Friday, December 15, 2006

Some Guantanamo detainees freed elsewhere

By ANDREW O. SELSKY, Associated Press Writer Dec. 15, 2006

The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained,
vicious killers on the face of the earth," sweeping them up after
Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in
southeastern Cuba.

Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo
Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."

And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe
and South Asia to release the former Guantanamo detainees raise
questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United
States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have
set terrorists and militants free.

The United States does not systematically track what happens to
detainees once they leave Guantanamo, the U.S. State Department says.
Defense lawyers and human rights groups say they know of no
centralized database, although one group is attempting to compile one.

When the Pentagon announces a detainee has been moved from
Guantanamo, it gives his nationality but not his name, making it
difficult to track the roughly 360 men released since the detention
center opened in January 2002. The Pentagon says detainees have been
sent to 26 countries.

But through interviews with justice and police officials, detainees
and their families, and using reports from human rights groups and
local media, The Associated Press was able to track 245 of those
formerly held at Guantanamo. The investigation, which spanned 17
countries, found:

_Once the detainees arrived in other countries, 205 of the 245 were
either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related
to their detention at Guantanamo. Forty either stand charged with
crimes or continue to be detained.

_Only a tiny fraction of transferred detainees have been put on
trial. The AP identified 14 trials, in which eight men were acquitted
and six are awaiting verdicts. Two of the cases involving acquittals
— one in Kuwait, one in Spain — initially resulted in convictions
that were overturned on appeal.

_The Afghan government has freed every one of the more than 83
Afghans sent home. Lawmaker Sibghatullah Mujaddedi, the head of
Afghanistan's reconciliation commission, said many were innocent and
wound up at Guantanamo because of tribal or personal rivalries.

_At least 67 of 70 repatriated Pakistanis are free after spending a
year in Adiala Jail. A senior Pakistani Interior Ministry official
said investigators determined that most had been "sold" for bounties
to U.S. forces by Afghan warlords who invented links between the men
and al-Qaida. "We consider them innocent," said the official, who
declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue.

_All 29 detainees who were repatriated to Britain, Spain, Germany,
Russia, Australia, Turkey, Denmark, Bahrain and the Maldives were
freed, some within hours after being sent home for "continued
detention."

Some former detainees say they never intended to harm the United
States and are bitter.

"I can't wash the three long years of pain, trouble and humiliation
from my memory," said Badarzaman Badar, an Afghan who was freed in
Pakistan. "It is like a cancer in my mind that makes me disturbed
every time I think of those terrible days."

Overall, about 165 Guantanamo detainees have been transferred from
Guantanamo for "continued detention," while about 200 were designated
for immediate release. Some 420 detainees remain at the U.S. base in
Cuba.

Clive Stafford Smith, a British-American attorney representing
several detainees, said the AP's findings indicate that innocent men
were jailed and that the term "continued detention" is part of "a
politically motivated farce."

"The Bush Administration wants to be able to say that these are
dangerous terrorists who are going to be confined upon their release
... although there is no evidence against many of them," he said.

When four Britons were sent home from Guantanamo in January 2005,
Britain said it would detain and investigate them — then released
them after only 18 hours. Five Britons repatriated earlier were also
rapidly released with no charges.

Murat Kurnaz, a German-born Turkish citizen, was also quickly freed
when he was flown to Germany in August, bound hand and foot, after
more than four years at Guantanamo.

U.S. officials maintained he was a member of al-Qaida, based on what
they said was secret evidence. But his New Jersey-based lawyer, Baher
Azmy, said he was shown the classified evidence and was shocked to
find how unpersuasive it was.

"It contains five or six statements exonerating him," Azmy said.

In October German prosecutors said they found no evidence that Kurnaz
had links to Islamic radicals in Pakistan or Afghanistan and formally
dropped their investigation.

The United States insists that the fact that so many of the former
detainees have been freed by other countries doesn't mean they
weren't dangerous.

"They were part of Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces that are
engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition
partners," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

But Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, a lawyer representing several detainees,
says the fact that hundreds of men have been released into freedom
belies their characterization by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
as "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the
face of the earth."

"After all, it would simply be incredible to suggest that the United
States has voluntarily released such 'vicious killers' or that such
men had been miraculously reformed at Guantanamo," Colangelo-Bryan
said.

Mohammed Aman, a 49-year-old Afghan who describes himself as a former
low-level member of the Taliban, said he initially wasn't worried
when U.S. troops detained him.

"I was relaxed because I was innocent," he said. "I was sure I would
be freed. I was always thinking that today or tomorrow I will be
free."

