in favor of ending the death penalty. The bill now moves on to the Senate.
Several abolition bills are still active in other states, including New Hampshire, Illinois, Washington, and also in the U.S. Senate.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Greetings! We wanted to thank you again for your on-going support, and let you know about 2 upcoming events:
Reinstatement Hearing [Ward Churchill]
Wed. July 1, 9:00 am
Courtroom 6 (Judge Naves)
1435 Bannock St., Denver 80202
www.wardchurchill.net
CU is attempting to completely ignore the jury's verdict in this case, pretending that there was no finding that it violated the Constitution by firing Ward, and arguing that the judge should refuse to reinstate Ward and refuse pay him (or his lawyers).
Its excuse is that Ward is not "collegial" enough because he refused to accept the conclusions of the investigative committees. An odd argument from an entity which is refusing to accept the verdict in this case.
The hearing is scheduled for all day, with both sides presenting witnesses and arguments. If you're in the Denver area, please come and show your support. More details at www.wardchurchill.net.
"Shouting Fire" - HBO documentary on the state of free speech in America, featuring Ward's case, will air on Monday June 29 at 9:00 pm ET. Directed by Liz Garbus, and also featuring her father, famed First Amendment attorney Martin Garbus.
Review from its Sundance Film Festival premiere is available at:
http://festival.sundance.org/2009/film_events/films/shouting_fire_stories_from_the_edge_of_free_speech
HBO schedule at:
http://www.hbo.com/apps/schedule/ScheduleServlet?ACTION_DETAIL=DETAIL&FOCUS_ID=573085
In struggle and solidarity,
Natsu
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ATTEND THE JULY 10 NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CONFERENCE IN PITTSBURGH!
REGISTER FOR THE CONFERENCE and DOWNLOAD PRINTABLE BROCHURE (8.5 X 14) at:
https://natassembly.org/Home_Page.html
Dear Brothers and Sisters:
On behalf of the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations, we are writing to invite you and members of your organization to attend a national antiwar conference to be held July 10-12, 2009 at La Roche College in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The purpose of this conference is to bring together antiwar and social justice activists from across the country to discuss and decide what we can do together to end the wars, occupations, bombing attacks, threats and interventions that are taking place in the Middle East and beyond, which the U.S. government is conducting and promoting.
We believe that such a conference will be welcomed by the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and Iran, who are the victims of these policies. It will also be welcomed by victims of the depression-type conditions in this country, with tens of millions losing jobs, homes, health care coverage and pensions, while trillions of dollars are spent bailing out Wall Street and the banks, waging expansionist wars and occupations, and funding the Pentagon's insatiable appetite.
This will be the National Assembly's second conference. The first was held in Cleveland last June and it was attended by over 400 people, including top leaders of the antiwar movement and activists from many states. After discussion and debate, attendees voted - on the basis of one person, one vote - to urge the movement to join together for united spring actions. The National Assembly endorsed and helped build the March actions in Washington D.C., San Francisco and Los Angeles, and the April actions in New York City.
We are all aware of the developments since our last conference - the election of a new administration in the U.S., the ongoing occupation of Iraq, the escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the horrific Israeli bombing of Gaza, and the extreme peril of an additional war in the Middle East, this time against Iran. Given all this, it is crystal clear that a strong, united, independent antiwar movement is needed now more than ever. We urge you to help build such a movement by attending the July conference and sharing your ideas and proposals with other attendees regarding where the antiwar movement goes from here.
For more information, please visit the National Assembly's website at natassembly.org, email us at natassembly@aol.com, or call 216-736-4704. We will be glad to send you upon request brochures announcing the July conference (a copy is attached) and you can also register for the conference online. [Please be aware that La Roche College is making available private rooms with baths at a very reasonable rate, but will only guarantee them if reserved by June 25.]
Yours for peace, justice and unity,
National Assembly Administrative Body
Zaineb Alani, Author of The Words of an Iraqi War Survivor & More; Colia Clark, Chair, Richard Wright Centennial Committee, Grandmothers for Mumia Abu-Jamal; Greg Coleridge, Coordinator, Northeast Ohio Anti-War Coalition (NOAC) and Economic Justice and Empowerment Program Director, Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee (AFSC); Alan Dale, Iraq Peace Action Coalition (MN); Donna Dewitt, President, South Carolina AFL-CIO; Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace; Jerry Gordon, Former National Co-Coordinator of the Vietnam-Era National Peace Action Coalition (NPAC) and Member, U.S. Labor Against the War Steering Committee; Jonathan Hutto, Navy Petty Officer, Author of Anti-War Soldier; Co-Founder of Appeal for Redress; Marilyn Levin, Coordinating Committee, Greater Boston United for Justice with Peace, Middle East Crisis Coalition; Jeff Mackler, Founder, San Francisco Mobilization for Peace, Jobs and Justice; Fred Mason, President, Maryland State and District of Columbia AFL-CIO and Co-Convenor, U.S. Labor Against the War; Mary Nichols-Rhodes, Progressive Democrats of America/Ohio Branch; Lynne Stewart, Lynne Stewart Organization/Long Time Attorney and Defender of Constitutional Rights [Bay Area United Against War also was represented at the founding conference and will be there again this year. Carole Seligman and I initiated the motion to include adding opposition to the War in Afghanistan to the demands and title of the National Assembly.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
NATIONAL MARCH FOR EQUALITY
WASHINGTON, D.C. OCTOBER 10-11, 2009
Sign up here and spread the word:
http://www.nationalequalitymarch.com/
On October 10-11, 2009, we will gather in Washington DC from all across
America to let our elected leaders know that *now is the time for full equal
rights for LGBT people.* We will gather. We will march. And we will leave
energized and empowered to do the work that needs to be done in every
community across the nation.
This site will be updated as more information is available. We will organize
grassroots, from the bottom-up, and details will be shared on this website.
Our single demand:
Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states.
Our philosophy:
As members of every race, class, faith, and community, we see the struggle
for LGBT equality as part of a larger movement for peace and social justice.
Our strategy:
Decentralized organizing for this march in every one of the 435
Congressional districts will build a network to continue organizing beyond
October.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Mumia Abu-Jamal, death row, Pennsylvania Legal Update
Robert R. Bryan, lead counsel
June 6, 2009
Introduction
In recent months there have been significant legal developments concerning my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has been on Pennsylvania's death row for nearly three decades. We are presently litigating on his behalf in both the United States Supreme Court and the trial court, the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia.
Mumia's life on the line in this monumental struggle. He is in the greatest danger since his arrest in 1981.
Like so many on death row, Mumia has been a victim of poverty, racial bigotry, fraud, inadequate legal representation, and an unfair trial. The trial judge was a racist who referred to my client as a "ni - - er" whom he was going to help the prosecution "fry." Prior case lawyers failed to investigate and present pivotal issues both at trial and in the post-conviction process, thereby limiting what could be considered by the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals. Below is a brief summary of case developments.
U.S. Supreme Court, Washington
There have been two separate cases pending in the Supreme Court concerning Mumia. One involves strictly the death penalty, while the other concerns the prosecution's use of racism in jury selection.
Abu-Jamal v. Beard, U.S. Sup. Ct. No. 08-8483 This case related to the Philadelphia District Attorney's use of racism in selecting the jury that decided both the question of guilt and whether my client should die. The prosecutor used 66.67% of his available strikes to exclude African Americans from sitting on the jury. A judge in the lower federal court determined there was clear evidence that the prosecutor's strikes of black people was race-based and thus unconstitutional. The dissenting justice in a 2-1 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, found overwhelming evidence of racism by the prosecutor. (Abu-Jamal v. Horn, 520 F.3d 272 (3rd Cir. 2008).) He explained that the "core guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate on account of race, would be meaningless were we to approve the exclusion of jurors on the basis of . . . race. . . . I respectfully dissent."
On April 6, 2009, the Supreme Court declined to hear our case. This came as a profound disappointment and shock, even though the court rejects 98-99% of cases presented for review. Mumia's case was exceptional, especially in view of the powerful dissenting decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals. Our strong constitutional position was bolstered by briefing from the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund, which I had invited into the case to address the racism issue. Tragically the court turned its back on it own case law which held that racism in jury selection offends the U.S. Constitution and mandates a new trial. Our extensive briefing had laid out the overwhelming evidence establishing the prosecutor's race-based behavior and the racially-charged atmosphere of the trial. On May 1, I submitted a Petition for Rehearing which has been rejected.
Beard v. Abu-Jamal, Sup. Ct. No. 08-652
We are still litigating in the Supreme Court in an entirely separate case in which the prosecution is seeking to overturn the victory achieved last year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In that ruling the court ordered a new jury trial on the question of the death penalty. Both sides have gone back and forth in briefing in the Supreme Court. Due to developments in another case with a similar issue, it may be several months before Mumia's case is decided. If we win, then there will be a new jury trial. In the event of an adverse decision, the prosecution would push for a quick execution.
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia, Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, Nos. 1357-1359
On April 20, 2009, we filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief in the trial court, the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. At issue is the fact that Mumia was convicted on the basis of unreliable and incomplete expert ballistics testimony presented by the prosecution during the 1982 trial. We have also moved for discovery of all related evidence possessed by the prosecution.
Other Developments in Europe and the United States
In this country the support and activism of the National Lawyers Guild has been crucial on our work on behalf of Mumia. The cry for justice in the case of Mumia continues to be particularly strong in Europe. As an example, on May 17, 2009 a feature article datelined Paris appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. The piece is reprinted at the end of this Legal Update and available online with photographs at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/16/MN4517CARS.DTL. It describes the activism of committed French human-rights activists on behalf of Mumia which has drawn considerable attention in the U.S.
United States
Many people have heard about the support for Mumia by the National Lawyers Guild, headquartered in New York with chapters across the country, but know little of the details. Since its founding in 1937 the NLG has provided legal support to a wide range of legal and social movements, starting with drafting New Deal legislation and aiding in the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) and the United Auto Workers (UAW). It has actively supported labor rights and played a central role in defending individuals targeted by the House Un-American Activities Committee. NLG lawyers, legal workers and law students participated in the Civil Rights movement and opened "people's law offices" in the South. In the 1990s and into the new millennium the organization's scope widened to include protecting individual rights against the increasing dominance of corporations, legal defense at mass demonstrations, and training lawyers about developments in the law such as newly developing anti-terrorism legislation.
The NLG aggressively opposes the death penalty, and many of its attorneys specialize in capital defense work. That included the legal effort to save Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were executed June 19,1953 in New York. Each year the NLG features a "Student Day Against the Death Penalty," and actively assists 100 student chapters in hosting public education events to raise awareness of the multitude of problems with the death penalty and to work toward its abolition. Law professor members and students have hosted hundreds of events featuring leading capital defense attorneys and former death-row inmates, and the NLG provides an organizing kit to students to help facilitate events against capital punishment.
Mumia's case has been a national priority of the NLG for over two decades. For many years he has served on the Board of Directors as Jailhouse Lawyer Vice President. At the annual conventions numerous resolutions have been passed seeking a new and fair trial and over the years the NLG has co-sponsored events around the country related to his case. Three years ago I invited the Guild to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief on his behalf. Thereafter a brief was submitted on the issue of the death penalty and other issues by Heidi Boghosian, NLG Executive Director, a member professor from George Washington University, Washington, D.C. and others in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Further, Ms Boghosian, an outstanding lawyer, has been active is assisting me in the representation of Mumia for many years, and has joined me in a number of client meetings. Mumia has enormous respect and trust for her and the NLG.
Germany
In Berlin on March 27, the prestigious Akademie der Künst (Academy of Arts), located two doors from the U.S. Embassy at the Brandenburg Gate, hosted an outstanding panel discussion on Mumia as a journalist, author, and political prisoner. It originated from the efforts of the writer Sabine Kebir, PEN, and Nicole Bryan. The audience filled the auditorium. Participating in the human-rights event, was: Madame Danielle Mitterrand, former First Lady of France; Klaus Staeck, President of the Akademie; Johano Strasser, President of PEN Germany; Günter Wallraff, a well known author; Gerhart Rudolf Baum, former Minister of the Interior, the Bundestag (parliament), and United Nations representative; and me.
A video of the entire event is available on the Internet, at:
http://www.adk.de/de/aktuell/forum_dokumentationen/forum_27.Akadgespr.html
The commitment of supporters in Germany is a model of activism, especially those in Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen.
