Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Ed Rendell is the new Clayton Williams

I'm late blogging. Marcia has a post that went up a little bit ago. I saw it (in my dashboard when I logged on) and called C.I. We loved Marcia's post "Kiss my Black ass, Ed Rendell."

We also decided that Ed Rendell was the new Clayton Williams. Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell stated, "If we've got some issues with President Obama, save them for another day." Well we know Barack is screwing the left over and there's Rendell telling us to just lay back and enjoy it. (Clayton Williams ran against Ann Richards for Governor of Texas. Ann mopped the floor with him. While running he told a 'joke' that a woman being raped should just lay back and enjoy it. It cost him dearly. As it should have.)

So be sure to read Marcia's post.

Which reminds me, I get to do something:

Those community members have blogged tonight. I don't see Ann. Okay, she's either blogging right now or she's going to blog tomorrow morning. But yesterday, her post was "More men for Terry." I never get to provide links to the whole community.

In the snapshot today, C.I. notes:

Vast Left has an interview with Paul Street at Corrente. Click here for part one, here for part two. The sexism of Paul Street apparently can't be hidden (and I'll also note he rewrites personal history a tad).

I see it throughout as well. It will be most noticeable to people in this passage.

Vastleft: So, how do we help our brothers and sisters on the left keep from getting fooled again, keep from losing the narrative on real and important policy matters and electoral decisions? In short, where do we go from here?

Paul Street: Well, I'm out of gas and you ask the most important question! I do think it is important to make sensible choices in the voting booth... I mean what sane person wants Sarah freaking Palin an old man's heartbeat away from the Doomsday Machine! But how long do those sensible choices take -- two minutes? Vote for two minutes or whatever it takes and then go do hard work -- struggle -- every day (or every day you can) on social justice, peace, and ecological salvation beneath and beyond big marches and the quadrennial election extravaganzas!


Uh, I believe if Palin runs, she's running at the top of the ticket. "I mean what sane person wants Sarah freaking Palin an old man's heartbeat away --" That's present tense. That's not past tense. How telling. But Paul Street is just a sexist pig and he make that clear over and over in his body of work. It's also very telling that he goes to the "Sarah freaking Palin" card to begin with.

Really?

Sarah Palin is the scariest thing he can think of?

Well if she doesn't get the nomination (and she may not go after it), I guess Paul Street will endorse the Republican nominee since he can't think of anything scarier than Sarah Palin.

I also found this more telling than he probably wanted it to be:

I doubt that I could have voted Democrat in Iowa even if McCain had had a chance here in 2008 (the polling data showed he didn't and so my Nader vote was "safe"). My position on this endless left debate -- what I have in the past called "THE GREAT QUADRENNIAL INTRA-LEFTIST BLOODLETTING ON HOW TO RESPOND TO THE ABSURDLY NARROW 'CHOICES' OFFERED BY THE U.S. ELECTIONS SYSTEM" -- is to back away from the invective a bit.

Pretending to be strong and bragging elsewhere about voting Green but it turns out that to not vote for the Democratic nominee, he'd have to live in a 'safe' state. One that would go for the Democratic anyway or he's not sure how he'd vote. In other words, he really doesn't have strong convictions. How very telling.

I agree with C.I. that Vast Left did a great interview. I also think Paul Street is a dick.

"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Tuesday, October 5, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the political stalemate goes on -- some don't grasp it, others try to handicap it, who approved the latest $180 million US tax dollars to be spent in Iraq (on their workforce), more on the efforts to crush dissent in the United States, and political prisoner Lynne Stewart's 70th birthday is this Friday..
Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) wonders today if there are signs of a breakthrough. Harry Smith (CBS' The Early Show) bemoans that "the apparent key to [Nouri al-] Maliki's gaining [Moqtada] Al Sadr's cooperation was an agreement to release hundreds of members of the Mahdi army who have been held in prison for years." offers a commentary on the status of Iraq's government here. Steve Inskeep and Michael Wahid Hanna ran the possibilities on today's Morning Edition (NPR -- link has text and audio). Excerpt.
Steve Inskeep: The news headlines suggest that Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, is going to keep his job. Is that certain at this point?
Michael Wahid Hanna: It's not absolutely certain. But it's always been the odds-on most likely result, and that's a function of demography and politics. Iraq is a Shiite-majority country and so although his party was the runner-up in the March elections, it was always likely that he was going up as the premier one more time.
Steve Inskeep: Well, because nobody had a majority so it was a matter of assembling enough building blocks among these parties to have a majority.
Michael Wahid Hanna: That's right. He lost by two seats, his party did, but obviously the next step is to form a government. And it was always going to be difficult for Iyad Allawi, the leader of the rival Iraqiya list(ph), which is seen as a sort of secular list, although he is a Shiite. Most of his votes came from Sunnis and so it was always going to be difficult to construct a parliamentary block where they were the majority.
March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted last month, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's six months and twenty-eight days with no government formed.

