*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Oakland's Judge Jacobson ruled at 4:00PM Friday, October 16 to move the trial of Johannes Mehserle OUT OF OAKLAND. The location of the trial venue has not been announced.
In the case of an innocent verdict, folks are encouraged to head to Oakland City Hall ASAP to express their outrage in a massive and peaceful way! Our power is in our numbers! Oscar Grant's family and friends need our support!
For more information:
Contact BAMN at 510-502-9072
letters@bamn.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
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
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Living Graveyard
Tuesday, October 20, 12:00 - 1:00 p.m.
Oakland Federal Building
1301 Clay Street
two blocks from 12th Street BART
Covered with sheets to represent the dead of the war of occupation on Iraq, people lie down on the city sidewalk in front of the Federal Building, This is legal, non-violent witness. People stop, look and think.
Participants lie at least three feet apart and do not block entry to the building.The names of some of the Californians who have died in Iraq and the names of some of the Iraqi dead will be read. People will hand out flyers, as we do each week at the Tuesday noon vigil.
Please bring a white sheet to cover yourself with. A pad to lie on is recommended.
Contact 510-527-8370.
sponsors include: Ecumenical Peace Institute,
Berkeley Women in Black, Women for Peace,
East Bay Coalition to Support Self-Rule for Iraqis,
Bay Area Labor Committee for Peace and Justice,
Mustardseed Affinity Group.
Wheelchair accessible.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
OCTOBER 22 DEMONSTRATION IN OAKLAND, CA:
NATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST TO STOP POLICE BRUTALITY,
REPRESSION AND THE CRIMINALIZATION OF A GENERATION
Thursday, October 22nd
1:30 pm: Convergence / Gather for march
City Hall/Frank Ogawa Plaza
(between 14th St. and 15th St. on Clay St.< Oakland)
2:00 pm: March
3:30 pm: Rally
City Hall/Frank Ogawa Plaza
"October 22nd has come to be recognized as a concentrated day of resistance -- a national day when people all over the country, in different cities and through different means of expression, come together to STOP police violence, repression, and the criminalization of a generation. The nationwide epidemic of police brutality and repression is hidden from many people who would be outraged if they knew what was happening. We must resist the onslaught of police abuse as we work in many different ways to drag this truth out into the light of day. Our resistance will give others courage...(See full call below)
Please forward widely. Contact us if you or your organization would like to endorse this call.
CALL FOR OCTOBER 22 DEMONSTRATION IN OAKLAND, CA:
NATIONAL DAY OF PROTEST TO STOP POLICE BRUTALITY, REPRESSION AND THE CRIMINALIZATION OF A GENERATION
Oscar Grant. Brownie Polk. Parnell Smith. And dozens more Oakland alone. Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo in New York City. Adolph Grimes in New Orleans. Robbie Tolan in Houston. Julian Alexander in Anaheim. Jonathan Pinkerton in Chicago. And thousands more nationwide.
All shot down, murdered by law enforcement, their lives stolen, victims of a nationwide epidemic of police brutality and murder.
The racist arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates this summer in Cambridge, Massachusetts - right in his own home - showed that any Black man or woman, no matter their stature, no matter their education, no matter their accomplishments can be targeted for brutality - even murder - at any moment.
Meanwhile, a whole generation of youth is treated as guilty until proved innocent, and hundreds of thousands are criminalized, and locked away in U.S. prisons with no hope for the future. And immigrants are subject to brutal raids, with families cruelly split up in an instant.
We refuse to suffer these outrages in silence. We need to put a stop to this and drag the truth about the nationwide epidemic of police violence and repression into the light of day for all so see. We say no more! Enough is Enough!
Oct 22nd 2009 is the 14th annual national day of protest to Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of Generation---bringing together those under the gun and those not under the gun as a powerful voice to expose the epidemic of police brutality. On that day in cities across the country many different people will take to the streets against police brutality and murder, against the criminalization of youth, and against the targeting of immigrants.
We call for a powerful demonstration in Oakland on October 22 demanding:
* Stop Police Brutality, Repression and the Criminalization of a Generation!
* October 22....No To Police Brutality
* No to ICE raids and round-ups of immigrants!
* Enough Is Enough! No More Stolen Lives!
* Justice for Oscar Grant and all victims of police murder!
* Wear Black, Fight Back
Contact the National Office of October 22nd at:
Info@october22.org or 1-888-NOBRUTALITY
October 22nd Coalition
P.O. Box 2627
New York, N.Y. 10009
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Protest Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister of Israel on Thursday, October 22 @ 6pm. We want Olmert arrested and tried for his role in the brutal attack on Gaza in December/January, as well as the attack on Lebanon in 2006. Olmert will be appearing as a speaker for the World Affairs Council, at meeting held at the St. Francis Hotel, 335 Powell Street, San Francisco, California, 94102 USA. The protest will be outside this building in Union Square.
As Olmert speaks in the St Francis Hotel, we will be gathered outside on Union Square in San Francisco. We want Israel and its leaders held accountable for their crimes against the people of Palestine and Lebanon.
We support the findings of the Goldstone Report, that detail the crimes committed by Israel during its war against the whole people of Gaza of last December/January, in "Operation Cast Lead". President Obama and most politicians have simply refused to take this report seriously, some by vocally rejecting it, and many more by ignoring it completely.
It is therefore up to us, civil society, to again do what politicians are unwilling to do. Call for universal application of human rights and international law. This will be the message of our protest. We demand that Olmert, who initiated "Operation Cast Lead" and is directly responsible for the crimes that took place and therefore must be held accountable. Olmert is also responsible for the insane attack against Lebanon in the Summer of 2006. Olmert shares criminal responsibility for the siege on Gaza that leaves children hungry and 1.5 million people in desperate circumstances.
Please plan on being there. Please spread the word. We need to stand together to create a new reality. We will not accept that Israel may act with impunity and total disregard for human life. This protest is our opportunity to stand up and be counted.
Spread the word to your friends and all organizations that support the rule of law, human rights, and oppose militarism and occupation. Organizations are urged to send in their endorsements.
More info:
http://stopaipac.org/olmertprotest.htm
Jim Harris
people@stopaipac.org
www.StopAIPAC.org
Stop AIPAC
PO Box 11311
Berkeley, CA 94712
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
October 22: Take Action to End Isolation and Free Ahmad Sa'adat and Palestinian Prisoners!
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org
Imprisoned Palestinian leader Ahmad Sa'adat is going to court on Thursday, October 22, 2009 to challenge isolation of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons. Join the Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat and take action today to uphold Palestinian prisoners' rights and support Palestinian prisoners' struggle for freedom!
Ahmad Sa'adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, has been held in isolation in Ramon prison in the Naqab desert for six months, when he was transferred from Hadarim prison in Asqelan after 14 days of isolation. Sa'adat has been targeted for isolation and abusive prison conditions alongside other Palestinian national leaders and popular prison leaders, and placed in special isolation units. Within these isolation units, Sa'adat has been placed further inside a separate isolation unit where he is confined without access even to the other prisoners in isolation, and deprived of basic human rights. His personal books have been confiscated and he is allowed access to newspapers only once or twice weekly.
He has been denied family visits - his wife, Abla, has been denied visits for three months - as well as legal visits, and barred from purchases at the prison canteen, including cigarette purchases. In the prison yard, Sa'adat has been held handcuffed and in ankle shackles and allowed only one-hour of exercise/recreation. All of this has been 'justified' by the occupation authorities as 'punishment' for giving two packs of cigarettes to another prisoner. The Prison Administration is attempting to criminalize the human and social relationship between fellow Palestinian prisoners, and between the prisoners and their families outside.
Sa'adat has led in the struggle against isolation, engaging in a nine-day hunger strike in July 2009 that was immediately followed by his transfer to Ramon prison. He is challenging isolation in court on October 22, 2009 and needs your support to challenge isolation of Palestinian political prisoners!
TAKE ACTION TO SUPPORT AHMAD SA'ADAT AND ALL PALESTINIAN PRISONERS!
Events and activities are expected to be held in Palestine and around the world in support of Sa'adat from October 16-22, calling for freedom and justice for Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners. Join in these events in your town, city, or country:
1. Distribute the Free Ahmad Sa'adat flyer:
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org/saadat-flyer.pdf
in your town, city, event or location! Bring the flyers to events and activities, or hold a flyer distribution at a public place.
2. Call the Israeli embassy or consulate in your location:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Diplomatic+missions/Web+Sites+of+Israeli+Missions+Abroad.htm
and demand the immediate freedom of Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian political prisoners.
3. Write to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other human rights organizations to exercise their responsibilities and act swiftly to demand that the Israelis ensure that Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners are freed from punitive isolation. Email the ICRC, whose humanitarian mission includes monitoring the conditions of prisoners, at jerusalem.jer@icrc.org, and inform them about the urgent situation of Ahmad Sa'adat.
4.Email the Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat at info@freeahmadsaadat.org with announcements, reports and information about your local events, activities and flyer distributions.
Ahmad Sa'adat has been imprisoned since 2002 in the prisons of the Palestinian Authority, held under U.S. and British guard, until his abduction by the Israeli occupation forces on March 14, 2006 by an occupation military raid on Jericho prison. On December 25, 2008, he was sentenced to thirty years inside the occupation prisons. He is a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and one of the foremost Palestinian national leaders held inside the occupier's jails.
Ahmad Sa'adat and nearly 10,000 Palestinian prisoners are daily on the front lines, confronting Israeli oppression and crimes. Today, it is urgent that we stand with Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners against these abuses, and for freedom for all Palestinian prisoners and for all of Palestine!
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org
info@freeahmadsaadat.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
INVITATION
October 24 Mobilizing Conference to Save Public Education
We have the power to stop the catastrophic budget cuts, fee hikes, and layoffs -- but to save public education in California requires coordinating our actions on a statewide level.
We invite all UC, CSU, CC, and K-12 students, workers, teachers, and their organizations across the state to participate in and collectively build the October 24 Mobilizing Conference to Save Public Education. The all-day conference will take place at UC Berkeley (contact us for more logistics).
The purpose of this conference is both simple and extremely urgent: to democratically decide on a statewide action plan capable of winning this struggle, which will define the future of public education in this state, particularly for the working class and communities of color.
Why UC Berkeley? On September 24, over 5,000 people massively protested and effectively paralyzed the UCB campus, as part of the UC-wide walkout. A mass General Assembly of over 400 individuals and dozens of organizations met that night and collectively decided to issue this call.
We ask all organizations and individuals in the state who want to save public education to endorse this open conference and help us collectively build it.
Save public education!
No budget cuts, fee hikes, or layoffs!
For statewide student, worker, and faculty solidarity!
Please contact oct24conference@gmail.com to endorse this conference and to receive more details.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Marjorie Cohn, Rebecca Solnit & Aimee Allison
Oct 25, Oakalnd - Benefit to support GI resistance
Book release benefit to support Courage to Resist and GI resistance!
Sunday, October 25 from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm
First Congregational Church
2501 Harrison St, Oakland, California
(across from the new Whole Foods near Lake Merritt)
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=750
Featuring:
Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild
Professor of Law at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, San Diego
Rebecca Solnit, award-winning author
A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster
Aimee Allison, KPFA Morning Show host
Marjorie Cohn is president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, where she teaches criminal law and procedure, evidence, and international human rights law. She is author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law" that "makes the case for prosecuting Bush officials with exquisite legal detail in straightforward, everyman language" (William Fisher review). Along with Kathleen Gilberd, Prof. Cohn has just published "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent" which "takes the side of US service members who didn't check their conscience-and their sense of honor-at the door when they signed up" (Truthout review).
Rebecca Solnit is an award winning author/writer/essayist. Her new on disaster and civil society "A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster" is now available. Ms. Solnit has won an NEA Fellowship for Literature, the 2004 Wired Rave Award for writing, and a Guggenheim Fellowship.
Aimee Allison is an is an author, public affairs TV host, and counter-recruitment leader. Since 2007, she has been a co-host of The Morning Show on Pacifica station KPFA. Aimee, an Army medic at the time, was discharged as a Conscientious Objector during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
This event is a benefit for Courage to Resist in support of military war resisters. Endorsed and supported by the National Lawyers Guild SF Bay Area Military Law Task Force, Veterans for Peace SF Bay Area Chapter, Iraq Veterans Against the War - SF Bay Area, BAY-Peace, Asian Americans for Peace and Justice, American Friends Service Committee - SF, CodePink, War Resisters League-West, United for Peace and Justice - SF Bay Area, and National Lawyers Guild SF Bay Area Chapter.