He spent three years at Guantanamo until he was finally put on a
plane at the base, blindfolded and with headphones covering his ears.
When he made it back to his home in Malaik Khail, Afghanistan,
villagers streamed out to greet him, many weeping.

Detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay because a military panel
classifies them as an "enemy combatant," which refers not only to
armed fighters but to anyone who aids enemy forces. Every year, each
gets a hearing to determine whether he remains a security threat to
the United States or has intelligence value.

Using those hearings as guidance, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon
England decides whether to keep the detainee at Guantanamo, release
him, or send him to another country for detention.

This year, through Nov. 20, he had ruled on 149 prisoners. He decided
that 106 should be held, 43 should be transferred to custody of other
countries and none should be released outright.

Azmy, the New Jersey lawyer, said the distinction between release and
transfer is largely a fiction because recipient countries are under
no obligation to imprison the returnees. The United States doesn't
even ask them to.

A senior U.S. State Department official acknowledged that "We do not
ask countries to detain them on our behalf, so when a decision is
made by a country to move forward with an investigation for
prosecution, that is something they have decided to do pursuant to
their own domestic law."

Requesting anonymity because she is not authorized to speak on the
record, she said about 15 former detainees returned to the
battlefield after being freed. The Pentagon was unable to provide
details.

"That's the risk that goes along with transferring people out of
Guantanamo," she said. "It's not foolproof."

Some former detainees still face the justice systems of Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and France.

Six Kuwaitis returned from Guantanamo stood trial on terror-related
charges. Five were acquitted, and on Dec. 5 an appeals court
overturned the conviction of the sixth, Nasser al-Mutairi.

In France, the trial of six transferred Guantanamo detainees has
focused as much on the U.S. prison camp as on their prosecution on
charges of "criminal association with a terrorist enterprise."

Prosecutor Sonya Djemni-Wagner has requested light sentences, saying
she took into account the defendants' "arbitrary detention ... at a
facility outside all legal frameworks."

She is seeking one year in prison plus suspended sentences for five
suspects and no sentence for the sixth, all of whom are currently
free.

Their time already served behind bars in France should be counted
toward their sentences, she said, meaning that even if convicted,
none would be locked up.

___

Andrew Selsky oversees AP's coverage of Guantanamo Bay from his base
in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and periodically visits there. Among AP
correspondents who contributed to this story are Jason Straziuso in
Kabul, Afghanistan; Munir Ahmad in Islamabad, Pakistan; Riaz Khan in
Peshawar, Pakistan; Angela Doland in Paris and Diana Elias in Kuwait
City. The AP's News Research Center in New York also contributed.

PETA objects to felons processing poultry

I would recommend that list members who are active in the animal rights struggle contact PETA and object to their vilification of prisoners. I spoke with their media rep and pointed out the bigger issue is prisoners being used for unsafe work at slave wages. He tried equating jail work release prisoners with serial killers.

Paul Wright, Editor

Prison Legal News

972 Putney Rd. # 251

Brattleboro, VT 05301

802-257-1342

pwright@prisonlegalnews.org

www.prisonlegalnews.og

Seattle Office:

Prison Legal News

2400 NW 80th St. # 148

Seattle, WA 98117

206-246-1022

http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=9308

PlantsTypically Steeped in Animal AbuseWrong Place for Violent Criminals, Says Group

For Immediate Release:
December 7, 2006

Contact:
Matt Prescott 757-622-7382

Stillmore, Ga. This morning, PETA sent an urgent letter to Macon Diversion Center Superintendent William Powell urging him to halt a program that busses convicted felons to the Crider Poultry slaughterhouse in Stillmore. PETA points out that chicken slaughterhouses are notorious for animal abuse and that staffing the plant with violent criminals is begging for violations of Georgia's cruelty-to-animals laws.

Recent PETA investigations have documented widespread cruelty to animals in poultry slaughterhouseseven by normal work forcesincluding the following:

· Workers at a Pilgrim's Pride plant in Moorefield, W.Va., tore live birds' heads off, spit tobacco into their eyes, and spray-painted their faces.

· Workers at a Tyson slaughterhouse in Heflin, Ala., ripped the heads off live birds and let live birds drown in tanks of scalding-hot water.

· Workers at a Butterball slaughterhouse in Ozark, Ark., stomped on live birds, sat on them, and used them as punching bags, and one worker even sexually assaulted a bird.

Many violent felons have histories of abusing animals, and 19 states prohibit some convicted felons from possessing animals. In PETA's letterwhich was also sent to Emanuel County Sheriff J. Tyson Stephens, District Attorney Steve Askew, and Georgia Department of Agriculture Commissioner Tommy Irvinthe group recommends that, at the very least, law enforcement authorities should conduct unannounced inspections at the plant.

