RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Assata Shakur, FBI's White Whale? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 June 2013 13:30

Boardman writes: "The World's Number One Terrorist on the FBI web site, at the top of the FBI's official list of 'Most Wanted Terrorists,' is Joanne Deborah Chesimard, whose birth name is Byron and whose current name is Assata Shakur."

New Jersey billboard erected night before FBI announcement of Assata Shakur on the most wanted list. (photo: SF Bay View)
New Jersey billboard erected night before FBI announcement of Assata Shakur on the most wanted list. (photo: SF Bay View)


Assata Shakur, FBI's White Whale?

By William Boardman, Reader Supported News

11 June 13

 

Why does the FBI consider a 65-year-old woman a "Most Wanted Terrorist?"

NOTE: As you consider this article, keep in mind an undisputed, convicted terrorist who bombed hotels and nightclubs in Havana and a Cuban Airliner, killing 73. Luis Posada Carriles has denied the airliner, admitted the rest. The U.S. has refused to deport him to either Cuba or Venezuela or to prosecute him for terrorism because, after all, he was our terrorist, an anti-communist and a CIA asset.

BI Terror List: Bombers of U.S. Embassies, Pan Am Flights, Khobar, & USS Cole

The World's Number One Terrorist on the FBI web site, at the top of the FBI's official list of "Most Wanted Terrorists," is Joanne Deborah Chesimard, whose birth name is Byron and whose current name is Assata Shakur.

Shakur, 65, is the aunt and godmother of the late hip-hop icon Tupac Shakur. A fugitive since 1979, she has lived in Cuba under political asylum since 1984. In her twenties, she was a leading black liberation activist in New York, relentlessly pursued by authorities until she was jailed in 1973. Dubiously convicted of murder in 1977, she escaped from prison while her appeal was pending. In 2005, the FBI, without alleging any terrorist acts, retroactively labeled her a "domestic terrorist." And on May 2, 2013, the FBI named her the Terrorist List's first woman, first black woman, first mother, first godmother, and perhaps even first grandmother.

"She's a danger to the American government," said Aaron T. Ford, the agent in charge of the FBI's Newark, New Jersey, division at a news conference called to make the Most Wanted Terrorist announcement. The FBI scheduled the media event on the 40th anniversary of the crime for which Shakur was convicted in 1977, and about which she has always maintained her innocence.

"She continues to flaunt her freedom in the face of this horrific crime," State Police superintendent Col. Rick Fuentes said at the same news conference, where he called the case "an open wound" for troopers in New Jersey and around the country.

Officially, the FBI Says, She "Should Be Considered Armed and Dangerous"

As it turns out, she's not widely perceived as a threat by much of anyone. She continues to advocate revolutionary change, she writes books and shorter pieces, she has a YouTube channel, "Assata Shakur Speaks Out." Her life and work are included in black studies courses at colleges like Bucknell and Rutgers. The Cuban government pays her something like $13 a day to help keep her alive.

Outside the law enforcement community, those who know about Assata Shakur perceive an entirely different person. The newly-elected mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, considers her "wrongfully convicted." A sociology professor at Columbia University says there's "just no material evidence" to support the lone conviction that resulted from seven different trials. A New York City councilman has called for the bounty on Shakur to be rescinded.

For both sides, for all Americans, this case represents some of the unfinished business of the "Sixties."

The critical event that is perceived so differently by different people took place on May 2, 1973, when two white New Jersey State Troopers, in separate cruisers, stopped a Pontiac LeMans with Vermont plates on the New Jersey Turnpike for a "broken taillight." The car held two black men and Shakur, all members of the revolutionary Black Liberation Army. In the shootout that followed, a trooper and one of the black men died. Shakur and the other trooper were wounded. The other black man, Sundiata Acoli, drove away in the Pontiac with Shakur seriously wounded, and they were arrested separately not long after.

FBI Says, "Her Standard of Living Is Higher Than Most Cubans"

The FBI's current version of the event has no ambiguity: "On May 2, 1973, Chesimard [Shakur], who was part of a revolutionary extremist organization known as the Black Liberation Army, and two accomplices were stopped for a motor vehicle violation on the New Jersey Turnpike by two troopers with the New Jersey State Police…. Chesimard and her accomplices opened fire on the troopers. One trooper was wounded and the other was shot and killed execution-style at point-blank range. Chesimard fled the scene, but was subsequently apprehended. One of her accomplices was killed in the shoot-out and the other was also apprehended and remains in jail."