Free event, $5 donation suggested. $20 donation to include the new book "Rules of Disengagement". Wheelchair accessible. Book signing will be held. For more information, contact 510-488-3559.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
There will be a follow-up October 17 Coalition meeting:
Sunday, November 1, 2:00 P.M.
Unitarian Church (Fireside Room)
1187 Franklin at Geary, SF (wheelchair accessible).
www.oct17awc.wordpress.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Black is Back Coalition Rally and March: Stop
U.S. Occupation and War inside U.S. and Abroad!
Saturday, November 7 beginning at 10 am, Malcolm X Park, Washington DC
Washington, D.C. - A newly-formed Black coalition has announced a Rally and March on the White House to take place November 7, 2009 beginning in Washington, D.C.'s historic Malcolm X Park. The Rally and March are to protest the expanding U.S. wars and other policy initiatives that unfairly target African and other oppressed people around the world. Known as the Black is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations, the coalition formed on September 12, 2009 during a meeting in Washington, D.C. of more than fifteen activists from various Black organizations, institutions and communities.
http://blackisbackcoalition.org/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
U.S. OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW!
FREE PALESTINE!
San Francisco March and Rally
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
11am, Civic Center Plaza
National March on Washington
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fri., March 19 Day of Action & Outreach in D.C.
People from all over the country are organizing to converge on Washington, D.C., to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.
On Saturday, March 20, 2010, there will be a massive National March & Rally in D.C. A day of action and outreach in Washington, D.C., will take place on Friday, March 19, preceding the Saturday march.
There will be coinciding mass marches on March 20 in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The national actions are initiated by a large number of organizations and prominent individuals. (see below)
Click here to become an endorser:
http://answer.pephost.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=5940&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&autologin=true&link=endorse-body-1
Click here to make a donation:
https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=2302&autologin=true&donate=body-1&JServSessionIdr002=2yzk5fh8x2.app13b
We will march together to say "No Colonial-type Wars and Occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine!" We will march together to say "No War Against Iran!" We will march together to say "No War for Empire Anywhere!"
Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing.
March 20 is the seventh anniversary of the criminal war of aggression launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq. One million or more Iraqis have died. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have lost their lives or been maimed, and continue to suffer a whole host of enduring problems from this terrible war.
This is the time for united action. The slogans on banners may differ, but all those who carry them should be marching shoulder to shoulder.
Killing and dying to avoid the perception of defeat
Bush is gone, but the war and occupation in Iraq still go on. The Pentagon is demanding a widening of the war in Afghanistan. They project an endless war with shifting battlefields. And a "single-payer" war budget that only grows larger and larger each year. We must act.
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were predicated on the imperial fantasy that the U.S. could create stable, proxy colonial-type governments in both countries. They were to serve as an extension of "American" power in these strategic and resource-rich regions.
That fantasy has been destroyed. Now U.S. troops are being sent to kill or be killed so that the politicians in uniform ("the generals and admirals") and those in three-piece suits ("our elected officials") can avoid taking responsibility for a military setback in wars that should have never been started. Their military ambitions are now reduced to avoiding the appearance of defeat.
That is exactly what happened in Vietnam! Avoiding defeat, or the perception of defeat, was the goal Nixon and Kissinger set for themselves when they took office in 1969. For this noble cause, another 30,000 young GIs perished before the inevitable troop pullout from Vietnam in 1973. The number of Vietnamese killed between 1969 and 1973 was greater by many hundreds of thousands.
All of us can make the difference - progress and change comes from the streets and from the grassroots.
The people went to the polls in 2008, and the enthusiasm and desire for change after eight years of the Bush regime was the dominant cause that led to election of a big Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress and the election of Barack Obama to the White House.
But it should now be obvious to all that waiting for politicians to bring real change - on any front - is simply a prescription for passivity by progressives and an invitation to the array of corporate interests from military contractors to the banks, to big oil, to the health insurance giants that dominate the political life of the country. These corporate interests work around the clock to frustrate efforts for real change, and they are the guiding hand behind the recent street mobilizations of the ultra-right.
It is up to us to act. If people had waited for politicians to do the right thing, there would have never been a Civil Rights Act, or unions, women's rights, an end to the Vietnam war or any of the profound social achievements and basic rights that people cherish.
It is time to be back in the streets. Organizing centers are being set up in cities and towns throughout the country.
We must raise $50,000 immediately just to get started. Please make your contribution today. We need to reserve buses, which are expensive ($1,800 from NYC, $5,000 from Chicago, etc.). We have to print 100,000 leaflets, posters and stickers. There will be other substantial expenses as March 20 draws closer.
Please become an endorser and active supporter of the March 20 National March on Washington.
Please make an urgently needed tax-deductible donation today. We can't do this without your active support.
The initiators of the March 20 National March on Washington (preceded by the March 19 Day of Action and Outreach in D.C.) include: the ANSWER Coalition; Muslim American Society Freedom; National Council of Arab Americans; Cynthia McKinney; Malik Rahim, co-founder of Common Ground Collective; Ramsey Clark; Cindy Sheehan; Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK; Deborah Sweet, Director, World Can't Wait; Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace; Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition; Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild; Ron Kovic, author of "Born on the 4th of July"; Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director, Latino Movement USA; Col. Ann Wright (ret.); March Forward!; Partnership for Civil Justice; Palestinian American Women Association; Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines; Alliance for Global Justice; Claudia de la Cruz, Pastor, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas-UCC; Phil Portluck, Social Justice Ministry, Covenant Baptist Church, D.C.; Blase & Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas; Coalition for Peace and Democracy in Honduras; Comite Pro-Democracia en Mexico; Frente Unido de los Pueblos Americanos; Comites de Base FMLN, Los Angeles; Free Palestine Alliance; GABRIELA Network; Justice for Filipino American Veterans; KmB Pro-People Youth; Students Fight Back; Jim Lafferty, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild - LA Chapter; LEF Foundation; National Coalition to Free the Angola 3; Community Futures Collective; Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival; Companeros del Barrio; Barrio Unido for Full and Unconditional Amnesty, Bay Area United Against War.
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
http://www.answercoalition.org/
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-265-1948
New York City: 212-694-8720
Los Angeles: 213-251-1025
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
Chicago: 773-463-0311
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Cleve Jones Speaks At Gay Rights Rally In Washington, DC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvC3hVXZpc4
Free the SF8: Drop the Charges!
by Bill Carpenter ( wcarpent [at] ccsf.edu )
Monday Oct 12th, 2009 11:20 AM
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/12/18625220.php
Sweet Crude, is playing for FREE on Sunday October 18th in San Francisco as part of the United Nations Film Festival. The award winning documentary captures the complex reality of how the oil industry and the Nigerian government have left the Delta in such desperation that some have turned to militancy while others struggle to survive. The film will be followed by a panel discussion with the Director and experts and activists focused on the issues in the Niger Delta.
Sony Piece of crap (Hilarious!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I-JByPDJm0
Sick For Profit
http://sickforprofit.com/videos/
Fault Lines: Despair & Revival in Detroit - 14 May 09 - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ7VL907Qb0&feature=related
Michael Moore on Good Morning America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY1pcoBWp3Q
Michael Moore on Countdown With Keith Olbermann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0URCqniVTOY
VIDEO INTERVIEW: Dan Berger on Political Prisoners in the United States
By Angola 3 News
Angola 3 News
37 years ago in Louisiana, 3 young black men were silenced for trying to expose continued segregation, systematic corruption, and horrific abuse in the biggest prison in the US, an 18,000-acre former slave plantation called Angola. In 1972 and 1973 prison officials charged Herman Wallace, Albert Woodfox, and Robert King with murders they did not commit and threw them into 6x9 ft. cells in solitary confinement, for over 36 years. Robert was freed in 2001, but Herman and Albert remain behind bars.
http://angola3news.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-dan-berger-on-political-prisoners.html
Taking Aim Radio Program with
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone
The Chimera of Capitalist Recovery, Parts 1 and 2
http://www.takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
JROTC MUST GO!
The San Francisco Board of Education has re-installed the Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps in San Francisco schools -- including allowing it to count for Physical Education credits.
This is a complete reversal of the 2006 decision to end JROTC altogether in San Francisco public schools. Our children need a good physical education program, not a death education program!
With the economy in crisis; jobs and higher education for youth more unattainable; the lure, lies and false promises of military recruiters is driving more and more of our children into the military trap.
This is an economic draft and the San Francisco Board of Education is helping to snare our children to provide cannon fodder for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and for over 700 U.S. military bases around the world!
We can't depend upon "friendly politicians" who, while they are campaigning for office claim they are against the wars but when they get elected vote in favor of military recruitment--the economic draft--in our schools. We can't depend upon them. That has been proven beyond doubt!
It is up to all of us to come together to stop this NOW!
GET JROTC AND ALL MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS NOW!
Write, call, pester and ORGANIZE against the re-institution of JROTC in our San Francisco public schools NOW!
In solidarity,
Bonnie Weinstein
Bay Area United Against War Newsletter
San Francisco Board of Education
555 Franklin Street, 1st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
415/241-6427, (415) 241-6493
cascoe@sfusd.edu
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
HELP VFP PUT THIS BOOK IN YOUR HIGH SCHOOL OR PUBLIC LIBRARY
For a donation of only $18.95, we can put a copy of the book "10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military" into a public or high school library of your choice. [Reason number 1: You may be killed]
A letter and bookplate will let readers know that your donation helped make this possible.
Putting a book in either a public or school library ensures that students, parents, and members of the community will have this valuable information when they need it.
Don't have a library you would like us to put it in? We'll find one for you!
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/826/t/9311/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=4906
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Stop the Extradition of Sean Garland
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=48273279889
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Take Action: Stop Rite Aid's abuses: Pass the Employee Free Choice Act!
For years Rite Aid workers have faced unfair firings, campaigns of misinformation, and intimidation for trying to form a union. But Rite Aid would never have been able to get away with any of this if Congress had passed the Employee Free Choice Act.
You can help us fight mounting anti-union opposition to the bill that would have protected Rite Aid's workers. Tell Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act today!
http://action.americanrightsatwork.org/campaign/riteaidefca2/8gg63dd407ejd5wi?
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
This is a must-see video about the life of Oscar Grant, a young man who loved his family and was loved by his family. It's important to watch to understand the tremendous loss felt by his whole family as a result of his cold-blooded murder by BART police officers--Johannes Mehserle being the shooter while the others held Oscar down and handcuffed him to aid Mehserle in the murder of Oscar Grant January 1, 2009.
The family wants to share this video here with you who support justice for Oscar Grant.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/21/18611878.php
WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR OSCAR GRANT!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Urgent: Ahmad Sa'adat transferred to isolation in Ramon prison!
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org/
Imprisoned Palestinian national leader Ahmad Sa'adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was transferred on August 11, 2009 to Ramon prison in the Naqab desert from Asqelan prison, where he had been held for a number of months. He remains in isolation; prior to his transfer from Asqelan, he had been held since August 1 in a tiny isolation cell of 140 cm x 240 cm after being penalized for communicating with another prisoner in the isolation unit.
Attorney Buthaina Duqmaq, president of the Mandela Association for prisoners' and detainees' rights, reported that this transfer is yet another continuation of the policy of repression and isolation directed at Sa'adat by the Israeli prison administration, aimed at undermining his steadfastness and weakening his health and his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Sa'adat has been moved repeatedly from prison to prison and subject to fines, harsh conditions, isolation and solitary confinement, and medical neglect. Further reports have indicated that he is being denied attorney visits upon his transfer to Ramon.
Ahmad Sa'adat undertook a nine-day hunger strike in June in order to protest the increasing use of isolation against Palestinian prisoners and the denial of prisoners' rights, won through long and hard struggle. The isolation unit at Ramon prison is reported to be one of the worst isolation units in terms of conditions and repeated violations of prisoners' rights in the Israeli prison system.
Sa'adat is serving a 30 year sentence in Israeli military prisons. He was sentenced on December 25, 2008 after a long and illegitimate military trial on political charges, which he boycotted. He was kidnapped by force in a military siege on the Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho, where he had been held since 2002 under U.S., British and PA guard.