France
The movement for Mumia in France is excellent. It is led by the Collectif "Ensemble Sauvons Mumia Abu-Jamal" (Together We Will Save Mumia Abu-Jamal), composed of approximately 80 organizations. In Prison My Whole Life, the outstanding film on Mumia, is being shown in theaters throughout the country and continues to draw acclaim at film festivals. In Paris on March 15, it was awarded the Grand Prix and the Planete Prix at the Film Festival of Human Rights (Le Festival International du Film des Droits de l'Homme). In my two speeches at the awards ceremony, I accepted the prizes not only on behalf of Mumia, but also "for all the men, women and children who are on death rows around the world." The movie was also featured at the Amnesty International, a past winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a sponsor of the film. Claude Guillaumaud-Pujol, author of Mumia Abu-Jamal: The Voice of the Voiceless, and I spoke after each presentation. The movie was also featured in the Lyon International Film Festival last October. Mumia is grateful to Jacky Hortaut and the many supporters in France who do so much in the cause of justice.
Netherlands On April 3 and 4, In Prison My Whole Life was shown at Amnesty International's Movies That Matter film festival in The Hague and Amsterdam. Nicole and I participated in both events. There was a panel discussion following each showing in which Arlette Stuip, who attended Goddard College with Mumia, Ms. Guillaumaud-Pujol, and I discussed the case and answered questions.
Donations for Mumia's Legal Defense in the U.S. Our legal effort is the front line of the battle for Mumia's freedom and life. His legal defense needs help. The costs are substantial for our litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court and at the state level. To help, please make your checks payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left). All donations are tax deductible under the Internal Revenue Code, section 501(c)(3), and should be mailed to:
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
Conclusion It is outrageous and a violation of human rights that Mumia remains in prison and on death row. His life hangs in the balance. My career has been marked by successfully representing people facing death in murder cases. I will not rest until we win Mumia's case. Justice requires no less.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
__________________
French Still Rally to Abu-Jamal's Cause
Mary Papenfuss, Chronicle Foreign Service
Sunday, May 17, 2009
San Francisco Chronicle
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/17/MN4517CARS.DTL
(05-17) 04:00 PDT Paris - -- An ardent group of activists who meet weekly to protest the imprisonment of a death-row inmate, chanted slogans, shouted into microphones and held up printed banners. They could have been Bay Area residents in front of San Quentin before an execution, but they wore Chloé flats, spoke French, gathered near the Seine River and yelled liberté for a man languishing 3,700 miles away in a Pennsylvania prison.
While Mumia Abu-Jamal, 55, has been excoriated as a vicious cop killer in Philadelphia, he has been a cause-celebre in France for years.
In 2001, Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe declared him an honorary citizen, adding Abu-Jamal to a list of notables such as Pablo Picasso and the Dalai Lama. In 2006, the Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis named a street after him, prompting the city of Philadelphia to file a "crime of denial" grievance under an 1881 French law.
Late last year, Abu-Jamal's San Francisco attorney, Robert R. Bryan, received a medal from the city of Lyon for his work against the death penalty. At a news conference, Bryan joined Danielle Mitterrand, the widow of former President Francois Mitterrand, to speak to Abu-Jamal by cell phone at a palatial 17th century city hall.
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to order a new trial 27 years after Abu-Jamal's 1982 conviction for killing 25-year-old Philadelphia police Officer Daniel Faulkner. Faulkner's widow, Maureen, who now lives in Southern California, said she wept after the decision. "I've been haunted by the Free Mumia movement," she has told reporters. "He murdered my husband in cold blood."
Her sentiment and the court's decision, however, haven't discouraged Abu-Jamal's European supporters, whose rallies often eclipse those held in New York and San Francisco. Along with Paris, he has been given the status of honorary citizen in some 20 other cities, including Palermo, Sicily, and is an honorary member of Berlin's Association of Those Persecuted by the Nazi Regime.
Most of his ardent European backers believe he didn't receive a fair trial and is innocent. Others are simply against the death penalty. Currently, Belarus is the only European country that still uses capital punishment.
"He's innocent," said Abdel Chaoui, a 56-year-old resident of Saint-Denis. "If he's not, he shouldn't be put to death ... he has served enough time."
Although French activists have lobbied for the release of other U.S. prisoners - at last month's rally, protesters also collected signatures demanding a new trial for American Indian activist Leonard Peltier, who is serving a life sentence for the murder of two FBI agents - no other inmate galvanizes the French public like Abu-Jamal.
Some observers attribute such support to France's love affair with African Americans who sought refuge from U.S. racism, such as dancer Josephine Baker, writer Richard Wright, singer Paul Robeson and poet Langston Hughes. Many French supporters are convinced American institutions are inherently racist.
In addition, Abu-Jamal "is uniquely articulate for a death-row inmate," said UCLA political science Professor Mark Sawyer. "The idea of someone of his intellectual heft on death row makes some think of him as a condemned philosopher."
Before his arrest, Abu-Jamal had no previous criminal record. He had been a member of the Black Panther Party and had worked as a cab driver and radio journalist. He has continued writing behind bars and recently published his sixth book -"Jailhouse Lawyers" published by San Francisco's City Lights Publishers, making him a compelling poster child for death-penalty protesters.
Meanwhile, San Francisco attorney Bryan is convinced that European support will help his client avoid the death penalty and win a new trial.
"International support is crucial. If protests on Mumia's behalf are heard on the other side of the Atlantic, it has a major effect," he said. "Judges try to be impervious to public sentiment. But they're not machines; fortunately, they're human."
The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
On death row since a 1982 conviction for the murder of a Philadelphia police officer, Mumia Abu-Jamal has received much attention both at home and abroad.
Hollywood celebrities such as Martin Sheen, Whoopi Goldberg, Michael Moore, Ed Asner and Edward James Olmos have called for a new trial. The American rock band Rage Against The Machine have sung his praises in "Voice of the Voiceless." British actor Colin Firth produced a 2007 documentary about his case called "In Prison My Whole Life."
Abu-Jamal supporters say somebody else shot the police officer, his court-appointed lawyer was incompetent and several witnesses have contradicted themselves over the years. In a 2000 report, Amnesty International said trial evidence was "contradictory and incomplete,"
But critics say Abu-Jamal, born Wesley Cook, shot the police officer, four witnesses testified that he was the gunman, and shell casings from his .38-caliber gun were found at the crime scene. Moreover, police say he confessed to the crime while recuperating from his wounds in a hospital bed.
Few, however, argue that a police officer named Daniel Faulkner pulled over a Volkswagen driven by William Cook, Abu-Jamal's brother on Dec, 9, 1981, for a traffic violation. Faulkner soon called for backup, but was dead from gunshot wounds to the back and face by the time other officers arrived. Police found Abu-Jamal nearby in the cab he drove lying in a pool of his own blood from a gunshot wound to the chest. Abu-Jamal has long said he saw Faulkner beating his brother, and when he went to his aid the officer shot him.
Over the years, state and federal courts have denied various appeals for a retrial and a habeas corpus review. The courts have also denied claims that witnesses perjured themselves and that Abu-Jamal had ineffectual counsel. In the latest decision last month, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal appeals court ruling that upheld his conviction, rejecting the argument that prosecutors sought to exclude black people from the jury. Abu Jamal was convicted by a jury of 10 whites and two blacks.
Abu-Jamal's San Francisco lawyer, Robert R. Bryan has filed a petition for a Supreme Court rehearing in the case, and is considering challenging ballistics findings in a separate action. The court has yet to consider a lower court ruling that set aside the death penalty. That ruling has been appealed by Philadelphia authorities, leaving Abu-Jamal on death row.
"We're closer to meeting the executioner," said Bryan.
E-mail Mary Papenfuss at foreign@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page A - 8 of the San Francisco Chronicle
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
IVAW Member Victor Agosto Refuses Deployment to Afghanistan
Sign our Petition in Support of Victor's Resistance Today:
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5966/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=383
Support Victor by making a donation to his legal defense fund:
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=27370
"It’s a matter of what I’m willing to live with," Specialist Victor Agosto of the U.S. Army, who is refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan, explained to IPS. "I’m not willing to participate in this occupation, knowing it is completely wrong."
Agosto, who returned from a 13-month deployment to Iraq in November 2007, is based at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas.
While in Iraq, Agosto never left his base, located in northern Iraq.
"I never had any traumatic experiences, never fired my weapon," Agosto told IPS in a phone interview. "I mostly worked in information technology, working on computers and keeping the network functioning well. But it was in Iraq that I turned against the occupations. Through my reading, and watching what was going on, I started to feel very guilty."
Agosto added, "What I did there, I know I contributed to death and human suffering. It’s hard to quantify how much I caused, but I know I contributed to it."
Having served three years and nine months in the U.S. Army, Agosto was to complete his contract and be discharged on Aug. 3. But due to his excellent record of service and accrued leave, he was to be released the end of June. Nevertheless, due to the stop-loss programme, the Army decided to deploy him to Afghanistan anyway.
Stop-loss is a programme the military uses to keep soldiers enlisted beyond the terms of their contracts. Since Sep. 11, 2001, more than 140,000 troops have had tours extended by stop-loss.
A copy of his Counseling Form from the Army, dated May 1, reads, "You will deploy in support of OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] on or about [XXXXX] with 57th ESB. This is a direct order from your Company Commander CPT Michael J. Pederson."
Agosto posted copies of the Counseling Statements issued by the Army on his Facebook page. Counseling Statements outline actions taken by the Army to discipline Agosto for his refusal to obey a direct order from his company commander.
On one of them, dated May 1, Agosto’s written statement appears: "There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect."
In another, dated May 18, he wrote: "I will not obey any orders I deem to be immoral or illegal."
On that day, Agosto was ordered to get his medical records in preparation to deploy to Afghanistan. He refused to do so. The Army threatened to take punitive measures, but Agosto wrote on the Counseling Statement, "I am not going to Afghanistan. I will not take part in SRP [Sealift Readiness Programme]."
If Agosto continues to refuse orders, he almost assuredly will face court martial, and likely jail time.
When IPS asked Agosto if he is willing to take whatever consequences the Army is prepared to mete out, he replied, "Yes. I’m fully prepared for this. I have concluded that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] are not going to be ended by politicians or people at the top. They are not responsive to the people, they are responsive to corporate America."
Agosto added, "The only way to make them responsive to the needs of the people is if soldiers won’t fight their wars, and if soldiers won’t fight their wars, the wars won’t happen. I hope I’m setting an example for other soldiers."
Agosto has overtly refused to follow any order that has anything to do with his taking an action that would support the occupation of Afghanistan. For a time, according to Agosto, he was given simple orders to clean the motor pool, or pull weeds.
"They switched that recently," he told IPS, "I’ve continued to be fairly defiant, so on Tuesday I have to meet with Trial Defense Services, which then begins the process of getting an Article 15, which is movement towards being court-martialed, if these reprimands continue."
"If I take the Article 15, I’ll take a reduction in rank and pay. I don’t’ know what is going to happen. I agreed to sweep the motor pool and pull weeds, but nothing else that I feel directly supports the war. I’m not going to follow orders I’m not comfortable with."
Agosto’s case is not unique. The group Courage to Resist, based in Oakland, California, actively engages in assisting soldiers who refuse to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.
"Although the efforts of Courage to Resist are primarily focused on supporting public GI resisters, the organization also strives to provide political, emotional, and material support to all military objectors critical of our government's current policies of empire," reads a portion of the group's mission statement.
IPS spoke with Adam Szyper-Seibert, an office manager and counselor with Courage to Resist.
"Currently we are actively supporting over 50 military resisters like Victor Agosto," Szyper-Seibert told IPS, "They are all over the world, including André Shepherd in Germany, and several people in Canada. We are getting five to six calls a week just about the IRR [Individual Ready Reserve] recall alone."
U.S. Army Specialist André Shepherd, who went AWOL after serving in Iraq, has applied for asylum in Germany after refusing military service because he is morally opposed to the occupation of Iraq.
The IRR is composed of former military personnel who still have time remaining on their enlistment agreements but have returned to civilian life. They are eligible to be called up in "states of emergency." The Army is currently undertaking the largest IRR recall since 2004, despite the recent inauguration of a so-called anti-war president.
Szyper-Seibert said that the number of soldiers contacting Courage to Resist has been increasing dramatically in the last year, and particularly in recent months.
"The number of soldiers contacting us is increasing," he explained, "With five to six IRR’s contacting us a week, plus others going absent without leave [AWOL], the numbers are all climbing, as compared to a year ago. Since May 2008, we’ve had a 200 percent jump in how many soldiers are contacting us."
According to Courage to Resist, there have been at least 15,000 IRR call-ups since Sep. 11, 2001, for deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sgt. Travis Bishop, who served 14 months in Baghdad and is also stationed at Fort Hood, recently went AWOL when his unit deployed to Afghanistan.
Like Agosto, Bishop feels it is immoral for him to deploy to support an occupation he morally opposes.
"I love my country, but I believe that this particular war is unjust, unconstitutional and a total abuse of our nation’s power and influence," Bishop’s blog reads, "And so, in the next few days, I will be speaking with my lawyer, and taking actions that will more than likely result in my discharge from the military, and possible jail time... and I am prepared to live with that."