In fact, Shakur was shot twice, apparently with her hands up, while turning away. The bullets wounded her upper arms, armpit, and chest, all of which is undisputed. Expert medical testimony at trial held that her wounds rendered her incapable of firing any weapon. There was no forensic evidence to show that she had fired a weapon, no gunpowder residue, no fingerprint on any weapon. The surviving trooper admitted on the stand that he had lied to the Grand Jury and testified at trial that he had never seen Shakur with a gun. After a New Jersey legislator reportedly lobbied the jury for conviction while they were sequestered, the all-white jury delivered a guilty verdict.

FBI COINTELPRO Crimes Give Context to Assata Shakur's Actions

One of her attorneys, Lennox Hinds, now a law professor at Rutgers University, put this event in the context of the time, when the FBI was regularly violating the law with its COINTELPRO program that targeted people the FBI deemed too radical, especially anti-war protestors and black power advocates. The FBI says all COINTELPRO operations ended in 1971, adding somewhat delicately: "COINTELPRO was later rightfully criticized by Congress and the American people for abridging first amendment rights and for other reasons."

Those other reasons might include law breaking, since COINTELPRO activities included burglaries, wiretaps, physical threats, vandalism, and other illegal actions, even alleged assassinations. There have been no prosecutions of COINTELPRO crimes.

As Lennox Hines told DemocracyNOW! the day after the FBI's Terrorist List press conference:

In the FBI's own words, they wanted to discredit, to stop the rise of a black messiah - that was the fear of the FBI - so that there would not be a Mau Mau, in their words, uprising in the United States. And they were, of course, referring to the liberation movement that occurred in Kenya, Africa.
Now, the FBI carried out a campaign targeting not only the Black Panther Party. They targeted SCLC. They targeted Martin Luther King. They targeted Harry Belafonte. They targeted Eartha Kitt. They targeted anyone who supported the struggle for civil rights, that they considered to be dangerous.

William Kunstler, one of Shakur's several defense attorneys, had successfully introduced COINTELPRO evidence at a trial of members of the American Indian Movement (AIM). His motion to do so in Shakur's trial was denied.

Perjury to Indict, Jury Tampering to Convict - The New Jersey Way?

Referring to the FBI's sometimes criminal political repression, attorney Hines said:

It is in that context we need to look at what happened on the New Jersey Turnpike in 1973. What they call Joanne Chesimard, what we know as Assata Shakur, she was targeted by the FBI, stopped. And the allegation that she was a cold-blooded killer is not supported by any of the forensic evidence.
If we look at the trial, we'll find that she was victimized, she was shot. She was shot in the back. The bullet exited and broke the clavicle in her shoulder. She could not raise a gun. She could not raise her hand to shoot. And she was shot while her hands were in the air.
Now, that is the forensic evidence. There is not one scintilla of evidence placing a gun in her hand. No arsenic residue was found on her clothing or on her hands. So, the allegation by the state police that she took an officer's gun and shot him, executed him in cold blood, is not only false, but it is designed to inflame.

An example of such inflammatory rhetoric came from Special Agent Ford at the May 2 press conference: "Openly and freely in Cuba, she continues to maintain and promote her terrorist ideology. She provides anti-U.S. government speeches espousing the Black Liberation Army message of revolution and terrorism. No person, no matter what his or her political or moral convictions are, is above the law. Joanne Chesimard is a domestic terrorist who murdered a law enforcement officer, execution-style."

Inflammatory Rhetoric Can Help Distract People from Facts

Presumably Agent Ford is aware that Sundiata Acoli remains in prison for killing the "law enforcement officer execution style," that the label "domestic terrorist" was arbitrarily applied in 2005, and that Assata Shakur considers "Joanne Chesimard" her slave name - and that acknowledging any of those facts would run the risk of possibly humanizing this sexagenarian "danger to the American government."

The FBI press release of May 2 dishonestly fudges the case, saying, "Chesimard [Shakur] and Squire [Acoli] were charged, convicted, and sentenced for the murder," as if there hadn't been two separate trials, four years apart; and as if the second trial of Shakur hadn't taken place while the convicted murderer of the trooper was already serving his sentence.

The point that the first person convicted of the trooper's murder has been in prison since 1973 goes unmentioned in most media coverage of the Shakur case. In an egregious example of slanted reporting, The New York Times on May 2 not only fails to mention Acoli, but frames the story with the trooper's "execution," thus leaving the reader little room to infer anything but Shakur's sole guilt, even though that's false even if she's partly guilty as an accomplice according to law.