Sa'adat is suffering from back injuries that require medical assistance and treatment. Instead of receiving the medical care he needs, the Israeli prison officials are refusing him access to specialists and engaging in medical neglect and maltreatment.
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat demands an end to this isolation and calls upon all to protest at local Israeli embassies and consulates (the list is available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ About+the+Ministry/Diplomatic+mission/Web+Sites+of+Israeli+ Missions+Abroad.htm) and to write to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other human rights organizations to exercise their responsibilities and act swiftly to demand that the Israelis ensure that Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners receive needed medical care and that this punitive isolation be ended. Email the ICRC, whose humanitarian mission includes monitoring the conditions of prisoners, at jerusalem..jer@icrc.org, and inform them about the urgent situation of Ahmad Sa'adat!
Ahmad Sa'adat has been repeatedly moved in an attempt to punish him for his steadfastness and leadership and to undermine his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Of course, these tactics have done nothing of the sort. The Palestinian prisoners are daily on the front lines, confronting Israeli oppression and crimes. Today, it is urgent that we stand with Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners against these abuses, and for freedom for all Palestinian prisoners and for all of Palestine!
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org
info@freeahmadsaadat.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Troy Anthony Davis is an African American man who has spent the last 18 years on death row for a murder he did not commit. There is no physical evidence tying him to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses have recanted. New evidence and new testimony have been presented to the Georgia courts, but the justice system refuses to consider this evidence, which would prove Troy Davis' innocence once and for all.
Sign the petition and join the NAACP, Amnesty International USA, and other partners in demanding justice for Troy Davis!
http://www.iamtroy.com/
For Now, High Court Punts on Troy Davis, on Death Row for 18 Years
By Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal Law Blog
June 30, 2009
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/06/30/for-now-high-court-punts-on-troy-davis-on-death-row-for-18-years/
Take action now:
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&aid=12361&ICID=A0906A01&tr=y&auid=5030305
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
New videos from April 24 Oakland Mumia event
http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=jlboak
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:
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
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
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
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
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/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
C. ARTICLES IN FULL
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) After Uproar on Suspension, District Will Rewrite Rules
By IAN URBINA
October 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/education/14discipline.html?ref=education
2) Poster-Loving Civic Groups Protest Steep Fines
By Jennifer 8. Lee
October 14, 2009, 7:30 am
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/poster-loving-civic-groups-protest-steep-fines/
3) U.A.W. and Ford Reach Tentative Deal
By NICK BUNKLEY
October 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/14ford.html?ref=business
4) Oscar Grant's friends sue BART
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/10/14/MN5N1A580N.DTL
5) British Plan Would Deploy Bigger Afghanistan Force
By JOHN F. BURNS and PETER BAKER
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?ref=world
6) Justices Hear Arguments on Property Seized by Police
By ADAM LIPTAK
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/us/15scotus.html?ref=us
7) Suspended Boy Back in School
By IAN URBINA
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/education/15discipline.html?ref=us
8) As City Adds Housing for Poor, Market Subtracts It
By MANNY FERNANDEZ
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/nyregion/15housing.html?ref=nyregion
9) 10,000: Then and Now
Editorial
October 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/opinion/16fri1.html
10) C.I.A. Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery
By SCOTT SHANE
October 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17inquire.html?ref=us
11) Job Program Found to Miss Many States That Need It Most
By MICHAEL COOPER and RON NIXON
October 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16stimulus.html?ref=us
12) Puerto Rico Unions Protest Job Cuts
By DAMIEN CAVE
October 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16puerto.html?ref=us
13) Bailout Helps Fuel a New Era of Wall Street Wealth
By GRAHAM BOWLEY
October 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/economy/17wall.html?hp
14) S.F. anti-war march smaller than some hoped for
Erin Allday, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, October 18, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/18/MNAR1A78H4.DTL
15) The Public Plan, Continued
Editorial
October 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18sun1.html
16) Los Angeles Prepares for Clash Over Marijuana
By SOLOMON MOORE
October 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/18enforce.html?hp
17) Police Arrest 21 People at U.K. Coal Plant Protest
By REUTERS
October 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/17/world/international-climate-britain-protest.html?ref=world
18) Congressional Ethics Inquiries Drag on, Despite Vows to End Corruption
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
October 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18ethics.html?ref=us
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) After Uproar on Suspension, District Will Rewrite Rules
By IAN URBINA
October 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/education/14discipline.html?ref=education
School officials in Newark, Del., said Tuesday that they would revise the district's code of conduct to exempt kindergarteners and first graders from some of its automatic and harsher punishments.
The decision came after a first grader, Zachary Christie, 6, was suspended and ordered to the district's alternative school for troubled youth because he took to school a camping utensil that included a small fold-out knife.
School district officials also said they would reinstate Zachary to his school and remove the suspension from his record. And they asked his mother to review and possibly help rewrite the conduct code.
The utensil that Zachary took to school was considered a "dangerous instrument" under the zero-tolerance policy of the district, the Christina School District, and officials had said they were forced to act, regardless of Zachary's age or intent.
The case prompted an angry reaction from parents because several other students hade been expelled or suspended in the past several years for similar offenses, including an elementary school student who was expelled for a year after she took a birthday cake to school, along with a knife to cut it.
The school board passed an amendment creating a separate category of rules for students in kindergarten and first grade.
If these students engage in what is known as a Level III offense for the first time, they will now face three to five days out-of-school suspension and referral to school-based counseling, rather than being sent to the local reform school, as is now the case.
Level III offenses include possession of a "dangerous instrument," including knives under three inches in length, and more serious offenses like assault, arson or drug possession.
Some school board members said the amendment did not go far enough in revising the code.
"We are doing this because we got egg on our face, but it doesn't address the underlying issues with zero-tolerance rules," said John M. Young, who opposed the original decision to send Zachary to the district's reform program. "What if next time the case involves a second grader? That student will run into the same exact problems that Zachary did."
Mr. Young said he believed the school board should immediately reverse the decision concerning Zachary's punishment and apologize to his family. It should then begin redrafting the entire code of conduct so it gives school officials more discretion, he said.
Zachary's mother, Debbie Christie, agreed.
"I think it's a start, but I don't know if it goes far enough," Ms. Christie said.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) Poster-Loving Civic Groups Protest Steep Fines
By Jennifer 8. Lee
October 14, 2009, 7:30 am
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/poster-loving-civic-groups-protest-steep-fines/
How much should the city fine for an improper poster put up by local Boy Scouts at a street fair?
At a June 2008 street fair in Maspeth, Queens, the answer ended up being $300 per poster. While the fine for each poster is supposed to be $75, the Sanitation Department fined each group listed on the poster - the Maspeth Kiwanis Club, the Maspeth Chamber of Commerce, the Lions Club and the printer - $75 each.
At 32 posters - 16 poles with two posters back to back - the total fine came to $9,600.
The Boy Scouts had volunteered to put the posters in store windows, said James O'Kane, president of the Maspeth Chamber of Commerce. "They had extra posters. They took it upon themselves and put it on their street light poles," he said. "It was a one-time thing. It was a mistake on the part of the Boy Scouts."
He felt that the city was being unduly harsh with the fines. "If they had issued us a warning, we would have taken it down," said Mr. Kane. Although the groups appealed the fines twice, they lost both times and have paid the $9,600 fine. Their annual street fair had raised $16,000.
"They didn't cut us any slack," Mr. Kane said. "They want to get every dime they can. And they don't care who they get it from."
As a result of such fines, City Council members are introducing a bill this week that would limit excessive poster-ticketing practices by the Department of Sanitation, especially when it comes to nonprofit groups and small businesses.
Called the Protection Against Ticket Harassment bill, the legislation would require that the Sanitation Department serve tickets for posting offenses within five days, and give first-time offenders a chance to remove the offending items before they are fined. In addition, if first-time offenders have put up multiple posters, they would be charged with one violation, rather than a violation per poster.
"If people are breaking the law, they should be punished, just not unfairly," said Elizabeth S. Crowley, a City Councilwoman who represents the Maspeth district and is among the co-sponsors of the bill. "Many people, working people, they always feel like the city is always punishing them to make a quick buck."
The other sponsors of the bill include the Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat, and Letitia James, a Brooklyn Democrat.
Vito A. Turso, a spokesman for the Sanitation Department, said that the agency didn't comment on proposed legislation until it was brought for a hearing. He added that all fines collected go to the city's general fund, not to the Sanitation Department.
The department's enforcement policy, he said, is to issue citations to all parties whose names appear on the posters. He noted that the law says that it is illegal to place posters on public utility poles as well as other city infrastructure. In an e-mail message, Mr. Turso wrote: "The answer is simple: don't place posters on utility poles. This applies to advertisers, for-profit entertainment companies and even political candidates."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) U.A.W. and Ford Reach Tentative Deal
By NICK BUNKLEY
October 14, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/business/14ford.html?ref=business
DETROIT - The United Automobile Workers union is asking 41,000 members who work at the Ford Motor Company to approve a tentative deal that gives the automaker some of the same concessions that General Motors and Chrysler have already received.
The deal, announced Tuesday by Ford and the union, contains a six-year freeze on wages for newly hired workers, combines some job classifications and limits the union's ability to strike.
In return, workers would get a $1,000 bonus next year and Ford would make future product commitments at five assembly plants, according to a summary distributed by the union Tuesday to its local leaders.
The local leaders, which the U.A.W. calls its Ford council, met at a downtown Detroit hotel Tuesday, where they voted almost unanimously to recommend the deal to their members, the union's president, Ron Gettelfinger, told reporters. Mr. Gettelfinger urged members to approve the deal, even though Ford is in a better position financially than G.M. and Chrysler, and it has not had to file for bankruptcy protection as those companies did.
"Ford has twice as much debt on their balance sheet as G.M.," Mr. Gettelfinger said. "We want Ford to be successful. We want them to have a profitable quarter and we want them to gain market share. That is job security for us."
Ford executives have said more concessions from the union were needed, to avoid being disadvantaged against its domestic rivals. Ford's group vice president of global manufacturing and labor affairs, Joseph R. Hinrichs, said in a statement the deal "would help Ford improve its current and long-term competitiveness in the United States." The automaker said it would not comment further until the deal was ratified.
Mr. Gettelfinger said he expects ratification to conclude within several weeks.
The deal could be somewhat of a tough sell to Ford's rank-and-file workers. Ford is the only Detroit automaker to report any profits this year, and some U.A.W. members are frustrated that they already made concessions in the contract they approved in 2007 and in a March deal that modified that contract.
Union leaders are counting on the $1,000 bonus, payable next March, and product commitments to overcome that opposition. In a letter to workers, Mr. Gettelfinger and Bob King, the U.A.W. vice president who oversees dealings with Ford, said workers might get a worse deal by refusing to negotiate with Ford until their contract expires in two years.
"Early in these discussions it became clear that we could win additional product and investment commitments now, that, if we waited until 2011, would likely be committed elsewhere," they wrote. "We also saw opportunity to win new money needed by our members that we would miss if we waited."
The product commitments include new vehicles, and in some cases additional jobs, at Ford assembly plants in Avon Lake, Ohio; Claycomo, Mo.; Wayne, Mich.; Chicago; and Louisville, Ky.
The deal with Ford prohibits the U.A.W. from going on strike over demands for increased wages or benefits, but it permits strikes over other issues or if Ford proposes cutting wages or benefits.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Oscar Grant's friends sue BART
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/10/14/MN5N1A580N.DTL
Five men who were detained with Oscar Grant on the Fruitvale Station platform when he was shot and killed by a BART police officer filed a federal civil rights lawsuit Tuesday, claiming they had been falsely arrested and wrongfully searched.
The men - Jack Bryson, 21, and his 19-year-old brother, Nigel Bryson; Michael Greer, 22; Carlos Reyes, 21; and Fernando "June" Anicete, 20 - endured "several hours of being painfully handcuffed and/or mercilessly interrogated, all while mourning the demise of their childhood friend," said the suit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
"Nothing will ever erase the memory of seeing Oscar getting killed," the plaintiffs' attorney, John Burris, said Tuesday.
Grant, 22, was shot early Jan. 1 while unarmed and lying face-down on the station platform. The shooting by Officer Johannes Mehserle was captured on camera and seen by millions on TV and online.
Mehserle, 27, was among officers who went to the Fruitvale BART Station in response to reports of a fight on a train. Burris said his clients had not been involved in the fight.