The reason he made this decision is addressed in his blog.
"My father said, ‘Do only what you can live with, because every morning you have to look at your face in the mirror when you shave. Ten years from now, you’ll still be shaving the same face.’ If I had deployed to Afghanistan, I don’t think I would have been able to look into another mirror again."
submit this page:
Click here for more IVAW Updates
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Short Video About Al-Awda's Work
The following link is to a short video which provides an overview of Al-Awda's work since the founding of our organization in 2000. This video was first shown on Saturday May 23, 2009 at the fundraising banquet of the 7th Annual Int'l Al-Awda Convention in Anaheim California. It was produced from footage collected over the past nine years.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiAkbB5uC0&eurl
Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause!
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, depends on your financial support to carry out its work.
To submit your tax-deductible donation to support our work, go to
http://www.al-awda.org/donate.html and follow the simple instructions.
Thank you for your generosity!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
KEVIN COOPER IS INNOCENT!
FLASHPOINTS Interview with Innocent San Quentin Death Row Inmate
Kevin Cooper -- Aired Monday, May 18,2009
http://www.flashpoints.net/#GOOGLE_SEARCH_ENGINE
To learn more about Kevin Cooper go to:
savekevincooper.org
LINKS
San Francisco Chronicle article on the recent ruling:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BAM517J8T3.DTL
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and dissent:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/05-99004o.pdf
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Don't let them kill Troy Davis
The case of Troy Davis highlights the need for criminal justice reform in the United States.
Please help us fight for the rights -- and life -- of Troy Davis today by signing the petition below, asking Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue to act on behalf of justice and commute Troy Davis's death sentence to ensure that Georgia does not put to death a man who may well be innocent.
Mr. Davis has a strong claim to innocence, but he could be executed without a court ever holding a hearing on his claims. Because of this, I urge you to act in the interests of justice and support clemency for Troy Davis. An execution without a proper hearing on significant evidence of innocence would compromise the integrity of Georgia's justice system.
As you may know, Mr. Davis was convicted of the 1989 murder of police officer Mark MacPhail, a conviction based solely on witness testimony. Seven of the nine non-police witnesses have recanted or contradicted their trial testimony.
The courts, citing procedural rules and time limits, have so far refused to hold an evidentiary hearing to examine these witnesses. Executive clemency exists, and executive action - and your leadership - is required to preserve justice when the protections afforded by our appeals process fail to do so.
Thank you for your attention.
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/2446/t/4676/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=369
See also:
In the Absence of Proof
By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
May 23, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/opinion/23herbert.html?_r=1
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
COURAGE TO RESIST!
Support the troops who refuse to fight!
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/
Donate:
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/21/57/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
PETITION IN SUPPORT OF PAROLE OF LEONARD PELTIER
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/parole2008/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
C. ARTICLES IN FULL
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) War Is Sin
By Chris Hedges
June 1, 2009
truthdig.com
2) Measuring Success in Afghanistan
New York Times Editorial
June 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08mon1.html
3) Death Penalty Case Reveals Failings in Alabama
By ADAM LIPTAK
Sidebar
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us/09bar.html?hp
4) U.S. to Propose Wider Oversight of Compensation
By LOUISE STORY and ERIC DASH
June 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/business/08bank.html?hp
5) There is more pain ahead for elderly, disabled and poor Californians.
George Skelton, Capitol Journal
June 8, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap8-2009jun08,0,7790749,full.column
6) A Roof Over Our Heads
and Other Inalienable Rights
By Bonnie Weinstein
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/mayjun_09/mayjun_09_01.html
7) State of Shame
By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/opinion/09herbert.html
9) Treasury Lets 10 Big Banks Start to Repay Bailout Money
By ERIC DASH
June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10tarp.html?hp
10) Accounts Differ on Afghan Grenade Attack
By ADAM B. ELLICK
June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/world/asia/10afghan.html?ref=world
11) JKashmir: Police Fire on Protesters
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
World Briefing | Asia
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/world/asia/09briefs-kashmir.html?ref=world
12) An Ivy-Covered Path to the Supreme Court
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us/politics/09ivy.html?ref=education
13) Study Cites Health Disparities for Gays
By Sewell Chan
June 9, 2009, 3:00 pm
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/study-cites-health-disparities-for-gays/
14) Illegal Immigrants’ Rights Were Violated, Judge Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/nyregion/09raids.html?ref=nyregion
15) U.S. Military Spending Overwhelms the Rest of the World
By Bernie Horn
Created 06/09/2009 - 12:23pm
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062409/us-military-spending-overwhelms-rest-world
16) London Police Accused of Abusing Suspects
By SARAH LYALL
June 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/world/europe/11london.html?ref=world
17) Londoners Struggle to Work as Tube Strike Starts
By REUTERS
June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/06/10/world/business-britain-london-strike.html?ref=world
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) War Is Sin
By Chris Hedges
June 1, 2009
truthdig.com
The crisis faced by combat veterans returning from war is not simply a profound struggle with trauma and alienation. It is often, for those who can slice through the suffering to self-awareness, an existential crisis. War exposes the lies we tell ourselves about ourselves. It rips open the hypocrisy of our religions and secular institutions. Those who return from war have learned something, which is often incomprehensible to those who have stayed home. We are not a virtuous nation. God and fate have not blessed us above others. Victory is not assured. War is neither glorious nor noble. And we carry within us the capacity for evil we ascribe to those we fight.
Those who return to speak this truth, such as members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, are our contemporary prophets. But like all prophets they are condemned and ignored for their courage. They struggle, in a culture awash in lies, to tell what few have the fortitude to digest. They know that what we are taught in school, in worship, by the press, through the entertainment industry and at home, that the melding of the state’s rhetoric with the rhetoric of religion, is empty and false.
The words these prophets speak are painful. We, as a nation, prefer to listen to those who speak from the patriotic script. We prefer to hear ourselves exalted. If veterans speak of terrible wounds visible and invisible, of lies told to make them kill, of evil committed in our name, we fill our ears with wax. Not our boys, we say, not them, bred in our homes, endowed with goodness and decency. For if it is easy for them to murder, what about us? And so it is simpler and more comfortable not to hear. We do not listen to the angry words that cascade forth from their lips, wishing only that they would calm down, be reasonable, get some help, and go away. We, the deformed, brand our prophets as madmen. We cast them into the desert. And this is why so many veterans are estranged and enraged. This is why so many succumb to suicide or addictions.
War comes wrapped in patriotic slogans, calls for sacrifice, honor and heroism and promises of glory. It comes wrapped in the claims of divine providence. It is what a grateful nation asks of its children. It is what is right and just. It is waged to make the nation and the world a better place, to cleanse evil. War is touted as the ultimate test of manhood, where the young can find out what they are made of. War, from a distance, seems noble. It gives us comrades and power and a chance to play a small bit in the great drama of history. It promises to give us an identity as a warrior, a patriot, as long as we go along with the myth, the one the war-makers need to wage wars and the defense contractors need to increase their profits.
But up close war is a soulless void. War is about barbarity, perversion and pain, an unchecked orgy of death. Human decency and tenderness are crushed. Those who make war work overtime to reduce love to smut, and all human beings become objects, pawns to use or kill. The noise, the stench, the fear, the scenes of eviscerated bodies and bloated corpses, the cries of the wounded, all combine to spin those in combat into another universe. In this moral void, naively blessed by secular and religious institutions at home, the hypocrisy of our social conventions, our strict adherence to moral precepts, come unglued. War, for all its horror, has the power to strip away the trivial and the banal, the empty chatter and foolish obsessions that fill our days. It lets us see, although the cost is tremendous.
The Rev. William P. Mahedy, who was a Catholic chaplain in Vietnam, tells of a soldier, a former altar boy, in his book, Out of the Night: The Spiritual Journey of Vietnam Vets, who says to him: “Hey, Chaplain ... how come it’s a sin to hop into bed with a mama-san but it’s okay to blow away gooks out in the bush?”
“Consider the question that he and I were forced to confront on that day in a jungle clearing,” Mahedy writes. “How is it that a Christian can, with a clear conscience, spend a year in a war zone killing people and yet place his soul in jeopardy by spending a few minutes with a prostitute? If the New Testament prohibitions of sexual misconduct are to be stringently interpreted, why, then, are Jesus’ injunctions against violence not binding in the same way? In other words, what does the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ really mean?”
Military chaplains, a majority of whom are evangelical Christians, defend the life of the unborn, tout America as a Christian nation and eagerly bless the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as holy crusades. The hollowness of their morality, the staggering disconnect between the values they claim to promote, is ripped open in war.
There is a difference between killing someone who is trying to kill you and taking the life of someone who does not have the power to harm you. The first is killing. The second is murder. But in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the enemy is elusive and rarely seen, murder occurs far more often than killing. Families are massacred in airstrikes. Children are gunned down in blistering suppressing fire laid down in neighborhoods after an improvised explosive device goes off near a convoy. Artillery shells obliterate homes. And no one stops to look. The dead and maimed are left behind.
The utter failure of nearly all our religious institutions—whose texts are unequivocal about murder—to address the essence of war has rendered them useless. These institutions have little or nothing to say in wartime because the god they worship is a false god, one that promises victory to those who obey the law and believe in the manifest destiny of the nation.
We all have the capacity to commit evil. It takes little to unleash it. For those of us who have been to war this is the awful knowledge that is hardest to digest, the knowledge that the line between the victims and the victimizers is razor-thin, that human beings find a perverse delight in destruction and death, and that few can resist the pull. At best, most of us become silent accomplices.
Wars may have to be fought to ensure survival, but they are always tragic. They always bring to the surface the worst elements of any society, those who have a penchant for violence and a lust for absolute power. They turn the moral order upside down. It was the criminal class that first organized the defense of Sarajevo. When these goons were not manning roadblocks to hold off the besieging Bosnian Serb army they were looting, raping and killing the Serb residents in the city. And those politicians who speak of war as an instrument of power, those who wage war but do not know its reality, those powerful statesmen—the Henry Kissingers, Robert McNamaras, Donald Rumsfelds, the Dick Cheneys—those who treat war as part of the great game of nations, are as amoral as the religious stooges who assist them. And when the wars are over what they have to say to us in their thick memoirs about war is also hollow, vacant and useless.
“In theological terms, war is sin,” writes Mahedy. “This has nothing to do with whether a particular war is justified or whether isolated incidents in a soldier’s war were right or wrong. The point is that war as a human enterprise is a matter of sin. It is a form of hatred for one’s fellow human beings. It produces alienation from others and nihilism, and it ultimately represents a turning away from God.”
The young soldiers and Marines do not plan or organize the war. They do not seek to justify it or explain its causes. They are taught to believe. The symbols of the nation and religion are interwoven. The will of God becomes the will of the nation. This trust is forever shattered for many in war. Soldiers in combat see the myth used to send them to war implode. They see that war is not clean or neat or noble, but venal and frightening. They see into war’s essence, which is death.
War is always about betrayal. It is about betrayal of the young by the old, of cynics by idealists, and of soldiers and Marines by politicians. Society’s institutions, including our religious institutions, which mold us into compliant citizens, are unmasked. This betrayal is so deep that many never find their way back to faith in the nation or in any god. They nurse a self-destructive anger and resentment, understandable and justified, but also crippling. Ask a combat veteran struggling to piece his or her life together about God and watch the raw vitriol and pain pour out. They have seen into the corrupt heart of America, into the emptiness of its most sacred institutions, into our staggering hypocrisy, and those of us who refuse to heed their words become complicit in the evil they denounce.
—truthdig.com, June 1, 2009
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) Measuring Success in Afghanistan
New York Times Editorial
June 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/opinion/08mon1.html
Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, President Obama’s choice to be the next military commander in Afghanistan, has defined America’s essential goals there in a way that represents an overdue change in military strategy. He told senators last week that “the measure of effectiveness will not be the number of enemy killed. It will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence.”
If General McChrystal can carry it off, he will have a far better chance of turning around a war America has not been winning — but must.
It isn’t just Taliban violence that Afghans need shielding from. Errant American fire has taken an unacceptably high toll, especially from the airstrikes that American commanders came to rely on because they lacked sufficient ground troops. One particularly deadly episode last month killed dozens of civilians (the Pentagon says 20 to 30; the Afghan government says 140).
Last week, The Times reported on the initial conclusions of a Pentagon investigation, citing significant errors by military personnel that contributed to the high civilian death toll. These included ignoring a rule against bombing high-density residential areas in the absence of imminent threat and failing to reconfirm a target after a bombing delay.
Such mistakes are costly, not just in civilian lives but in broader support for the presence of American troops and the military campaign against the Taliban.