"Placing animals in the care of convicts with violent histories is like putting children in the care of child molesters," says PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich. "When you mix violent criminals with horrible working conditions and hundreds of thousands of animals, it is a foregone conclusion that Georgia's laws against cruelty to animals are going to be violated. Mr. Powell needs to do the right thing and stop this program."

PETA's letter is available upon request. For more information, please visit PETA's Web sites ButterballCruelty.com, TorturedByTyson.com, and www.peta.org/feat/moorefield/ .

HOLIDAY EBAY AUCTION FOR OUR PRISONERS!

In prisons across the country, sit brave men and women who have been jailed to silence thier cries for our earth and for the animals that are being pillaged and destroyed even as I write this.
To support a prisoner this holiday season, consider sending a donation to our holiday ebay auction. Our first ebay auction yielded an outpouring of donations and kindness from people the world over including five compassionate companies who sent product donations and an astonishing amount of funds were raised, nearing 1400 dollars which was sent to the SHAC and Peter Young support funds.
Through January 1st, we will be collecting donations to place on ebay to raise funds for support groups across the country for our prisoners of this war. Already, in our local community, donations of clothing, dvds, collectors items and money have come in- in a show of support for our comrades.
Items that can be sold on ebay include:
collectors items
electronics
dvds
clothes (including animal rights attire)
books
records
musical equipment
old cell phones
etc.
If you have an item that you are not sure of or just need an address to ship your donations to, then please contact Dezeray at heatrbangin@yahoo.com
Happy Holidays!

Letters to the Judge for Daniel reminder


Hello,
We wanted to send out a reminder about getting those letters in to Daniel's lawyers in the next couple of weeks. While the deadline may seem far off, these things are best done sooner rather than later. A letter to the Judge concerning Daniel's potential sentence is one of the most important things you can do to help Daniel at this point. Please take some time to send a letter in.
thank you,
Family and Friends of Daniel McGowan

PS-the rally for Daniel on December 7th went really well. Check out photos here here, and here.

Guidelines for Letters to Judge Aiken in Support of Daniel McGowan
Daniel McGowan will be sentenced by Judge Ann Aiken probably sometime early next year. Daniel’s lawyers will submit a detailed memorandum prior to sentencing, along with letters from family members, friends, colleagues, and other supporters. Please refer to these guidelines if you are writing a letter to Judge Aiken on Daniel’s behalf. Send it to his lawyers at the address below.

Examples of Things to Write About – Choose Only What is Right for You
  • How you met Daniel and how you know him (through school, work, mutual friends, prisoner support work, etc.); how long you have known Daniel.
  • What you know about Daniel’s character, his reputation in the community; personal experiences you have had with him that illustrate important aspects of his character.
  • What you know about Daniel’s relationship with his family, his wife, and his close friends – the people who will be his personal support when he is in prison and when he is released. Describe for the judge how these people will assist him through these difficult times.
  • How you personally will be able to help Daniel get back to a normal life when he is released from prison, whether it is through helping him to pursue his education, remain employed, or establish a home.
  • Examples, from your personal knowledge, of what Daniel has done in his life to help others, whether it is through activist work, charitable work, work for non-profit organizations, or personally helping you or someone you know with something. Specific examples of Daniel’s contributions to charitable, community, and non-profit organizations are helpful.
  • Examples, from your personal knowledge, of how Daniel demonstrates what he believes in, whether it is by arranging Really, Really Free Markets, collecting electronic gear to recycle, or volunteering for causes he supports.
  • The Judge may consider whether Daniel is likely to commit another crime. If you have specific reasons to share with the Judge to demonstrate why you believe that Daniel is unlikely to commit another crime, please explain those in your letter.
  • The Judge may consider whether Daniel has shown that, after the crimes were committed, his conduct demonstrated rehabilitation. If you have specific examples of his conduct, between July of 2001 and December 2005 that you feel the Judge should know about that show Daniel has engaged in significant rehabilitation from the time he committed the crimes, please explain those in your letter.
  • The Judge may consider whether to sentence Daniel as a “terrorist” under certain provisions of federal law and sentencing guidelines. While this is largely a technical legal issue that the lawyers will write about, you may wish to write to the Judge about how Daniel’s case compares to other crimes and incidents that you are personally aware of that either have or have not been treated as “terrorist” incidents.
There may be other things you may wish to say to the judge as well. Our suggestions are just that – suggestions. Please make sure you write in a polite, respectful manner to the Judge.

What Not to Write About
Some topics are simply not helpful subjects of discussion in a letter to the Court related to sentencing. We ask that you not justify or rationalize the incidents. We ask that you not compare Daniel to others who have entered pleas and who are also facing sentencing or to those who have not been arrested or are fugitives.