After Grant was shot, the men were falsely arrested and brought to BART police headquarters, "although they had not committed any crimes," the suit said.
None of the men was charged with a crime.
"The violations that occurred here were a product of a dysfunctional police department that did not have clear guidelines for discipline, supervision (and) use of weapons," Burris said. "But for that, Oscar Grant's death would not have occurred and the young men's constitutional rights would not have been violated."
Burris also represents Grant's mother and his girlfriend, the mother of his young daughter, in a separate, $50 million suit against BART, Mehserle and two other officers who were at Fruitvale Station, Tony Pirone and Marysol Domenici.
The latest suit, which seeks unspecified damages, names BART and the same three officers, along with Police Chief Gary Gee, BART General Manager Dorothy Dugger and Officers Jon Woffinden and Emery Knudtson.
E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) British Plan Would Deploy Bigger Afghanistan Force
By JOHN F. BURNS and PETER BAKER
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/world/asia/15prexy.html?ref=world
LONDON - Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced a cautious and heavily conditioned plan on Wednesday to send 500 more British troops to Afghanistan, which would raise Britain's contingent - the second largest in the 41-nation coalition fighting the eight-year war - to 9,500.
Mr. Brown hinted strongly that discussions with President Obama and other American leaders had persuaded him that their current review of Afghanistan strategy would result in a similar approval for at least a modest increase in American troops - perhaps linked, like Britain's, to strict conditions on President Hamid Karzai's government in Afghanistan.
"I believe the decision we are announcing is consistent with what the Americans will decide," he said.
In Washington, the White House expressed appreciation for the British decision but denied that Mr. Obama had made his decision. The president met for three hours with his national security team to discuss Afghanistan and Pakistan, his fifth such meeting in recent weeks as he reviews strategy and his commander's request for more troops.
Mr. Obama and his advisers focused much of their discussion on Wednesday on concerns with the Afghan government, the need to accelerate training of Afghan security forces and the challenges in deploying more civilian assistance, White House officials said. Mr. Obama plans another such meeting next week and does not appear close to a decision, prompting renewed criticism from Republicans that he is dithering at a critical moment.
On a related front, American officials moved to reassure Pakistan that a new aid package did not impinge on its sovereignty. That program, giving $7.5 billion over five years, requires assurances of civilian control of Pakistan's security forces, but House and Senate leaders released a joint statement clarifying its intent. Pakistan's visiting foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, expressed satisfaction, and Mr. Obama plans to sign the legislation by Friday.
The British troop announcement renewed attention on the contribution of NATO allies, which have long resisted American pressure to do more in Afghanistan. American officials said that if Mr. Obama approved more forces, they expected NATO to increase its participation as well, if not in combat troops then in training, equipment or economic assistance.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates will meet with fellow NATO ministers in Bratislava, Slovakia, next week, although without a final decision from Mr. Obama it will be harder to lobby then for more resources, officials said. Any appeals are likely to face resistance. The Dutch have said that they are pulling out of Afghanistan in 2010, and the Canadians plan to leave in 2011.
Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the American and allied commander in Afghanistan, has submitted a request for 40,000 more troops on top of the 68,000 Americans already authorized to be there. About 35,000 troops from other NATO countries are also in Afghanistan.
Mr. Brown's announcement comes at a time of rising opposition in Britain to the war, which appeared to be one reason the proposed increase was for only some of the 1,500 to 2,000 troops that British commanders had recommended. In outlining the strategy in a tense, 70-minute exchange in the House of Commons, Mr. Brown said his plans were intended to mesh with American war policy.
Mr. Brown spoke with Mr. Obama over a video link last week and met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at his official country residence, Chequers, on Monday. Last month, Mr. Brown met separately in London with General McChrystal and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the overall American commander for Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
But the keynote to Mr. Brown's war plan was an insistent caution. He said he approved the new deployment on condition that enough equipment, including helicopters, be available to support British troops. Another requirement, he said, would be that other allies stepped up.
"Everyone must accept that they're part of a coalition, and they've got to show it," Mr. Brown said.
The exchanges in the House of Commons reflected unease about the war in Britain. Eighty-four British soldiers have died in Afghanistan this year, more than a third of all of Britain's losses since 2001 and more than all military deaths suffered in 2009 by other European nations in Afghanistan.
Before announcing the troop increase, Mr. Brown read the names of 37 British soldiers killed during the Commons' 12-week summer recess. More than a dozen lawmakers then stood to denounce the war, or to mock the idea that combat responsibilities would eventually be handed over to the Afghan forces.
Sir Peter Tapsell, a member of the Conservative opposition, said, "Anybody who believes that an Afghan army composed of different ethnic groups is going to defeat the Taliban is living in a political cloud-cuckoo-land."
But Mr. Brown said that three-quarters of all terrorist plots uncovered in Britain in recent years had links to Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. By persisting with the war effort, he said, "We are protecting the streets of Britain."
Beyond demanding greater allied involvement, Mr. Brown said, the overall war strategy will involve a new "contract" with Mr. Karzai, an idea he said had developed "after the fullest possible consultation" with American leaders and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Mr. Brown said the pact would require an equitable solution to the disputed August presidential election, including the possibility of a runoff between Mr. Karzai and his main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah. The Afghan government would also have to take action to curb corruption while increasing its security forces and deploying them in contested areas.
Part of any new strategy may involve distinguishing among Taliban factions. Mrs. Clinton alluded to that in an interview with ABC News while traveling in Moscow on Wednesday. "Our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, defeat Al Qaeda and its extremist allies," she said. "But not every Taliban is an extremist ally."
That thesis generated criticism in Washington. "I'm worried that we're going to see 'new' analysis that justifies a more limited war strategy on the basis that we can now tolerate" the Taliban, Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said at a hearing.
He criticized "the continued drift" by the White House, saying, "It is unfair to our forces in theater to fight a war while the strategy remains in limbo."
John F. Burns reported from London, and Peter Baker from Washington. Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Justices Hear Arguments on Property Seized by Police
By ADAM LIPTAK
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/us/15scotus.html?ref=us
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday about civil forfeitures, the practice in which the police seize cars, money and other kinds of property said to have been used in connection with crimes.
Civil forfeitures can raise an array of due process issues, and the question before the court was the relatively minor one of whether people seeking to get their property back are entitled to a prompt hearing before a judge. Though some justices appeared inclined to rule that at least that much was required, several of them indicated they would leave resolution of the question for another day because the case before them was procedurally flawed.
Law enforcement agencies seize more than $1 billion worth of property every year, generally without warrants and based solely on officials' assertions that the property was in some way tainted. Property owners may challenge the seizures but must often wait months or years to do so. The police often get to keep what they capture.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer sketched out the basic issue in the case, Alvarez v. Smith, No. 08-351, by describing a hypothetical situation.
"My car was parked on the street," he said. "There happened to be some big drug crime nearby and the policeman took my car. In my opinion there was no probable cause. I would like my car back."
"Do I have to wait for up to six months," Justice Breyer asked, "before I have any magistrate, any neutral official, pass on my claim there was no probable cause to take my car?"
William M. Jay, a Justice Department lawyer, said the government needed significant time to figure out who owned the car and to investigate the owner's connection, if any, to the criminal conduct at issue.
"I'm sorry," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. "You take the car and then you investigate?"
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. countered that requiring a prompt hearing could compromise criminal investigations.
"They may think he is involved in the drug conspiracy as well," Justice Alito said of the car's owner. "They may have him on wiretaps. They may be preparing to arrest him. Now, you want to force them to come into court within 10 or 14 days and disclose the details of a pending criminal investigation?"
The case was brought by six people whose cars or money had been seized in Chicago. The federal appeals court there ruled last year that the plaintiffs were entitled to prompt hearings.
"The hardship posed by the loss of one's means of transportation, even in a city like Chicago, with a well-developed mass transportation system, is hard to calculate," Judge Terence T. Evans wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the appeals court.
It is bad enough, Judge Evans wrote, when the owner of the car is accused of a crime. "But consider the owner of an automobile which is seized because the driver - not the owner - is the one accused and whose actions caused the seizure. The innocent owner can be without his car for months or years without a means to contest the seizure."
The claims of all six plaintiffs in the case have been resolved. That meant, several justices suggested Wednesday, that the case is moot.
"You have nobody before this court with a live claim," Justice Antonin Scalia told Paul Castiglione, an assistant state's attorney in Illinois.
Justice John Paul Stevens complained about a second aspect of the appeal: the appeals court had left it to the trial judge to determine the details of how and when hearings would take place.
"We are trying to get into the case much earlier than we should, it seems to me," Justice Stevens said. He said the court should dismiss the case as improvidently granted.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Suspended Boy Back in School
By IAN URBINA
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/education/15discipline.html?ref=us
Zachary Christie, 6, wants to make one thing clear: he was not at Disneyland last week.
On his first day back at school in Newark, Del., after he was suspended and ordered to the district's alternative school for troubled youth for taking to school a camping utensil that included a small foldout knife, Zachary said his fellow first graders kept asking him how he had spent his days away.
"I kept telling them that I was at home doing my work," he said.
School officials had initially ruled that the camping utensil was a weapon, and that under their zero-tolerance policy they were required to suspend him and send him to the alternative school for 45 days. They reversed the punishment Tuesday night and revised the discipline code.
Zachary arrived at school on Wednesday morning with a smile from ear to ear, his mother said. He slalomed his way through the satellite trucks and reporters gathered out front, and sat with his classmates in a circle on the carpet in his class.
Joined by his teacher and his mother, Zachary soon stood to tell his classmates that they should be sure to ask their parents before bringing anything new to class.
"I told them that I think they should follow the rules," he said, adding that in his case he had not realized he was breaking a rule.
By noon, Zachary's excitement about being back at school had worn off, and his mother, Debbie Christie, took him home after lunch. "I just didn't feel like I was fitting in," Zachary said.
Ms. Christie said that when she arrived at the school, several parents thanked her for standing up to school officials and forcing them to make needed changes to the code of conduct.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) As City Adds Housing for Poor, Market Subtracts It
By MANNY FERNANDEZ
October 15, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/nyregion/15housing.html?ref=nyregion
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is closing in on a milestone: building or preserving 165,000 city-financed apartments and houses for low-, moderate- and middle-income families, the goal of a $7.5 billion housing plan he announced in 2002 and expanded in 2005.
It has already financed the creation or preservation of 94,000 units, including 72,000 for low-income households, city officials say.
But those efforts have been overwhelmed by a far larger number - the 200,000 apartments affordable to low-income renters that New York City has lost over all, because of market forces, during the mayor's tenure.
The shrinking supply of these apartments, highlighted by researchers at New York University, illustrates not only the increasing strain that housing costs have had on this city of renters, but also the limits of the mayor's success in providing the city's poor with reasonable places to live. While the mayor's plan has put thousands of low-income families in new or rehabilitated buildings and helped stabilize neighborhoods, it has been nearly drowned out by the twin waves of gentrification and rent deregulation.
"We're losing units even with additions to the stock under the mayor's housing plan," said Victor Bach, a senior housing policy analyst for the Community Service Society, a nonprofit antipoverty group, and a member of a panel that advised the Bloomberg administration on housing in 2002. "I'm not knocking the plan. I'm just saying it hasn't done much to stop the hemorrhaging of lower-rent units across the city."
Including public housing, the number of apartments considered affordable to low-income households - those earning less than 80 percent of the city's median income, or less than $37,000 - decreased to 991,592 from 1,189,962, a drop of nearly 17 percent, from 2002 to 2008. About 42 percent of the city's households fit in that income category in 2008.
The data were supplied by the Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University, which analyzed the city's Housing and Vacancy Survey from 2002, 2005 and 2008. The center and other housing experts consider an apartment affordable if it costs no more than 30 percent of a family's income, or about $925 a month for a family earning $37,000.
Although the numbers present a gloomy picture, they did contain a glimmer of hope. The worst years were between 2002 and 2005, when the city lost affordable apartments at the highest rate of the mayor's tenure. In the next three years, as the mayor's plan took hold, the city actually gained about 8,000.
"We're very proud of what we've accomplished, but we're also not satisfied or done," said Rafael Cestero, the city's housing commissioner. "We can't undo what happened between 2002 and 2005, but what happened during those years is exactly why we created the largest municipal housing plan in the nation's history. What the data suggests is that the response is working."