Afghanistan’s people have few illusions about the Taliban. They have felt the lash of its medieval punishments, witnessed its brutal attacks on women’s rights and girls’ education and noted its cynical and sinister ties with major drug traffickers. But they have little enthusiasm for a war in which foreign troops and Taliban fanatics shoot at each other with seeming indifference to the civilians caught in the cross-fire. Last year, some 2,000 Afghan civilians were killed, according to the United Nations and private aid agencies.
Reducing that toll will require tighter and more strictly enforced rules of engagement. That applies not just to airstrikes but to the search and detention operations that General McChrystal wants to expand this year with the help of 21,000 additional troops that President Obama ordered sent to Afghanistan. Ground operations are less likely to go astray than airstrikes. But as happened far too many times in Iraq, they can sweep up innocent civilians and turn local people against the American presence.
General McChrystal’s most important job will be to change the way ordinary Afghans view the fight against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies. Counterinsurgency operations need support (and intelligence tips) from the local population to succeed.
Protecting Afghan civilians, and expanding the secure space in which they can safely go about their lives and livelihoods must now become the central purpose of American military operations in Afghanistan. And Washington must step up the pace and quality of training so that expanded Afghan military and police forces can take over that mission as soon as possible.
President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan incorporates this more realistic approach. General McChrystal’s redefinition of American effectiveness reflects it. The right words are being said in Washington. Now they must be applied in Afghanistan.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Death Penalty Case Reveals Failings in Alabama
By ADAM LIPTAK
Sidebar
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us/09bar.html?hp
WASHINGTON
Kenneth B. Trotter had been practicing law for less than a year when an Alabama judge appointed him to assist two more seasoned lawyers in defending Holly Wood, who was facing the death penalty.
After Mr. Wood was convicted in 1994 of murdering his former girlfriend, Mr. Trotter led the effort to persuade the jury to spare his life. The young lawyer came up just short: the jury recommended death by a vote of 10-to-2, the minimum allowed under Alabama law.
Mr. Trotter failed to pursue or present evidence that his client was mentally retarded, though he had a competency report in hand that said as much. In September, a divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled that he had made a strategic decision, not a grave error.
Judge Rosemary Barkett, the dissenting judge, saw it differently.
“An inexperienced and overwhelmed attorney,” Judge Barkett wrote of Mr. Trotter, “realized too late what any reasonably prepared attorney would have known: that evidence of Wood’s mental impairments could have served as mitigating evidence and deserved investigation so that it could properly be presented before sentencing.”
Last month, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Mr. Wood’s case. It will give the court a glimpse of Alabama’s capital justice system, which is among the most troubled in the nation. The state lacks a public defender’s office, elects judges for whom death sentences are a campaign promise, pays appointed lawyers a pittance and sometimes leaves death row inmates to navigate the intricacies of post-conviction challenges with no lawyers at all.
The root problem is money, said Bryan Stevenson, the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative of Alabama, a nonprofit law firm that represents poor people and prisoners. The lawyers appointed to represent Mr. Wood in 1994 were entitled to a maximum of $1,000 to prepare for the penalty phase of the trial.
“It ought not be a shock to anyone that you get this kind of defense with that kind of funding,” Mr. Stevenson said. “The poor quality of indigent defense is still the ugliest scar on capital punishment in America.”
Mr. Trotter, who now practices insurance law in Washington, would not discuss the case.
In a 1994 letter to a colleague, Mr. Trotter said he was anxious and lost. “I have been stressed out over this case and don’t have anyone with whom to discuss the case, including the two other attorneys,” Mr. Trotter wrote.
There was little doubt that Mr. Wood would be convicted, said Cary L. Dozier, the lead lawyer on his defense team.
In September 1993, three weeks before Mr. Trotter was admitted to the bar, Mr. Wood broke into the home of a former girlfriend, Ruby Gosha, and killed her while she was sleeping with a shotgun blast to her head. Soon afterward, according to testimony from a cousin, Mr. Wood admitted to shooting Ms. Gosha, saying he had “blowed her brains out and all she did was wiggle.” Mr. Wood was the father of one of Ms. Gosha’s children.
Mr. Dozier said an acquittal was out of the question once Mr. Wood’s cousin testified. “His cousin basically slammed the door on him,” Mr. Dozier said.
Mr. Dozier added that money had played no role in how the case was handled. “If I was appointed to represent someone,” he said, “I done as well for somebody as if he was a paying client. We did the best we could.”
After the jury found Mr. Wood guilty, it turned to the question of the proper punishment. Mr. Dozier said his young colleague had performed capably in presenting the case for leniency. “I thought Ken had done a good job,” he said.
The defense team had a report that described Mr. Wood as competent to stand trial. The report also noted that Mr. Wood’s I.Q. was “in the borderline range of intellectual functioning” and that he read at a third-grade level.
Mr. Trotter did not pursue that point at the sentencing hearing, though evidence of mental retardation was a factor the jury could have considered as favoring leniency.
“Wood’s counsel were well aware that his intelligence is impaired,” Alabama’s attorney general, Troy King, told the United States Supreme Court in April, “and they made a reasonable strategic decision not to present that evidence.”
After the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which barred the execution of the mentally retarded, a state court judge ruled that Mr. Wood was not retarded. True, the court said, his I.Q. was around 64, less than the score of 70 that Alabama law views as the “significantly sub-average intellectual functioning.”
But Alabama, like other states, does not rely solely on I.Q. in determinations about retardation in capital cases. It also looks at whether the defendant possessed fundamental practical skills.
The state judge noted that Mr. Wood has held jobs that used heavy machinery, managed his own money, planned and cooked meals, and subscribed to Hot Rod magazine.
Those findings were drafted by the prosecutors and adopted verbatim by the judge. That curious practice is widespread in Alabama trial courts.
“The problem in Alabama is that there are effectively no state court judicial decisions,” Mr. Stevenson said. “Decisions are made by prosecutors who write orders sometimes over 100 pages that are simply adopted by trial court judges.”
The practice is “subject to criticism,” a state appeals court in Mr. Wood’s case said mildly. But it upheld the determination that Mr. Wood was not retarded for purposes of Atkins. “Even when the court adopts proposed findings and conclusions verbatim,” the appeals court said, “the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous.”
Still, the question of whether Mr. Wood was categorically barred from being executed is different from whether evidence of his mental limitations should have been presented to the jury considering his sentence.
At a hearing on a state-court challenge to Mr. Wood’s death sentence, Mr. Trotter testified that the jury’s 10-to-2 vote had been heartbreakingly close. “I felt like if I could have done just a little more,” he said, “that maybe it could have been 9-to-3 and that that would have been enough.”
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) U.S. to Propose Wider Oversight of Compensation
By LOUISE STORY and ERIC DASH
June 8, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/business/08bank.html?hp
The Obama administration plans to require banks and corporations that have received two rounds of federal bailouts to submit any major executive pay changes for approval by a new federal official who will monitor compensation, according to two government officials.
The proposal is part of a broad set of regulations on executive compensation expected to be announced by the administration as early as this week. Some of the rules are required by legislation enacted in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and they would apply only to companies that received taxpayer money.
Others, which are being described as broad principles, would set standards that the government would like the entire financial industry to observe as banks and other companies compensate their highest-paid executives, though it is not clear how stringent regulators will make them.
Citigroup, Bank of America, the American International Group, General Motors and its finance arm, GMAC, which all received two taxpayer infusions, will face the strictest scrutiny from the new federal official charged with vetting compensation, Kenneth R. Feinberg. He is known for overseeing payouts to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In the past, banks had free rein to determine the base salary and bonuses they awarded their employees. When the economy was riding high, bonuses for top Wall Street executives and traders soared to tens of millions of dollars. Critics say the bonuses often encouraged excessive risk-taking since star bankers could walk away with more money even if the bets they took failed to pay off.
But executive pay has been a delicate issue for the Obama administration and Congress, particularly since it was revealed that A.I.G., the recipient of at least $180 billion in taxpayer money, was handing out $165 million in bonuses. The episode left officials struggling with just how to balance public anger with compensation rules that would not put the industry at a competitive disadvantage or derail other economic recovery initiatives.
With the government handing out billions in bailouts, Congress passed legislation banning all companies that received support from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, from paying their top 25 executives bonuses greater than a third of their salary, though they were not subject to specific salary cap.
The banking industry had been lobbying the Obama administration to exclude traders and other highflying salespeople from the top 25, fearing it would lose top talent to competitors not constrained by the rules of a taxpayer bailout. A number of bankers at Citigroup and Merrill Lynch have already fled to higher-paying jobs with rivals. But officials say that the guidelines will apply to the top 25 earners, including the traders.
Banks that received money from the relief program must also curb outsize severance packages, and pull back bonuses that were based on fraudulent or misstated results.
But without clear rules, many banks have been altering their compensation policies, with some ratcheting up salaries to get around the restrictions until the legislation was codified. The industry has eagerly awaited the fine print.
“Some of the provisions on the pay restrictions on relief TARP recipients are punitive, intended to emphasize that this is government money and we don’t you want you giving it to executives,” said Michael S. Melbinger, a lawyer at Winston & Strawn who specializes in executive compensation.
In a sign of how eager corporations are to escape government diktats on pay, at least nine of the nation’s biggest banks have asked to repay bailout money. The administration is expected to start granting approvals as early as Tuesday, allowing banks to leave the bailout program far earlier than many had envisioned. The early approvals are a sign that regulators and the banking industry believe that the worst of the crisis may have passed, even though the economy remains fragile.
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a handful of others have worked to rid themselves of their ties to the government in order to shed restrictions on pay that they say put them at a competitive disadvantage.
But under the administration’s new plans, even companies that repay the taxpayer money will not escape some form of oversight on their compensation structure.
“The industry has already adapted to the political and economic realities,” said Scott E. Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group made up of the nation’s biggest banks and insurance companies. “If they are draconian, they could put the financial services industry at a distinct disadvantage in attracting and retaining top personnel. If they are just principles, they will be redundant because the industry has already moved to connect employee compensation with the long-term health of the company.”
The set of broad pay principles being drafted by the Treasury Department would authorize regulators to tell a bank to alter its compensation arrangements if it is found to encourage too much risk-taking. It is not clear how the government will define too much risk.
According to the two government officials, the new principles will not include bonus restrictions, although they will encourage banks to set compensation in a way that avoids rewarding risk-taking through short-term bonus awards. They will apply to a broad swath of financial companies, even the United States operations of foreign banks, as well as private companies like hedge funds and private equity firms.
“This is the government trying to tell the TARP banks not to worry, because everyone else’s compensation will be monitored, too,” Gustavo Dolfino, president of the WhiteRock Group, a financial recruiter, said of the industrywide principles. “We’re in a world of TARP and non-TARP.”
The strictest oversight of all will come from Mr. Feinberg, the administration’s compensation czar, who will actively vet all executive compensation changes at the companies that have received more than one taxpayer lifeline.
On Thursday, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to examine how compensation practices contributed to the financial collapse and encouraged excessive risk-taking.
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner plans to testify on compensation on June 18, and that may be when he outlines the principles for the entire industry. Those principles will be permanent: when bailed-out companies return the government money, they will still have to follow those principles.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) There is more pain ahead for elderly, disabled and poor Californians.
George Skelton, Capitol Journal
June 8, 2009
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap8-2009jun08,0,7790749,full.column
From Sacramento -- Jean called the other day from her desert condo near Palm Springs. She'd been notified that the state was cutting back again on aid for the disabled and she was worried.
Yep, I said, and the cut most likely will be even sharper than she was figuring.
Jean isn't her real name. She didn't want it used. "I still have friends in L.A. who don't know I live this way," she said. "I'd be embarrassed if they knew. Guess it's just pride. Nobody wants to admit they're down and out."
She suffers from fibromyalgia, a disease of the connective tissues. Several years ago, Jean says, she was a buyer for the old Bullock's department stores in L.A. but became afflicted with the painful ailment and finally couldn't work anymore.
She moved to the desert. It was cheaper living and she'd be closer to her aging mother. Jean is 63, her mother 86. "Turns out she helps me more than I help her."
On good days, Jean uses crutches. Other days, she's in a wheelchair. "The pain never goes away."
I hadn't talked to Jean in more than three years, since the first time she called expressing concern about the state ripping off federal cost-of-living boosts for the impoverished aged, blind and disabled. Yes, that's legal.
She's one of nearly 1.3 million Californians receiving federal Supplemental Security Income, augmented by a State Supplementary Program.
They've always been an easy target -- too poor to throw big bucks at political candidates.
But, of course, practically anyone who draws a state buck these days is vulnerable.
Faced with what he calculates to be a potential $24-billion budget deficit in the fiscal year starting July 1, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed cutting state supplemental payments for the elderly and disabled down to the minimum allowed by federal law. It would be their third cut this year.
The Legislature already has approved a $20 monthly cut beginning July 1, lowering the grant for single people to $850. That's it: No food stamps, and that includes any Social Security.
This was the cut Jean had read about. But the governor also is seeking another $20 trim starting in September, reducing the benefit to $830.