Special Agent Ford Sounds a Bit Obsessed As He Hurls Verbal Harpoons

According to NBC News, Ford said there was no specific new threat that led the bureau to add Shakur to the list. He said she "remains an inspiration to the radical, left-wing, anti-government, black separatist movement…. Some of those people, and the people that espouse those ideas, are still in this country. So we'd be naïve not to think that there's some communication between her and the people she used to run around with."

While comments at a press conference might be hyperbole in the heat of the moment, Agent Ford's comments were much the same three weeks later in an interview with Christine Amanpour as reported by Yahoo! News on May 23:

It's unfortunate that someone involved in the murder of an officer, kidnappings, hostage takings and robberies in a 14-year span is revered by a segment of society…. For us, justice never sleeps, justice never rests. We're looking to bring her to justice because she committed a heinous act. She is a member of an organization [Black Liberation Army] which espoused hate against the U.S. government….

Agent Ford was apparently not asked how one should feel about the U.S. government when it executes such illegal programs as COINTELPRO. And he didn't say what the government knows of Shakur's communications through NSA's PRISM program or other electronic surveillance.

Can the FBI Distinguish Between Thought Crime and Terror?

Talking about a 65-year-old woman effectively confined to Cuba, Agent Ford called her "a supreme terror against the government" and said without apparent irony: "We absolutely still consider her a threat. She is a menace to society still. She has connections and associations from members of that party she belonged to years ago. They are still espousing anti-government views…."

In 1997, when Pope John Paul II was planning to visit Cuba, the New Jersey superintendent of state police wrote asking him to intervene on the state's side in the Shakur case by persuading Cuba to extradite her. Superintendent Carl Williams did not make his letter to the Pope public, but he made sure his request was well publicized.

Learning of this, Shakur wrote the Pope her own open letter, which she also broadcast. Aired on Democracy NOW! in 1998 and again on May 2, the letter details her story of her life and resistance, with an early reference to the secret New Jersey letter:

Why, I wonder, do I warrant such attention? What do I represent that is such a threat? Please let me take a moment to tell you about myself. My name is Assata Shakur and I was born and raised in the United States. I am a descendant of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the Americas as slaves. I spent my early childhood in the racist segregated South. I later moved to the northern part of the country, where I realized that Black people were equally victimized by racism and oppression….

The Letter Has Biography, Polemic, Analysis, Confession

Later she admits to harboring the very thoughts the FBI still considers criminal: "I think that it is important to make one thing very clear. I have advocated and I still advocate revolutionary changes in the structure and in the principles that govern the United States. I advocate self-determination for my people and for all oppressed inside the United States. I advocate an end to capitalist exploitation, the abolition of racist policies, the eradication of sexism, and the elimination of political repression. If that is a crime, then I am totally guilty."

At the end of her fundamentally political, 1800-word-plus statement, written on Martin Luther King's birthday, she concluded with her request to the Pope:

I am not writing to ask you to intercede on my behalf. I ask nothing for myself. I only ask you to examine the social reality of the United States and to speak out against the human rights violations that are taking place.

To judge by the public record, the Pope chose not to get involved.

Pursuing Assata Shakur Has Taken On a Ritual Aspect

The FBI and other agencies first became interested in Assata Shakur (then still Chesimard: she changed it around 1970) in the mid-1960s, perhaps at the time of her first arrest in 1967, when she and about 100 other students demonstrated at the Borough of Manhattan Community College. Many charges and sometimes arrests followed, but she wasn't held or tried, not even in 1971, after she was shot in the stomach. (Later she reportedly said she was glad she was shot, so she wouldn't be afraid to be shot again.) That case was dismissed.

In the early 1970s, Shakur had been accused of enough crimes that she was the subject of a nationwide manhunt as the "revolutionary mother hen" of a Black Liberation Army cell accused of a "series of cold-blooded murders of New York City Police officers."

Deputy Commissioner Robert Daley of the New York City Police called Shakur "the final wanted fugitive, the soul of the gang, the mother hen who kept them together, kept them moving, kept them shooting."

By early 1973, the FBI was issuing nearly daily reports on Shakur's status, activities, and allegations. She was even the apparent namesake of the FBI operation CHESROB, though it was not limited to her in focus. For all the attention and allegations, when Assata was captured on May 2, 1973, she was not charged with any of these crimes.

Assata's Prosecutors Had a Big Problem Finding Credible Evidence

Starting in December 1973, once Shakur had recovered sufficiently from her gunshot wounds, various jurisdictions brought her to trial for various charges, with mostly dismal results:

  • Dec. 1973 - bank robbery - hung jury, dismissed.