Address Your Letter To:
Judge Ann Aiken
U.S. District Court
Eugene, Oregon

MAIL YOUR LETTER TO:

Andrea Crabtree
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender
810 Third Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104

Please, do NOT mail your letter to Judge Aiken. After you have signed the letter, MAIL IT TO THE LAWYERS' office. They will deliver all of the correspondence to the Judge at one time, along with other sentencing materials. DEADLINE: Please get letters to the lawyers no later than January 30, 2007.

Questions? Call or e-mail Amanda Lee at (206) 622-8000 or lee@sgb-law.com

-----
Daniel is an environmental and social justice activist. He was charged in federal court on many counts of arson, property destruction and conspiracy, all relating to two incidents in Oregon in 2001. Until recently, Daniel was offered two choices by the government: cooperate by informing on other people, or go to trial and face life in prison. His only real option was to plead not guilty until he could reach a resolution of the case that permitted him to honor his principles. Now, as a result of months of litigation and negotiation, Daniel was able to admit to his role in these two incidents, while not implicating or identifying any other people who might have been involved. The government will seek a sentence of eight years, while Daniel's lawyers will seek a sentence of no more than 63 months.

http://www.supportdaniel.org
POB 106, NY, NY 10156

Sentencing dates set for "eco-sabotage" defendants

Civil Rights Outreach Committee

For Immediate Release: December 14, 2006
Contact: Lauren Regan, Civil Liberties Defense Center, Eugene, OR, 541-687-9180

Sentencing Dates Set for “Eco-Sabotage” Defendants

Government will Seek Terrorism Enhancement

Today, in the federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, Judge Ann Aiken set sentencing dates for ten individuals who earlier this year pled guilty to charges stemming from the FBI’s “Operation Backfire” prosecutions.
The 2007 dates are: Stanislas Meyerhoff, April 10; Kevin Tubbs, April 17; Chelsea Gerlach, April 18; Darren Thurston, April 19; Suzanne Savoie and Kendall Tankersley, April 20; Nathan Block and Joyanna Zacher, April 25; Daniel McGowan, April 26; and Jonathan Paul, April 30.
Despite the fact than none of the defendants in the case were ever charged with the crime of terrorism, federal prosecutors have announced that they will seek terrorism sentence enhancements of up to 20 years at the time of sentencing for all the defendants, despite the fact that they pled guilty to crimes of property damage. (It has never been alleged that any defendant injured another human or animal as a result of their politically motivated acts of sabotage.) A discussion of the overarching issues regarding the constitutionality of the proposed terrorism enhancement, as it applies to all defendants, will tentatively take place during Meyerhoff’s hearing. Other sentencing hearings may be pushed back as a result. An additional status hearing was set on March 2 to check-in with the court and parties to determine if the dates set will still be viable.
Beyond additional time in federal prison, any terrorism enhancement would have potentially Draconian consequences for defendants upon release. Such a finding by the courts may prohibit them from being able to travel outside the U.S., open a bank account, or otherwise successfully reintegrate into society.
“The sentencing provision at issue, entitled ‘Acts of Terrorism Transcending National Boundaries,’ simply does not apply to the facts of this case and is a blatant attempt by the government to label citizens as terrorists for political gain and to manipulate and exploit Americans’ concerns after 9/11 – which was a true act of terrorism,” stated Lauren Regan, executive director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center. “In a case where only property damage occurs, and where citizens took illegal action to stop environmental destruction and animal suffering within the U.S., this federal law was not meant to apply and is unconstitutionally applied to these defendants.”
Copies of a press packet with a synopsis of the prosecution, related articles, background information, historical examples of sabotage in the U.S., and a history of FBI repression of political activism, are available upon request.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Army Targets Truthout for Subpoenas in Watada Case


By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 13 December 2006

In a case that cuts right to the heart of the First Amendment, a US Army prosecutor has indicated he intends to subpoena Truthout Executive Director Marc Ash, a Truthout reporter, and two of the nonprofit news organization's regular contributors, to authenticate news reports they produced and edited earlier this year that quoted an Army officer criticizing President Bush and the White House's rationale for the Iraq War.

Captain Dan Kuecker, the Fort Lewis, Washington-based Army prosecutor, has stated his intent to compel Ash, Truthout reporter Sari Gelzer, and contributors Dahr Jamail and Sarah Olson to testify at the court-martial of First Lieutenant Ehren Watada. Kuecker is actively seeking the journalists' testimony so he can prove that Watada engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer, directly related to disparaging statements the Army claims Watada made about the legality of the Iraq War during interviews with Truthout and his hometown newspaper, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in June.