The rent for her one-bedroom condo is $850. But "I consider myself lucky," Jean says, because after a long wait, she finally received a federal rental subsidy administered by a local housing authority.
That's not the end of her financial woes, however. Jean has a broken tooth and badly needs a crown. But Medi-Cal, she says, will only pay for a type of crown that "dentists don't even use anymore." And things are about to get worse: On July 1, Medi-Cal will stop paying for adult dental care altogether.
Around the time Jean was calling, I got an e-mail from Marta Russell, an Encino-based freelance journalist who has written widely about the disabled. Russell has had cerebral palsy from birth but made good money in the film industry, working on special effects, until she also contracted fibromyalgia and landed in a wheelchair. "I am in chronic pain," she says.
She's not poor enough to be on SSI but does need help at home "to empty trash, do laundry, pick up things that are heavy -- to stay out of an institution."
Schwarzenegger has proposed reducing caregiver pay under the In Home Support Services program -- used by 446,000 Californians with disabilities -- from a maximum of $10.10 per hour (including benefits) to $8.60. That will make it tougher to find help.
Worse for Russell, she wouldn't be deemed sufficiently impaired under the new rules to qualify for IHSS. "I can't imagine how I'm really going to deal with it," she says.
"I expect suicides, premature deaths, a horrible disruption of the social fabric. . . . We're headed toward market-based social Darwinism where only the fittest will survive."
The governor hopes to save $402 million during the next fiscal year with his latest SSI-SSP cut. Reducing caregivers' wages would save $124 million, and disqualifying the majority of current IHSS recipients would pocket $385 million.
Of course, Schwarzenegger's proposed cutting goes much deeper than that. He also wants to completely eliminate the state's main welfare program, which benefits 1.3 million people, and save $1.4 billion. And he's trying to scuttle the Healthy Families program that provides medical insurance for 930,000 children of low-income families, netting $369 million.
"I know we all have to sacrifice something, but are the wealthy sacrificing anything?" Jean asked.
They'd say they're paying hefty taxes.
State budget director Mike Genest was asked another version of Jean's question by a reporter: "Why are all the poor people being cut?"
Genest: "The government doesn't provide services to rich people. We don't provide very many services even to the middle class. . . . You have to cut where the money is."
That's a little stretch. But Genest is mostly correct as it relates to the hemorrhaging general fund. Public schools serve students whose young parents are usually just starting up the economic ladder.
Of the current general fund, roughly 40% goes to K-12 schools and 32% to health and welfare. The next highest expenditures are higher education and prisons, each 11%. Everything's getting whacked, including employees.
Here are some predictions:
The aged, blind and disabled will take the Schwarzenegger hit. But the Legislature won't go along with completely wiping out welfare and children's healthcare. Republicans will refuse to raise taxes. Democrats will try to hike them on a majority vote. The projected deficit will be treated as $20 billion, because the $24 billion includes a $4.5-billion reserve that Democrats won't allow the governor to hoard.
Opponents of last month's failed budget propositions accused Schwarzenegger of "scare tactics" when he tried to warn voters what would happen if the measures didn't pass. Well, Jean and Russell and many Californians are scared.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) A Roof Over Our Heads
and Other Inalienable Rights
By Bonnie Weinstein
http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/mayjun_09/mayjun_09_01.html
In an April 22, 2009, article in The New York Times by David Streitfeld, entitled, “An Effort to Save Flint, Mich., by Shrinking It,” the first two paragraphs read:
"Dozens of proposals have been floated over the years to slow this city’s endless decline. Now another idea is gaining support: speed it up.
"Instead of waiting for houses to become abandoned and then pulling them down, local leaders are talking about demolishing entire blocks and even whole neighborhoods."
In other words, instead of allowing families to remain in their homes during this severe economic crisis, the city of Flint intends to demolish the homes outright, leaving homeless families to fend for themselves.
Meanwhile, a gripping and heartbreaking MSNBC.com Dateline documentary has been circulating on the Internet. It follows the evictions of families from their homes. Some were evicted as the result of being swindled into subprime mortgages with balloon payments; others because they could not afford to keep up rents or mortgages for various reasons, such as work injuries, sickness, cutbacks in hours, or job loss.(1) An FDIC government resource, ForeclosureHelpandHope.org, provides this information from the Mortgage Bankers Association:
One out of every 200 homes will be foreclosed upon…. Every three months, 250,000 new families enter into foreclosure…. One child in every classroom in America is at risk of losing his/her home because their parents are unable to pay their mortgage.(2)
The Dateline crew accompanies sheriffs, with guns pulled, backed by other officers and flanked by a “moving crew,” as they break open the door of a home. Finding no one there, they proceed to move all the belongings of a full household out into the street and change the locks on the doors; then they move on to another eviction. They do around 20 a day. The family has 24 hours to pick up their belongings from the street, and then the stuff is carted off to the dump. No security is left to protect the family’s belongings for those 24 hours; they’re simply left out in the street, free for the taking, and the house left abandoned and uncared for.
Evictions up close and personal
The first family the documentary focuses on is a family of four, the Alvarezes: Junior Alvarez, who works for the city of Coral Gables, Florida, his wife, Maureen, their two children—a two-month-old son and a two-year-old daughter—and an elderly grandmother. Their mortgage payments ballooned from $2,000 to $4,000 a month—an amount Junior could no longer afford. After being evicted they stayed for a short time with friends, sleeping on their living room floor, until they found a small apartment they could afford to rent.
The second family featured were renters, Lea and Porey Niscieri, their 11-year-old daughter, Hanna, and her two cats. They did not fare as well as the Alvarezes. When the sheriff came to her door, Lea told him that they were up to date on their rent—that they didn’t owe a dime, she was sure of it.
Upon returning home, Porey confessed to the Dateline reporter that he hadn’t told his wife that they were three months behind in the rent. He had had an accident on his job and was unable to work for about seven months. He just couldn’t afford the rent on his disability income. He didn’t tell his wife because he thought he had 30 days after the notice to make a payment, and hoped he’d be able to make it on time since he’d just gone back to work.
Luckily, their next-door neighbor took them in temporarily. But then the generous neighbor himself was evicted the very next week!
Their daughter Hanna, had to give up her cats to an animal shelter. The family moved into a Howard Johnson’s, but it was too expensive so they moved again, into a cheaper motel.
Porey admits that he wanted to kill himself. He felt like a complete failure. They were having a hard time finding a place to live. Their credit rating was by that time so bad no one would rent to them. They finally found a landlord willing to give them a chance in spite of their credit rating and they now live in a small, two-bedroom apartment about half the size of the home they were evicted from. Hanna still misses her cats terribly. “I don’t have them, but they are in my heart forever. They were a part of me,” she said.
Other families are moving from place-to-place, shelter-to-shelter, couch-to-living room floor—or out onto the streets. The bankers are leaving perfectly good homes to rot—or worse, to the mercy of the wrecking ball.
This is the chaos that exists under capitalism, a dictatorial economic system that puts profit over people; that tears down homes as homelessness soars.
Shelter from the storm
The crux of the issue is whether or not human beings have a basic right to a roof over their heads—shelter from the storm. Directly connected to housing is the right to education, jobs, and healthcare. These are all inalienable rights that belong to everyone, because we can’t thrive without them!
Youth hit hardest
While millions of adult working people are finding themselves teetering on the brink of economic annihilation, joblessness, and homelessness, it’s much worse for our youth.
Young people today will earn half of what their parents earned, and even now find it nearly impossible to leave the nest, let alone support families of their own. Fewer youth are able to attend college. The mass entrance into college by working-class youth in the ’60s and ’70s is in high-speed reverse.
Our children are forced to endure overcrowded, police-occupied public schools that more closely resemble juvenile detention centers than educational institutions, and have failed to give them the most basic skills and knowledge they need to develop their individual talents, skills and interests. Increasingly our schools are more likely to funnel youth into jail or the military than into higher education or gainful employment.
This economic crisis did not appear suddenly out of a void. It has been taking its toll on working people—especially youth—since the 1970s. Women didn’t join the workforce because they were bored; the steadily increasing cost of living forced the necessity of the two-income family.
The confidence game
The “conventional wisdom” of the politicians and mass media tell us we must learn to “tighten our belts,” to “live more simply.” We are told we must have faith that the government is doing everything possible to keep things from getting even worse.
They especially emphasize how “everyone is hurting,” including the wealthy, and that bailing out the wealthy is the essential key to bailing out the poor! We’re told that the wealthy bankers, who have emptied the wallets of working people to line their own with gold, have to regain the confidence to invest money back into the economy.
And we are told that the only way for them to regain that confidence is for us to pay them trillions of dollars from our own pockets—-to keep them confident that they can continue to steal more from us! It’s we who must tighten our belts not them! They implore us, “How can we save this economy without the sacrifice and support of everyone?”
But working people know what this means. The wealthy endure “restricted retention bonuses” while working people sacrifice their jobs, their healthcare, their pensions, their homes—and their children’s future—for the sake of banking and corporate confidence.
My youngest son’s girlfriend commented to him that the economy seems to be doing better after she saw some upbeat story on the local news. (They’re both currently unemployed, with two children and rent coming due again at the end of the month.) My son explained to her:
“You have to understand that they mean the economy is better for some people. Not for most people. They’re talking about making things better for the top wealthiest one percent or less of the population at the expense of the bottom 99 percent. The top wealthiest one percent or less owns 80 percent of the Earth’s wealth. The government is bailing out those people at the top using trillions of dollars of our money. The rest of us have to scramble for a share of the crumbs the wealthy drop from their plates. And at this time they’re not only wiping their plates clean but stealing the food right out of our plates!”
A fightback begins
But there is some good news. All across the country and around the world, working people are beginning to mount a fightback and they are winning real victories!
Not all families are taking it on the chin. In an April 10, 2009, article in The Times, “With Advocates’ Help, Squatters Call Foreclosures Home,” John Leland wrote:
"Ms. Omega, 48, is one of the beneficiaries of the foreclosure crisis. Through a small advocacy group of local volunteers called Take Back the Land, she moved from a friend’s couch into a newly empty house that sold just a few years ago for more than $400,000.
"Michael Stoops, executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, said about a dozen advocacy groups around the country were actively moving homeless people into vacant homes—some working in secret, others, like Take Back the Land, operating openly.
"In addition to squatting, some advocacy groups have organized civil disobedience actions in which borrowers or renters refuse to leave homes after foreclosure."
The groups say that they have sometimes received support from neighbors and that beleaguered police departments have not aggressively gone after squatters.
“We’re seeing sheriffs’ departments who are reluctant to move fast on foreclosures or evictions,” said Bill Faith, director of the Coalition on Homelessness and Housing in Ohio, which is not engaged in squatting. “They’re up to their eyeballs in this stuff. Everyone’s overwhelmed.”
In an article in the March/April issue of ColorLines (reprinted in this magazine), “Hitting the Pause on Foreclosures,” Valeria Fernández wrote:
"In the last year, Goldberg and his staff at Moratorium NOW!, a coalition of activists and union and religious leaders, have brought at least 50 cases to courts in Detroit on behalf of homeowners. They have been fighting to save homes literally one house at a time through picketing at the banks and legal action."
The article ends with a quote from Max Rameau, founder of the group Take Back the Land, a grassroots volunteer organization in Miami, Florida:
“This is a solution coming from the community,” said Rameu. “We value the human rights of housing over the right of a corporation to make a profit.”
As the economy tanks, and evictions and unemployment increase, such organizations and actions will grow across the country.
In addition to the anti-eviction/foreclosure organizations and actions sprouting up, there have been sit-down strikes and occupations in jobsites around the globe, in England, Ireland, Scotland, Greece, Canada, and here in the U.S., to name a few.
Most recently, coalitions are forming that incorporate all these issues—including those of immigration and war—with demands such as:
•Money for jobs and social services, not for war
•Tax the rich/progressive taxation
•Single-payer healthcare for all
•Pass the Employee Free Choice Act
•Immediate moratorium on foreclosures and evictions
•No more bailouts for Wall Street—bail out working people
•Stop the ICE raids and deportations
These are the demands of a newly formed coalition in the Bay Area. A broad organizing meeting was held in San Francisco on April 11, 2009, at the Plumbers Hall, and was attended by over 70 people. Most attendees were representatives of labor organizations, including the heads of the San Francisco and Santa Clara Central Labor Councils and the President of the AFT 2121 (community college teachers), and of grassroots, community-based groups.
Many of these groups are funded to help with such things as tenant and landlord mediation or police-community dialogue, etc. They are being cut out of the budgets of most cities and towns, leaving the poor to fend for themselves.
The meeting was called to organize a teach-in based upon the above demands. The outcome was very encouraging and positive; its work is ongoing.