  • Dec. 1973 - re-trial, bank robbery - acquitted.

  • Jan. 1974 - murder of NJ trooper - mistrial due to her pregnancy.

  • May 1974 - two separate murder indictments - lack of evidence, dismissed.

  • Sept. 1975 - kidnapping - acquitted.

  • Jan. 1976 - bank robbery - acquitted.

  • Feb. 1977 - murder of NJ trooper - convicted.

Shakur would spend more than six years in various prisons, often under deplorable conditions, with brutal treatment. In 1979, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights found that her treatment was "totally unbefitting to any prisoner."

The UN investigation of alleged human rights abuses of political prisoners cited Shakur as "one of the worst cases" - in "a class of victims of FBI misconduct through the COINTELPRO strategy and other forms of illegal government conduct who as political activists have been selectively targeted for provocation, false arrests, entrapment, fabrication of evidence, and spurious criminal prosecutions."

On November 2, 1979, Shakur's brother Mutulu Shakur brought two other men and a woman to see her in the prison visitors' room. Prison officials did not search them. Prison officials did not run checks on their false identification papers. They had guns. They took two guards as hostages and left with Shakur. No one was hurt, the guards were left in the parking lot.

The Hunt for Assata Shakur Goes On in Fourth Decade

For the next five years, Shakur was a fugitive with the FBI searching for her, and her community protecting her. Three days after her escape, more than 5,000 demonstrators rallied in her support. The FBI circulated wanted posters; her supporters circulated "Assata Shakur Is Welcome Here" posters. In 1980, the head of the FBI complained that residents weren't cooperating. Residents were alienated by heavy-handed police tactics including a crude, door-smashing raid that turned up nothing and by surveillance of Shakur's daughter going to grade school.

Although the intensity of the search has waned - the FBI knows where she is, after all - both the FBI and the New Jersey State Police reportedly have an agent assigned to the case fulltime.

In recent years, the pursuit has taken on an anniversary pattern. On May 2, 2005, the FBI named Shakur a domestic terrorist and posted a $1 million reward for her capture. On May 2 this year, the FBI promoted her to the Most Wanted Terrorist list and New Jersey added another $1 million to the reward pool.

How and why these decisions are made is unclear. In response to an inquiry, the FBI Office of Public Affairs stated: "The inner workings of how people get selected to the List are not something the FBI shares with the general public." According to the same office:

People are added to the List when they meet the following criteria:
  • They have threatened the security of US nationals or the national security of the USA.

  • They are considered a dangerous menace to society.

  • They are the subject of a pending FBI investigation and have an active federal arrest warrant.

  • The worldwide publicity must be thought to be able to assist in the apprehension of the terrorist.

The FBI did not respond to a request for a definition of "terror" or "terrorist." Nor did the FBI respond to specific questions about Chesimard/Shakur "due to the ongoing investigation into her whereabouts."

Joanne Deborah Byron, then Chesimard for three years ending in 1970, took her new name then for its specific meaning: Assata ("she who struggles") Olugbala ("for the people") Shakur ("the thankful one").

All She Asked of Her All-White New Jersey Jury Was Fairness

At her trial in 1977, Shakur gave an opening statement to that all-white jury that concluded:

Although the court considers us peers, many of you have had different backgrounds and different learning and life experiences. It is important to me that you understand some of those differences. I only ask of you that you listen carefully. I only ask that you listen not only to what these witnesses say but to how they say it. Our lives are no more precious or no less precious than yours. We ask only that you be as open and as fair as you would want us to be, were we sitting in the jury box determining your guilt or innocence. Our lives and the lives that surround us depend on your fairness.

Hip-Hop Turned This Expatriate in Cuba into a "Rebel Without a Pause"

Ten years after her trial, Shakur was living in Cuba, re-united with her daughter there, but still an engaged activist. In 1987, she published "Assata: An Autobiography," which remains available as an e-book. That same year, in Public Enemy's hip-hop hit "Rebel Without a Pause," Chuck D shouted "supporter of Chesimard" and brought her to the attention of a new generation.

Assata Shakur became a hip-hop meme. The hip-hop artist Common was unapologetically supportive in "A Song for Assata." This allowed others to raise a stink when Common played the White House on 2011.

Writing in The Grio, Chuck "Jigsaw" Creekmur sees Assata Shakur's appeal this way: "In a quintessentially American way, some folks in hip-hop just appreciate the raw 'gangsta' of a woman who didn't back down, stood firm in her convictions, completely bucked the system, and lived to tell The Pope about it."