A majority of the 200,000 units in the Furman Center data - 137,000 apartments - had been part of the rent regulation system but were deregulated. In most cases, they became market-rate once their rent topped $2,000 and they became vacant, as allowed by the rent regulation system. Thousands of others had been in the state Mitchell-Lama or federal Section 8 programs, but were taken out of those subsidy programs by their owners and converted to market-rate apartments.
The affordability of all of the city's 2.1 million rental apartments is of course beyond the control of Mr. Bloomberg and the city's housing agency, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
But housing experts and tenant advocates say that the mayor has been far from powerless, and that his housing policy has suffered from a kind of tunnel vision, by focusing energy and resources on his 165,000-unit target rather than the larger pool of existing housing.
Tenant advocates have been pushing state legislators to make it harder to remove apartments from rent regulation, a move strongly opposed by landlords and the real estate industry. The mayor has been virtually silent on the issue, though he appoints the members of the Rent Guidelines Board, which decides the annual rent increases for rent-stabilized apartments. He proposed state legislation in 2003 that would prevent the loss of Mitchell-Lama units, but the measure failed and has become a low priority for the mayor, tenant advocates say.
"There needs to be a focus on preservation at the same level of intensity that there is for new development," said Michelle de la Uz, executive director of the Fifth Avenue Committee, a nonprofit Brooklyn-based affordable housing and community development group. "It's not as though things aren't moving in the right direction. It's that advocates have a different sense of urgency."
Mr. Bloomberg's campaign said that the mayor intends to expand the housing plan by investing an additional $965 million, which will help preserve 10,000 more units of Mitchell-Lama housing than originally planned and stabilize apartment buildings that are overleveraged, meaning their debt is unsupportable by the income generated by rents, a widespread problem that has led to the physical and financial deterioration of many buildings.
The Housing and Vacancy Survey showed that in 2008, 29.4 percent of all renter households in the city paid more than 50 percent of their income toward rent, an increase from 25.5 percent in 2002. Experts call those families "severely rent burdened." (The city's median income in the Furman survey differed slightly from that in other recent surveys.)
The financial squeeze has a spillover effect. It leads to overcrowded conditions and illegally partitioned rooms. It contributes to the record number of homeless families in city shelters. It fills the halls of the city's housing courts and fuels residential evictions, which have risen slightly to 25,027 in 2008, from 23,669 in 2006. And it causes many people to move out of the city.
A study prepared for the Bloomberg administration by the polling firm Harris Interactive found that 64 percent who moved out of the city cited housing costs as a major reason. The 2006 study was obtained by the Center for an Urban Future, a nonprofit research group.
Before the recession, James Hadden was earning up to $1,000 a week cutting hair at a Harlem salon, but more recently he has taken home $400 to $700. So he has fallen behind on the $1,300-a-month rent on his one-bedroom apartment, a fourth-floor walk-up on Lenox Avenue. His landlord began asking him to pay weekly. "I'm going to go pay this man's rent so he'll stop calling me," Mr. Hadden, 42, said Tuesday.
He said he was happy to be only 16 blocks from work; closer to the salon, on Fifth Avenue at 116th Street, rents are even more expensive. But he said he sometimes heard gunfire outside his building on Saturdays. "My family comes to visit me and I'm embarrassed to show them where I live," he said.
Despite the net losses of affordable apartments, experts in the field are quick to praise Mr. Bloomberg on much of his housing record. The mayor's plan has suffered only one major setback since it was unveiled in December 2002: Mr. Bloomberg's goal of creating or preserving 165,000 units by 2013 was pushed back one year in late 2008 because of the recession.
Mr. Cestero, the housing commissioner, said the plan was on schedule and no further delays were expected. He said the preservation of existing affordable housing was the agency's "No. 1 priority," and he said the agency would "engage in the discussion" about rent regulation at the right time.
The plan relies on the rezoning of underused manufacturing areas, including the Greenpoint and Williamsburg neighborhoods in Brooklyn, that allowed developers to build larger buildings if they set aside some apartments as low-cost units. New units have also been created through the city's Housing Development Corporation, which issues bonds and uses its corporate reserves to finance low-cost mortgages to affordable housing developers.
"I think the city has done an extraordinary job, more than any other place in America," said Jerilyn Perine, executive director of the nonprofit Citizens Housing and Planning Council and the former city housing commissioner who helped create the mayor's original plan in 2002. "You have to go to Europe to find another city that has this kind of robust, sustained housing policy and housing investment."
Of the 94,000 units the administration counts as gains, fewer than half, about 35,000, are new. The rest are apartments that City Hall says it has preserved as affordable, by providing low-interest loans to rehabilitate them or keep them from leaving rent-subsidy programs..
Some housing experts say the loss of affordable units is evidence of the city's economic vitality and a natural consequence of demand for affordable housing exceeding supply. As Ms. Perine wrote in the housing plan, there has never been a time in the city's history when all of its population's housing needs have been met with safe and affordable housing.
"I don't think there's a serious crisis in this area," said Magda L. Cruz, a lawyer and an owner representative on the Rent Guidelines Board. "I do believe a big problem is employment, and salaries just not being high enough to sustain cost-of-living increases. That's something the mayor plays a part in, but it doesn't have to do with building new housing."
Affordable housing is in such demand that most new apartments are awarded by lottery. Alan Ceballos, 30, said he was grateful to have won his two-bedroom apartment, costing $839 a month, in a new building on University Avenue in the Bronx.
Mr. Ceballos, who earns about $33,000 a year as a sales associate at a car rental agency, won the spot three years ago, allowing him to move out of a one-bedroom that cost $794. He and his wife had two children then, and now have three.
He said that traffic often speeds down the street and that people who hang out in a park by the building sometimes smash car windows; his own windshield has been broken. But he is happy with the building itself: its cleanliness, security, price and size.
"Before, it being a one-bedroom, it did not have enough closet space," said Mr. Ceballos. Besides the extra room he now has, "the kitchen is bigger, the living room is bigger, so it's adequate space now."
Joel Stonington contributed reporting.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) 10,000: Then and Now
Editorial
October 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/opinion/16fri1.html
Dow 10,000 brings back glowing memories of good times - and not just for the people in pinstripes walking around Wall Street with "Dow 10,000" baseball caps. When the Dow Jones industrial average first closed above 10,000 on March 29, 1999, the economy was in its eighth year of uninterrupted growth. The jobless rate was so low - 4.2 percent - that economists called it "full employment."
The Dow passed the milestone again this week. It was the 25th time since that day a decade ago. As far as we can tell Wall Street is the only place celebrating.
The chasm between the Dow's stellar performance and the dismal state of the American economy is of historic proportions. The unemployment rate is now at 9.8 percent. Employment as a share of the population is at its lowest level since January 1984. State governments are teetering near bankruptcy. Solvent businesses are seeing their credit lines cut or canceled. Consumer and mortgage lending are both down, while foreclosure filings rose to a record in the third quarter.
And more than a year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers sent the financial system and the economy into a tailspin, the Obama administration and Congress have yet to make the promised financial reforms that are essential to ensure that it all doesn't happen again.
While the House Financial Services Committee passed a bill on Thursday to regulate trading in derivatives - the opaque and complex financial instruments that played a pivotal role in the crisis - the financial industry has managed to carve out far too many exemptions. Under pressure from banks, businesses and their high-priced lobbyists, the House committee also approved a bill that would seriously weaken the oversight powers of a proposed new consumer financial protection agency.
So why is the Dow doing so well while the rest of the country is struggling?
The stock market usually recovers before the economy does, as managers wring profits from their companies by cutting costs even before sales recover.
The fiscal stimulus headed off an even worse disaster, and investors - who have no place else to put their money with interest rates so low - are elated that things weren't as bad as they had feared. Not only are banks still around, many have posted stellar profits.
In six of the eight months since March, which is when the Dow started rising, the best-performing stock in the index has been a bank. Many of these banks are doing so well by trading the same sort of financial products that originally drove the system to ruin.
JPMorgan Chase's otherworldly second-quarter profits, which sent the Dow vaulting over 10,000 on Wednesday, came mostly from investment banking, notably trading in bonds and other fixed-income securities. At the same time, the bank has curtailed consumer and business lending.
Every week that banks refrain from lending - trading their way to a profit while they clean out bad loans from their portfolios - is a lost week to the recovery.
In June, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, said that the Fed's objective in mobilizing hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize the financial sector wasn't saving banks: "We care about Wall Street for one reason and one reason only - because what happens on Wall Street matters to Main Street." We can say with no hesitation that there are no Champagne corks being popped on Main Street.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) C.I.A. Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery
By SCOTT SHANE
October 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17inquire.html?ref=us
WASHINGTON - Is the Central Intelligence Agency covering up some dark secret about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
Probably not. But you would not know it from the C.I.A.'s behavior.
For six years, the agency has fought in federal court to keep secret hundreds of documents from 1963, when an anti-Castro Cuban group it paid clashed publicly with the soon-to-be assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. The C.I.A. says it is only protecting legitimate secrets. But because of the agency's history of stonewalling assassination inquiries, even researchers with no use for conspiracy thinking question its stance.
The files in question, some released under direction of the court and hundreds more that are still secret, involve the curious career of George E. Joannides, the case officer who oversaw the dissident Cubans in 1963. In 1978, the agency made Mr. Joannides the liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations - but never told the committee of his earlier role.
That concealment has fueled suspicion that Mr. Joannides's real assignment was to limit what the House committee could learn about C.I.A. activities. The agency's deception was first reported in 2001 by Jefferson Morley, a journalist and author who has doggedly pursued the files ever since, represented by James H. Lesar, a Washington lawyer specializing in Freedom of Information Act lawsuits.
"The C.I.A.'s conduct is maddening," said Mr. Morley, 51, a former Washington Post reporter and the author of a 2008 biography of a former C.I.A. station chief in Mexico. After years of meticulous reporting on Mr. Joannides, who died at age 68 in 1990, he is convinced that there is more to learn.
"I know there's a story here," Mr. Morley said. "The confirmation is that the C.I.A. treats these documents as extremely sensitive."
Mr. Morley's quest has gained prominent supporters, including John R. Tunheim, a federal judge in Minnesota who served in 1994 and 1995 as chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board, created by Congress to unearth documents related to the case.
"I think we were probably misled by the agency," Judge Tunheim said, referring to the Joannides records. "This material should be released."
Gerald Posner, the author of an anti-conspiracy account of the J.F.K. assassination, "Case Closed," said the C.I.A.'s withholding such aged documents was "a perfect example of why nobody trusts the agency."
"It feeds the conspiracy theorists who say, 'You're hiding something," ' Mr. Posner said.
After losing an appeals court decision in Mr. Morley's lawsuit, the C.I.A. released material last year confirming Mr. Joannides's deep involvement with the anti-Castro Cubans who confronted Oswald. But the agency is withholding 295 specific documents from the 1960s and '70s, while refusing to confirm or deny the existence of many others, saying their release would cause "extremely grave damage" to national security.
"The methods of defeating or deterring covert action in the 1960s and 1970s can still be instructive to the United States' current enemies," a C.I.A. official wrote in a court filing.
An agency spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, said the C.I.A. had opened all files relevant to the assassination to Judge Tunheim's review board and denied that it was trying to avoid embarrassment. "The record doesn't support that, any more than it supports conspiracy theories, offensive on their face, that the C.I.A. had a hand in President Kennedy's death," Mr. Gimigliano said.
C.I.A. secrecy has been hotly debated this year, with agency officials protesting the Obama administration's decision to release legal opinions describing brutal interrogation methods. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, came under attack from Republicans after she accused the C.I.A. of misleading Congress about waterboarding, adding, "They mislead us all the time."
On the Kennedy assassination, the deceptions began in 1964 with the Warren Commission. The C.I.A. concealed its unsuccessful schemes to kill Fidel Castro and its ties to the anti-Castro D.R.E., the Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil, or Cuban Student Directorate, which received $50,000 a month in C.I.A. support during 1963.
In August 1963, Oswald visited a New Orleans shop owned by a D.R.E. official, feigning sympathy with the group's goal of overthrowing Castro. A few days later, D.R.E. members found Oswald handing out pro-Castro pamphlets and got into a brawl with him. Later that month, Oswald debated the anti-Castro Cubans on a local radio station.