The strongest consensus among the participants of this meeting were the demands, “Bail out working people, not Wall Street!” and “Tax the rich, not working people.” The goal of the teach-in is to plan a set of actions, including a mass mobilization, and the establishment of independent, labor/community committees to build ongoing, proactive responses to the crisis for the interests of working people.
In other words, they intend to organize a real fightback against this current economic program of open season on working people, our homes, healthcare, housing, schools, and all of our social safety nets.
Unite and fight back!
We don’t have to point out to working people that our future and the very future of our planet are in jeopardy. This is abundantly clear.
Our most important task is to build a broad, democratically organized, and independent labor movement that unites working people across the board—-that can organize the unorganized, employed and unemployed, “documented” or not—-into a movement powerful enough to carry out the kind of mass, unified actions necessary to win decisive victories for working people anywhere and everywhere these attacks occur.
Our unity here and with workers across the globe will fortify our weakest links with our strongest protection and defense—-our massive numbers and our solidarity of action against these assaults.
We can keep that wrecking ball from our homes and our schools; we can force the hospitals to tend to the sick; we can keep factories from closing; we can move the homeless into homes; we can stop the deportations and the war machine.
Together in unity and solidarity we can ensure our own inalienable right to happiness—-to a life of liberty, democracy, economic and human equality, justice, and a peaceful and healthy world for all.
We, the majority of working people across the globe, have an inalienable, democratic right to choose people over profits, to bail out working people not the banks—-to choose socialism over the brutal chaos and profound inequality of capitalism!
(1) Watch the video at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28303876#28303876
And the update at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/28303876#29684262
(2) http://www.fdic.gov/about/comein/files/foreclosure_statistics.pdf
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) State of Shame
By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/opinion/09herbert.html
Ferndale, N.Y.
The building housing the ducks in this lush region of the Catskills in upstate Sullivan County was huge, a cross between a gigantic Quonset hut and an airplane hangar. The ducks, tens of thousands of them ready to be slaughtered for foie gras, were stuffed and listless in their pens. It was a very weird scene. Genetically unable to quack, the ducks moved very little and made hardly any noise.
Animal-rights advocates have made a big deal about the way the ducks are force-fed to produce the enormously swollen livers from which the foie gras is made. But I’ve been looking at the plight of the underpaid, overworked and often gruesomely exploited farmworkers who feed and otherwise care for the ducks. Their lives are hard.
Each feeder, for example, is responsible for feeding 200 to 300 (or more) ducks — individually — three times a day. The feeder holds a duck between his or her knees, inserts a tube down the duck’s throat, and uses a motorized funnel to force the feed into the bird. Then on to the next duck, hour after hour, day after day, week after week.
The routine is brutal and not very sanitary. Each feeding takes about four hours and once the birds are assigned a feeder, no one else can be substituted during the 22-day force-feeding period that leads up to the slaughter. Substituting a feeder would upset the ducks, according to the owners of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, which operates the farm.
Not only do the feeders get no days off during that long stretch, and no overtime for any of the long hours, but they get very little time even to sleep each day. The feeding schedule for the ducks must be rigidly observed.
When I asked one of the owners, Izzy Yanay, about the lack of a day of rest, he said of the workers: “This notion that they need to rest is completely futile. They don’t like to rest. They want to work seven days.”
Covering this story has been like stepping back in time. Farmworkers in New York do not have the same legal rights and protections that other workers have, and the state’s multibillion-dollar agriculture industry has taken full advantage of that. The workers have no right to a day off or overtime pay. They don’t get any paid vacation or sick days. When I asked one worker if he knew of anyone who had a retirement plan, he laughed and laughed.
To understand how it’s possible to treat farmworkers in New York this way you have to look back to the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt was trying to get Congress to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide basic wage and hour protections for workers. Among the opponents were segregationist congressmen and senators who were outraged that the protections would apply to blacks as well as whites.
Most agricultural and domestic workers were black, and the legislation was not passed until those two categories of workers were excluded. New York State lawmakers, under heavy and sustained pressure from the agriculture lobby, have similarly exempted farmworkers (the vast majority of whom are now Latino) from most state labor law protections.
There was a good chance — right up until Monday, when the State Senate went through a sudden and cataclysmic change from Democratic to Republican control — that something might be done about this legislatively. On Monday evening, the Assembly passed (and Gov. David Paterson has promised to sign) a bill extending much-needed labor protections to farmworkers, including the right to at least one day of rest per week and, more important, the right to bargain collectively.
Republican senators were split on the bill, however, and the New York Farm Bureau, the lead lobbying agency for the agriculture industry, is furiously opposed to passage. With the upheaval in the Senate, the fate of the bill, called the Farmworkers Fair Labor Practices Act, is unknown.
A major supporter of the bill, the Rev. Richard Witt, executive director of the Rural and Migrant Ministry of New York, said the Senate shift would have no effect on the campaign for passage of the bill. Another supporter, Kerry Kennedy, founder of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, also said she will continue to push hard for passage.
“It’s shocking that these conditions could exist in New York State,” Ms. Kennedy said. “We talked to a worker who had not had a day off in 10 years.”
That is not an argument that carries much weight with the Farm Bureau. Sounding like an echo of Mr. Yanay, the bureau’s spokesman, Peter Gregg said, “They don’t want days off. The farmworkers want to work. They came here to make money.”
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Murdered Doctor’s Abortion Clinic Shuttered
By MONICA DAVEY
June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/us/10abortion.html?hp
The Wichita abortion clinic run by a doctor who was shot and killed will remain closed permanently, his family said on Tuesday.
Dr. George R. Tiller’s clinic was one of the few in the country to provide abortions to women late in their pregnancies, and for decades, women had traveled there from all over the nation and from overseas. It was also the only remaining abortion clinic, even for first trimester abortions, in the Wichita region.
“The family of Dr. George Tiller announces that effective immediately, Women’s Health Care Services, Inc., will be permanently closed,” according to a statement issued on Tuesday morning by the family’s lawyers. “Notice is being given today to all concerned that the Tiller family is ceasing operation of the clinic and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic.”
After Dr. Tiller was shot and killed on May 31 as he served as an usher at his Wichita church, abortion rights advocates – including at least one abortion provider in Nebraska – had said they hoped others might step in and keep Dr. Tiller’s clinic open to provide late-term abortions. Abortion rights advocates had the loss of such a clinic would be devastating to families of women who learned late in pregnancy of catastrophic health issues.
Even some abortion opponents, who had long devoted their efforts to closing down Dr. Tiller’s clinic, said they did not wish to see it happen under these circumstances. Last week, Troy Newman, the leader of Operation Rescue, had said that closing the clinic now would send a worrisome message. “Good God, do not close this abortion clinic for this reason,” he said in an interview with The New York Times. “Every kook in the world will get some notion.”
Scott P. Roeder, an outspoken opponent of abortion, is in a Wichita jail, charged with murder in Dr. Tiller’s death.
Immediately after the shooting, the Tiller family had announced that the clinic was closed for the moment, but provided no long term plan until Tuesday.
In the statement, the Tiller family said it wished to assure his previous patients that it would work to keep their medical histories and patient records “as fiercely protected now and in the future as they were during Dr. Tiller’s lifetime.”
The family also said Dr. Tiller’s work would be honored through private charitable work. “We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women’s health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service,” the statement said. “That is a legacy that will never die.”
Abortion rights advocates said they believed the nearest abortion provider to Wichita may now be about three hours away, near Kansas City.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Treasury Lets 10 Big Banks Start to Repay Bailout Money
By ERIC DASH
June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10tarp.html?hp
The Treasury Department cleared the way for 10 big banks on Tuesday to start repaying billions of dollars in taxpayer aid, a crucial step in easing the government’s grip after an unprecedented series of interventions.
JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs were among the banks deemed strong enough by federal regulators to leave the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, after months of lobbying and strong performances on recent stress tests.
The 10 banks are expected to return about $68.3 billion to the Treasury Department, more than double the administration’s initial estimate of about $25 billion in funds to be returned this year.
The Treasury did not identify the banks, allowing them to come forward individually. They include American Express, Bank of New York Mellon, the BB&T Corporation, Capital One Financial, the State Street Corporation and US Bancorp. Along with JPMorgan and Goldman, they all passed the stress test and applied to return their TARP funds.
Another bank, Morgan Stanley, which needed to raise $1.8 billion after the stress test, also received permission, as did Northern Trust, a large custodial bank that did not undergo the stress test.
President Obama, in comments Tuesday, said that taxpayers would “actually turned a profit” from the deal, but he also offered banks a warning.
“I also want to say: the return of these funds does not provide forgiveness for past excesses or permission for future misdeeds,” Mr. Obama said. “It is critical that as our country emerges from this period of crisis, that we learn its lessons; that those who seek reward do not take reckless risk; that short-term gains are not pursued without regard for long-term consequences.”
The $68.3 billion represents about a quarter of the TARP money given to banks. So far, 22 small community banks have been allowed to return $1.9 billion in government money.
Within the next few days, the big banks will be able to wire the money back to the Treasury Department. Still, they will not fully get out from under the government’s thumb until they rid themselves of warrants giving taxpayers a share of the potential upside on their investments.
Analysts say warrants for the 10 big banks could be worth as much as $4.6 billion. Treasury officials have not disclosed how they plan to value and sell them.
“These repayments are an encouraging sign of financial repair, but we still have work to do,” the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, said in a statement.
The Obama administration hopes the accelerated payback will show that its financial recovery programs are working, even if the economy remains fragile. The move will also free up billions of dollars that can be redistributed to other troubled banks and companies without Treasury officials returning to Congress for more money.
Still, the plan is not without risks. The government is giving up $1.8 billion in annual interest payments while leaving its support programs in place, even for banks that repay. That means that taxpayers are giving up part of their upside while continuing to be on the hook for losses.
It could also cause a clear separation of the financial industry’s strongest and weakest players. Among the big banks not included in Tuesday’s action are Citigroup, Bank of America and Wells Fargo. Citigroup, which has accepted $45 billion in taxpayer aid, might not be able to exit the TARP program for years.
Banking executives have been lobbying to repay TARP money for months, hoping to free themselves from compensation and other restrictions as well as the additional scrutiny that came with accepting taxpayer money. They also hope the government’s seal of approval will give them a competitive edge and an added jolt to their share price, sustaining a recent rally.
“Everyone wants to get through this with enough capital, but there isn’t a bank C.E.O. or board member in the country that didn’t want to get out as fast as they can,” said Brian R. Sterling, an investment banker who specializes in financial institutions at Sandler O’Neill in New York. “It’s expensive. The rules change. And in some markets, the competitor down the street is putting up billboards saying ‘I’m not a bailout bank.’ ”
Yet even as they exit the program, banks remain tethered to the government by a series of programs that were introduced as the credit crisis worsened. The administration, for example, plans to introduce new compensation guidelines within the next week that would apply to a range of financial companies — including those that returned taxpayer money. TARP recipients, meanwhile, are bound by certain restrictions, like limits on temporary work visas known as H1-B’s, until they expunge the taxpayer warrants.
The TARP program was intended last fall as a long-term investment by the government to get the financial industry through the worst crisis since the Depression. As the financial system teetered, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. called the heads of the nation’s largest banks to Washington in October and pressed them to accept the money — regardless of whether they thought they needed it. But when compensation and other restrictions were attached to calm political furor over Wall Street bonuses, healthier banks pushed to leave the program.
In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Paulson said that he appreciated the participation of the banks in the program, which had helped stabilize the financial system.
The Federal Reserve announced last week that it planned to give the go-ahead to an “initial set” of banks that proved they were strong enough operate with less government support. Federal officials want to avoid the political embarrassment and financial risks of allowing a bank to exit the program only to see it return for more taxpayer aid if the economy worsens.
Banks had to show regulators their capital levels were high enough to withstand a severe recession, they could sell a sizable amount of common stock, and they could begin issuing billions of dollars of debt without the government’s backing.
Even after they repay the taxpayer money, the banks could face another showdown with federal officials over the value of warrants. To fully disentangle themselves from government, banks will have to either allow the Treasury to auction the warrants or buy them back. The government has nine years before it is required to sell them.
All told, buying back the warrants could cost the banks as much as $4.6 billion, according to an estimate by Linus Wilson, a finance professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Taxpayer warrants in JPMorgan Chase could be worth $1.7 billion, according to Professor Wilson’s estimates. Warrants in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley could be worth well over $600 million each.
Regulators at the Fed, meanwhile, began analyzing the fund-raising plans on Monday for 10 other banks, which required additional capital after the stress test. As part of that process, regulators are looking closely at the banks’ risk management practices and executive team. Those reviews are expected to be completed in a few weeks.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) Accounts Differ on Afghan Grenade Attack
By ADAM B. ELLICK
June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/world/asia/10afghan.html?ref=world
KABUL, Afghanistan — A grenade explosion killed two Afghan civilians and wounded 56 people in a crowded market in Kunar Province in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday morning, but the identity of the person who threw the grenade was in doubt, with American officials blaming an Afghan militant and some Afghan officials an American soldier.