The Question for History May Be: Which Side Needs Rehabilitation More?

An attorney who once represented Shakur, himself a longtime black nationalist, Chokwe Lumumba was recently elected mayor of Jackson, Mississippi, by a wide margin. He told DemocracyNOW!:

"I've always felt that Assata Shakur was wrongfully convicted, so she shouldn't be on a wanted list at all. She never should have been in prison. She was actually shot herself and wounded and paralyzed at the time that the person who she was convicted of killing was shot. So she obviously couldn't have shot him. And she also was arrested, which caused the incident, for about eight different charges which she later was found not guilty of or were dismissed. So I think it's unfortunate. Assata Shakur, I believe, will historically be proven to be a hero of our times…."

That's just what the Ahabs of the FBI seem to fear most.



William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | What Snowden Said Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=63"><span class="small">Marc Ash, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 11 June 2013 12:20

Ash writes: "Fairly quickly the commercial press is going to turn the NSA domestic spying story into a fox-hunt for Edward Snowden. A very public high-speed chase will serve to paint Snowden as a criminal and, of equal or greater value, divert attention from what Snowden exposed."

Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who leaked top secret documents revealing a vast surveillance program by the US government to the Guardian newspaper. (photo: Guardian UK)
Edward Snowden, the whistleblower who leaked top secret documents revealing a vast surveillance program by the US government to the Guardian newspaper. (photo: Guardian UK)


What Snowden Said

By Marc Ash, Reader Supported News

11 June 13

 

airly quickly the commercial press is going to turn the NSA domestic spying story into a fox-hunt for Edward Snowden.

A very public high-speed chase will serve to paint Snowden as a criminal and, of equal or greater value, divert attention from what Snowden exposed.

Before the chase scene begins it bears noting what Edward Snowden said, and the sacrifice that he made.

  • "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant."

  • "I really want the focus to be on these documents and the debate which I hope this will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in ... My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them."

  • [Communicating with Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman]: The U.S. intelligence community, he wrote, "will most certainly kill you if they think you are the single point of failure that could stop this disclosure and make them the sole owner of this information."

  • "I had full access to the full rosters of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community, and undercover assets all around the world … Any analyst at any time can target anyone … I, sitting at my desk, certainly have the authorities to wiretap anyone - from you or your accountant, to a federal judge, to even the President."

  • "The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to. There is no public oversight. The result is people like myself have the latitude to go further than they are allowed to."

  • "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."

  • "I don't see myself as a hero," he said, "because what I'm doing is self-interested: I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."

Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Freedom or Security? Balance This! Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 10 June 2013 15:21

Weissman writes: "So, where does that leave us? Free-minded Americans have traditionally trusted in judges to authorize wiretapping or other specific infringement of personal rights in cases where they found 'probable cause' that specific individuals were breaking the law."

Where is the balance between freedom and security? (photo: unknown)
Where is the balance between freedom and security? (photo: unknown)


Freedom or Security? Balance This!

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

10 June 13

 

ver since we learned that Big Brother is tracing us and everyone with whom we communicate, where, and for how long on both telephone and the Internet, we have heard endlessly that we need to find the proper balance between freedom and security.

To which we should all respond, "Horse feathers!" As Benjamin Franklin put it, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Forgive a free speech fanatic for telling the truth in public, but as Franklin suggested, balancing is the last thing we need. Once we empower government to balance our freedoms against the threat it poses to them, the national security bureaucrats and their helpers in the police and intelligence services will have won. Game over! We lose yet again and our freedoms become even more marginal to any meaningful exercise of democratic power.

Currently, the feds publicly define our "enemies." They characterize the nature of "the threat," real or imagined. And they tell us - now with color codes - how afraid we should be. The whole business is bizarre - and old hat. Here's just a short list (which I've used before and will use again) to kick off the conversation we really need to have:

  • After World War I, Postmaster General Mitchell Palmer led an illegal crusade against the "Red Scare," deporting foreign activists wholesale and without due process.

  • For years, a young J. Edgar Hoover secretly defended us from the "Godless Communist Threat to Our American Way of Life," and later unleashed his Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), in which he sent provocateurs to infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt mostly legal domestic groups ranging from the civil rights and anti-war movements to the Ku Klux Klan.

  • For over four decades, the Pentagon and its industrial allies promoted a highly profitable Cold War, along with witch hunting, red-baiting, and anti-union campaigns.