The stalemate continues. Some 'just know' it's about to end. They've 'just known' that for seven months now. The stalemate ends when Iraq forms a government. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports this morning that allies of Nouri and allies of Allawi are in talks currently. The discussions reportedly center around Nouri being prime minister and Allawi becoming president with expanded powers. The Irish Times reminds that nothing is a done deal and that Nouri still doesn't have the needed seats to form a government: "However, Mr Maliki is not there yet. He needs a commitment from Kurdish parties to get a clear majority. They offered yesterday to open talks, although on conditions that are likely to prove difficult. Critical will be a dispute over oil contracts which the Kurdish regional government insists should be part of its remit, and which has halted exports from the region. They also want the government to finance the peshmerga, the Kurdish military." Jane Arraf (CSM) quotes Iraqiya's Ezz al-Deen al-Dawla anticipates it will take over "two months" for a government to be agreed upon and formed. Robert Dreyfuss (The Nation) observes, "The United States, of course, isn't sitting on the sidelines. Vice President Biden, who has the Iraq portfolio for the Obama administration, has been on the phone with every Iraqi leader who'll talk to him, but it's quite certain that list doesn't include the Sadrists, who put together the deal with Iran's backing." Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) quotes the US Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey stating, "There is not clarity on whether the Sadrist movement is a political movement or it is an armed militia, which carries out political objectives through violent means, and a democracy cannot tolerate that. We would urge our Iraqi friends to be cautious in the kind of positions that they leave open to anyone who has not made clear their position." Asked about a reported deal between Nouri and Allawi that would give Allawi the presidency (a ceremonial post at present) at the US State Dept today, spokesperson Philip J. Crowley stated, "Well, first of all, we're not picking any winners in this. We don't have any favorite candidates for any office. That said, we believe that all four winning blocs, including Iraqiya and State of Law and others, should be able to play a role in the new government. [. . .] Again, we're looking for the emergence of an inclusive government. The Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds, and others have to all feel if there's a government that is working on their behalf. That's been our position for the past six months." In related news, yesterday the US State Dept issued the following:
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns will travel to Yemen, Iraq, and Jordan October 4-8. In Yemen, Under Secretary Burns will consult with government officials and political party leaders on ways to enhance regional security and promote development. In Iraq, he will reaffirm U.S. support for formation of an inclusive and representative government, as well as review progress on the transition to a civilian-led partnership with Iraq. In Jordan, he will discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues, including Middle East peace, with Jordan's King Abdullah. Under Secretary Burns will return to Washington, DC on October 8.
Meanwhile Walter Pincus (Washington Post) reports US Agency for International Development (USAID) has opened bidding on a $180 million contract whose task would be reorganizing Iraq's "civil service of 3 million jobs." What's the lie? It's all so confusing. I believe the last lie was that Iraq might need the US military beyond 2011 because it can't patrol, protect and secure its own external borders. So what's the excuse on this one? And US tax payers are going to fork over $180 million more dollars? After learning that Nouri al-Maliki sits on billions of dollars he refuses to use for reconstruction?
Turning to the violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing which injured 2 Iraqi soldiers, a Baghdad sticky bombing which injured two people, 2 Baghdad roadside bombings which injured eight people, a Mosul roadside bombing wounded police Col Hazim Hmoud and two other police officers, a Kirkuk roadside bombing which wounded two people and a Jalawlaa car bombing which claimed 1 life.
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Brig Gen Mohammed Azeez was shot dead in Mosul, 2 women were shot dead in Mosul.
Corpses?
Back to the US, Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Saturday on Weekend Edition (NPR -- link has audio and text). Excerpt:
DAVID SCHAPER: Early last Friday morning, before 7:00, Joe Iosbaker says he heard a loud, sharp knock on the door of his Chicago home.
Mr. JOE IOSBAKER (Labor Organizer) When I came down the stairs, there were, I don't know, seven, eight, 10 agents standing on our front porch, and I thought they were Jehovah's Witnesses and I opened the door and they showed me a search warrant.
SCHAPER: Iosbaker, a labor organizer, says the agents came in and started searching the house, every inch of it. Joe's wife, Stephanie Weiner, says as many as 25 agents came through their house that day, searching and removing stuff for 10 hours.
Ms. STEPHANIE WEINER: The house was turned upside down, tip to toe, to such an extent that boxes from the '70s and '80s in our attic were brought down and looked through.
DAVID SCHAPER: Weiner, a community college teacher, says the agents went through their teenage sons' belongings too - notebooks, posters. They even went through the words and designs on their T-shirts.
Back to Heidi Boghosian -- along with being a National Lawyer Guild member, Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and Monday the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 89 days only, at the WBAI archives. We noted Heidi and Michael S. Smith's discussion on the raids yesterday, today, we're going to excerpt the conversation that took place with Jim Fennerty later in the week. The raids involved at least eight homes and the Twin Cities Antiwar Committee's headquarters. Excerpt:
Heidi Boghosian: The FBI search warrants indicate that agents were looking for connections between local antiwar activists and groups in Columbia and the Middle East. We're pleased today to be joined by attorney, activist and National Lawyers Guild member Jim Fennerty. Jim, welcome to Law and Disorder.
Jim Fennerty: It's a pleasure to be here today.
Heidi Boghosian: Well you've had a busy last week with the raids taking place all around the country. Can you tell us briefly what your role is in all of this?
Jim Fennerty: Well my role -- and I'm not the only one -- is basically we're putting a group of lawyers together from the National Lawyers Guild to try and represent people at the grand jury and, if any indictments come out of this, to represent people if anybody is indicted. So we have been basically speaking to our clients right now about what a grand jury is, how it functions and telling them that they have a right to refuse to testify at a grand jury or not.
Heidi Boghosian: How many clients are we talking about?
Jim Fennerty: Well as of Friday [the 24th], I knew of about 10 people who got subpeonas. As of Monday [the 27th], I've found out that 2 more people in Minneapolis got subpeonas. So far there's a total of 12 people with subpeonas.
Heidi Boghosian: Now do you think there's a connection between the Supreme Court's decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project and this rash of raids and issuance of subpeonas?
Jim Fennerty: Well I guess my feeling is, I think, after this decision, which I don't know if your listeners know about or not, but I think this emboldens the government to push the envelope and see what they can get away with here. Basically, trying to say that certain things that people have done may involve, as they say, "material aid to terrorist groups."
Michael Ratner: Yeah, that's like giving people free legal counsel is "material aid."
Heidi Boghosian: And we're talking international terrorist groups.
Michael Ratner: Yeah. Jim Fennerty, what people in Chicago are you personally representing and what's their political story? Why do you think they're targets?
Jim Fennerty: Well this is the thing. I was just at the US Attorneys office. I had another case in federal court this morning and the US attorney afterwards -- turns out it's the same attorney on these cases -- and he wanted to talk to me. Basically, so far he has not told me anybody who is actually a target, so we're concerned what that means. Now I've been lied to before when I went down to Florida in the Sami al-Arian case with somebody else who was involved with that. And they said, they couldn't tell me, they couldn't tell me. I get down there, we take the Fifth Amendment and they say, "We're not offering your guy immunity, go home." And then I, you know, a month or two later, he gets an indictment. Under their manual, tecnically, they're not supposed to send out a subpeona in a grand jury for a target unless they get higher authority to do that.