At a hearing earlier this year, a military court determined there was sufficient evidence to charge Watada with intentionally missing his deployment, contemptuous speech toward officials, and conduct unbecoming an officer, and proceed with a general court-martial. In September, those charges were amended to include an additional count of conduct unbecoming an officer. The contempt charges were dropped in November. Watada faces a maximum six-year prison sentence if he is convicted. The trial is expected to begin in February.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who for years has been arguing in favor of a shield law to protect journalists from testifying against their sources, said what's distressing about the Watada case is that the government is trying to use a reporter to build its case.

"The last thing a reporter wants to be identified as is an investigative arm of the government." Dalglish said.

In his aggressive attempt to haul members of Truthout's editorial staff into court, Kuecker bypassed corresponding with the organization's attorney and sent Ash a series of emails - one of which was sent late Sunday evening, December 10 - insisting that Ash provide him with information about the reporters so Kuecker can prepare his case against Watada.

"This information is required as a part of an ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution," Kuecker wrote in that December 10 email to Ash. "Please respond as soon as possible."

Ash said he repeatedly referred Kuecker to Truthout attorney Bill Simpich. Ash said in an interview that he is determined to resist any attempt by the US Army to compel him to testify against Watada or to provide the Army with any physical evidence it may seek.

"We view this action as retaliatory, both toward Lieutenant Watada and toward our organization that reported his courageous stand," Ash said. "Since the day the US invaded Iraq, Truthout has tried to educate the American people about the true reasons for the military action and, more importantly, not only the suffering of the Iraqi people, but the painful and often unnecessary sacrifices of America's servicemen and women. Opposing the United States Army, even in a courtroom, is a daunting prospect. However, we will not shrink from the task."

In general, military courts are not bound by the same procedures as federal prosecutors in seeking journalists' materials, and therefore do not have to obtain approval from the US attorney general before subpoenaing journalists. A US attorney in a US district court could prosecute civilian witnesses who fail to respond to a military subpoena without a valid reason.

It is likely that Kuecker wants Gelzer to discuss a short news report she filmed over the summer. In that report, Watada, at the Veterans for Peace annual conference, said the Iraq War was based on lies and remarked that US soldiers could refuse to fight. According to Bill Simpich, Truthout's attorney, the military is clearly interested in having Gelzer confirm the authenticity of the film and the statements Watada made that were caught on tape.

Watada was a member of the Army's First Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Lewis when, on June 22, he became the first commissioned officer to refuse assignment with the unit to Iraq. He has since been reassigned to an administrative position.

Redacted documents outlining the charges against Watada cite reports by Olson and by the Star- Bulletin's Gregg Kakesako, in which Watada was quoted as saying that President Bush lied about the reasons the US went to war in Iraq.

"As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of wearing the uniform," Watada said in an interview by Olson that was published on Truthout June 7.

Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, contends his client's comments are protected free speech, and he was shocked that Watada was charged with anything other than missing a troop movement.

It's widely understood that the military can limit the speech of its officers. The question is did Lieutenant Watada exceed the realm of permissible speech? That's what the court-martial intends to answer.

Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, told Democracy Now! on Monday that she has been actively lobbying members of Congress to support her effort to get the Army to drop the charges against her son and allow him to resign.

"I have gone through the halls of Congress; I was told in some places that I should be confident that the military will mete out justice and that the Congress should not be interfering with a military court - that there are laws that govern the separation of powers," Ho told Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman. "And we were attempting to explore ways that the Congress could support. It's obvious that our executive branch has not abided by the Constitution, which my son has sworn to uphold, and that oversight needs to occur. And I have asked that the Congress at least consider a sign-on letter that would call for dismissal of the charges and for the military to accept his resignation. But I was told that that was not really something that [Congress] can actually do."

Ho said she recently met with Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, who promised Ho she would try to assist her "on the kinds of strategies we can pursue" to get the Army to drop the charges against Watada.

Waters was unavailable for comment.

The charges filed against Watada marked the first time in 41 years that the military has used the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer to prosecute an officer's public statements. Usually, a conduct-unbecoming case involves more serious crimes, such as rape or sexual harassment, or manslaughter. The last time a military officer was charged with public dissent was in 1965, when Lieutenant Henry Howe criticized US foreign policy during the Vietnam War.

Moreover, the Watada case is significant - and to some degree historic - because it is the first time the Army is actively seeking the testimony of professional journalists to prove one of its own officers violated military law by publicly questioning the rationale for war. Other cases involving the military and the media have, for the most part, involved the military's desire to subpoena unpublished material from reporters.

The lack of legal precedent, however, in this case could make Truthout attorney Bill Simpich's job more difficult, according to several experts in military law.