  • After 9/11, the Bush-Cheney administration and their oil industry and neocon cheerleaders scared us into the Iraq War, which turned out to be a disaster.

In all these signature episodes, our would-be "protectors" systematically built their power - and often the wealth of their supporters - by tilting the balance toward the security they were selling and against the liberty that would have allowed the rest of us to stop what they were doing. And now a Constitutional law professor in the White House is using new digital technology to unleash what could well become the most sweeping attack on our civil liberties since World War I.

My judgments here are not boilerplate Anarchist or Libertarian theory or even Oliver Stone's often simplistic revisionist history. They are merely a sober evaluation of the facts that so many of us have come to understand over the years as activists and journalists. Disagree as you will. But, in all fairness, the evidence is more than sufficient to warn us away from ever trusting Big Brother to balance our liberty against whatever security scare those in power are selling.

So, where does that leave us? Free-minded Americans have traditionally trusted in judges to authorize wiretapping or other specific infringement of personal rights in cases where they found "probable cause" that specific individuals were breaking the law. It was an interesting experiment, but the evidence suggests that the eleven special judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have given up guarding our rights and are authorizing surveillance of everyone in reach. Even more troubling, our supposedly independent judges have shown themselves far too willing to allow the executive branch to operate in secret and to avoid judicial oversight simply by refusing to reveal national security secrets.

Historically, Americans have also sought protection through "the free press," which has failed us miserably. Mainstream papers like The New York Times scramble neurotically between revealing significant secret threats and becoming so psychologically embedded in government that they take on a responsibility to clean up leaked documents to protect what Washington and its allies are doing in the dark. When did that become the media's job? Let the government guard its secrets within Constitutional bounds, and let the free press stand firmly with whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, Daniel Ellsberg, and Edward Snowden, the courageous source of the current leaks, in trying to force the transparency that democracy requires. We use to call this division of labor "pluralism," but the idea seems to have withered away along with our expectation of privacy and unthreatened freedom of association.

One last note: Infomaniacs among our readers will immediately see the similarity between this new data mining scandal and the Total Information Awareness Program that Admiral John Poindexter used to run in Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon. Congress supposedly stopped that experiment in data mining, but the odds are it continued in the shadows. Isn't it wonderful being an American and not being able to believe anything that our government officials tell us?



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How To Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Are You Too Weak to Live With Freedom? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20938"><span class="small">Briana Madden, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Monday, 10 June 2013 14:36

Madden writes: "To say the world needs more brave souls like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden would be a gross simplification of the problem."

Will we act on the revelations delivered to us by the likes of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden? (illustration: unknown)
Will we act on the revelations delivered to us by the likes of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden? (illustration: unknown)


Are You Too Weak to Live With Freedom?

By Briana Madden, Reader Supported News

10 June 13

 

en years ago, I might've been able to dismiss my father's cracks about the FBI listening in on his phone calls as paranoia or an overly-active imagination. Now, everywhere I look there is glaring evidence of a colossal and ever-growing surveillance state that is quietly stomping all over our freedoms of speech and of privacy.

Alan Kors, Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, said this about university and college policies limiting speech: "What universities are saying - to women, to blacks, to Hispanics, to gay and lesbian students - is, 'You are too weak to live with freedom.' ... If someone tells you you are too weak to live with freedom, they have turned you into a child." Well, ladies and gentlemen, the United States government has turned you into a child.

Among the very first handful of ideas the founders of the United States sought to protect was freedom of speech. So important was this inherent human right to the creators of our country that they wasted no time making sure it was codified into law. Today, our lawmakers twist and turn this basic freedom and bend it to their various corporate-poisoned wills so much that it is close to unrecognizable. Today, we are denied the information necessary to hold those in power accountable. Today, we have become too weak to live with freedom.

The "white paper" published by NBC earlier this year revealed not only a disgusting truth about the policies of the Obama administration but also a stark revelation about the resolve of the American people. Despite countless hollow promises of transparency regarding the "War on Terror" made by President Obama during his first term and again during his State of the Union address in February, a classified Justice Department document leaked to reporter Michael Isikoff illustrates just how little transparency we have achieved. The "white paper" asserts Obama's right to play judge, jury and executioner in cases of American citizens suspected as terrorists.

As terrifying as this information is, it is only one piece of the extensive puzzle that is the U.S. government's disregard for the Constitution. Despite lawsuits filed by both The New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union requesting the release of classified legal opinions on the targeted killings - information only recently issued to Congress - the American people are being denied the opportunity to react to the actions of their government. Even the judge who issued the denial was skeptical about the lawfulness of the White House's actions. The worst part: no one cares. We are not rioting in the streets. We are not bombarding the Justice Department with lawsuits. We are not putting up a fight. We have consented to this secrecy.