Michael Ratner: Heidi and I were talking about that.
Heidi Boghosian: So let's just explain for our listeners about grand juries a bit. When you talk about a target, you mean an individual who is under suspicion for violating the law.
Jim Fennerty: That is correct.
Heidi Boghosian: But what's happening now is that individuals are being given subpeonas in what we call a fishing expedition to try to get information about other people?
Jim Fennerty: That's what it sounds like now but I -- like I said, that's what they told me but it's happened before where somebody told me something and it didn't actually work out true but that's what I've been told today. Basically, a grand jury in its inception historically, you know, hundreds of years ago, was supposed to be citiznes coming together and determining if charges should be filed criminally against somebody. But what it's become, it's become almost, to me, almost like a rubber stamp for the government because basically what happens is the government, US attorneys, can be inside the grand jury. There's usually around 23 people who are called, citizens, to be at the grand jury and what happens is that the US attorney can be inside, they can ask you questions, you can refuse to answer those questions, but your side never gets told to these 23 people. In other words, your lawyer can't come in there and argue for you and give your side of it. That's why it's, like I said, it's pretty much a rubber stamp for what the prosecutors want and people should be very, very concerned about going there because what you say could be twisted around and you've just got to be very vigilant about what you do. You know, most cases, people can say they don't want to testify at the grand jury, they're going to exercise their Fifth Amendment rights against incrimination. What they could do at a grand jury, they could offer you immunity which is use immunity, it's not total immunity, but what that means is they offer you immunity and then you refuse to testify, you can be taken to a judge, they'll read the question to the judge and then they'll ask you the answer to that question. If you continue to refuse to answer that question, then a judge can hold you in civil contempt and you could be incarcerated for the remaining time of the grand jury.
Heidi Boghosian: And that can be a long time.
Jim Fennerty: Well that can be depending how long the grand jury is sits. But your lawyer can go back periodically and say, "Look it, Judge, this person's been there for three months or whatever and they're not going to testify. They're still not going to testify. So it makes no sense to keep continuing to lock them up." And hopefully you'll get a sympathetic judge for that.
Heidi Boghosian: Because it is -- it is lawful to hold someone in civil contempt, to incarcerate them as a method of coercion --
Jim Fennerty: Correct.
Heidi Boghosian: -- but not as punishment --
Jim Fennerty: Correct.
Heidi Boghosian: -- and that's why we try to argue that it's not doing any good.
Jim Fennerty: There's not much difference, is there?
Heidi Boghosian: No. Do you expect there to be more raids, Jim?
Jim Fennerty: I don't know if there's going to be more raids or not. They're not showing us all their cards yet so we don't know where they're going with this but, I mean, there could be raids, but I think that -- it seems that maybe this is like a test. Like a test case to see how far they can push the envelope. since the Humanitarian aid project case (Holder v. ]. And so I don't know if there's going to be any, I can't say. But I think people have to be careful but not so careful that they just shut up, don't demonstrate.
As with the segment noted yesterday, it was stressed that if the FBI contacts you, you should call an attorney (Jim stated have them slide their card on the door and tell them your attorney will contact them) and that the NLG hotline if the FBI visits you is 888-654-3265 or 888-NLG-ECOL. In addition, they stressed the need not to lie. And the reason you shouldn't speak without an attorney present is you may be caught in a lie without knowing it and they can turn around and charge you with lying to a federal officer. Political prisoner Lynne Stewart, Mother Courage, as she is often billed, turns 70-years-old this Friday and you can send her a birthday greeting or write her a letter to let her know you stand with her:
Lynne Stewart
53504-054
MCC/NY
150 Park Row
New York, New York 10007
Heidi noted that the recent NLG convention in New Orleans was the first convention she could remember without Lynne being present (but noted that Lynne was present in spirit).
Back to the attacks on activists, as noted yesterday, in an earlier segment of the broadcast, Michael S. Smith noted that the chilling of dissent in such cases includes that "the movement that you're part of being sidetracked and depleted in its efforts to defend you" and Heidi noted that, after being targeted, "these individuals are caught up in the legal system for two or more years. That, in and of itself, is a disruption of one's life, costly even if they get lawyers who donate some of their services, it still brings an enormous cost to their lives and their immediate community." And Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan is fully aware of that. Last November, almost a year ago, she took part in a peaceful demonstration at Travis Air Force Base. She explains that they were yelled out by war-niks, who continued to harass and approach them and began yelling in Cindy's ear as she was speaking to the press, he slapped a bullhorn in her hand and the police -- civilian and military -- did nothing leaving the women with Cindy in the position of erecting a human barrier between Cindy and the nut. Cindy was then ticketed -- as she was leaving -- for "obstructing traffic" and she goes back into court tomorrow in Fairfield. But before the 8:30 start time, she will join other peace activists protesting the use of drones at Travis Air Force Base: "Take Air Base Parkway off of Interstate 80 and go south to the end of the road to the Main Gate." Her court appearance is at Solano County Superior Court, Traffic Dept 26.
Cindy knows a great deal about efforts to silence dissent. When some people could hide behind her or use her to attack George W. Bush (while apparently just pretending to call out the Iraq War -- and don't pretend that those faux activists ever called out that illegal war on Afghanistan because they didn't), they did so gladly. When she wanted to challenge Democrats other than the small group of women that the so-called peace movement allows you to go after (women and Joe Lieberman who is now billed as "an independent"), she saw how the walls could close. When she ran opposite Nancy Pelosi in 2008 for the House seat in the eighth district, she found out what scorn was as various types attacked her. And excuse the hell out of me, that's my district. I have a say in that district. Katha Pollitt? Is she voting in NYC or Conn.? It's hard to keep track because she keeps flipping her registration? The little __ that produced the T&A feature and saw fit to attack Cindy at The Huffington Post? She lives in Los Angeles. If you can't vote in the race, maybe your opinion on it isn't needed?
I know that's shocking to the likes of Katha Pollitt who always seem to think they're babble is needed. On the plus side, when Katha wrote her attack on Cindy -- an attack in which she claimed to have huge admiration for Cindy -- she finally wrote about Cindy. The rest of the press had been writing about Cindy for three years by the time 'feminist' Katha finally found time to write about the face of the peace movement. A woman. And 'feminist' Katha never thought to write about her before? (Katha's not a feminist. She writes bad poetry, she cries about her ex leaving her for a thinner woman -- most of us are thinner than Katha, she spreads nasty rumors about that woman, she whines and indulges in her addiction of choice but none of that makes her a feminist.) So Cindy knows about internal attacks and she certainly knows governmental attacks. Today at Al Jazeera, she tackles the raids and the efforts to suppress free speech. Excerpt:
There is nothing noble about an agency that has reduced itself to being jackbooted enforcers of a neo-fascist police state, no matter how much the FBI has been romanticised in movies, television and books.