Mr. Morley's lawsuit has uncovered the central role in overseeing D.R.E. activities of Mr. Joannides, the deputy director for psychological warfare at the C.I.A.'s Miami station, code-named JM/WAVE. He worked closely with D.R.E. leaders, documents show, corresponding with them under pseudonyms, paying their travel expenses and achieving an "important degree of control" over the group, as a July 1963 agency fitness report put it.
Fifteen years later, Mr. Joannides turned up again as the agency's representative to the House assassinations committee. Dan Hardway, then a law student working for the committee, recalled Mr. Joannides as "a cold fish," thin and bespectacled, who firmly limited access to documents. Once, Mr. Hardway remembered: "he handed me a thin file and just stood there. I blew up, and he said, 'This is all you're going to get.' "
But neither Mr. Hardway nor the committee's staff director, G. Robert Blakey, had any idea that Mr. Joannides had played a role in the very anti-Castro activities from 1963 that the committee was scrutinizing.
When Mr. Morley first informed him about it a decade ago, Mr. Blakey was flabbergasted. "If I'd known his role in 1963, I would have put Joannides under oath - he would have been a witness, not a facilitator," said Mr. Blakey, a law professor at Notre Dame. "How do we know what he didn't give us?"
After Oliver Stone's 1991 film "J.F.K." fed wild speculation about the Kennedy case, Congress created the Assassination Records Review Board to release documents. But because the board, too, was not told of Mr. Joannides's 1963 work, it did not peruse his records, said Judge Tunheim, the chairman.
"If we'd known of his role in Miami in 1963, we would have pressed for all his records," Judge Tunheim said. No matter what comes of Mr. Morley's case in the United States District Court in Washington, he said he might ask the current C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, to release the records, even if the names of people who are still alive must be redacted for privacy.
What motive could C.I.A. officials have to bury the details of Mr. Joannides's work for so long? Did C.I.A. officers or their Cuban contacts know more about Oswald than has been revealed? Or was the agency simply embarrassed by brushes with the future assassin - like the Dallas F.B.I. officials who, after the assassination, destroyed a handwritten note Oswald had previously left for an F.B.I. agent?
Or has Mr. Morley spent a decade on a wild goose chase?
Max Holland, who is writing a history of the Warren Commission, said the agency might be trying to preserve the principle of secrecy.
"If you start going through the files of every C.I.A. officer who had anything to do with anything that touched the assassination, that would have no end," Mr. Holland said.
Mr. Posner, the anti-conspiracy author, said that if there really were something explosive involving the C.I.A. and President Kennedy, it wouldn't be in the files - not even in the documents the C.I.A. has fought to keep secret.
"Most conspiracy theorists don't understand this," Mr. Posner said. "But if there really were a C.I.A. plot, no documents would exist."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) Job Program Found to Miss Many States That Need It Most
By MICHAEL COOPER and RON NIXON
October 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16stimulus.html?ref=us
Businesses with federal stimulus contracts have created few jobs in states with the worst unemployment rates, according to data released Thursday by the federal government.
The new jobs reported Thursday come from a small slice of a sliver of the $787 billion stimulus program: the roughly $16 billion worth of stimulus contracts that were awarded directly by federal agencies, of which about $2.2 billion has been spent so far. But the preliminary data represented the first time that the federal government has reported actual job figures, and not just job estimates, and they provided the most complete snapshot yet of how one component of the sprawling program - direct federal contracts - was shaping up.
One thing was clear: while the federal contracts have created or saved 30,383 jobs, they were not directed to states with the highest jobless rates. Businesses in Michigan, whose 15.2 percent unemployment rate in August was the highest in the nation, reported creating or saving about 400 jobs. Businesses in Nevada, which had the next highest unemployment rate, reported 159. And businesses in Rhode Island, which had the third-highest unemployment rate, 12.8 percent, reported the fewest jobs: just six.
More jobs, by contrast, were reported in some of the states with lowest unemployment rates. Businesses in North Dakota, whose 4.3 percent unemployment rate was the lowest in the nation, reported creating or saving 219. The most jobs were reported in Colorado, whose 7.3 percent unemployment rate was below the national average that reached 9.8 percent last month, and where businesses reported creating or saving 4,695 jobs.
In many cases federal agencies could not steer their contracts to high-unemployment areas: the stimulus act gave the agencies money for existing federal programs and priorities. So the roughly $6 billion that the Department of Energy was given to clean up nuclear sites, for example, which was the biggest source of federal contracts, must be spent where the nuclear waste is.
The data yielded some interesting political tidbits. While no Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus bill, the five Congressional districts that appeared to be getting the most money in federal stimulus contracts so far are all represented by Republicans. And though Democrats control the House, it appeared that more money was being spent for work in districts held by Republicans.
The new jobs figures by themselves did not shed much light on the question of how well the stimulus program was accomplishing President Obama's goal of saving or creating 3.5 million jobs over two years. The administration estimates that the program has already created or saved one million jobs - a figure that includes jobs from money that went through states, which will not be reported until the end of the month; layoffs that were averted when the stimulus gave fiscal relief to states; and jobs that were created or saved when people spent their tax cuts or other aid. But with the unemployment rate at 9.8 percent, Republicans are asserting that the program is failing to create enough jobs.
The data posted Thursday on the stimulus Web site, recovery.gov, was preliminary; recipients can still change errors, and government officials said that based on past experience there were likely to be many. But the Web site is part of a pledge by the Obama administration and Congress to make the stimulus spending transparent. It has a map allowing people to see how many contracts were awarded in their states, their Congressional districts, or even in their ZIP codes, and how many jobs the recipients of those contracts are claiming.
White House officials were sensitive to the gulf between the 30,383 jobs in the report and the goal of creating or saving 3.5 million jobs. Jared Bernstein, the chief economist for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who oversees the stimulus, issued a statement saying that the jobs figure exceeded their expectations but cautioning that "it is too soon to draw any global conclusions from this partial and preliminary data."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
12) Puerto Rico Unions Protest Job Cuts
By DAMIEN CAVE
October 16, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16puerto.html?ref=us
MIAMI - Thousands of Puerto Rican union members gathered Thursday in a financial district outside San Juan to protest the government's plan to lay off more than 20,000 workers in a territory with a jobless rate of 15 percent.
A general strike began at 6 a.m., bringing the bustling city to a holiday-like calm, as crowds converged on a large mall under the watchful eye of the police. There were no reports of violence, though several stores and private schools had closed.
"Today we are declaring the state of peaceful insurrection of the Puerto Rican people," said a Methodist bishop, Juan Vera, one of the organizers, as he stood before the afternoon rally. "Today we go from protest to resistance and from resistance to civil disobedience."
Several protesters, holding signs demanding work, directed their criticism at Gov. Luis G. Fortuño. He was elected to his first term last year as a Republican, promising to jumpstart the economy, but so far, job losses and negative growth have continued, punishing the island with its fourth year of recession.
Governor Fortuño has said repeatedly that he did not want layoffs, but had no choice. In interviews on radio and television on Thursday, he said that it was the only way to avoid a government shutdown because of the territory's $3.2 billion deficit.
"There was no alternative," Mr. Fortuño said. "And there is no turning back."
This year, the governor cut more than 5,000 jobs; this round of layoffs will eliminate nearly 17,000 jobs next month from the Department of Education and other agencies.
Anger over the governor's plan has been simmering for weeks. On an island with little industry, the public sector plays an especially large role, employing about 25 percent of all workers.
There is widespread consensus that many public agencies in Puerto Rico are inefficient, but with estimates suggesting that the layoffs could push the island's unemployment rate to 17 percent, some economists have criticized the governor for throwing thousands out of work instead of cutting people's pay or hours.
"What worries us is this was done in an only fiscal mind-set, looking only at expenses, and not looking at the other impact on the greater economy," said Miguel Soto-Class, executive director of the Center for a New Economy, an independent research organization.
The protesters generally agreed. Maria Diaz, 39, a 13-year employee at the Highways and Transportation Department, said the administration's approach showed a lack of compassion. "Where are these people going to work?" she said. "They did not think this through."
Even Pedro Ortiz, a 35-year-old graphic artist at a San Juan advertising agency who described the cuts as "a necessary evil," criticized the government for a firing process that he said seemed to single out lower-paid workers, like janitors and school counselors rather than higher-ups.
Mr. Ortiz said the protesters were driven more by passion than reason - echoing the criticism of those who said their efforts should have been focused on Mr. Fortuño's office, not private businesses - but he said this reflected the spread of class-oriented anger.
"The government is claiming it needs to cut expenses," Mr. Ortiz said. "But the leaders are a little unwilling to make a contribution."
John Marino contributed reporting from San Juan, Puerto Rico.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
13) Dozens Arrested Protesting for Health Care Reform. Add Your Voice!
By jwjnational
October 16th, 2009
http://www.jwjblog.org/2009/10/dozens-arrested-protesting-for-health-care-reform-add-your-voice/
The insurance companies are spending millions to confuse and scare the public in order to keep their grip on our health and our money. The insurance industry trade lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) released a report that claims the Senate Finance Committee's version of health care reform legislation would raise average family premiums to $21,300. They want us to fear any change so they can continue paying millions of dollars to their CEOs while they routinely deny care and raise premiums.
Meanwhile, each year more than 45,000 people die because they can't get the care they need. That's more than 120 deaths every day.
Massachusetts CIGNA Health Care ProtestYesterday, in nine cities across the country, people staged sit-ins at health insurance offices to call for real reform that addresses the real cause of the health care crisis. The actions were a part of a national day of action coordinated by the group Mobilization for Health Care for All.
Add your voice to theirs! Demand that insurance giant United Health Group publicly commit to approve all doctor-recommended treatment for people with life-threatening conditions.
In Newton, Massachusetts JwJ helped organize a crowd of 75+ protestors to turn out to the offices of the CIGNA insurance office. Activists picketed in front of the building and staged a "die-in" to represent the people who have died after being denied coverage by CIGNA. Eleven people were arrested in Newton.
In Portland, JwJ coordinated a crowd of 100+ at the offices of Regence Blue Cross. A delegation that tried to meet with CEO Mark Ganz was turned away, and the building was locked down. Protesters then sat at all the doors and driveways, attempting to get Mr Ganz to meet them and agree with the demands. Eleven were arrested in Portland.
"We believe that private insurance companies which put profit ahead of care are the problem," said protester Peter Shapiro with the Portland Jobs with Justice Health Care Committee. "We are demanding that Regence immediately authorize any doctor-ordered treatment for life threatening conditions and that Regence stop spending ratepayer money on lobbying efforts."
"We support improved and expanded Medicare for all as the solution to our broken health care system" said protester and registered nurse Betsy Zucker. "It's the only solution that will control costs while covering everyone."
Dozens Arrested Protesting for Health Care Reform. Add Your Voice!
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/unitedhealthgroup
The insurance companies are spending millions to confuse and scare the public in order to keep their grip on our health and our money. The insurance industry trade lobby, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) released a report that claims the Senate Finance Committee's version of health care reform legislation would raise average family premiums to $21,300. They want us to fear any change so they can continue paying millions of dollars to their CEOs while they routinely deny care and raise premiums.
Meanwhile, each year more than 45,000 people die because they can't get the care they need. That's more than 120 deaths every day.
Yesterday, in nine cities across the country, people staged sit-ins at health insurance offices to call for real reform that addresses the real cause of the health care crisis. The actions were a part of a national day of action coordinated by the group Mobilization for Health Care for All.
Add your voice to theirs! Demand that insurance giant United Health Group publicly commit to approve all doctor-recommended treatment for people with life-threatening conditions.
http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/unitedhealthgroup
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
13) Bailout Helps Fuel a New Era of Wall Street Wealth
By GRAHAM BOWLEY
October 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/business/economy/17wall.html?hp
Even as the economy continues to struggle, much of Wall Street is minting money - and looking forward again to hefty bonuses.
Many Americans wonder how this can possibly be. How can some banks be prospering so soon after a financial collapse, even as legions of people worry about losing their jobs and their homes?
It may come as a surprise that one of the most powerful forces driving the resurgence on Wall Street is not the banks but Washington. Many of the steps that policy makers took last year to stabilize the financial system - reducing interest rates to near zero, bolstering big banks with taxpayer money, guaranteeing billions of dollars of financial institutions' debts - helped set the stage for this new era of Wall Street wealth.
Titans like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase are making fortunes in hot areas like trading stocks and bonds, rather than in the ho-hum business of lending people money. They also are profiting by taking risks that weaker rivals are unable or unwilling to shoulder - a benefit of less competition after the failure of some investment firms last year.