"There is little (if any) binding precedent for a media lawyer to cite to a military judge in responding to a subpoena in a court- martial," wrote Steven D. Zansberg, Matthew S. Freedus, and Eugene R. Fidell in a fall 2005 article for Communications Lawyer. "Unreported decisions from prior courts-martial exist, however, and provide strong, persuasive authority for recognizing and applying a qualified privilege for the press. At least two military judges at the trial level have recognized and applied a First Amendment-based privilege to shield a journalist's non-confidential but unreported information (video interview outtakes) from compelled production. In both cases, the judges quashed subpoenas issued to television news organizations to produce non-broadcast video footage, on the grounds that the party on whose behalf the subpoenas had been issued had failed to make the showing required to overcome the privilege."

In 2004, Miles Moffeit, a reporter for the Denver Post, was subpoenaed by the defense attorney representing an Air Force officer for notes Moffeit took about an alleged gang rape of an 18-year-old woman at an Air Force base. In January 1999, Rolling Stone magazine and CBS's "60 Minutes" were subpoenaed by military prosecutors, who demanded unpublished and unbroadcast information the news organizations had obtained during interviews with US Marines about an incident in the Italian Alps when a military jet severed a ski- gondola cable, killing 20 people. Both cases involved courts-martial.

At the time, Rolling Stone and "60 Minutes" attacked the constitutionality of the military prosecutor's demand. The news agencies argued that the subpoenas infringed upon the First Amendment's protection of a free press and urged a military court to strike down the subpoenas, because it had demanded materials protected by a qualified privilege under the First Amendment and because disclosure would be "unreasonably oppressive" under court- martial rules. The judge in the case granted "60 Minutes" and Rolling Stone's motion to quash subpoenas. In the Air Force proceeding, the sexual-harassment case was eventually dropped when the victim decided not to proceed with the case. On February 2, 2005, the Air Force's acting judge advocate general, Major General Jack Rives, sent a memorandum to the Air Force JAG Corps, requesting that they first consult with senior attorneys at the headquarters level and enter into negotiations with media organizations before serving reporters with subpoenas.

Rives's memo emphasized the importance of striving for "the proper balance between the public's interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information and the public's interest in effective law enforcement."

The Committee to Protect Journalists reported last week that the number of journalists jailed worldwide has increased for the second year in a row. The committee said the United States had imprisoned two journalists without charge or trial - Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, who now has been incarcerated for eight months in Iraq, and Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj, imprisoned for five years at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Joshua Wolf, a freelance blogger, was jailed for refusing to turn over a video of a 2005 protest to a US federal grand jury.

In the case of Gelzer, the Truthout reporter, Simpich said, it is "wrongheaded and wholly mistaken" for the military to seek her testimony, because it would force Gelzer "to collaborate with the US military and help the government submit into evidence the very videotape that could expose Watada to additional years in prison."

Simpich said if the military wants Gelzer to testify, "they're in for a big fight."

"What they're essentially doing is asking the Fourth Estate to collaborate with the military as a co-partner in terms of prosecutions," Simpich said in an interview. "That turns the Fourth Estate upside down."

Simpich added that it was premature to discuss legal strategy, but if Gelzer is subpoenaed, then "we will file a motion to quash."

Jamail hired his own attorney to represent him in the case. He was unavailable for comment.

David Greene, the attorney defending Olson, the Truthout contributor who wrote several of the Watada stories in question, confirmed that the military has already "indicated an intent to subpoena the reporters and they have put that process in motion."

In an interview, Olson said she is concerned that the Watada case could drastically impact her career as a journalist.

"Being asked to testify on the Army's behalf could limit my job as a journalist," Olson said. "What conscientious objector would be willing to speak to me if they knew I was on the Army's radar? "

Olson said she objects to being used by the Army in such a way that it would help the military to send her source to jail. That could have an enormous impact on the media's ability to report the news.

"I am being forced into a position where I would potentially function as the investigative arm of the military," Olson said. "That is a position that is absolutely antithetical to a free and functioning press. When the press becomes the eyes and ears of the government, then it creates a profound chilling effect for people who may be willing to speak to journalists. The Army's attempt to subpoena journalists in the case of Lieutenant Watada could help to eliminate the voices of dissent, and it sends a message to all members of the military that if you decide to speak about your opposition to the Iraq War we're going to throw the book at you and we're going to do that by using journalists to testify against you."

Lieutenant Joe Piek, a military spokesman who is stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, where Watada is based, would not comment on any aspect of the Watada case, nor would he discuss the reasons the military is trying to secure testimony from the media.