For example, in one instance, early in the morning of September 24, at the home of Mick Kelly of Minneapolis, the door was battered in and flung across the room when his partner audaciously asked to see the FBI's warrant through the door's peephole. At Jessica Sundin's home, she walked downstairs to find seven agents ransacking her home while her partner and child looked on in shock.

These raids have terrifying implications for dissent here in the US.
First of all, these US citizens have been long-time and devoted anti-war activists who organised an anti-war rally that was violently suppressed by the US police state in Minneapolis-St. Paul, during the 2008 Republican National Convention. Because the Minneapolis activists have integrity, they had already announced that they would do the same if the Democrats hold their convention there in 2012.

I have observed that it was one thing to be anti-Bush, but to be anti-war in the age of Obama is not to be tolerated by many people. If you will also notice, the only people who seem to know about the raids are those of us already in the movement. There has been no huge outcry over this fresh outrage, either by the so-called movement or the corporate media.
I submit that if George Bush were still president, or if this happened under a McCain/Palin regime, there would be tens of thousands of people in the streets to protest. This is one of the reasons an escalation in police state oppression is so much more dangerous under Obama - even now, he gets a free pass from the very same people who should be adamantly opposed to such policies.

Secondly, I believe because the raids happened to basically 'unsung' and unknown, but very active workers in the movement, that the coordinated, early morning home invasions were designed to intimidate and frighten those of us who are still doing the work. The Obama regime would like nothing better than for us to shut up or go underground and to quit embarrassing it by pointing out its abject failures and highlighting its obvious crimes.
Just look at how the Democrats are demonising activists who are trying to point out the inconvenient truth that the country (under a near Democratic tyranny) is sliding further into economic collapse, environmental decay and perpetual war for enormous profit.
In political news, this Sunday NBC's Meet The Press is bringing on the Illinois' candidates for the US Senate . . . well some of them. Kimberly Wilder (OntheWilderSide) reports that Green Party candidate LeAlan Jones is not currently invited for this October 10th broadcast and he is calling on Meet The Press to open the gates. A copy of the letter he wrote is posted and people are encouraged to write letters to Meet The Press -- BUT, it's too late for letters. You can send the message "Let LeAlan debate!" by calling 202-885-4598 or you can e-mail Meet The Press by clicking here. But it is really too late to count on the postal service to get your hand written letter delivered in time to make a difference. So if you believe in more choices and if you believe the media needs to cover ALL the candidates, you can call the number and/or you can click here and write an e-mail to Meet The Press. Lynne Stewart, for those who wonder, most likely will not get your birthday greetings until after the weekend even if you send it tonight (the authorities go through her mail first). In terms, in case anyone's wondering, of Meet The Press, this issue needs to be dealt with no later than Friday, a decision made about it. That's why you need to use -- if you're going to write "Let LeAlan debate!" -- the e-mail form online.
Lastly, Vast Left has an interview with Paul Street at Corrente. Click here for part one, here for part two. The sexism of Paul Street apparently can't be hidden (and I'll also note he rewrites personal history a tad). Street's sexism and elitism is one of the main reasons we walked away from him some time ago. But Vast Left does a solid interview and even offers a pushback at one point when Street thinks he can use women as a joke. I should also note that long after we walked away from Street, he embraced authoritarinism publicly as long as it was coming from the left. Again, we have no need for Paul Street. Vast Left did do a solid interview so, for his work, we'll note it.
Posted by at

Monday, October 04, 2010

Brief

John Cook ( Yahoo News) reports that the US military is using psyops here at home. This happened at CNN in 2000 but they were shamed into stopping their program-- at least as far as we know. It's appalling that it's happened again. The big difference is that it's happening on local stations.

Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "He's Got That Vote Sewed Up."

He's got that vote sewed up



"TV: We need to discuss your major" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):

McHale is Lyle Waggoner in that he smiles too much, is rather bland and -- judging by his many, many shirtless scenes -- some network exec finds him attractive.

The Office was NBC's struggling show. It still rarely achieves funny -- in fact, there are Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episodes with more laughs than the average episode of The Office; however, NBC did step in after the first season underwhelmed and 'explained' that John Krasinski's Jim was going to be the focus more. Krasinski is both very funny and hugely attractive. And everyone at NBC knows that it was the Jim and Pam (Jenna Fischer) angle that allowed the show to finally move up in the ratings.

America is not enamored with Joel McHale, no matter how many times he takes off his shirt or how many times he struts around in micro-boxers. Nor do they really care for Jeff Winger whose liabilities include being a one-time lawyer (now disbarred), morally ambiguous, vain and self-serving. Last year, the show was like Joel's mother working overtime to insist he was good looking and a catch. But pairing him with a college professor and Britta as well as having Annie announce on the season finale that she was in love/obsessed with him never made the viewers take the leap to: He's hot.

Because he's not.

I enjoyed that and that's all I can say. I've now fallen asleep twice a the laptop. I need to get some rest. Sorry.



"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):