So even as big banks fight efforts in Congress to subject their industry to greater regulation - and to impose some restrictions on executive pay - Wall Street has Washington to thank in part for its latest bonanza.
"All of this is facilitated by the Federal Reserve and the government, who really want financial institutions to get back to lending," said Gary Richardson, a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research. "But we have just shown them that they can have the most frightening things happen to them, and we will throw trillions of dollars to protect them. I have big concerns about that."
Not all banks are doing so well. Giants like Citigroup and Bank of America, whose fortunes are tied to the ups-and-downs of ordinary consumers, are struggling to turn themselves around, as are many regional banks.
But the decline of certain institutions, along with the outright collapse of once-vigorous competitors like Lehman Brothers, has consolidated the nation's financial power in fewer hands. The strong are now able to wring more profits from the financial markets and charge higher fees for a wide range of banking services.
"They are able to charge more for all kinds of services because companies need banks and investment banks more now, and there are fewer strong ones to help them," said Douglas J. Elliott of the Brookings Institution.
A year after the crisis struck, many of the industry's behemoths - those institutions deemed too big to fail - are, in fact, getting bigger, not smaller. For many of them, it is business as usual. Over the last decade the financial sector was the fastest-growing part of the economy, with two-thirds of growth in gross domestic product attributable to incomes of workers in finance.
Now, the industry has new tools at its disposal, courtesy of the government.
With interest rates so low, banks can borrow money cheaply and put those funds to work in lucrative ways, whether using the money to make loans to companies at higher rates, or to speculate in the markets. Fixed-income trading - an area that includes bonds and currencies - has been particularly profitable.
"Robust trading results led the way," said Howard Chen, a banking analyst at Credit Suisse, describing the latest profits.
To prevent a catastrophic financial collapse that would have sent shock waves through the economy, the government injected billions of dollars into banks. Some large institutions, like Goldman and Morgan, have since repaid their bailout money. But most of the industry still enjoys other forms of government support, which is helping to stoke profits.
Goldman Sachs and its perennial rival Morgan Stanley were allowed to transform themselves into old-fashioned bank holding companies. That switch gave them access to cheap funding from the Federal Reserve, which had been unavailable to them.
Those two banks and others like JPMorgan were also allowed to issue tens of billions of dollars of bonds that are guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures bank deposits. With the F.D.I.C. standing behind them, the banks could borrow the money on highly advantageous terms. While some have since issued bonds on their own, they nonetheless enjoy the benefits of their cheap financing.
Granted, banks are also benefiting from a stabilizing economy. The fear that gripped the markets earlier this year, when doomsayers predicted a second Great Depression, has largely dissipated. Stocks, corporate bonds, even risky corporate i.o.u.'s - have all rallied from their bear market lows, some spectacularly so. The Dow Jones industrial average has soared 50 percent this year, and touched 10,000 this week for the first time since the crisis.
Banks that had marked down the value of the assets on their books during the dark days of the crisis are now enjoying a rebound in the value of many of those assets.
"Confidence has returned," said Shubh Saumya, a financial services specialist at the Boston Consulting Group. "Some of the assets that bankers wrote down last year in the midst of the crisis, now they have got some of that back."
As the number of banks has dwindled, the survivors are moving into the void left by rivals that are either dead or limping and unwilling to take risks.
A big reason for Goldman Sachs's blowout profits this year has been the willingness of its traders to take big risks - they have put more money on the line while other banks that suffered last year have reined in such moves. Executives say there are big strategic gaps opening up between banks on Wall Street that are taking on more risks, and those that are treading a safer path.
Banks that have waded back into the markets have been able to exploit large gaps in the prices of various investments, a feature of the postcrisis financial markets. The so-called bid-ask spreads - the difference between the price at which banks are willing to buy things like bonds, and the price at which they are willing to sell - are roughly twice what they were two years ago.
Still, the newfound success is largely limited to the big securities houses on Wall Street. This week, Citigroup and Bank of America reported losses from credit card delinquencies and mortgage defaults - a sign of the lingering pain on Main Street.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
14) S.F. anti-war march smaller than some hoped for
Erin Allday, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, October 18, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/18/MNAR1A78H4.DTL
War protesters took to the streets in cities across the U.S. on Saturday, eight years after the United States invaded Afghanistan.
In San Francisco, the anti-war demonstration did not draw as many marchers as participants had hoped for.
"It should be 10-fold," said Jennifer Teguia, a 32-year-old Fremont teacher who was marching with women from the anti-war group Code Pink. "People who have been out here year after year, they're demoralized. It's exhausting. But if I'm not out here, then I'm approving of the current policy."
The protest started and ended with a rally at the United Nations Plaza, and at noon as many as 1,000 people marched down Market Street. They were a loud but mostly tame crowd - they stuck to the sidewalks on Market - and while the protest was organized against the war in Afghanistan, participants spoke out on everything from health care reform and the Israel-Palestinian conflict to politics in Cuba and war crimes.
But one thing most protesters seemed to share was disillusionment with domestic policy since President Obama took office.
One woman carried a sign saying, "You won the Nobel Peace Prize, we're here to help you earn it." Many protesters said they'd expected more significant policy change from Obama by now.
"I feel like when we elected Obama we voted for peace, and instead we're getting war," said Margot Larsen, 58, of Concord. "He has the people behind him. He got the people energized. He needs to stop these wars."
Protesters showed up from all over the Bay Area - one Berkeley woman attended the rally with her husband, two daughters, two grandchildren and four family friends - and included one person in a gorilla costume. Many people carried signs depicting Obama as Uncle Sam or as an American soldier carrying a large gun.
Walking with a cane toward the front of the group was Richmond resident David Michener, 86, who said he was "voting with my feet."
"This is one of the only ways we have of expressing our feelings," Michener said. "We should not be fighting wars anywhere."
By 2 p.m., the crowd had dwindled to just a few dozen at the United Nations Plaza when peace activist Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who released the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, took his turn at the microphone.
He said he fears that even if Obama begins pulling American troops out of Iraq, they'll just be sent to Afghanistan.
"And very shortly, a new war is going to begin," Ellsberg said. "This rally will be the first anti-war rally of the big war in Afghanistan. We can't know what effect we'll have here today. But we do what we can to stop this."
E-mail Erin Allday at eallday@sfchronicle.com.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
15) The Public Plan, Continued
Editorial
October 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18sun1.html
In the debate over health care reform, no issue has produced more fury and sound bites than the question of whether to include a government-run insurance plan. It is not indispensable, and its role would be limited. Even so, we strongly support inclusion of a public option - the bigger and stronger the better. That is the best way to give consumers more choices, inject more competition into insurance markets, hold down the cost of insurance policies, and save money for the federal budget.
Here are some of the basic issues to consider, and the current legislative state of play:
WHO COULD ENROLL? While critics rail against a government takeover of health care, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans - those who have access to health insurance offered by large employers - would not be eligible to enroll in a public plan.
If Congress approves a public plan, it would be sold only on new insurance exchanges to people who now buy their policies directly from private insurers, work for small companies or are uninsured, often because they cannot afford to pay the high premiums charged for people without group coverage.
People eligible to use the exchanges could choose from a menu of private plans and, we hope, a cheaper public plan as well. Subsidies would be provided to help low- and moderate-income people pay their premiums.
DOES IT MAKE INSURANCE MORE AFFORDABLE? Most experts agree that a public plan should be able to provide insurance at a lower cost because it would have no need to earn a profit and could either demand or bargain for lower prices from health care providers. That should spur private insurers, eager to attract millions of new customers on the exchanges, to find ways to hold down their premiums as well, at least on the exchanges.
That would be good news for higher-income Americans on the exchange, roughly a fifth or less of the total, who would pay all of the cost of their insurance. It would benefit few, if any, of the rest, namely the low- and moderate-income people who would receive government subsidies to help buy insurance. All versions of the legislation would require these people to spend specified percentages of their income toward the premium and a government tax credit would then pay the rest.
The real savings would accrue to the government, which would then have to spend less money to subsidize purchases of lower-cost public or private insurance.
If there is a political trade-off to be made, the only good reason for abandoning a strong public plan would be in exchange for much more generous subsidies to make insurance affordable for all those who would be required to buy coverage or pay a fine. That would benefit consumers but put a greater strain on the Treasury.
WHAT'S THE STRONGEST PUBLIC PLAN? That is apt to emerge from the House, where the Democrats need only a majority to pass legislation and are constrained only by the need to satisfy conservatives in their own party. The speaker's office is considering three options.
In the most robust, the public plan would pay hospitals and other providers based on Medicare reimbursement rates, typically lower than private insurance rates. That would allow the public plan to charge lower premiums than private plans, and save the government substantial money in reduced subsidies - more than $100 billion over the next decade. There is a danger that the low payments might push some hospitals, especially in rural areas, into deeper financial trouble.
A middle option would have the public plan negotiate reimbursement rates with providers just as private plans do; its bargaining power would depend on how many people it enrolled. Finally, a hybrid version would start with negotiations with providers to set prices for services, but switch to a Medicare-based formulation if the plan's premiums rose too rapidly. Our preference would be for the most robust plan possible, with care taken to mitigate adverse effects on rural areas.
WHAT ARE THE OTHER IDEAS? The Senate has been far more hostile terrain for a public option because its filibuster rules require 60 votes to ensure passage.
In an effort to win support from conservative Democrats and possibly a Republican or two, the Finance Committee approved a bill with no public option, relying on nonprofit cooperatives with too little market power to be effective.
The Senate health committee approved a public plan that would negotiate rates with providers. Now the majority leader is trying to mesh the two bills into a form that could ultimately pass.
Several other proposals have been floated in hopes of drawing conservative support. One would establish a public plan only in states where private plans failed to offer affordable choices; the danger is that the criteria for judging affordability might be too lax. Others would let the states decide whether to set up a public plan. The strongest compromise would be to accept the Senate health committee's provision for a national public plan that would negotiate rates with providers and allow states to opt out. Our guess is that few would do so.
A PUBLIC PLAN FOR EVERYBODY? Too often insurance markets are dominated by one or two big companies. We believe that, after a break-in period, the insurance exchanges, with a public option, should be opened to virtually everyone covered by large employer-based plans.
That would give the vast majority of Americans a bigger choice of insurance options than they now have at most workplaces - and a greater stake in pushing Congress to approve a strong public plan.
This editorial is a part of a continuing series by The Times that is providing a comprehensive examination of the policy challenges and politics behind the debate over health care reform. You can read all of these articles at: nytimes.com/edhealthcare2009
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
16) Los Angeles Prepares for Clash Over Marijuana
By SOLOMON MOORE
October 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/18enforce.html?hp
LOS ANGELES - There are more marijuana stores here than public schools. Signs emblazoned with cannabis plants or green crosses sit next to dry cleaners, gas stations and restaurants.
The dispensaries range from Hollywood-day-spa fabulous to shoddy-looking storefronts with hand-painted billboards. Absolute Herbal Pain Solutions, Grateful Meds, Farmacopeia Organica.
Cannabis advocates claim that more than 800 dispensaries have sprouted here since 2002; some law enforcement officials say it is closer to 1,000. Whatever the real number, everyone agrees it is too high.
And so this, too, is taken for granted: Crackdowns on cannabis clubs will soon come in this city, which has more dispensaries than any other.
For the first time, law enforcement officials in Los Angeles have vowed to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries that turn a profit, with police officials saying they expect to conduct raids. Their efforts are widely seen as a campaign to sway the City Council into adopting strict regulations after two years of debate.
It appears to be working. Carmen A. Trutanich, the newly elected city attorney, recently persuaded the Council to put aside a proposed ordinance negotiated with medical marijuana supporters for one drafted by his office. The new proposal calls for dispensaries to have renewable permits, submit to criminal record checks, register the names of members with the police and operate on a nonprofit basis. If enacted, it is likely to result in the closing of hundreds of marijuana dispensaries.
Mr. Trutanich argued that state law permits the exchange of marijuana between growers and patients on a nonprofit and noncash basis only. Marijuana advocates say that interpretation would regulate dispensaries out of existence and thwart the will of voters who approved medical cannabis in 1996.
Whatever happens here will be closely watched by law enforcement officials and marijuana advocates across the country who are threading their way through federal laws that still treat marijuana as an illegal drug and state laws that are increasingly allowing medicinal use. Thirteen states have laws supporting medical marijuana, and others are considering new legislation.