The head of the provincial council said that he had spoken to dozens of the injured and that they had described how an American soldier threw the grenade into a crowd of some 100 Afghans gathered around a stalled American military vehicle in the town of Asadabad. “It was daylight,” said the official, Malavi Ezatallah. “Everybody saw it.” Speaking by telephone from the funeral of one of victims, he called the attack “a complete cruel crime against civilians.”
The Interior Ministry, on the other hand, released a statement blaming the attack on militants and said local police found a metal ring at the scene that is a remnant of a Russian hand grenade, implicating the insurgents.
An American military spokesman in Kabul, Chief Petty Officer Brian Naranjo, strongly disputed the suggestion that an American had thrown the grenade, calling it “completely unfounded.”
Moving quickly to counter the Afghan allegations, the American military released photographs Tuesday evening of a grenade fragment that it said was recovered from the scene. The fragment, which appeared to be the grenade’s slender, rectangular handle, bore a series of Cyrillic letters, indicating it was a Soviet-era weapon of the type commonly used by Afghan insurgents.
A statement released by the military said the American soldiers had come under small arms fire at 9:15 a.m. from an unknown location as they were attempting to free their vehicle, which had gotten stuck on the road. As a crowd gathered, “an unknown person from a nearby building threw a grenade, which caused the deaths and injuries,” the statement said.
The attack injured 53 Afghans, mostly market vendors who suffered burns and shrapnel wounds, according to Ehsanullah Fazli, a doctor at the local hospital in Asadabad. Three who were in serious condition were transferred to a larger hospital in Jalalabad, he said. The doctor said that 14-year-old boy was one of the Afghans killed in the attack; the Interior Ministry placed the boy’s age at 10.
Kunar Province is a volatile region that borders the Bajaur district of Pakistan. It is largely controlled by the Hezb-e Islami militant group, which is led by the warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
In general, civilian causalities from airstrikes and fighting between allied forces and militants have alienated the Afghan population. But accounts of deliberate allied attacks on civilians are rare.
Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) JKashmir: Police Fire on Protesters
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
World Briefing | Asia
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/world/asia/09briefs-kashmir.html?ref=world
Security forces fired on protesters in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Monday, wounding at least seven people, with at least one treated at a Srinagar hospital, above, in the worst clash since unrest broke out last week over the deaths of two young women. The protesters say the women, a 17-year-old and her 22-year-old sister, were raped and killed by Indian soldiers. The police, who are investigating the killings but have not charged anyone, released forensic reports on Sunday confirming that both of the women had been raped. Thousands protested on Monday in the streets of Shopian, the women’s hometown, before the police fired tear gas shells and live ammunition at the crowd. Angry demonstrations — and a general strike that has closed businesses and schools — have spread across the Kashmir valley since the women’s bodies were found on May 30.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
12) An Ivy-Covered Path to the Supreme Court
By JOHN SCHWARTZ
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/us/politics/09ivy.html?ref=education
President Obama may have broken with history by nominating a Latina to the Supreme Court, but in another respect he followed the path of almost every president in modern times who has successfully placed a justice: he chose a nominee groomed in an Ivy League university.
If confirmed, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who attended Princeton University and Yale Law School, would sit alongside seven other Ivy League graduates on the court. Only Justice John Paul Stevens provides a measure of non-Ivy diversity, having graduated from the University of Chicago and the Northwestern University School of Law.
In the history of the court, half of the 110 justices were undergraduates, graduate students or law students in the Ivy League; since 1950, the percentage is 70. From the beginning of the 20th century, every president who has seated a justice has picked at least one Ivy graduate. Four of the six justices on President Obama’s short list studied at Ivy League institutions, either as undergraduates or law students.
Whatever a nominee’s origins might be, does attending the same institutions shape them and their views, even subtly? Critics suggest that elite universities shave off the differences in backgrounds and contribute to a kind of high-level groupthink.
“There is both a funneling and homogenizing effect from these schools,” said G. William Domhoff, a professor of psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and the author of “Who Rules America?”
The effect, Professor Domhoff said, “plays out in terms of social networks, cultural/social capital, and a feeling of being part of the in-group.” It is one of subtle conditioning — what Sam Rayburn, the former House speaker, meant when he famously said, “If you want to get along, go along.”
Even those who might not agree with Professor Domhoff’s political critique would like to see more educational variety on the Supreme Court. Limiting the universe of nominees largely to Ivy League graduates “is not good for the court or the country,” said Linda L. Addison, the partner in charge of the New York office of Fulbright & Jaworski. “Educational diversity would strengthen the court, as have racial, ethnic, gender and religious diversity.”
Ms. Addison, who has served on the University of Texas Law School Foundation and is a graduate of the school, acknowledged that Judge Sotomayor’s credentials and qualifications were impressive. But, she added, “In the future, I also would love to see a nominee from a first-rate public law school.”
Beyond the high quality of the Ivy League schools, of course, there are important reasons presidents tend to choose their graduates. One is the public guarantee that they have selected a certified high achiever.
“Perceptions of qualifications really matter in this game,” said Lee Epstein, a law professor at Northwestern who maintains a database of the justices’ characteristics. In choosing an Ivy Leaguer, Professor Epstein said, a president might think: “I don’t have to think too much. I don’t have to dig too deeply about whether they’re smart or not, whether they are well trained.”
The lack of a top-tier law degree can become a basis for attacking a nominee. When President George W. Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, one of the points hammered by her conservative opponents was that she had attended the Dedman School of Law at Southern Methodist University.
A president who attended a top university might gravitate toward those with a similar education. Stanley Aronowitz, a professor of sociology at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, said the selection of Judge Sotomayor by a president who graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law was an example of “people wanting to appoint themselves.”
Professor Aronowitz, who has written extensively on questions of power, higher education and class, jokingly said, “What I think he means by ‘diversity’ is Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Columbia.”
Defenders of such appointments say the notion of a homogenous set of graduates from elite universities is an overblown myth. William G. Bowen, a former president of Princeton, said the cookie-cutter accusation missed the role of a student’s character.
“They come out as very different human beings, even though they came through a similar process,” Mr. Bowen said. “What you hope these people have in common is discipline, and the ability to lead from assumptions to analysis to conclusions. But that is not to say that they’re going to use the same analysis, or come to the same conclusions.”
Edward B. Fiske, who publishes a leading college guide, pointed out that although John Kerry and George W. Bush attended Yale at about the same time, “you’d never know they went to the same school.” And while Judge Sotomayor graduated from the same law school as Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., they appear to occupy different parts of the political spectrum.
Calvin Trillin, a journalist and author who has written about his experiences as a Midwesterner attending Yale in the 1950s, said, “I’m not bothered by the fact that nine out of nine, or six out of nine, went to Ivy League law schools,” because the institutions have grown more diverse. “These places have become, themselves, much more like the country,” Mr. Trillin said.
The court’s ties to elite institutions go back through the nation’s history, Professor Epstein said. Among the first on the court were John Jay (King’s College, the future Columbia) and William Cushing (Harvard). Of the nation’s 110 justices, 18 went to Harvard Law, 8 to Yale Law, and 6 to Columbia. (The largest plurality of justices over all, 44, attended no law school, since one could practice law in early days without a degree.)
Some justices proudly perpetuate the idea that the right school is an essential credential. In April, after a talk at the American University Washington College of Law, Justice Antonin Scalia (Georgetown and Harvard Law) told a student how he chose his clerks: “From the law schools that basically are the hardest to get into. They admit the best and the brightest, and they may not teach very well, but you can’t make a sow’s ear out of a silk purse. If they come in the best and the brightest, they’re probably going to leave the best and the brightest.”
And trying to defend a candidate who does not bear the imprimatur of an Ivy League diploma can be a losing battle, leading to comments like the famous defense of G. Harrold Carswell (Walter F. George School of Law of Mercer University) by Senator Roman L. Hruska: “Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”
Farhana Hossain contributed research.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
13) Study Cites Health Disparities for Gays
By Sewell Chan
June 9, 2009, 3:00 pm
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/study-cites-health-disparities-for-gays/
A state-financed study of the health needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in New York has found that they lack health insurance at rates higher than heterosexual people, fear homophobia by health care providers, and are more likely to experience depression, social isolation and inadequate housing than straight New Yorkers.
The study [pdf] was financed by a $65,000 grant from the State Health Department and released by the Empire State Pride Agenda Foundation, part of a statewide gay advocacy organization. Many of the findings came from earlier state and city health studies, but the study also involved 10 focus groups, interviews with experts, and an online and paper survey of 3,441 people, conducted from April 6 to 22.
The survey found that more than a quarter of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender respondents feared that they would be treated differently if their health care providers knew of their sexual orientation or identity, and that 40 percent believed there were not enough health care professionals with adequate training and ability to deliver health care to their community.
The study also cited findings from a 2007 New York City survey, which estimated that 20.6 percent of lesbian and gay and 23.5 percent of bisexual residents lacked insurance, compared to only 14.9 percent of heterosexual city residents.
The study urged improved training and expansion of insurance coverage for domestic partners and same-sex spouses, among other changes in public policy.
“This report shows how some of our community’s most pressing health needs are going unaddressed and will be a tremendous help to advocates and service-providers in getting government officials and funders to provide policies and resources to address these needs with efficient, on-the-ground programs and services,” Ross Levi, Director of Public Policy & Education for the Empire State Pride Agenda, said in a statement.
The report was written by M. Somjen Frazer, a policy researcher and consultant based in Brooklyn. In a statement, she said that while the report made health disparities between gay and straight people clear, “It is also clear that while this needs assessment is an important step in the right direction, there needs to be more data collection on L.G.B.T. issues, including datacollected by the state itself.”
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
14) Illegal Immigrants’ Rights Were Violated, Judge Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 9, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/nyregion/09raids.html?ref=nyregion
HARTFORD (AP) — Federal agents violated the constitutional rights of four illegal immigrants in raids that New Haven officials say were retaliation for a city program that provided ID cards to foreigners in the country illegally, a federal immigration judge has ruled.
The raids took place in New Haven on June 6, 2007, two days after the city approved issuing identification cards to all city residents, regardless of immigration status, to help immigrants open bank accounts and receive city services. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials denied that the early-morning raids were retaliatory, saying that they started planning them the previous year.
The judge, Michael Straus, said in decisions here last week that the agents entered the immigrants’ homes without warrants, probable cause or consent; he put a stop to deportation proceedings against the four, whose names were not released. Immigration officials said all four are from Mexico, but the defendants cited their Fifth Amendment rights in refusing to say what country they are from.
Two of them lived in one home, and two in a second. They said in affidavits that agents barged into both homes after residents had opened their doors only a little. Using a “target list,” the agents went into the homes looking for specific illegal immigrants, whom they did not find, court documents said.
Immigration officials have denied claims that the 32 arrests made that morning were improper, and said that the people arrested had been ordered by judges to leave the country. They said in court documents that they were allowed into the homes during the raids.
Immigration authorities are reviewing the judge’s ruling and will decide later whether to appeal, said an agency spokeswoman, Paula Grenier, who declined further comment.
Witnesses said in court documents that parents were arrested in front of their frightened children. They said agents refused to identify themselves and told people in the homes to remain silent.
In his rulings, Judge Straus said the four immigrants’ rights had been “egregiously violated.”
“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness’ and, by natural extension, one’s reasonable expectation of privacy,” the judge wrote of the constitutional amendment that guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures. “Nowhere is that expectation of privacy more sacrosanct than in the confines of one’s home.”
Of the 32 people arrested, 30 were released on bond or supervision orders. Seventeen of those released challenged their arrests in court. Judge Straus denied motions in 11 of those cases, granted motions in 4 and reserved decision in the remaining 2. Of the 11 cases in which motions were denied, one person was granted asylum by the judge and the other 10 have appealed.
Yale Law School students are representing the immigrants, who still live in New Haven.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
15) "There's No Way I'm Going to Deploy to Afghanistan"
By Dahr Jamail
May 26, 2009
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46978
MARFA, Texas, May 26 (IPS) - "It’s a matter of what I’m willing to live with," Specialist Victor Agosto of the U.S. Army, who is refusing orders to deploy to Afghanistan, explained to IPS. "I’m not willing to participate in this occupation, knowing it is completely wrong."
Agosto, who returned from a 13-month deployment to Iraq in November 2007, is based at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas.
While in Iraq, Agosto never left his base, located in northern Iraq.
"I never had any traumatic experiences, never fired my weapon," Agosto told IPS in a phone interview. "I mostly worked in information technology, working on computers and keeping the network functioning well. But it was in Iraq that I turned against the occupations. Through my reading, and watching what was going on, I started to feel very guilty."