Monday, October 4, 2010. Chaos and violence continue, the political stalemate continues, the violence continues, Law & Disorder explores attacks on political speech -- a classification of speech that is protected by the Constitution -- and more.
Saturday the Democratic Party and their enablers held a get-out-the-vote non-action in DC. The only thing worth noting is Harry Belafonte who stuck out like a sore thumb because he actually had something to say. Democracy Now! (audio, video and text) broadcast his speech today:
In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. stood on the steps of this memorial and declared that this nation should come together and embrace its greater ideals. He said that we should rally together and overcome injustice and racism, and that all citizens should not only have the right to vote, but that we should exercise that right and make America whole.
That is part of why we are today. But we're also here to tend other grievances. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his "I Have a Dream" speech forty-seven years ago, said that America would soon come to realize that the war that we were in at that time that this nation waged in Vietnam was not only unconscionable, but unwinnable. Fifty-eight thousand Americans died in that cruel adventure, and over two million Vietnamese and Cambodians perished. Now today, almost a half-a-century later, as we gather at this place where Dr. King prayed for the soul of this great nation, tens of thousands of citizens from all walks of life have come here today to rekindle his dream and once again hope that all America will soon come to the realization that the wars that we wage today in far away lands are immoral, unconscionable and unwinnable.
The Central Intelligence Agency, in its official report, tells us that the enemy we pursue in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, the al-Qaeda, they number less than fifty -- I say fifty --people. Do we really think that sending 100,000 young American men and women to kill innocent civilians, woman and children, and antagonizing the tens of millions of people in the whole region somehow makes us secure? Does this make any sense?
The President's decision to escalate the war in that region alone costs the nation $33 billion. That sum of money could not only create 600,000 jobs here in America, but would even leave us a few billion to start rebuilding our schools, our roads, our hospitals and affordable housing. It could also help to rebuild the lives of the thousands of our returning wounded veterans.
Dr. King loved this nation. He saw, as all of us here today see, that this great nation should not be allowed to perish. Martin's vision was also the vision of Abraham Lincoln, who understood the evil of slavery and, in abolishing that evil, saved America. Although slavery may have be have been abolished, the crippling poison of racism still persists, and the struggle still continues. We have the largest prison population in the world. And as we industrialize these prison systems, we rob hundreds of thousands of workers of the jobs that they need and the wages that are rightfully theirs.
The plight of women bear no better. Their oppression refuses to yield, as rape and domestic violence and sex slaves and teenage pregnancy abounds.
But perhaps the greatest threat of all is the undermining of our Constitution and the systematic attack against the inalienable rights of the citizens of this nation, rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution. At the vanguard of this insidious attack is the tea party. This band of misguided citizens is moving perilously close to achieving villainous ends.
This gathering here today is America's wake-up call. The giant called democracy is at last stirring again. Citizens are coming together to say freedom does not sleep. It may have been fueled and lulled for the moment into a lethargy, but it's fully awake now. And we the people are its engine. We must awaken the apathetic, the cynical, the many angry doubters, who see their future as the perpetual hopelessness, and show them that our greatest weapon is the vote. And it is the answer to much that nags in us.

On November 2nd, in the millions, we must overburden our voting booths by voting against those who would see the nation become a totalitarian state. Americans know that Dr. King's dream is not dead. Let us vote on November 2nd for jobs, for jobs, for jobs, for peace, for justice, for human rights, for our children and the future of America. And let us put an end to war. Peace is necessary. For justice, it is necessary. For hope, it is necessary, for our future.
I love you all, and God bless America.
Harry Belafonte who always knows that truth never goes out of fashion. If the non-action had any other speakers like him, they might have accomplished something other than holding a pep rally for the corporatist War Hawks in the Democratic Party. Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) wasn't invited but if he had been he might have said something similar to what he writes in his latest column:
Aside from a generalized desire for "change," the Obama-crats took the Democratic presidential nomination -- and the presidency -- largely on the strength of their candidate's alleged antiwar credentials. Barack Obama's opposition to the Iraq war was the line of demarcation that set his campaign apart from that of his main rival, Hillary Clinton. What his antiwar supporters didn't know -- or want to know -- was that this opposition was based on his often-stated contention that we were fighting a war on the wrong front: Afghanistan, Obama averred, is the main battlefield in our generations-long "war on terrorism." Iraq was merely a "diversion" -- and, he suggested, we ought to go into Pakistan, if necessary, an idea that horrified even John McCain, who denounced it as "irresponsible."
People believe what they want to believe, however, and the left fell into line behind Obama, who by this time had become a kind of cult figure around which liberals and self-identified "progressives" could rally after eight years in the political wilderness. What they didn't notice was that shortly after his election, which was greeted by the right with despair, the "progressive" Center for a New American Security -- the source of many high level appointments by the Obama administration -- held a joint conference with Kristol's newly-created "Foreign Policy Initiative," which hailed Obama's decision to escalate the Afghan war. The participants busied themselves with the intricacies of CNAS's new counterinsurgency doctrine -- essentially a "nation-building" scheme to set up a semi-permanent colony in the wilds of Afghanistan, and extend the war further into the heart of Central Asia.
The event was garbage. We noted that here Saturday. Third covered it in this editorial. Click here for Chris Floyd's take (scroll down to "Update"). You need to remember these liars and hypocrites because when the Dems no longer control the White House, they will return to claiming that they are 'objective' and not beholden to any arty and they'll make noises about maybe a third arty is needed. But then you'll see -- as you did in 2008 -- them whore themselves to elect a Democrat yet again. What you need to watch for is the in-between. In that period, you need to starve the beast. These peole cannot keep gainful employment. They are dependent upon the Panhandle Media and begging for a living. Starve the beast. That's the only way you'll ever take away their platforms and end their non-stop whoring for the Democratic Party. (And for those late to the party, I actually am a Democrat -- unlike many of the whores who are Socialist and Communists -- but I don't whore for anyone or anything. Nor should you. Read Janis Ian's wonderful and heartfelt Society's Child and you'll see she learned that truth before 17. That link, FYI, goes to the book and her double disc collection for only $16,95 -- two discs of amazing music including her best loved songs like "At Seventeen," "Society's Child," "Stars," "Jesse," "When Angels Cry," "Days LIke These" and many more -- Kat reviewed it here and and Janis' amazing book which, Martha and Shirley reported was the community's choice for best book of 2008.)
Friday brought the news that Nouri had the support of the Iraqi National Alliance (he's had it before and lost it before but no one wants to note that reality). And yet the political stalemate continues. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reported, "A coalition of Shiite political blocs chose Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as its candidate for Iraq's top government job on Friday afternoon - a step that could break a months-long standoff over who will govern the country. Despite the new support, Maliki must still find more votes in the Iraqi parliament if he is to remain in power and form a new government. The fact that the Shiites now supporting Maliki are mostly Sadrists - followers of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who staunchly oppose the American presence here - also has the potential to alarm Washington." Today Hussam Ali and Newsweek report on the deal al-Sadr and Nouri made: "A Sadr official tells Newsweek privately that the breakthrough came when several ranking members of Maliki's coalition, the State of Law, met with Sadr in Iran to negotiate his key demand. At issue: 2,000 of Sadr's Mahdi Army fighters who have been held since they were rounded up, with Maliki's blessing, in 2007 and 2008."
Jim Muir (BBC News) noted Saturday that Iraq 'won' " the world record for the length of time it is taking to form the new government, passing the 208-day mark set by the Netherlands in 1977. But it seems likely that the old record will be broken by quite a substantial margin, as the process of settling the contending factions into a viable governing formation still has some way to run." In addition, Muir noted that it does not appear as though Nouri has 100% support from the Iraqi National Alliance. Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) added, "After a meeting on Saturday, Iraqiya leaders said they would now try to court two Shiite parties that oppose Mr. Maliki, as well as two smaller parties that won 10 seats, though that would still leave the bloc without enough seats to thwart Mr. Maliki's re-election." Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A Shiite Muslim competitor accused Prime Minister Nouri Maliki on Sunday of hoarding power and lacking a vision for Iraq, suggesting that the incumbent still was a long way from securing a new term." That competitor would be Adel Abdul Mehdi who is currently Iraq's Shi'ite Vice President (Iraq has two vice presidents, one Shi'ite, one Sunni). Parker reports that Abdul Mehdi is using his group's twenty-five seats to attempt to form an alternative to Nouri. That would mean -- if no other group is holding out -- Nouri sits at around 134 seats currently.