We can see quite clearly through Bradley Manning's experiences what happens to those who actively withhold their consent for government secrecy. After three years of more than rough treatment at the hands of his accuser, Manning's court-martial is happening under a nearly impenetrable veil of secrecy, a reality reported on by RSN's own Scott Galindez, Bill Simpich and Kay Rudin upon their attempts to gain access to the trial. This, of course, raises the question of the government's ethical footing in this case. As Juan Cole spells out here, the charges facing Manning carry with them the stench of hypocrisy:

"The US Government has been gleefully getting access to your private correspondence and that gave the Government Class an inherent superiority over ordinary Americans. Manning announced that turnabout is fair play, and we should be able to see their correspondence, too, especially given the war crimes in Iraq. That's why they're trying to execute him."

It appears the truth will not set you free in dealing with the Obama administration, and the war on whistleblowers may see yet another casualty. Edward Snowden revealed his identity yesterday as the man responsible for leaking proof of the NSA's massive domestic surveillance program, and he is prepared to accept the consequences. In an interview conducted by Glenn Greenwald, Snowden said his sole motivation was to inform the public of the truth and acknowledged the possible actions the U.S. could take against him. He appeared calm and at peace with his future, saying "I am not afraid, because this is the choice I've made."

To say the world needs more brave souls like Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden would be a gross simplification of the problem. The world would indeed benefit from more of those with access to the facts stepping up and taking great personal risk to bring important information into the public eye. However, we shouldn't need to depend on whistleblowers and leaks. We need to withdraw our consent for government secrecy and be strong enough to not only live with, but demand, our freedom.



Briana Madden earned her bachelor's degree in journalism from Illinois State University and is an Editor at Reader Supported News. She can be reached by email at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Irrationality of Giving Up This Much Liberty to Fight Terror Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=6030"><span class="small">Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic</span></a>   
Monday, 10 June 2013 14:29

Friedersdorf writes: "Irrational cowardice is getting the better of our polity. Terrorism isn't something we're ceding liberty to fight because the threat is especially dire compared to other dangers of the modern world."

The 'war  on terror' has lead to increased violations of privacy by the federal government (photo: Jonathan McIntosh)
The 'war on terror' has lead to increased violations of privacy by the federal government (photo: Jonathan McIntosh)


The Irrationality of Giving Up This Much Liberty to Fight Terror

By Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic

10 June 13

 

he image is still powerful, isn't it?

So are the anger, and the memories.

Most Americans don't just remember where they were on September 11, 2001 -- they remember feeling frightened. Along with anger, that's one emotion I felt, despite watching the attacks from a different continent. That week, you couldn't have paid me to get on a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Even today, I'm aware that terrorists target exactly the sorts of places that I frequent. I fly a lot, sometimes out of LAX. I've ridden the subway systems in London and Madrid. I visit Washington and New York several times a year. I live in Greater Los Angeles.

But like most people, I've never let fear of terrorism stop me from enjoying life's opportunities and pleasures. I wouldn't have my current job if I hadn't moved to New York for graduate school in 2005, and then to Washington a couple of years later. It isn't that I never thought, or worried, about the fact that those cities are prime targets of terrorism. Rather, my intellect got the better of my fears, something that happens every time I get on a commercial airliner and remind myself that it's far safer than making the same trip by car; or every time that I jump into the Pacific Ocean, knowing that, as terrifying as sharks are, it's unlikely I'll be killed by one.

As individuals, Americans are generally good at denying al-Qaeda the pleasure of terrorizing us into submission. Our cities are bustling; our subways are packed every rush hour; there doesn't seem to be an empty seat on any flight I'm ever on. But as a collective, irrational cowardice is getting the better of our polity. Terrorism isn't something we're ceding liberty to fight because the threat is especially dire compared to other dangers of the modern world. All sorts of things kill us in far greater numbers. Rather, like airplane crashes and shark attacks, acts of terror are scarier than most causes of death. The seeming contradictions in how we treat different threats suggest that we aren't trading civil liberties for security, but a sense of security. We aren't empowering the national-security state so that we're safer, but so we feel safer.

Of course we should dedicate significant resources and effort to stopping terrorism. But consider some hard facts. In 2001, the year when America suffered an unprecedented terrorist attack -- by far the biggest in its history -- roughly 3,000 people died from terrorism in the U.S. 