No state has gone further than California, often described by drug enforcement agents as a "source nation" because of the vast quantities of marijuana grown here. And no city in the state has gone further than Los Angeles. This has alarmed local officials, who say that dispensary owners here took unfair advantage of vague state laws intended to create exceptions to marijuana prohibitions for a limited number of ill people.
"About 100 percent of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally," said Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles County district attorney, who is up for re-election next year. "The time is right to deal with this problem."
Mr. Cooley, speaking last week at a training luncheon for regional narcotics officers titled "The Eradication of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County," said that state law did not allow dispensaries to be for-profit enterprises.
Mr. Trutanich, the city attorney, went further, saying dispensaries were prohibited from accepting cash even to reimburse growers for labor and supplies. He said that a recent California Supreme Court decision, People v. Mentch, banned all over-the-counter sales of marijuana; other officials and marijuana advocates disagree.
So far, prosecutions of marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles have been limited to about a dozen in the last year, said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cooley. But Police Department officials said they were expecting to be called on soon to raid collectives.
"I don't think this is a law that we'll have to enforce 800 times," said one police official, who declined to speak on the record before the marijuana ordinance was completed. "This is just like anything else. You don't have to arrest everyone who is speeding to make people slow down."
Don Duncan, a spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, a leader in the medical marijuana movement, said that over-the-counter cash purchases should be permitted but that dispensaries should be nonprofit organizations. He also said marijuana collectives needed more regulation and a "thinning of the herd."
"I am under no illusions that everyone out there is following the rules," said Mr. Duncan, who runs his own dispensary in West Hollywood. "But just because you accept money to reimburse collectives does not mean you're making profits."
For marijuana advocates, Los Angeles represents a critical juncture - a symbol of the movement's greatest success, but also its vulnerability.
More than 300,000 doctors' referrals for medical cannabis are on file, the bulk of them from Los Angeles, according to Americans for Safe Access. The movement has had a string of successes in the Legislature and at the ballot box. In the city of Garden Grove, marijuana advocates forced the Highway Patrol to return six grams of marijuana it had confiscated from an eligible user. About 40 cities and counties have medical marijuana ordinances.
But there have also been setbacks. In June, a federal judge sentenced Charles C. Lynch, a dispensary owner north of Santa Barbara, to one year in prison for selling marijuana to a 17-year-old boy whose father had testified that they sought out medical marijuana for his son's chronic pain. The mayor and the chief of police testified on behalf of Mr. Lynch, who was released on bail pending appeal.
And last month, San Diego police officers and sheriff's deputies, along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, raided 14 marijuana dispensaries and arrested 31 people. In an interview, Bonnie Dumanis, the district attorney for San Diego County, said that state laws governing medical marijuana were unclear and that the city had not yet instituted new regulations.
Ms. Dumanis said that she approved of medical marijuana clubs where patients grow and use their own marijuana, but that none of the 60 or so dispensaries in the county operated that way.
"These guys are drug dealers," she said of the 14 that were raided. "I said publicly, if anyone thinks we're casting too big a net and we get a legitimate patient or a lawful collective, then show us your taxes, your business license, your incorporation papers, your filings with the Department of Corporations."
"If they had these things, we wouldn't prosecute," she said.
Marijuana supporters worry that San Diego may provide a glimpse of the near future for Los Angeles if raids here become a reality. But many look to Harborside Health Center in Oakland as a model for how dispensaries could work.
"Our No. 1 task is to show that we are worthy of the public's trust in asking to distribute medical cannabis in a safe and secure manner," said Steve DeAngelo, the pig-tailed proprietor of Harborside, which has been in business for three years.
Harborside is one of four licensed dispensaries in Oakland run as nonprofit organizations. It is the largest, with 74 employees and revenues of about $20 million. Last summer, the Oakland City Council passed an ordinance to collect taxes from the sale of marijuana, a measure that Mr. DeAngelo supported.
Mr. DeAngelo designed Harborside to exude legitimacy, security and comfort. Visitors to the low-slung building are greeted by security guards who check the required physicians' recommendations. Inside, the dispensary looks like a bank, except that the floor is covered with hemp carpeting and the eight tellers stand behind identical displays of marijuana and hashish.
There is a laboratory where technicians determine the potency of the marijuana and label it accordingly. (Harborside says it rejects 80 percent of the marijuana that arrives at its door for insufficient quality.) There is even a bank vault where the day's cash is stored along with reserves of premium cannabis. An armored truck picks up deposits every evening.
City officials routinely audit the dispensary's books. Surplus cash is rolled back into the center to pay for free counseling sessions and yoga for patients. "Oakland issued licenses and regulations, and Los Angeles did nothing and they are still unregulated," Mr. DeAngelo said. "Cannabis is being distributed by inappropriate people."
But even Oakland's regulations fall short of Mr. Trutanich's proposal that Los Angeles ban all cash sales.
"I don't know of any collective that operates in the way that is envisioned by this ordinance," said Mr. Duncan, of Americans for Safe Access.
Christine Gasparac, a spokeswoman for State Attorney General Jerry Brown, said that after Mr. Trutanich's comments in Los Angeles, law enforcement officials and advocates from around the state had called seeking clarity on medical marijuana laws.
Mr. Brown has issued legal guidelines that allow for nonprofit sales of medical marijuana, she said. But, she added, with laws being interpreted differently, "the final answer will eventually come from the courts."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
17) Police Arrest 21 People at U.K. Coal Plant Protest
By REUTERS
October 17, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/17/world/international-climate-britain-protest.html?ref=world
Filed at 3:33 p.m. ET
RATCLIFFE-ON-SOAR, England, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Police clashed with environmental activists and arrested 21 people during a day of protests at a coal-fired power station in central England on Saturday.
While hundreds joined a largely peaceful demonstration outside the main gates of German utility E.ON's plant in Ratcliffe-on-Soar, Nottinghamshire, scuffles broke out around the perimeter fence when smaller groups tried to break through in an attempt to close the power station.
One policeman was flown to hospital with head injuries after being hurt while trying to keep people from entering the plant. Protest organisers said several demonstrators suffered minor injuries.
Some carried banners saying "RIP Ratcliffe" to highlight their campaign to persuade governments to close coal plants.
Coal generated nearly a third of Britain's electricity last year. However, it creates more carbon dioxide emissions than any other fuel and is the world's single biggest source of carbon emissions.
Nottinghamshire Police said officers were attacked during "concerted efforts to tear down perimeter fencing and enter the site".
Camp for Climate Action, the environmental campaign group behind the protest, said some of its members needed treatment for bruising and dog bites.
"The clashes were inevitable with the police defending the fence around a power station that is causing huge amounts of damage to our climate," spokesman Murray Smith said.
An E.ON spokesman said the plant would continue to operate as normal unless protesters enter operational areas.
"We have increased security and got extra fencing and we are working very closely with police," he said, adding that E.ON is investing heavily in wind power and has plans to close other coal-powered stations.
Britain, which has set a legally binding target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, is seeking ways to reduce its reliance on coal.
Along with other countries around the world, Britain wants to develop technology that will capture the emissions created by burning coal and bury them underground.
An agreement on the future of carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be one of the main topics under discussion at United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
The protests were due to continue on Sunday morning.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
18) Congressional Ethics Inquiries Drag on, Despite Vows to End Corruption
By ERIC LICHTBLAU
October 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/us/politics/18ethics.html?ref=us
WASHINGTON - With high-profile investigations under way against Democrats and Republicans, Congress is facing a series of difficult tests of the toughened ethics system that it put in place to weed out corruption and malfeasance among its members.
Two years ago, after a scandal that centered on the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the House created an independent ethics office as part of what Speaker Nancy Pelosi called an effort to end the "culture of corruption" in Washington. The Senate also took action, setting up what it described as tough new regulations.
Since then, however, no member of Congress has been censured, the toughest punishment short of expulsion, despite a number of recent scandals involving sexual impropriety, financial dealings and conflicts of interest. The record illustrates how Congress has struggled to police itself after years in which its ethics committees were often derided as ineffectual.
For instance, two weeks after public disclosures raised questions about the involvement of Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, in possible illegal lobbying, Senate ethics officials have yet to contact the former top Ensign aide at the heart of the case, even though they portray it as a serious matter. Meanwhile, the investigation of the finances and fund-raising of Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York, has dragged on for more than a year and has become the subject of tense political infighting.
Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, who is accused of having consorted with prostitutes, was never disciplined for largely technical reasons; the Senate said his actions came when he was in the House and did not involve his professional conduct. And two leading Democratic senators, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, were cleared of accusations that they received favorable "V.I.P." loans from Countrywide Financial.
Two former Republican senators have been officially admonished, a relatively light punishment. They are Larry E. Craig of Idaho, who pleaded guilty in an undercover sex sting at an airport, and Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, who was accused of an appearance of impropriety for contacting a federal prosecutor about a pending case.
Citizen watchdog groups are closely following the Rangel and Ensign cases, along with a handful of other less visible investigations, as a sign of how aggressively Congressional Democrats will pursue their pledge.
"For a long time, matters that should have been investigated were just ignored, so we'll have to see what type of accountability we have now," said Fred Wertheimer, an advocate for tighter Congressional ethics rules.
The handling of possible wrongdoing in Congress has deeper political implications, as it did in the November 2006 elections, when Democrats ran on a platform of cleaning up Congress. Each party is still trying to attack the other as being soft on misconduct by members of Congress. With at least 10 of its own members facing ethics investigations, the Democrats appear to have the most to lose, especially since they have taken the lead in pushing for tougher ethics rules.
The last formal censure came in 1990 in the Senate's "denouncement" of Senator David F. Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, for financial improprieties.
In the Abramoff case, neither of the Congressional ethics committees took any action, though numerous Congressional officials were suspected of wrongdoing and a criminal investigation continues. Nor did the House ethics committee take any action against former Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, after $90,000 in cash was found in his freezer in 2006, deferring instead to Justice Department prosecutors.
"Congress will protect its own, no matter what," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, an advocacy group that has brought complaints against both Mr. Rangel and Mr. Ensign.
As one main part of the Democrats' ethics push in 2007, the House created a professionally staffed, independent Office of Congressional Ethics to review claims of wrongdoing against lawmakers and supplement the work of the oft-criticized House ethics committee.
This ethics office has no subpoena power, instead relying on cooperation from lawmakers. But unlike the ethics committee, it can initiate reviews without having to wait for a House member to lodge a complaint against a colleague. If it finds grounds to proceed, it then makes a public referral to the committee.
Leo Wise, a former federal public integrity prosecutor who is now the director of the House ethics office, said in an interview that House leaders had given his office the resources it needed, with a budget of $1.5 million and seven full-time staff members, and that "over all, their approach has been hands off" to eliminate political interference in its work.
The ethics office's caseload steadily increased in its first six months of existence, disclosure reports show, but its investigations have already caused a bit of a backlash.
Tensions flared recently between the ethics office and the House ethics committee, made up of five Democrats and five Republicans, over the suggestion that the office staff might have withheld exculpatory information about its continuing investigation into Representative Sam Graves, Republican of Missouri.
The committee has not disclosed why it was investigating Mr. Graves, but news reports have questioned his use of a contributor's private plane and his political support for a Missouri business partner.
Meanwhile, some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, an influential voting bloc, have also been unhappy with the ethics office. They have suggested that unfair political motivations have driven the investigation of Mr. Rangel and a separate ethics review involving a trip that he and four other members of the black caucus took to the Caribbean for a conference paid for by corporate sponsors.
Three other Democrats in the black caucus are also at the center of continuing ethics probes.
Two Illinois Democrats in the caucus, Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr. and Senator Roland W. Burris, have been drawn into investigations because of their involvement in the scheme by then Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. Representative Maxine Waters, Democrat of California, is under investigation as well, apparently because of her role in directing bailout money to a bank that was affiliated with her husband.
Separately, the Senate ethics committee has begun an investigation into accusations, contained in a New York Times article, that Senator Ensign arranged lobbying jobs for the husband of his mistress and intervened with government agencies to help his clients.
Kenneth A. Gross, a Washington lawyer who specializes in government ethics, said the increased activity had made politicians, lobbyists and corporations much more cautious about adhering to the rules, whether it involved staying under a $50 lunch limit or disclosing lobbying ties and income sources.
Now, he said, "the rules of the road have changed."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
No comments:
Post a Comment