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted last month, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's six months and twenty-seven days with no government formed.
Meanwhile Fars News Agency reports that the governments of Syria and Iran are denying that they are in opposition over whom the next prime minister of Iraq should be. Press TV adds that Iran's Ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Danaeifar, states that Iran is not interfering in the process. However, Tariq Alhomayed (Asharq Alawsat Newspaper) notes the rumors swirling, "There is a belief amongst many of the Iraqi elite, as well as other Arab politicians, intellectuals and journalists, that the U.S. is conspiring with the Iranians on the issue of Iraq, and that there is a plot to divide the region. The allegation is that America is concluding a deal with its Iranian counterparts, to persuade Tehran to cooperate with America and the West on the subject of its nuclear program [in exchange for allowing the Iranians to politically intervene in Iraq]. This was already offered by the Iranians to the West, in particularly the Americans. Therefore Washington, according to those skeptical of U.S. intentions, does not see the harm in Nuri al-Maliki renewing his post for a second term, at the expense of other Iraqi components. This skepticism deserves to be analyzed, if only for the fact that it has spread like wildfire amongst the Iraqi elite, who generally do not believe in conspiracy theories, and mostly advocate rationality regarding relations with the West." Allawi is in Egypt today. Al-Masry Al-Youm reports he's supposed to meet with Omar Suleiman ("Egyptian intelligence chief") and other officials "to discuss the ongoing deadlock over the formation of the country's next government."
Reports of blocs scrambling to make deals are coming out of Iraq. Leila Fadel (Washington Post) reports that officials with Iraqiya are hinting that they might back Nouri for prime minister if Allawi became president and if the role of president came with expanded powers. This as Alsumaria TV reports that the Kurdistan bloc states talks will take place only after "written approval" of their demands: "Referring to the National Alliance and Al Iraqiya List, Khalil clarified that the Kurdish paper includes 10 items mainly executing Constitution Article 140 that protects major components of the Iraqi people namely Kurds, Sunni and Shiite Arabs from injustice, he said." One problem already developing is that the Kurds expected Nouri's promise of an October census (oil-rich Kirkuk) to be a promise and are now learning otherwise (he's pushed it back to December this time). Which may be why the bloc plans to meet in Baghdad to firm up their demands before meeting with any non-Kurds.
Kirkuk? In "Kirkuk and the Up-coming Census," an Iraqi correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers reported:
"Warning
You don't belong here -- Leave unconditionally within 24 hours -- or else we are prepared to use all means including force, if necessary"
Armed men, in civilian clothes distributed fliers to Arab and Turkoman families in Kirkuk -- but mostly to Arab families.
A general census is to be held in Iraq on October 24.
And all through the political crisis -- and until this day, PM Nouri al Maliki keeps on statements affirming the date of the census -- again and again, as if there was nothing else on his mind.

The oil-rich Kirkuk is disputed territory, claimed by the KRG and by the central government or 'government' out of Baghdad. The Iraqi Constitution mandates a census and then a vote which will determine who gets Kirkuk. Prior to the start of the Iraq War, Kurds were forced out of Kirkuk and after the start of the war -- as documented by Edward Wong (New York Times), among others, the KRG began forcing Kurds back into the region. While trying to continue holding on to the post of prime minister, Nouri announced that a census would be held in October and it would be held regardless of whether or not the issue of the prime minister had been resolved. It is now October. Nouri, spin tells you, is set to be the next prime minister. And lo and behold we have a new announcement. Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports that the census has been pushed back to December 5th. And it needs to be noted that the US government wanted it postponed. This is the census the Constitution mandated be taken in 2007. This is the census that one of the White House benchmarks (in 2007) was that Nouri would hold it. Or as AFP puts it, "The October 24 census has now been delayed until December 5, the latest in a string of deferrals that have consistently put back a count originally due in 2007." News of the delay comes as Azzaman reports that Ashawees (Kurdish security forces) are terrorizing Arab and Turkmen residents of Kirkuk in an attempt to scare them into leaving. MP Omer Khalaf is quoted stating, "Kurdish security forces, known (locally) as Ashawees, have withdrawn papers from Arab immigrants in the city and have warned them to leave within 24 hours." As a result, DPA reports, US forces have been sent into Kirkuk "to protect Arab Sunni and Shiite residents".
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "A magnetic bomb that was stuck to the private car of Tahrir Kathim, a media assistant who works for U.S. backed al Hurra satellite channel, detonated Monday morning killing him straight away." Reporters without Borders issued a statement today which included:

Reporters Without Borders condemned the killing today of cameraman Tahrir Kadhem Jawad, working for the Arabic-language service of the US TV channel al-Hurra, who was killed by a bomb placed under his car as he was going to work near Jasr al-Korma, east of Fallujah.
This killing is the latest in a series of targeted attacks against journalist over the past few weeks (for further information see:["Journalists are victims of violence by security forces and targeted attacks".]

Jawad died instantly after a bomb attached to his car exploded in Garma, 50 miles west of Baghdad in volatile Anbar province, according to local press freedom groups and online news reports. Jawad was driving to the capital to deliver footage when the bomb exploded. Security forces swiftly cordoned off the blast site and initiated an investigation, but made no arrests at the scene.

Jawad had worked as a journalist for seven years, first as an editor with the weekly Al-Karma, and then as a freelance cameraman who supplied numerous television broadcasters with footage. The slain journalist was "a courageous cameraman" who obtained distinguished footage "where others had failed to do so," according to Mohammad al-Jamili, the Baghdad bureau chief for U.S.-government-backed Al-Hurra television, one of Jawad's employers. Jawad is survived by his wife and five children.