"Our overarching concern is due process," Piek said. "We want to ensure Watada has a fair court martial. That is the primary reason the Army prosecutor will not discuss the case."

Seitz, Watada's attorney, said he is "somewhat perplexed that the Army wants to get involved in this," adding that he is disturbed that the Army is attempting to drag reporters into court to help the military prosecute Watada.




Norman Solomon, a longtime media expert and frequent contributor to Truthout, said the Watada case could set a "chilling" precedent if the Truthout journalists are forced to testify.

"Journalists need to have assurance that they can promise and follow through on confidentiality with sources," Solomon told Free Speech Radio News in July. "If you don't publicly use material, you can't be subpoenaed or dragged into court and forced to testify or have your own notes or tapes utilized as testimony against those you've interviewed. The implication should be clear that if the courts, the military, [and] the government authorities are able to force journalists to turn over their notes or tapes or videos or whatever, then that has not just a chilling effect, but a really freezing effect potentially, on those who have things to say who trust journalists who may provide information not for full disclosure but on background or any other number of reasons that are useful for the public's right to know."

Simpich agreed. He said the Watada case is extraordinary because the military, as a branch of the federal government, is pouncing on the Constitution and using the free press to try to send someone to jail. Moreover, the military is threatening to send the reporters to jail if they are subpoenaed and fail to testify on behalf of the government.

"What I consider beyond idiotic is that the military is now turning to these reporters and saying we want you to help lock this man up and throw away the key," Simpich said. "It's precisely why you should not be calling reporters in civil or criminal proceedings."

Grand jury subpoenas the ACLU


ACLU Challenges Government Attempt to Seize "Secret"
Document (12/13/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

Unprecedented Grand Jury Subpoena Seeks to Confiscate
Document; ACLU Files Motion to Quash in New York Court

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today
announced that it has asked a federal judge to quash a
grand jury subpoena demanding that it turn over to the
FBI "any and all copies" of a December 2005 government
document in its possession.

The ACLU called the subpoena, served on November 20 by
the U.S. Attorney's office in New York, a transparent
attempt to intimidate government critics and suppress
informed criticism and reporting.

"The government's attempt to suppress information
using the grand jury process is truly chilling and is
unprecedented in law and in the ACLU's history," said
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "This
subpoena serves no legitimate investigative purpose
and tramples on fundamental First Amendment rights.
We recognize this maneuver for what it is: a patent
attempt to intimidate and impede the work of human
rights advocates like the ACLU who seek to expose
government wrongdoing."

The three-and-a-half page document, issued in December
2005, is marked "Secret" and apparently is classified.
The ACLU received the document, unsolicited, on
October 23, 2006.

In legal papers, the ACLU said that while release of
the document might be "mildly embarrassing" to the
government, the ACLU's possession of it is legal and
its release could in no way threaten national
security. To the contrary, the ACLU said, the
designation of the generally unremarkable document as
"Secret" "appears to be a striking, yet typical,
example of overclassification."

According to the ACLU's papers, the document concerns
matters of public interest that "relate to issues of
longstanding concern to the ACLU and on which the ACLU
is actively engaged in ongoing public advocacy." Until
the court rules on the release of the document, the
ACLU has agreed not to release it or disclose its
contents.

"No official secrets act has yet been signed into law,
and the grand jury's subpoena power cannot be used to
create one," said ACLU Legal Director Steven R.
Shapiro. "The most significant thing about this case
is not the content of the document but the
government's unprecedented effort to suppress it."

If the government can enforce a subpoena in this way,
Shapiro explained, "it could just as easily have
subpoenaed the Pentagon Papers from The New York Times
and Washington Post. The effect of the subpoena is no
different than a prior restraint and it is equally
unconstitutional."

In the landmark Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme
Court said that the government cannot seek to bar
newspapers from publishing classified documents - an
unconstitutional legal tactic known as prior restraint
- unless the information would cause "direct,
immediate and irreparable harm to our Nation and its
people."

As the ACLU noted in its brief, which was filed under
seal on Monday and unsealed by court order today:
"Many of the most important news articles of the past
year (such as those concerning NSA eavesdropping,
rendition of foreign prisoners of our nation to other
nations, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's views on the
deteriorating situation in Iraq, National Security
Advisor Hadley's assessment of Iraqi Prime Minister
Maliki, and the report on the Iraq insurgency's
funding sources) have been based on classified
documents leaked to reporters, which could not be
prepared and published as they have been were the
government allowed to use subpoenas to confiscate 'any
and all' copies of classified documents it learns are
in the hands of journalists and other public advocates
and critics."

Although the subpoena refers to the Espionage Act, the
ACLU has been told that it is not a target of the
investigation. "The ACLU is not a target for
investigation because we have done nothing wrong,"
said the ACLU's Romero. "It is the government that is
in the wrong when it abuses its power and attempts to
silence its critics."

The case is In re Grand Jury Subpoena Served on the
ACLU, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York before presiding Judge
Jed S. Rakoff. The ACLU is represented by Shapiro of
the ACLU, Charles S. Sims and Emily Stern of Proskauer
Rose LLP and Joshua L. Dratel and Erik B. Levin, of
Joshua L. Dratel, P.C., all of New York.

The ACLU’s Motion to Quash is online at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/27648lgl20061211.html

The grand jury subpoena that was issued to the ACLU is
at:
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/27652lgl20061120.html

Declarations regarding facts in the case were also
filed by ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero at
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/27649lgl20061211.html,
ACLU Senior Corporate Counsel Terence Dougherty at
www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/27651lgl20061211.html
and attorney Joshua Dratel. They are online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/27650lgl20061211.html

killradio benefit


The Central Second Collective
(wwwddmyspaceddcom/thecentralsecond) presents a KILLRADIODDORG
Fundraiser featuring:
The Transmissions
Death to Anders
One Trick Pony
Anchors for Architects
Die Rockers Die
Thurs Jan 18 starting at 8:30p
At The Echo 1822 W. Sunset Blvd.
18 plus
cover is $5
We will have a merch table in the club and will offer t-shirts and
stickers as premiums from KR. Other KR promo items are welcome. We
are also volunteering to help sell Central Second merch for the
bands. A few KR members have volunteered to help and more are
welcome.

Security cameras raise rights worry in NY: report


Wed Dec 13, 6:17 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The security cameras are watching, a New York
rights group warned on Wednesday.

Security cameras have increased fivefold in parts of New York City
and have become so pervasive that they threaten the rights of
privacy, speech and association, the New York Civil Liberties Union,
or NYCLU, said in a report.

Moreover, there was no evidence the cameras deterred crime, the group said.

In 2005 there were 4,176 cameras in three districts of southern
Manhattan, up from 769 cameras in a 1998 survey, the report said.

"Unregulated video surveillance technology has already led to abuses
in New York City, including the police department's creation of
visual dossiers on people engaged in lawful street demonstrations and
the voyeuristic videotaping of individuals' private and intimate
conduct," the group said.

Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A 1998 study conducted by the NYCLU found 2,397 video surveillance
cameras visible from street level in Manhattan. The report said that
same number of cameras can be now found in the neighborhoods of
Greenwich Village and Soho alone.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Ghost of Christmas Future "Takes Aim at Development Billboards"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE12/13/2006

A series of billboards advertising housing developments became targets for an anonymous "Ghost of Christmas Future" armed with paint balls and spray cans this morning.

The mysterious vandal issued the following statement:

To: Those Who Are Destroying Our Mountain Homes
From: The Ghost of Christmas Future, of the Appalachian Mountains

On the morning of December 13, in the holiday spirit of love for home and community, I, the Ghost of Christmas Future, took aim at the property of the developers who are destroying our mountain landscape, and defaced the following billboards.

-- I wrote "Stay Out" and "Yuppies Get Out of Our Mountains" on Reynolds Mountain and The Cliffs billboards on Merrimon Avenue.

-- I hit a billboard advertising a ski lodge on I-240 West, and another development billboard on the Smokey Park Highway with paint balls.

-- I defaced three development "for sale" signs on Tunnel Road in Swannanoa.

-- On Hendersonville Rd., I splattered two billboards with paint (for The Cliffs at Walnut Cove, and for the Ramble in Biltmore Forest that is "Inspired by Nature").

-- The billboard for Firefly Cove on Hendersonville Rd. was enscrawled with "Stop Development".

-- The Cliffs at Walnut Cove billboard on Sweatencreek Rd. near Gerber Rd. was also targeted.

The signs were targeted specifically for what they symbolize; namely, the abject destruction of nature for profit, the eradication of wild creatures and the systematic annihilation of mountain communities.

My deepest holiday wish is that our society will awaken from its stupor of greed and arrogance and begin to recognize the intrinsic value of wild land and creatures, and work toward building a world based on those values.

Warmest wishes to all in the hope that all living beings have a place to call home for the holidays.

For the Earth,

The Ghost of Christmas Future

Photos:

http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/1.jpg3jnry9.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/2.jpgqmc7bz.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/3.jpgyd2foy.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/4.jpg1hhoro.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/5.jpgqccm9n.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/6.jpgjb260d.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/7.jpggvrh2d.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/8.jpgul8383.jpg
http://www.chapelhill.indymedia.org/uploads/9.jpgcm2you.jpg