Agosto added, "What I did there, I know I contributed to death and human suffering. It’s hard to quantify how much I caused, but I know I contributed to it."
Having served three years and nine months in the U.S. Army, Agosto was to complete his contract and be discharged on Aug. 3. But due to his excellent record of service and accrued leave, he was to be released the end of June. Nevertheless, due to the stop-loss programme, the Army decided to deploy him to Afghanistan anyway.
Stop-loss is a programme the military uses to keep soldiers enlisted beyond the terms of their contracts. Since Sep. 11, 2001, more than 140,000 troops have had tours extended by stop-loss.
A copy of his Counseling Form from the Army, dated May 1, reads, "You will deploy in support of OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] on or about [XXXXX] with 57th ESB. This is a direct order from your Company Commander CPT Michael J. Pederson."
Agosto posted copies of the Counseling Statements issued by the Army on his Facebook page. Counseling Statements outline actions taken by the Army to discipline Agosto for his refusal to obey a direct order from his company commander.
On one of them, dated May 1, Agosto’s written statement appears: "There is no way I will deploy to Afghanistan. The occupation is immoral and unjust. It does not make the American people any safer. It has the opposite effect."
In another, dated May 18, he wrote: "I will not obey any orders I deem to be immoral or illegal."
On that day, Agosto was ordered to get his medical records in preparation to deploy to Afghanistan. He refused to do so. The Army threatened to take punitive measures, but Agosto wrote on the Counseling Statement, "I am not going to Afghanistan. I will not take part in SRP [Sealift Readiness Programme]."
If Agosto continues to refuse orders, he almost assuredly will face court martial, and likely jail time.
When IPS asked Agosto if he is willing to take whatever consequences the Army is prepared to mete out, he replied, "Yes. I’m fully prepared for this. I have concluded that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] are not going to be ended by politicians or people at the top. They are not responsive to the people, they are responsive to corporate America."
Agosto added, "The only way to make them responsive to the needs of the people is if soldiers won’t fight their wars, and if soldiers won’t fight their wars, the wars won’t happen. I hope I’m setting an example for other soldiers."
Agosto has overtly refused to follow any order that has anything to do with his taking an action that would support the occupation of Afghanistan. For a time, according to Agosto, he was given simple orders to clean the motor pool, or pull weeds.
"They switched that recently," he told IPS, "I’ve continued to be fairly defiant, so on Tuesday I have to meet with Trial Defense Services, which then begins the process of getting an Article 15, which is movement towards being court-martialed, if these reprimands continue."
"If I take the Article 15, I’ll take a reduction in rank and pay. I don’t’ know what is going to happen. I agreed to sweep the motor pool and pull weeds, but nothing else that I feel directly supports the war. I’m not going to follow orders I’m not comfortable with."
Agosto’s case is not unique. The group Courage to Resist, based in Oakland, California, actively engages in assisting soldiers who refuse to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.
"Although the efforts of Courage to Resist are primarily focused on supporting public GI resisters, the organization also strives to provide political, emotional, and material support to all military objectors critical of our government's current policies of empire," reads a portion of the group's mission statement.
IPS spoke with Adam Szyper-Seibert, an office manager and counselor with Courage to Resist.
"Currently we are actively supporting over 50 military resisters like Victor Agosto," Szyper-Seibert told IPS, "They are all over the world, including André Shepherd in Germany, and several people in Canada. We are getting five to six calls a week just about the IRR [Individual Ready Reserve] recall alone."
U.S. Army Specialist André Shepherd, who went AWOL after serving in Iraq, has applied for asylum in Germany after refusing military service because he is morally opposed to the occupation of Iraq.
The IRR is composed of former military personnel who still have time remaining on their enlistment agreements but have returned to civilian life. They are eligible to be called up in "states of emergency." The Army is currently undertaking the largest IRR recall since 2004, despite the recent inauguration of a so-called anti-war president.
Szyper-Seibert said that the number of soldiers contacting Courage to Resist has been increasing dramatically in the last year, and particularly in recent months.
"The number of soldiers contacting us is increasing," he explained, "With five to six IRR’s contacting us a week, plus others going absent without leave [AWOL], the numbers are all climbing, as compared to a year ago. Since May 2008, we’ve had a 200 percent jump in how many soldiers are contacting us."
According to Courage to Resist, there have been at least 15,000 IRR call-ups since Sep. 11, 2001, for deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sgt. Travis Bishop, who served 14 months in Baghdad and is also stationed at Fort Hood, recently went AWOL when his unit deployed to Afghanistan.
Like Agosto, Bishop feels it is immoral for him to deploy to support an occupation he morally opposes.
"I love my country, but I believe that this particular war is unjust, unconstitutional and a total abuse of our nation’s power and influence," Bishop’s blog reads, "And so, in the next few days, I will be speaking with my lawyer, and taking actions that will more than likely result in my discharge from the military, and possible jail time... and I am prepared to live with that."
The reason he made this decision is addressed in his blog.
"My father said, ‘Do only what you can live with, because every morning you have to look at your face in the mirror when you shave. Ten years from now, you’ll still be shaving the same face.’ If I had deployed to Afghanistan, I don’t think I would have been able to look into another mirror again."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
15) U.S. Military Spending Overwhelms the Rest of the World
By Bernie Horn
Created 06/09/2009 - 12:23pm
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062409/us-military-spending-overwhelms-rest-world
Yesterday, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [1](SIPRI) issued its annual report on global military spending. Worldwide, governments spent a record $1.46 trillion on their armed forces in 2008. The United States accounted for 42 percent of the global arms spending. When will we realize that’s simply too much?
Every year, SIPRI issues a Yearbook on armaments, disarmament and international security. Here’s the gist of the data [2] on worldwide military spending:
Top 10 Military Spenders in 2008
(in billions of dollars)
1. United States — 607.0
2. China — 84.9
3. France — 65.7
4. United Kingdom — 65.3
5. Russia — 58.6
6. Germany — 46.8
7. Japan — 46.3
8. Italy — 40.6
9. Saudi Arabia — 38.2
10. India — 30.0
The U.S. spent 7 times more than the second-biggest spender, China. Incidentally, that doesn’t make China the second-strongest military—not by a long shot. SIPRI researcher Sam Perlo-Freeman explains that’s because “a lot of other countries have been at this game for a lot longer than China.”
Put another way, the U.S. spent more on its armed forces than the next 14 countries combined.
SIPRI points out that U.S. arms spending increased by 71 percent during the presidency of George W. Bush and as a result, global military spending is 45 percent greater than it was a decade ago. From 2007 to 2008, U.S. military spending increased by 10 percent which helped make global military spending 4 percent higher in 2008 than 2007.
Are all these guns really necessary? Do we need to spend so much more than other nations?
President Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, seem to think so. They proposed a marginal increase in the 2010 military budget [3]and Congress approved. But incredibly, right-wingers attacked the Obama-Gates military increase as a budget cut. They argued that the Obama-Gates plan’s modest cuts in a few weapons programs was going to endanger America’s security.
For example, Republican Sen. James Inhofe [4], a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, thundered:
President Obama is disarming America. Never before has a president so ravaged the military at a time of war.
Can we bring some sanity back to the debate over guns versus butter? The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) thinks so. The Progressive Caucus proposed a substitute budget [5]which would have spent $479 billion on defense in FY2010, a $69 billion cut from the President's legislation. This proposal is modest—it’s about a 13 percent reduction in spending.
And every bit of the CPC military budget cut is sensible:
* • Savings from a safe, orderly disengagement from Iraq.
* • Cuts in outdated and unneeded weapons systems, including ballistic missile defense (so-called Star Wars), reduce our nuclear arsenal, cut off the F/A 22 Raptor, the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer, the SSN-774 Virginia Class Submarines, the V-22 Osprey, the C-130J transport plane, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, space-based offensive weapons, and more.
* • Implementation of the Government Accountability Office’s recommendations to reduce waste, fraud and abuse in Pentagon procedures.
A government budget is a statement of priorities. Sadly, the current military budget reflects poorly on our nation’s values. We should be investing in our people and our infrastructure. We should be using our limited tax revenues to pay for services that America desperately needs—like health care, energy, a clean environment, education, housing, and a secure retirement for all. We’re not going to be able to afford our commonsense progressive priorities until we get serious about cutting excessive military spending.
The writer is a Senior Fellow at Campaign for America’s Future and author of the book, “Framing the Future: How Progressive Values Can Win Elections and Influence People” [6].
[1] http://www.sipri.org/
[2] http://www.sipri.org/media/media/pressreleases/8june_yearbook_launch
[3] http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-defense-budget-grow-4-fiscal
[4] http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7cb76731-802a-23ad-476b-e79693aaa59b
[5] http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?SectionID=109&ParentID=0&SectionTypeID=4&SectionTree=109
[6] http://www.framingthefuture.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
16) London Police Accused of Abusing Suspects
By SARAH LYALL
June 11, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/world/europe/11london.html?ref=world
LONDON — Six officers from the Metropolitan Police Service have been suspended or placed on restricted duty after being accused of mistreating suspects during a drug-related raid last November, the police said on Wednesday.
The police would not give details about what the officers, from Enfield, in north London, are alleged to have done. Using the term “waterboarding,” several British newspapers reported that the charges include dunking the suspects’ heads in buckets of water to try to extract information. If corroborated, that practice would be different from the torture technique known as waterboarding which has inspired criticism of the United States government for its use in antiterrorism investigations.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Service said he could not comment on the reports.
The allegations were brought to the attention of the police by an unidentified employee of the department. They are being investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which looks at police misconduct, and could result in criminal charges.
The police called the allegations serious and said they raised “real concern.”
In a statement, the police said that “the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards received information from a Metropolitan Police Service employee which raised concerns about the conduct of a small number of officers” during an operation in November.
The police also said that the commander of the Enfield force had been moved to a new job in Scotland Yard and would be working on strategy and policy issues.
The complaints commission said that the allegations came to light as part of an internal investigation by the police into corruption in Enfield’s crime squad after the November operation. Among the charges, The Evening Standard reported, were that the officers fabricated evidence and stole items like iPods and television sets from the suspects.
Five people were arrested and charged with smuggling and possessing drugs after the operation. But the charges against them were dropped earlier this year when prosecutors said that “it would not be in the public interest” to proceed.
It is an awkward time for the London police. Scotland Yard’s reputation has already been damaged by allegations of police brutality stemming from police behavior at protests during the Group of 20 summit meeting in April. One man, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor who was trying to get home during the protests, collapsed and died after being struck and shoved to the ground by a police officer.
Since April, 276 people have made formal complaints to the commission about police behavior during the protests, mostly involving allegations of excessive force. The commission has begun full investigations into five of those complaints, including one that alleged that the police — whose initial claims to have had no contact with the newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, were contradicted by video taken at the time — lied and tried to cover up the episode.
The commission said that it had referred 131 of the complaints to the police and instructed them to report back if, for instance, the complaints involved allegations against identifiable officers or injuries. So far, it said, 52 of those cases were being investigated by the police under the commission’s supervision.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
17) Londoners Struggle to Work as Tube Strike Starts
By REUTERS
June 10, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/06/10/world/business-britain-london-strike.html?ref=world
LONDON, June 10 (Reuters) - Commuters endured rush-hour chaos on Wednesday as a 48-hour strike shut down most of the capital's underground rail network.
Faced with closed stations and enormous bus queues, millions of people either walked, cycled or even roller-skated into work.
Transport for London arranged taxi-sharing at major rail termini and laid on free river services and guided commuter cycle routes.
The 250-mile underground network normally runs over 500 trains at peak hours and carries some 3.5 million passengers a day.
But not all lines were closed. London Underground said there was a good service on the Northern Line and reduced services running on sections of the District, Jubilee, Victoria, Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines.
Docklands Light Railway and London Overground services operated normally.
The Rail Maritime and Transport (RMT) union, which called the action over jobs and pay, failed to reach an agreement with Tube bosses at last-ditch talks on Tuesday.
"Services are currently running on more than half of London Underground lines," said Transport Commissioner Peter Hendy.
"Clearly, support for the RMT leadership's actions is far from the level they were expecting."
The RMT countered that the action is being solidly supported by members across the network and accused City Hall and London Mayor Boris Johnson of "sabotaging" the talks at the ACAS conciliation service.
"After nearly seven hours at ACAS yesterday, the basis of a deal had been thrashed out that could have settled the dispute," said RMT General Secretary Bob Crow.
"ACAS officials went off to get the document typed up and by the time they came back the underground management had reneged on it," he said, pointing the finger at Johnson and Hendy.
The strike, which officially ends at 7 p.m. on Thursday, is likely to cause widespread disruption into Friday morning.
It will also hit fans travelling to Wembley Stadium on Wednesday evening for England's World Cup qualifier against Andorra.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
No comments:
Post a Comment