"We extend our condolences to the family of our fallen colleague Tahrir Kadhim Jawad," said Mohamed Abdel Dayem, CPJ's Middle East and North Africa program coordinator. "As the country's internal security situation has steadily deteriorated over the past months, we have witnessed Iraq 's rapid degeneration into one of the most dangerous places for journalists to work, and this only after a short-lived period of relative calm. Jawad is the third journalist to be murdered in Iraq in less than a month."

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing wounded two people, another Baghdad sticky bombing injured one person, a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 bodyguard for the Science and Technology Minister and wounded four more people, another Baghdad roadside bombing targeting police Brig Gen Amer Hameed which wounded him, two of his bodyguards and four bystanders, another Baghdad sticky bombing wounded one person, Baquba stun bombs drew the police and Iraqi military in time for another bombing which claimed 4 of their lives and left two more wounded, a Mosul roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier and a Mosul sticky bombing which wounded eleven Iraqi soldiers, two Mosul roadside bombings which wounded two Iraqi soldiers.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1st Lt police officer Hashim Sattar was wounded in a shooting in front of his house and 1 Sahwa member was shot dead in Jurf Al Skhar.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 female corpse discovered in Hilla, Professor Ibraheem al Qassab was killed in Mosul home invasion.
Turning to the US, Friday, September 24th FBI raids took place on at least seven homes of peace activists -- the FBI admits to raiding seven homes -- and the FBI raided the offices of Anti-War Committee. Just as that news was breaking, the National Lawyers Guild issued a new report, Heidi Boghosian's [PDF format warning] "The Policing of Political Speech: Constraints on Mass Dissent in the US." Along with being a National Lawyer Guild member (she's actually Executive Director of the national office), Heidi co-hosts WBAI's Law and Disorder Radio (9:00 a.m. EST Mondays -- also plays on other stations around the country throughout the week) with fellow attorneys Michael Ratner and Michael Smith and today the program explores the raids with guest Jim Fennerty. And that's 9:00 a.m. I wrongly said 10:00 a.m. EST. WBAI is no longer airing Democracy Now! twice a day and Law and Disorder has moved up an hour. My apologies to anyone who missed today's broadcast because of my error. You can stream the broadcast at Law and Disorder Radio online and, for the next 89 days only, at the WBAI archives. Today, we're going to excerpt the conversation that took place at the top of the show. We'll note the interview with Jim Fennerty later in the week. Excerpt:
Michael S. Smith: Heidi Boghosian, you're the Executive Director of the National Lawyers Guild and you've been following this story very closely. As you know, at around 7:00 a.m. Friday, September 24th, agents of the Joint-Terrorism Task Force of the FBI barged into eight homes in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Chicago, Illinois breaking down doors and in coordinated raids against leftist activists. Agents seized papers, computers, cell phones and personal items of Hatem Abudayyeh, Joseph Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner in Chicago and served Thomas Burke of Chicago with a subpoena ordering him to appear before a grand jury investigating "material support to terrorism." In Minneapolis - St. Paul, agents raided the homes of Meredith Aby, Mick Kelly, Tracy Molm, Anh Pham, Jess Sundin and the offices of Twin City's Antiwar Committee. FBI spokesmen said that, "interviews" were being conducted across the country. No arrests have been made or charges reported, yet about a dozen activists have been supoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury whose proceedings are secret. Heidi, put this in context for our listeners please.
Heidi Boghosian: Michael, these raids are actually not surprising. Over the last decade, the National Lawyers Guild has witnessed a pattern of government intimidation of activists ranging from infliltrating, spying on peace, antiwar and other political organizations, targeting individuals whom they perceive as lead organizers so that before national special security events -- for example, the 2004, 2008 Republican National Conventions -- we saw FBI agents and members of Joint-Terrorism Task Force going around the country, visiting activists at their homes, going to their families, their place of work, asking them questions about their political views, whether they plan to attend the conventions, sending what we call a chilling effect on free speech. Other tactics we've seen take place at these mass assemblies such as the RNC and the DNC where police engage in a wide range of really fearful activities -- not only the use of less lethal weapons against crowds but using horses, bicycles, motorcycles to push crowds to then trap detain and then mass arrest without probably cause. Meaning that they're taken off the streets, out of the site of the media, out of the sight of the delegates, detained for often days with no charges and then released. Many individuals are charged with anti-terrorism laws and that's the trend that we're seeing that these trends are apart of, vilifying domestic activists. And the Supreme Court has a body of case law that supports vigorous language such as "Shut down the convention." We've been seeing that for decades. All of the sudden, such words and even ordinary household objects that are picked up in these raids become "Oh, the makings of a molotov cocktail!" Police and law enforcement are ascribing evil intent to political literature, political jargon and household objects. In these recent raids, I think we have to look at the recent Supreme Court decision in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. And that means that any politically active entity or individual who provides what they call material support -- and it can be in the form of legal advice, the writing of an amicus [friend of court -- supporting] brief, humanitarian aid, any kind of dialogue even if it's aimed at coming up with peaceful resolutions or ways to work together , that becomes a terrorist activity.
Michael Smith: Remember that Lynne Stewart issuing a press release was 'material support to terrorism.' Heidi, what's your take on the level of government where these recent September 24th raids originated. My thinking is that they happened in Illinois, they happened in Minnesota. This wasn't a local decision. It must have been a decision that went up at least as high as [Eric] Holder, the Attorney General, and maybe in consultation with advisers in the White House -- perhaps even former Constitutional Law professor President Obama. Have you thought about that?
Heidi Boghosian: There's no doubt that this originates from the top. This comes from the Oval Office. This now is a hallmark of the Obama administration. One of the interesting developments is that at the same time as the same time these raids took place, the Obama administration announced it was supporting new regulations to compell popular internet messaging services like Facebook, Blackberry, to open up their systems to FBI surveilance. So it was reported right after the raids and one may wonder if the raids are also a distraction from pushing through this kind of legislation that more deeply erodes our fundmental rights to privacy.
Michael S. Smith: I think it's ominous. There was discussion last month about their ability to turn off the internet so that those of us that had hopes about the internet being this marvelous way to organize, you know, unless you have meetings where you actually, physically rub shoulders with people, we could be in a lot of trouble because they'll turn off our lights.
Heidi Boghosian: Michael, I think it's worth noting also that we see greater repression on the part of the government at times when the popular movement begins to have measures of success. So, for example, we've seen the creations of domestic anti-terrorism laws aimed at shutting down the very successful animal rights welfare movement in this country, the environmental movement -- laws that were particularly designed to penalize actions that are related to those two groups. Why? I think because they've had success.
Michael S. Smith: I think that you're absolutely correct. Look at the three sorts of groups that were targeted in the September 24th raids. One of the people, Abudayyeh, a Palestinian living in Chicago was the head of the solidarity movement in Chicago of the Palestinian people. And this is coming just a time when more and more Americans and particularly more and more Jewish Americans and younger Jewish Americans are disgusted with Israel's policy towards Palestinians and want to change. Or, a second example, the Twin Cities' Antiwar Movement against the escalating war in Afghanistan and the fake pull-out from Iraq and the drone bombings in Pakistan, this excellent group of antiwar activists in Minneapolis gets targeted.
Heidi Boghosian: Now we saw that under the [Richard Tricky Dick] Nixon administration, we had the same kind of crackdown on domestic dissent . We had the use of grand juries as fishing expeditions to gather personal information rather than to seek an indictment. We had raids, we had the villification of activists as subversive entities. We've seen the use of informants. And I'm going to mention the case of the RNC 8 which happened during the 2008 RNC in the Twin Cities. Individuals were arrested, their homes raided, materials confiscated on the basis of search warrants that had been based on informants false information. What happens? Then these individuals are caught up in the legal system for two or more years. That, in and of itself, is a disruption of one's life, costly even if they get lawyers who donate some of their services, it still brings an enormous cost to their lives and their immediate community. Now, in a postivie development, but I think it's telling about where these indictments come from, recently charges were dropped against three of the RNC 8. There are four remaining who will stand trial on October 25th of this year. But I think the fact that the charges were dropped is an indication that there really was nothing other than rhetorical speech -- "Shut down the convention" -- and good organizing on the part of these individuals. And I should remind you that these individuals did nothing other than organize and the police are saying that one or two acts of vandalism or property damage that happened at the RNC are the direct result of that and they tie them in under state terrorism laws to riot. But we see this, what I think is pre-emptive punishment that sends a chilling message of 'If you are an organizer, if you have literature that calls for people to take action, you risk arrest under severe anti-terrorism statutes. And you risk not only having your life ruined but the specter of decades in prison.
Michael S. Smith: And the movement that you're part of being sidetracked and depleted in its effort to defend you. And you risk having your computer taken and downloaded. Your Blackberry, same thing. The list of how your organization raises money and who gives it, same thing. This is what they ripped off when they went into these various homes and offices on September 24th.
Heidi Boghosian: Well they're building enormous data banks and what they call terrorists watch lists. And the government itself has admitted that a lot of the information on these lists is inaccurate but there's no way to get your name off it once you're there. And as you know, it's shared widely with law enforcement all around the country.
Michael S. Smith: Believe me, I know. Every time I try to get on the airplane. Heidi, when the FBI knocks, what do you do?
Heidi Boghosian: It is crucial that if anyone listening to this show is contacted by the FBI or if your friends or family members are, that you do not talk to them. You just say, "I would like to consult with my lawyer. May I have your business card? My lawyer will get back to you." Never say anything because anything you say, no matter how seemingly mundane -- answering a question: Do you live here?, Is your name such and such? -- can be used against you in further grand jury proceedings.
Michael S. Smith: Well they can go after you saying that you lied to them. Don't talk to them. Call your lawyer. Call our hotline. Get out a pencil. Heidi, give them the hotline.
Heidi Boghosian: If you're visited by the FBI, you can call the NLG's Hotline. It's 888-NLG-ECOL. Or 888-654-3265.
Michael S. Smith: Heidi, please repeat the hotline.
Heidi Boghosian: The hotline is 888-NLG-ECOL. And how you can remember that is that originally we started this as a hotline for environmental and animal rights activists so it was for ecology. It was Eco Law but we shortened it.
Michael S. Smith: It may be that the government bit off more than it could chew here, that democratic rights are cherished by a lot of people in this country. In the wake of their September 24th raids, demonstrations were called to happen simultaneously in 27 cities across the country. So we can fight back on this one, we can win on this one. We can shame them and hold them off.
Heidi Boghosian: I think the response has been great and it must continue to have a groundswell of support from everyone who cares about protecting their Constitutional rights.
Again, the plan is to note the discussion with Jim later in the week. And later in the week, there's an event this week in NYC:

MEDIA ADVISORY
For immediate release

Contact: Kimber Heinz, National Organizing Coordinator, War Resisters League (NYC) cell: (941) 266-8033, kimber@warresisters.org

A cross-section of local and national community, legal, and global justice organizations will speak in New York City on the ninth anniversary of the Afghanistan war and will be available for interview on-site at the press conference and by phone.


OCT 7: NINE YEARS INTO AFGHAN WAR, U.S. VETERANS, COMMUNITY GROUPS, AND GLOBAL JUSTICE ACTIVISTS SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, IN PRESS CONFERENCE

WHO: Former Afghan Parliamentarian Malalai Joya, members of Iraq Veterans against the War, organizers with the South Asia Solidarity Initiative, Human Rights attorney Pardiss Kebriaei from the Center for Constitutional Rights, Iraqi refugee organizer Fatima Hindi, representatives from the Freedom Party of NY State, immigrant youth members of Vamos Unidos, and national organizers from the War Resisters League

WHEN: Thursday, October 7 -- 11am


WHERE: Center for Place, Culture and Politics, CUNY Graduate Center – room TBA [365 Fifth Avenue, between E 34th and 35th Street]

WHAT: On the ninth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, veterans, community organizations, and global justice activists will gather in Manhattan for a press conference with the united message that the ongoing U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is "bad for Afghan people of all genders, bad for U.S. soldiers, and bad for the people of the U.S."

VISUALS/DETAILS: Personal testimony from a cross-section of speakers from represented groups and organizations, including a statement from former Afghan Parliamentarian Malalai Joya and members of Iraq Veterans against the War (IVAW) on the day of their Operation Recovery campaign launch. Members of represented organizations will be available for interview on-site.

More information on Operation Recovery: http://www.ivaw.org/event/operation-recovery-announcement


kats korner
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)