Let's put that in context. That same year in the United States:

  • 71,372 died of diabetes.
  • 13,290 were killed in drunk driving accidents.

That's what things looked like at the all-time peak for deaths by terrorism. Now let's take a longer view. We'll choose an interval that still includes the biggest terrorist attack in American history: 1999 to 2010.

Again, terrorists killed roughly 3,000 people in the United States. And in that interval,

  • roughly 360,000 were killed by guns (actually, the figure the CDC gives is 364,483 -- in other words, by rounding, I just elided more gun deaths than there were total terrorism deaths).
  • roughly 150,000 were killed in drunk-driving accidents.


Measured in lives lost, during an interval that includes the biggest terrorist attack in American history, guns posed a threat to American lives that was more than 100 times greater than the threat of terrorism. Over the same interval, drunk driving threatened our safety 50 times more than terrorism

Those aren't the only threats many times more deadly than terrorism, either.

The CDC estimates that food poisoning kills roughly 3,000 Americans every year. Every year, food-borne illness takes as many lives in the U.S. as were lost during the high outlier of terrorism deaths. It's a killer more deadly than terrorism. Should we cede a significant amount of liberty to fight it?

Government officials, much of the media, and most American citizens talk about terrorism as if they're totally oblivious to this context -- as if it is different than all other threats we face, in both kind and degree. Since The Guardian and other news outlets started revealing the scope of the surveillance state last week, numerous commentators and government officials, including President Obama himself, have talked about the need to properly "balance" liberty and security.

The U.S. should certainly try to prevent terrorist attacks, and there is a lot that government can and has done since 9/11 to improve security in ways that are totally unobjectionable. But it is not rational to give up massive amounts of privacy and liberty to stay marginally safer from a threat that, however scary, endangers the average American far less than his or her daily commute. In 2011*, 32,367 Americans died in traffic fatalities. Terrorism killed 17 U.S. civilians that year. How many Americans feared dying in their vehicles more than dying in a terrorist attack?

Certainly not me! I irrationally find terrorism far scarier than the sober incompetents and irresponsible drunks who surround my vehicle every time I take a carefree trip down a Los Angeles freeway. The idea that the government could keep me safe from terrorism is very emotionally appealing.

But intellectually, I know two things: 

  1. America has preserved liberty and privacy in the face of threats far greater than terrorism has so far posed (based on the number of people actually killed in terrorist attacks), and we've been better off for it.
  2. Ceding liberty and privacy to keep myself safe from terrorism doesn't even guarantee that I'll be safer! It's possible that the surveillance state will prove invasive and ineffective. Or that giving the state so much latitude to exercise extreme power in secret will itself threaten my safety

I understand, as well as anyone, that terrorism is scary. But it's time to stop reacting to it with our guts, and to start reacting with our brains, not just when we're deciding to vacation in Washington or New York, but also when we're making policy together as free citizens. Civil libertarians are not demanding foolish or unreasonable courage when they suggest that the threat of terrorism isn't so great as to warrant massive spying on innocent Americans and the creation of a permanent database that practically guarantees eventual abuse.

Americans would never welcome a secret surveillance state to reduce diabetes deaths, or gun deaths, or drunk-driving deaths by 3,000 per year. Indeed, Congress regularly votes down far less invasive policies meant to address those problems because they offend our notions of liberty. So what sense does it make to suggest, as Obama does, that "balancing" liberty with safety from terrorism -- which kills far fewer than 3,000 Americans annually -- compels those same invasive methods to be granted, in secret, as long as terrorists are plotting?

That only makes sense if the policy is aimed at lessening not just at wrongful deaths, but also exaggerated fears and emotions**. Hence my refusal to go along. Do you know what scares me more than terrorism? A polity that reacts to fear by ceding more autonomy and power to its secret police.

__

* Said Ronald Bailey in a piece published in September of 2011, "a rough calculation suggests that in the last five years, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about one in 20 million. This compares annual risk of dying in a car accident of 1 in 19,000; drowning in a bathtub at 1 in 800,000; dying in a building fire at 1 in 99,000; or being struck by lightning at 1 in 5,500,000. In other words, in the last five years you were four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist."

** Everything in this article would be just as true if I published it and you read it the day after the Boston bombing -- but it sure would feel less true, wouldn't it? That's why, if there's a terrorist attack today or tomorrow, it would be foolish for us to react based on our feeling at that moment.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3091 3092 3093 3094 3095 3096 3097 3098 3099 3100 Next > End >>

Page 3100 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN