New York Metro Progressives

Selecting the Next City Council Speaker

2012-01-07T15:07:00.003-05:00

Next to the mayoral election, the most important election in NYC is one in which most voters will be locked out of the process: The selection of City Council Speaker is decided by Council members, not the public, and usually only after deals with the leaders of each borough's Democratic Party.

This is not a democratic process, and it shouldn't be allowed to play out when the next Speaker is selected after next year's municipal elections.

The Speaker of the City Council is the second-most powerful public official in New York City,and is the single individual with the institutional authority to stand up to the mayor, whoever that happens to be. Voters should insist that we have input into the selection of the next Speaker.

According to a recent story in The New York Observer, the early race for Speaker is shaping up as a battle between Council Members Mellissa Mark Viverto and Inez Dickens, who represent neighboring districts in Harlem. One unidentified council member described the differences between the two contenders this way: "It's rabble-rouser, change-the-whole-place left-wing Melissa, and old-school, old world, status quo Inez."

I urge voters and political activists to pose this question to City Council candidates: If you are elected, who will you support to become the next Speaker of the City Council? This decision is too important to be left to five Democratic Party leaders, or even to the 51 members of the City Council. The rest of us have a right to be heard on this momentous decision.

Mayor Dinkins' Silence on Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly

2012-01-07T14:54:00.003-05:00

I recently attended a judicial induction during which two speakers briefly noted the discriminary practices of the New York City Police Department.

Unfortunately, one speaker, former Mayor David N. Dinkins, had nothing to say about the NYPD or about the commissioner he empowered, Raymond W. Kelly. As the mayor who first appointed Kelly to head the NYPD, Dinkins is in a unique position to call Kelly to task for his department's systemic violations of civil liberties in New York City under Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Dinkins' continuing public silence about Commissioner Kelly's transgressions is troubling, to say the least.

Racist Facebook Rants by NYPD Officers

2011-12-07T06:58:00.005-05:00

"I say have the parade one more year and when they gather drop a bomb and wipe them all out." - NYC Police Officer Dan Rodney, who confirmed to The New York Times that he is a police officer and uses Facebook but denied posting the comment on Facebook under his name. His explanation: "That wasn't me. I leave my phone around sometimes. Other than that I have no comment."

"'Let them kill each... other,' wrote one of the Facebook members who posted comments under a name that matched that of a police officer."

In a front-page story on 12/6/11, The New York Times reported on the racist rants in September of a Facebook group entitled "No More West Indian Day Detail." The Times did a comparison of the names "of some of the more than 150 people who posted comments on the page with city employee listings and found that more than 60 percent matched the names of police officers..." This Facebook group, which had 1,200 members, was exposed by defense attorneys who now check to see if arresting officers are on Facebook, has since vanished.

The Times notes that some of the posted comments "appeared to have broken Police Department rules barring officers from 'discourteous or disrepectful remarks' about race or ethnicity." The chief spokesperson for the NYPD did not deny that the names posted in the Facebook group were police officers and said he would refer the issue to Internal Affairs.

Police may insist that the Facebook rants on "No More West Indian Day Detail" are not representative of the thinking of most officers. But the racist public posts by this group are a shocking revelation, with names attached, of the attitudes of too many.

Scott

17 Years Ago in the Bronx

2011-08-14T07:44:00.002-04:00

Delgado v. City of New York, 14684/95
Appellate Division, First Department
Decided: July 28, 2011

The facts of this case are shocking.

Seventeen years ago, twelve NYC Housing Authority police officers terrorized the sleeping Delgado family in the Bronx, when officers crashed through the family's apartment door in the middle of the night, held guns to the head of the two oldest boys, slashed furniture, destroyed property, and threatened to place the youngest children in foster care if they found what they were looking for - drugs or weapons.

After searching for about three hours, the police found nothing and left.

On July 28, 2011, a New York appellate court agreed with a lower court's determination that the police lacked probable cause to search the family's apartment in the first place, because officers made no effort to corroborate an informant's information or to verify the reliability of the informant, who had been arrested for possession of crack cocaine.

The appellate court also noted that the police search did not constitute an emergency situation "given that six days elapsed between issuance and execution" of the search warrant.

The Appellate Division, First Department, dismissed the family's civil rights claim against the Housing Authority but allowed a lawsuit to proceed against the police captain who had approved the application for the warrant as well as the officer who had arrested the informant but failed to corroborate the informant's information.

It remains to be seen whether the Delgado family will ever receive any form of justice for the trauma which they collectively experienced seventeen years ago at the hands of the Housing Authority police.

Scott

My Tiny Protest

2011-05-29T01:10:00.001-04:00

About two months ago, I attended an event at which the New York City Council presented Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly with the Thomas Manton Irish Man of the Year Award.

I stood near the front of the room and held up Leonard Levitt's book, "Power and Corruption in the Country's Greatest Police Force: NYPD Confidential." The Police Commissioner noticed, as did Council Speaker Christine Quinn and others in the room.

Eventually, someone, presumably an employee of the City Council, directed me to remove the book on the basis that I was being rude and disrespectful.

While I did lower the book, I nonetheless kept displaying it.

Compared to the protests taking place around the world in which people are risking their lives to stand up to dictators, my protest against the NYPD Commissioner was pretty tame. I didn't say anything. I didn't bring anyone with me or verbally disrupt the proceeding. All I did was hold up a book so others could see it, and in so doing, silently communicate my displeasure with the Council's guest of honor.

In a free country, citizens are supposed to have the right to criticize their government officials. This is a fundamental right which is enshrined in our First Amendment.

The New York City Council should respect freedom of speech and the right of citizens to criticize government officials.

Sparing a Political Boss

2011-05-19T22:23:00.007-04:00

I'm not in the habit of agreeing with editorials in The New York Post. But The Post was right today to condemn the light sentence which was given to Raymond Harding, former chairman of the defunct Liberal Party, for fraud involving the state's pension fund.

Harding received no jail sentence or fine -- and was permitted to keep $800,000 which he pocketed in fees for serving as a sham intermediary between the pension fund and investment firms.

This was an inappropriate sentence for the political boss whose machinations were crucial to the election of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Harding tricked voters into voting for a political party which was neither liberal nor a real party, but instead was a patronage operation for his sons and friends.

It will be interesting to see if our senior elected officials and political prognosticators have anything to say about this sentence. I'm not holding my breath.

Shared Sacrifice

2011-03-13T21:19:00.001-04:00

Politicians keep demanding "shared sacrifice" from public sector employees, although in reality the pain of layoffs and wage and benefit reductions is seldom shared.

Last week, I attended an event featuring Howard Wolfson, a NYC deputy mayor who in the private sector functioned as an attack dog for political candidates who preferred not to attack opponents directly (campaign examples: Bloomberg v Thompson and Clinton v Tasini).

When I asked Wolfson what sacrifices he was making, he repeated the Bloomberg line that wealthy people would leave NYC if taxes were increased on them.

Only after I repeated my question about Wolfson's own sacrifices did he respond directly by claiming that he made more money when he worked in the private sector. While undoubtedly this is true, it also is likely that our billionaire mayor will reward Wolfson for his relatively brief service in city government.

So again I pose the question, which should be asked of all politicians who oppose targeted tax increases but advocate solving budget problems through benefit reductions for employees and the public: Where is the shared sacrifice?

Wolfson other deputy mayors and commissioners should take substantial salary cuts before asking the rest of us for "shared sacrifice."

Scott

NYPD Internal Affairs

2010-12-05T22:25:00.003-05:00

The Village Voice cover story about corruption and incompetence within the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau ("Dirty Little Secrets in NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau," December 1 - December 7, 2010) is outrageous on its face. The Voice story details a pattern in which Internal Affairs breaches confidentiality rules, drags out and buries investigations, provides little transparency and is arbitrary and capricious in its decisions.

Here is the link to the Voice story: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-12-01/news/internal-injustice-in-nypd-s-internal-affairs-bureau/

As shocking as this story is, I'm equally disturbed by the silence of most elected officials in NYC to say anything publicly about this issue, or about the five cover stories in The Voice which exposed systemic abuse and civil liberties violations by the NYPD. In response to my questions, many elected officials tell me that they don't read The Voice and don't follow this issue closely.

Public officials have a civic responsibility to educate themselves about police misconduct - and to hold Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly accountable for civil liberties violations by his department.

Scott

Congressman Rangel

2010-11-21T15:05:00.003-05:00

The New York County Democratic Committee emailed party members to attend a Community Press Conference in support of Congressman Charles B. Rangel. County Leader Keith L.T. Wright wrote: “We want to let everyone know that we love our Congressman, that we have his back and that we want the Democrats to vote no to censure.”

The County Committee added: "Earlier this week, the House Ethics Committee found Rangel guilty of sloppy and careless mistakes, but not corruption, in the handling of his personal finances and support of a public service program at City College for minority students. The full House is expected to vote after the Thanksgiving break whether he should be censured for his errors."

I applaud Congressman Rangel's service to our country and his progressive leadership in the House of Representatives. But I must distinguish his positive contributions from his recent Ethics Committee conviction. At the very last minute, just as the hearing was to begin, Rangel chose to walk out (effectively waiving a defense), claiming that he couldn't afford legal representation - even though he was advised to set up a legal defense fund way back in 2008.

Charles Rangel's behavior is symbolic of the personal entitlement which typifies too many politicians once they forget that public service is one of the highest callings there is. Failure to pay income taxes on rental income and accepting four rent-stabilized apartments are not mere "sloppy and careless mistakes," as characterized by New York County Democrats. Rangel's conviction is a serious transgression which deserves punishment, regardless of the congressman's record and accomplishments in the House of Representatives.

Attending the "Community Press Conference" would send a message that ethics violations don't matter. I want no part of that message, so I didn't go.

Scott

NYC Charter Questions

2010-10-30T21:38:00.001-04:00

NYC voters should vote YES on the Charter Revision Commission's two charter questions, even if they are somewhat flawed.

Question 1 undoes the cynical term limits vote of the NYC Council which by legislative fiat wiped away two voter referenda on term limits.

Reasonable arguments can be made that a term limit of three terms is preferable to two; and that legislators should be subjected to longer term limits than executives, in order to strengthen the city council against all-powerful mayors.

Nonetheless, it is a conflict of interest for elected officials to decide the length of their own terms in office. Question 1 would restore the term limits law to what it was before the mayor and city council speaker put self-interest above the fundamental right of voters to decide this issue.

Question 2 is a muddled collection of unrelated items. On balance, though, the proposal is an improvement over the status quo.

Among other things, this proposal would reduce the number of petition signatures required for political candidates to appear on ballots, thereby weakening the Incumbent Protection Plan which is built into all elections.

In addition, Question 2 would amend the Charter to require individuals and entities to disclose expenditures designed to influence elections and referenda. Voters have the right to know about attempts to influence elections -- including secret expenditures aimed at buying party ballot lines.

I urge YES votes on both NYC charter questions.

Scott

Jon Stewart's "Million Moderate March"

2010-09-19T16:50:00.003-04:00

Jon Stewart has announced plans to organize a "Rally to Restore Sanity" in Washington, DC on October 30 - a rally which he also has called a "Million Moderate March."

Here is my response to the Daily Show's Facebook's posting:

- Scott

I like the Daily Show, but I must take issue with the whole idea of a Million Moderate March.

President Obama's problems stem from his efforts to be everything to everyone - instead of appealing to the progressives who once were his base.

Jon Stewart is fundamentally wrong when he compares, and equates, attacks from the right with those from the left - and cites as an example of unjustified attacks from the left those who accused President Bush of being a war criminal.

The Center for Constitutional Rights outlined a strong legal case for impeachment:
http://ccrjustice.org/files/impeach_06.03.06_AlterNet.pdf

The Bush administration was not held accountable for its assault on civil liberties through its use of extraordinary rendition, torture and the establishment of secret prisons beyond the reach of American law or international treaties.

Congress and the Obama administration made calculated political decisions not to investigate transgressions by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Conservative Republicans do not have a monopoly on anger.

Progressives have a legitimate right to be angry with Presidents Bush and Obama - and with Democrats who refuse to pursue a real progressive agenda in the interest of achieving a futile bipartisan coalition.

A "moderate" vision is not the answer to our nation's ills. Progressives should not concede the fight to change this country - even if too many Democrats join Republicans in deciding that a progressive agenda is off the table.

Thank You, Governor Paterson

2010-07-18T00:32:00.007-04:00

The Stop and Frisk Bill, which Governor David Paterson signed into law on July 16, 2010, does not curb the abusive practice in which more than half a million innocent New Yorkers, predominantly African Americans and Latinos, are stopped, questioned and frisked each year -- but not charged with a crime or even a violation.

But the bill is an important first step. This bill, which significantly applies only to stops in New York City, prohibits the NYPD from retaining personal information on people who are stopped-and-frisked but not criminally charged. This is a victory for the privacy rights of innocent people.

The symbolism of the bill signing ceremony cannot go unmentioned: Thanks to the hard work of the bill's sponsors, State Sen. Eric Adams and Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, elected officials from New York City stood with the governor to champion a bill which was bitterly opposed by both the mayor and police commissioner. In so doing, the state legislature performed an important check on Mayor Bloomberg's administration -- something which the New York City Council, under the leadership of Speaker Christine Quinn, has largely refused to do.

In exercising this limited control over the NYPD, the legislature's New York City delegation sends a subtle message to those police officers who live outside NYC but sometimes act as if they own our streets and neighborhoods, reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani's infamous Street Crimes Unit: This is our city. You work for us.

Maybe it is time for the NYPD to revisit the concept of community policing, in which police officers work with community leaders and residents -- a policing technique which Raymond Kelly favored until Rudy Giuliani declined to reappoint him to be his police commissioner after David Dinkins stepped down.

It is ironic indeed that Raymond Kelly has chose to embrace the police practices -- "broken windows" and "quality of life" -- of the very mayor who declined to retain him.

Scott

40 Years Later

2010-07-17T14:38:00.007-04:00

Leonard Levitt's take on the ongoing corruption scandal at the NYPD, involving a deliberate downgrading of felonies to misdemeanors, clearing of streets through false arrests and preventative detention, intimidation of crime victims, and the forced hospitalization in a psych ward of police whistle-blower Adrian Schoolcraft, is, in a word, stunning.

The famed police reporter compares the latest scandal to one of forty years ago, when no one initially believed Frank Serpico but eventually a full-blown corruption scandal emerged.

Leavitt notes that police union presidents publicly complained about the practice of downgrading crimes in 2005. But when the chairman of the mayor's corruption commission sought records to investigate the allegations, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly refused to provide them, Mayor Michael Bloomberg remained silent... and the commission chairman resigned.

End of story?

Please read Leonard Levitt's column: http://nypdconfidential.com/columns/2010/100712.html

And please urge our public officials to demand the appointment of an independent commission, with subpoena power and public hearings, to investigate the latest corruption allegations against the NYPD.

The NYPD couldn't be trusted to investigate itself 40 years ago. And it can't be trusted with this responsibility now.

Scott

Now, It's Up to the Governor

2010-07-06T12:51:00.007-04:00

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly refuse to relinquish "broken windows"/"quality of life" police enforcement, a legacy of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the Manhattan Institute (the conservative think tank whose ideas he promoted)

Thanks in large part to the leadership of State Sen. Eric Adams of Brooklyn, the State Legislature has passed a bill to curb one abusive component of broken windows policing -- permanent data retention on people who are stopped and frisked, but not arrested or fined.

In a free society, surely innocent people have the right to keep personal information out of a permanent police data base.

Now, it's up to Gov. David Paterson (who in the past has been sensitive to civil liberties issues), to do the right thing and sign this bill into law, notwithstanding the complaints of Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly.

As columnist Bob Herbert argues in Monday's New York Times, signing this bill "should be an easy call for the governor."http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/opinion/06herbert.html

Civil liberties must matter in the world's greatest city.

The NYPD Tapes

2010-06-19T18:52:00.004-04:00

Is there no protection for whistle blowers in the NYPD?

In The Village Voice's "NYPD Tapes" series, secret audio recordings by a police officer in Brooklyn's 81st precinct in Bedford-Stuyvesant reveal a disturbing pattern of illegal police conduct:

* Manipulation of crime statistics to artificially lower numbers and categories of crimes;
* Threats against police officers if they don't meet their stop-and-frisk and arrest quotas;
* Intimidation of crime victims through "callbacks" to pressure them to downgrade or drop their complaints;
* Instructions to police officers to clear streets by arresting and detaining people for doing nothing more than standing around on streets in their own neighborhoods;
* Arrests of people for not showing identification outside of their own homes (this sounds like the NYPD version of arrests under Arizona's new immigration law, which even Mayor Bloomberg has denounced);
* Arrests by officers who didn't personally witness criminal activity (notwithstanding their own sworn complaints).

In the fourth installment of "The NYPD Tapes," the whistle blowing cop claims that a deputy chief stepped on his face with a boot, and subsequently dragged him to a psychiatric ward of a Queens hospital, where he was hospitalized and medicated against his will for six days.

The NYPD has had little to say about the accusations by the whistle blowing cop beyond stating that no one at the 81st precinct has been disciplined and claiming that there is an internal inquiry. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has declined to address a letter of complaint from City Council member Albert Vann and other elected officials, community leaders and clergy.

Unfortunately, there is no indication that investigations are underway by the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorneys of the Eastern or
Southern District of New York, or the Brooklyn District Attorney.

The police misconduct in Bed-Stuy is part of a broader pattern of police misconduct in New York City under Commissioner Kelly, which includes illegal arrests during the Republican National Convention in 2004; investigations and political arrests in Staten Island of individuals who did little more than "annoy" local politicians; bogus prostitution arrests of gay men; and hundreds of thousands of marijuana possession arrests each year, predominantly of African Americans and Latinos.

Civil liberties must matter in NYC. There must be accountability for systemic violations of our rights. We should never accept the attitude reflected by the police commissioner's recent statement that million dollar settlements of police misconduct lawsuits are simply the "cost of doing business" (New York Magazine, "Boss Kelly," May 24, 2010).

Surely we can fight crime without making criminals of NYPD officers. And surely things have changed in NYC, and the NYPD, since the days of famed whistle blower Frank Serpico, who coincidentally also worked for several years in the 81st precinct.

Scott

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-15/news/adrian-school-craft-nypd-tapes-whistleblower/

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-06-08/news/nypd-tapes-3-detective-comes-forward-downgrading-rape/

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-11/news/nypd-tapes-part-2-bed-stuy

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-05-04/news/the-nypd-tapes-inside-bed-stuy-s-81st-precinct/

Post-Sentencing Statement: From the Family of Fahad Hashmi

2010-06-15T23:18:00.000-04:00

From the Family of Fahad Hashmi
http://www.muslimsforjustice.org/2010/06/post-sentencing-statement-from-the-family-of-fahad-hashmi/

June 10, 2010

A chapter has closed in our brother Fahad’s ordeal with the United States government. Yesterday’s sentence reflects a harsh imposition of 15 years in prison. The proceedings were a clear indication of the government’s gross exaggeration, distortion of facts, and fear-mongering to serve their purposes. Before he was sentenced, Fahad was allowed to speak, his first public statement since being arrested 4 years ago. In his speech, he expressed his gratitude to all his supporters, Muslim and non-Muslim, for their work on his behalf and commitment to seeking justice, took responsibility for his actions, and questioned the government’s treatment of him and Muslims more broadly.

Fahad’s case reveals the reign of tyranny that the government has imposed on its Muslim population. A vague and fickle material support statute has been used to criminalize Muslims–and particularly the political and religious associations of Muslims. The statute itself is over reaching and compromises the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. It is the subject of criticism by human and civil rights organization and a recent Supreme Court case.

The severe solitary confinement imposed on Fahad is what many experts have defined as one of the worst forms of torture. Such pre-trial isolation is punitive and used to break the human psyche. The (SAMs) Special Administrative Measures Fahad was put under make torture sound like a harmless bureaucratic act. It is in fact an act of malice manifested. Fahad’s solitary confinement was applied under the presumption of innocence, yet this presumption is often discarded when it comes to Muslim defendants. The Muslim population is the victim of due process violations that lead them to the conclusion that there is an apparent and pronounced double standard within the Federal system.

This case–and the organizing around it– have been a watershed moment to shine a light on the larger treatment of the Muslim population. Agent provocateurs besiege our communities to entrap our population; illegal and pervasive surveillance have grown commonplace. The government sows fear about our community as something radical and violent while Muslims in this country are witnesses to some of the most horrendous acts against Muslims at home and abroad. Torture and prisoner abuse at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the MCC in NYC are only examples. The language is clever to define radicalism in very broad terms so any sign of Muslims increasing faith or criticizing the US government is inherently a sign of radicalism. The “see something say something” paradigm fosters this atmosphere of mistrust and hate.

There is clearly a clever and inflammatory campaign on Islam and Muslims and it is having a devastating effect on families and communities across the country. It is necessary for the government to change its stance, and policies regarding treatment of Muslims. As we have shown through this case many Muslims and non-Muslims will not be silenced about these rights abuses and will demand justice, fairness and humane treatment.

STATEMENT OF THE FAMILY OF SYED FAHAD HASHMI

Supreme Court Disses Rendition and Torture Victim

2010-06-15T18:57:00.000-04:00

Source: DemocracyNow.org
Supreme Court: Torture and Rendition Victim Maher Arar Cannot Sue in US Courts

In a major setback for holding US officials accountable for rendition and torture, the Supreme Court has rejected Arar's lawsuit against the US government. Arar was seized at New York's Kennedy Airport in 2002 on a stopover from a vacation abroad. Instead of allowing him to return home to Canada, Arar was sent to his native Syria, where he was tortured and interrogated in a tiny underground cell for nearly a year. Just after the Court's decision was announced, Arar revealed a major new development: Canada's federal law enforcement agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is conducting a criminal investigation into US and Syrian officials for their role in Arar's rendition and torture. We speak to Maher Arar.

Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/15/supreme_court_torture_and_rendition_victim

My, um, “violent radical Islamic leanings”

2010-04-26T22:08:00.005-04:00

My, um, “violent radical Islamic leanings”
by Jim McCabe

It’s official. Chief Judge Loretta Preska of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted a motion by the U.S. Attorney that an “anonymous” jury will be constituted to decide the fate of Fahad Hashmi. Noting a poster calling for 500 supporters to pack the courtroom for the trial at the Federal Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street beginning Wednesday 4/28, the government’s lawyer said “it is likely that the jurors will see in the gallery of the courtroom a significant number of the defendant’s supporters, naturally leading to juror speculation that at least some of these spectators might share the defendant’s violent radical Islamic leanings." Judge Preska apparently agreed.

Let’s look at that comment more closely. “At least some,” eh? Does she mean me—a white, middle-aged Irish American male? No, I’m sure she doesn’t. But what about those other guys? You know the ones—those youngish, dark-skinned guys, the ones with the scruffy beards and “funny” clothes who dress like the defendant? Those are the ones Judge Preska means you have to watch out for—especially the outspoken ones. You know, the ones who don’t agree that the U.S. should be in a perpetual state of occupation and war all over the Islamic world, and who aren’t afraid to say so. But wait, that’s me again, also. Shit, I’m screwed after all.

Fahad was outspoken and that’s why he’s on trial. Or, rather his beliefs are. At this point Fahad has been in jail for four years awaiting trial, three of them under the government’s “special administrative measures” or SAMS. This amounts to a state of “super” solitary confinement with 24 hour surveillance, no fresh air, virtually no contact with the outside world, he’s unable even to speak in his cell. If it hasn’t driven him mad already, it certainly will make it near impossible for him to assist in his own defense. And what is it that he has to defend? That he allowed an acquaintance – now the government’s chief informant / witness – to stay in his apartment for two weeks in 2004 and store ponchos and waterproof socks there, which this informant later delivered to al Qaeda. And that he let this guy use his cell phone. Meanwhile, Fahad himself didn’t do anything. Hard to believe, isn’t it?

And yet Judge Preska at every turn has sided with the government, first in imposing the SAMS which began under Attorney General Michael Mukasey and continue under Eric Holder. And now before the trial has even begun effectively telling the jury that it has reason to be afraid for its safety and needs to be escorted in and out of the courtroom by U.S. marshals. Talk about prejudicial. Talk about turning innocent until proven guilty on its head. Judge Preska is way out of bounds. So are the U.S. Attorney and the Attorney General. Throw the lot of them out and let’s start over, how about this time in accordance with the Constitution.

And who are Fahad’s supporters? The Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International, Noam Chomsky – all those lefties. And the forty to fifty people, men and women, of all ethnic stripes who turned out again this evening, undeterred by a steady downpour, to sing songs, recite poems, chant and demand justice for Fahad. All packing flowers which they deposited on the sidewalk by the Metropolitan Correctional Center at the conclusion of the vigil. Yeah, you better watch out for these folks. Armed as they are with their dangerous beliefs in the right to free speech, a speedy trial, innocent until proven guilty, no cruel and unusual punishment, basic human rights. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Hey, New York, come out to the trial to and let’s show the judge and the government the faces of New Yorkers who support Fahad and the Constitution. The trial starts Wednesday and is expected to last a few weeks. Just don’t come on Fridays as there is no court that day.

For more info, visit www.justice4fahad.org and www.freefahad.com.

UPDATE: Someone denies charges for years, then pleads on the eve of trial after years under government SAMs. I'm sure we'll hear more in the coming days but for now I have to conclude it was the government's coercive tactics that brought about this plea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042703737.html

UPDATE June 9, 2010: Judge Lorretta Preska sentenced Fahad to 15 years plus 3 years supervised release based on the plea agreement. See this posting about the sentencing hearing. See http://www.muslimsforjustice.org/2010/06/post-sentencing-statement-from-the-family-of-fahad-hashmi/ for a statement from Fahad's family after the sentencing.

Michael Bloomberg's Latest Failures

2010-02-26T23:29:00.004-05:00

The Village Voice continues to shed light on Michael Bloomberg's failures as mayor of New York City, which lately include patronage job appointments as well as racially segregated schools.

In the Voice issue dated February 24-March 2, 2010, Tom Robbins notes the contradiction between a mayor who is threatening massive employee layoffs and closings of firehouses while creating a new six-figure job for a campaign aide who lacks a college degree and who was hired in contravention of agency personnel procedures. Robbins observes that "it's not just a case of one mayoral pal getting a cushy job... hiring cronies has long been standard operating procedure."

Here is Robbins' story: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-02-23/columns/the-bloomberg-employment-agency/

The Voice's cover story concerns a "zoned" neighborhood school which shares space with a "talented and gifted school" consisting of students who score high on tests given to them at four years of age. The zoned school students are overwhelming Latino and African American and come from the local neighborhood (95th Street and Third Avenue), while the talented/gifted school students are mostly white and Asian and come from all over Manhattan.

Consider these disturbing facts: Interaction between the students and teachers of the two schools is discouraged through deliberate policies. School entrances are separate, with white students entering at the front door to attend the talented/gifted school and black students entering through a back door to attend the zoned school. What kind of symbolism is that?

Furthermore, the students from the two schools arrive at different times and never play or eat together. For a myriad of reasons, including student-teacher ratios, PTAs, fundraising, equipment and labs, the students at the two schools might as well be attending schools in separate buildings because their educational experiences are anything but equal. An NYU professor of education concludes: "What we have here is really Plessy at work: separate, without even being equal - but very much separate."

Read Steven Thrasher's story: http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-02-23/news/inside-a-divided-nyc-public-school

Scott

Statewide Coalition of 43 Organizations Calls on Congress to Reform Patriot Act before Deadline

2010-02-25T06:41:00.003-05:00

February 23, 2010 — With Congress poised to vote on reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act later this week, the New York Civil Liberties Union today joined a coalition of 43 organizations from across New York State in urging the state’s federal lawmakers to support critical reforms to the controversial law that would restore Americans’ privacy and constitutional rights. Read more.

NYPD "School Safety"

2010-02-21T19:04:00.015-05:00

New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly believes in utilizing overwhelming force to combat crime - whether it's helicopters in the sky, officers in unmarked cars chasing Critical Mass bicyclists, an army of officers sealing off lower Manhattan(and thereby making life miserable for many downtown residents) or a massive contingent of School Safety Officers patrolling NYC schools.

What Kelly doesn't believe in is balancing crime prevention efforts with protecting our civil liberties.

As noted in the story below by Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff - the famed civil libertarian who recently returned to the pages of the Voice - the NYPD's School Safety Division, at 5,200 officers, is itself larger than most American police departments. School safety officers, often in opposition from principals, arrest under-age students for relatively minor offenses and then subject them to the criminal justice system. The result is a traumatizing educational experience for our city's students.

Ray Kelly and his defensive deputy commissioner of public information, Paul Browne, likely would dismiss Hentoff's story as anecdotal and unreliable. But for too many students, the accounts are reflective of what life is like with Kelly, rather than Chancellor Joel Klein, overseeing school safety operations in NYC.

It's unfortunate that it takes a lawsuit by the New York Civil Liberties Union, and occasional media stories in The Voice and other papers, to shine some light on Ray Kelly's school safety policies. We ought to hear more from our city's elected officials, who too often prefer to defer to Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Whether this deference will change in the aftermath of last November's surprisingly close municipal elections remains to be seen.

Scott

Bloomberg and Kelly's School Vigilantes Get Failing Grades in a New Lawsuit
By Nat Hentoff Tuesday, Feb 16 2010

For the first time in its history, New York City is being sued in federal court on behalf of all its public-school students.

In a lawsuit charging systemic police abuse, the defendants in the case filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union last month are Mayor Mike Bloomberg and NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly. The NYCLU has never given up on this national scandal.

Bloomberg has continually insisted that his mayoralty will be judged on what he has done for the schools. Kelly, meanwhile, has deployed 5,200 police personnel in the School Safety Division, which would constitute the fifth largest police department in the country.

The plaintiffs are three student victims "and all others in similar situations" concerning "the unconstitutional policies and practices" of the School Safety Agents (SSAs), who have the power to arrest and are purportedly trained by Commissioner Kelly. A regular member of the NYPD tells me—he understandably prefers not to be named—that this "training" is farcical.

The ignorance that the SSAs have for the constitutional rights of public-school students is evident in the case histories of the lawsuit as well as in the many Voice columns I've written about this national stain on the extended tenure of Michael Bloomberg. The only wonder is how Schools Chancellor Joel Klein missed being listed as a defendant. Klein has relinquished all responsibility for these official actions to Commissioner Kelly.

When the parent of a student who has learned to fear the police complains, a principal will routinely respond by saying there's nothing he or she can do—and directs the parent to a nearby police precinct.

The NYCLU's lawsuit has only been sketchily reported in the local press, but it's gathering national attention in such influential publications as Education Week. Its complaint describes "the official municipal policy of the defendants": "The seizures of students—by means of handcuffing, seclusion, and/or formal arrest—for minor misbehavior that falls short of probable cause of criminal activity." Moreover, "the unlawful . . . excessive use of physical force against schoolchildren constitutes municipal policy [by our Education Mayor] because they occur with such frequency as to amount to a custom and usage of the City-Defendants."

As for Kelly's supposed training and supervising of the SSAs, their "use of excessive force amounts to deliberate indifference [by Kelly], thus constituting official municipal policy," adds the complaint.

Obviously, police are sometimes necessary in schools to assure student safety. But Bloomberg, Kelly, and Klein have allowed the SSAs to become a permanent occupying force—much too often indifferent, to say the least, to the fundamental civil liberties of the school system's students whose safety they are assigned to protect. The Constitution is the core of their safety.

What initial effect has this class-action federal lawsuit had on Bloomberg, Kelly, and Klein? The February 5 Daily News reported: "A 12-year-old Queens girl, Alexa Gonzalez . . . at Junior High School 190 in Forest Hills . . . was hauled out of school in handcuffs for an artless offense—doodling her name on her desk in erasable marker . . . and walked to the precinct across the street, where she was detained for several hours."

Startled by the Daily News' attention, "city officials acknowledged Alexa's arrest was a mistake. . . ." Alexa [in the same February 5 story], who has been "throwing up," according to her mother, "is still suspended from her school."

The suspension was ultimately lifted, so Alexa won't have to fulfill the original mandated eight hours of community service. But her principal, Marilyn Grant, told Alexa's mother, Moraima Tomacho (Daily News, February 6), that the handcuffing and arrest of the sobbing child wasn't the school's fault. She told the mother that "it was something they had to do."

Not a mumbling word from Chancellor Joel Klein. But an allegedly humane action has since been taken under the direction of the police commissioner: "The NYPD," the Daily News reports, "is expected this month to start using Velcro handcuffs to subdue unruly kids following a pilot program in 22 schools in northern Queens." Those desk doodles by handcuffed, unruly Alexa Gonzalez included a smiley face.

An acutely valuable but underpublicized current book, Schools Under Surveillance: Cultures of Control in Public Education, edited by Torin Monahan and Rodolfo Torres (Rutgers University Press), asks: "What are the long-term effects upon students of routine scrutiny, social sorting, and unequal treatment?" This publication does not neglect this city's School Safety Agents, quoting an NYCLU report: "Fighting in the hallway is classified as assault; swiping a classmate's pencil case can be classified as a property crime; and talking back to an SSA or being late to class is disorderly conduct."

Or, from the NYCLU class-action suit, meet M.M. (initials used because of her age), who, at 16, was in sixth grade at Hunts Point School. She was drawing on paper during class when "her friend reached over to her desk and drew on her paper. Playfully, she drew on his, and then they both drew a line on each other's desk with erasable markers."

As soon as their teacher saw the marks, in came School Safety Officers who took her to the security office where "without the presence of M.M.'s mother, and without informing M.M. of her right to remain silent, an armed NYPD officer interrogated her." She told him she had planned to erase the marks, but didn't have time as the SSAs marched in.

After an SSA took M.M. back into the classroom to get her jacket and bookbag, "he then handcuffed her in the hallway. Because classes were changing, other students and staff could see M.M. being escorted, handcuffed . . . through the building. M.M. repeatedly complained that the handcuffs were hurting her, but the School Safety Officer refused to loosen them—even when a school official requested that they be loosened."

Back in the small security office, frightened and crying, M.M. asked that her mother be called, but the armed regular member of the NYPD refused. M.M., ordered to take off her shoes and sweater, was subjected to a pat-down search. And her bookbag was searched. No school officials were in the room as witnesses. On these matters, Klein and his boss, the mayor, have turned the schools over to Kelly's surrogates.

By then, M.M. and her friend, still handcuffed, were taken to the police precinct after M.M. saw a cop shove her friend so hard into a police car that he fell. He was a perpetrator.

Waiting at the precinct, M.M.'s mother watched as manacled M.M. was brought in, disheveled, jacket falling off, shoelaces untied, crying, pleading, "Mommy, get me out of here!" She and her fellow suspect were taken to another room, handcuffed to a bench, fingerprinted, and photographed. Did they get Miranda warnings? Of course not—they were in school being protected from recidivism by Ray Kelly's School Safety Officers and other uniformed police.

To assure himself that M.M. realized the seriousness of her infraction, the arresting officer threatened to put her and her accomplice into the general jail population with, he said, "the killers and murderers" there: "You are going to have to scream, and you'll be lucky if anyone comes to help you."

To make sure the lesson of her unruly actions had sunk in, this member of New York's Finest asked, "You scared? You scared?"

Somehow, in her cage, M.M. fell asleep for several hours—to be awakened by that same colleague of Commissioner Kelly yelling: "Nobody cares about you in here! In school, people care. Nobody cares in here! This is real life. You all going to get in trouble for what you all do!"

Will Michael Bloomberg, Ray Kelly, and the ghostly Joel Klein get in any trouble for what they didn't do after handing this city's public schools over to the police? I'll keep you informed.

According to the lawsuit, "M.M. continues to fear the NYPD at her school. She feels that they will subject her to unlawful seizures, arrests, excessive force, and harassment in the future."

M.M. has certainly learned her lesson of fearing the police.

New York City Council Lulus

2010-02-20T20:19:00.009-05:00

It is disturbing enough that City Council Speaker Christine Quinn is able to buy loyalty - and thereby secure her reelection as Speaker - by awarding substantial lulus (stipends) to Council members who hold committee chairs and leadership positions.

But the hypocritical decision of some Council members to accept lulus after pledging not to do so in Citizens Union candidate questionnaires reflects an attitude best epitomized by golfer Tiger Woods: entitlement.

When career politicians shed their campaign promises once they are elected, and place self-interest above the public interest, they breed public cynicism and help to create an anti-incumbent climate in which voters turn against them.

Click the following link to read the Citizens Union report on City Council lulus, including a table which lists the positions of all City Council members on eliminating lulus, their actions in accepting/rejecting/donating lulus and the dollar amount of lulus that were awarded.
http://www.citizensunion.org/site_res_view_template.aspx?id=769c6383-59ce-4320-9f93-a0823f0d9891

Scott

The New York County UnDemocratic Committee

2010-02-13T17:28:00.001-05:00

The New York County UnDemocratic Committee
February 13, 2010
by Jim McCabe

The decision by the New York County Democratic Committee to endorse Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for election in 2010 over the process based objections of challenger Jonathan Tasini underscores the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the Committee. As reported in City Hall News, Tasini objected to the fact that Gillibrand met with the executive committee of the County Committee in January, while he was only offered five minutes to speak before an endorsement vote was to be taken this past Thursday. In his initial response, County Leader / Assemblyman Keith Wright indicates that Gillibrand enjoyed this privilege since “the incontrovertible fact is that [Gillibrand] is an elected official and New York's Democratic Senator.” Of course, what he fails to acknowledge is that Gillibrand was not elected to the seat that she currently holds—which is precisely Tasini’s point—having been appointed by Governor David Patterson in January 2009 to fill the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton’s departure for the State Department. Wright points out that Gillibrand had endorsements from county chairs and committees across the state. Indeed, this was the case by July 2009. However, it skirts the issue of fairness in the process followed by the New York County Democratic Committee that Wright leads. In a follow-up letter to Tasini, Wright indignantly rails “what is not acceptable is for you to impugn the integrity of New York County’s endorsement process as undemocratic in the name of the people when your true motivation may be simply political self-interest.”

Significantly, there is nothing in the New York County Democratic Committee rules that specifically empowers the executive committee to make endorsements on behalf of the County Committee or that describes a process for doing so. The rules simply state “[t]he Policy Committee may also make recommendations to the Executive Committee with relation to endorsement of candidates and positions to be taken on issues.” No doubt the leadership enjoys the lack of specificity regarding process which permits the executive committee to do pretty much whatever it pleases.

The reality is that the vast majority of the members of the New York County Democratic Committee have no influence whatsoever in the business of the Committee which is controlled by the executive committee and the district leaders. There are a few subcommittees of the County Committee and all sorts of subcommittees of the executive committee but no clearly delineated way in the rules for how to get involved. Those regular citizens who even know about the Committee can go through the process every two years of collecting signatures to be elected to this non-paying party position. However, their participation generally is limited to attending one farcical meeting held every two years at which no business of any consequence is conducted. The rules call for divisional assembly district committee meetings but at least in my own district – assembly district 65 – such meetings are never held. It is only in the rare instance when a vacancy occurs in the state assembly that the County Committee members have a role, which is to select the party nominee to run in a special election. Such was the case when Micah Kellner was selected as the Democratic nominee to replace the long serving assemblymember Pete Grannis in assembly district 65. In that instance, it came to light that there were a very substantial number of vacancies in the County Committee seats in assembly district 65 that were actually filled to carry out this important function, a situation that had been publicized well over a year earlier by Grassroots Initiative in its report “Democracy Takes a Nap: Party Politics in New York's Five Boroughs.”

At the fall 2007 County Committee meeting, as a newly elected member of the Committee from assembly district 65, I rose in objection to what was going to be a “slam dunk” motion to approve the Committee’s rules, rules which I ventured to guess most members of the County Committee had never been provided nor read. I had only received a copy after requesting them from the executive director. My main objection was a draconian provision in the rules regarding the number of signatures required to place business on the Committee’s agenda by petition and the related filing timeline which essentially required items to be placed on the agenda even before notice of the meeting had been issued.

To his credit, I was subsequently invited by Denny Farrell, the long-serving county leader, to a meeting of the policy committee to address my concerns. I outlined my proposed rule changes in a letter to Farrell, seeking to make it less onerous for registered Democrats and County Committee members to bring issues before the Committee. I also made a number of other easy-to-implement suggestions intended to bring greater transparency to the Committee’s operations, such as keeping the website up to date, posting the Committee rules and membership, etc. I noted that much of this information is maintained by the non-partisan group Grassroots Initiative and working with them would help to get more party members active at the local level.

At the meeting, Farrell was willing to meet my requests regarding the rule changes part of the way. He agreed in principle to cut in half the number of signatures needed to place business on the agenda of the County Committee via petition. He said the Committee would need to consult with the parliamentarian to effect the change and that he would let me know the final outcome. He also indicated that he'd try to get the election law changed so that the county committee meeting could be held 30 days (rather than the current 20) after the election which would address the timing of the petition filing issue that I had raised.

I left the meeting feeling that some progress had been made. However, the Committee parliamentarian later blocked the changes from moving forward, telling me that I was trying to do an end run in proposing rule changes that hadn't been vetted through my democratic club. I appealed to the male district leader for my assembly district who was present at the meeting in question and had raised no objections at that time (nor had anyone else present). I heard nothing more.

Regarding my more modest suggestions, the executive director had indicated at the meeting that he was working on getting the website updated. Farrell, however, rejected the idea of posting the list of County Committee members on the website as being too hard. While acknowledging that it was an embarrassment that so few seats had been previously filled in assembly district 65, he was not interested in working with Grassroots Initiative and was generally dismissive of criticism by groups outside the party. To this day, the County Committee website remains woefully out of date, virtually worthless as a resource to registered Democrats who might want to become involved in party politics, the media or anyone else.

Keith Wright was installed to succeed Denny Farrell as Democratic county leader in Manhattan last October. If his actions in the recent Tasini incident are any indication, it is “business as usual.” Wright can throw around all the bluster he wants but it belies the reality that the New York County Democratic Committee is a fundamentally undemocratic institution.

Political Arrests in New York City

2010-02-03T22:16:00.005-05:00

On Jan. 24, Jim Dwyer reported in The New York Times on a disturbing pattern of political arrests in which individuals are investigated and arrested by the NYPD after criticizing politicians in Staten Island, New York. The mayor's office, the NYPD and the Staten Island borough president's office all declined to explain or defend these investigations and arrests.

Criticism of politicians is a fundamental right which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment. Political arrests should not be tolerated in New York City - or hushed up in quiet settlement payoffs by New York City's Corporation Counsel. There must be actual accountability for these First Amendment violations.

Monetary damages are an insufficient remedy when police violate the First Amendment by investigating, and arresting, citizens who dare to "annoy" politicians on Staten Island.

Real justice would include oversight hearings by the City Council's Public Safety Committee, discipline of offending police officers, and investigations by New York's Attorney General and the Justice Department's Civil Rights division.

Civil damages against a city with deep pockets, even in a fiscal crisis, will do little to protect citizens from a police department which seemingly is intent on using its arrest powers to shield politicians from public criticism.

Jim Dwyer's story, which appears below, should enrage, and worry, anyone who has ever "annoyed" a politician as part of political activism. If this abuse of police power can happen in Staten Island, surely it can happen to activists in elsewhere in New York City - as it did when the NYPD investigated and infiltrated many groups in advance of the Republican National Convention in 2004 and illegally arrested 1,800 demonstrators/bystanders while President Bush and Mayor Bloomberg were inside Madison Square Garden.

Scott

About New York

Annoying a Politician and Ending Up in Cuffs

By JIM DWYER

Published: January 22, 2010

One evening last August, as Edward Kerry Sullivan stood outside his apartment building on Staten Island, a car pulled up and a man got out. By Mr. Sullivan’s recollection, the conversation went like this:

Mark Lennihan/Associated Press

JAILED Terence Hunter was arrested in 2001 after writing to a Staten Island official. He sued and settled for $200,000.

“Are you Edward Sullivan?” the man asked.

“That’s me,” Mr. Sullivan said.

“Do you have anything on you that I should be worried about?” the man asked.

“Who are you?” Mr. Sullivan replied.

“Police,” the man said. “You’re under arrest.”

A second police officer, in plain clothes like the first, stood by. They handcuffed him and then folded him into their unmarked car.

The officers told him, Mr. Sullivan said, that they had been watching him for several days.

The crime?

He had written “The Jerk,” about three inches high, on a campaign poster for James P. Molinaro, the Staten Island borough president. The undercover officers had taken a picture of the poster. There was no question that Mr. Sullivan had written it; moreover, there was no doubt that for weeks before that, he had launched far more pungent strikes against Mr. Molinaro in letters to a newspaper and public officials, criticizing the borough president’s plans to develop part of the Staten Island waterfront.

Somehow the police had begun an investigation of Mr. Sullivan, 52, a former merchant marine who is now an advocate for environmental protection. He was brought to the 120th Precinct and charged with criminal mischief, a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. Once the case came to court, the Staten Island district attorney declined to prosecute him.

Who gave the orders for the police to investigate him? Why would a nearly broke city squander resources on this? And by the way, what about freedom of speech?

Representatives of the Bloomberg administration, the New York Police Department and Mr. Molinaro’s office did not respond to these and other questions. So far, no one has explained why the government used its power of arrest against Mr. Sullivan.

Since early 2003, the Police Department has been given more power to investigate political activities that, in its view, might pose a threat to public order. Getting such powers for the police was a major policy initiative of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg; his police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly; and the corporation counsel, Michael A. Cardozo.

Yet the Sullivan case could be rooted in a long custom of police and political entanglements on Staten Island. In January 2001, a city employee named Terence Hunter wrote to the borough president at the time, Guy V. Molinari, to complain about the closing of a community center in a predominantly black neighborhood. He compared it to a “high-tech lynching” and accused Mr. Molinari of being the type of person who would approve of a lynching — including a picture of the low-tech kind in the letter.

The day after Mr. Hunter’s letter arrived at the borough president’s office, five officers from the Intelligence Division came to his home. He was arrested, photographed, fingerprinted and interrogated. He said he was ordered to write an explanation of the letter. After spending the night in a cell, he was released from the courthouse the next day without charge.

He sued. Had the case gone through the normal process for city lawsuits, he and his lawyers from the New York Civil Liberties Union would have had a chance to question officials under oath about how he had come to be arrested. Instead, city lawyers offered him $200,000 for his night in jail. He took it.

“The city clearly was in a rush to settle Hunter so as to keep us from delving into the relationship between the N.Y.P.D. on Staten Island and the borough president’s office,” said Christopher Dunn, associate legal director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

Now Mr. Sullivan, too, has sued. Once again, the use of police resources in a political debate will be a central issue. The posters themselves appear to have been put up illegally. Given that, it is unlikely that writing on one of them, as Mr. Sullivan did, would violate any law.

Last summer, in letters to The Staten Island Advance and to elected officials, Mr. Sullivan criticized Mr. Molinaro (who succeeded the nearly identically named Mr. Molinari in 2002) over the private development of 36 shorefront acres, saying it was a betrayal of the public trust.

Mr. Sullivan — who is fighting cancer and hoping for a liver transplant from someone with type O-positive blood — said the arrest had worn him down.

The circumstances of his arrest are too important to be explored only in a civil case, which often winds up being simply a matter of dollars and cents. The City Council is supposed to watch over the executive branch of government, including the police. A lawsuit does not freeze the rest of democracy. Nor is it a substitute.

E-mail: dwyer@nytimes.com

A version of this article appeared in print on January 24, 2010, on page LI1 of the New York edition.

Humanitarian aid or military occupation?

2010-01-31T22:48:00.001-05:00

In this piece, Ashley Smith explains why help hasn't reached most of the victims of Haiti's earthquake--because the priority of the U.S. government is on imposing its control. Includes suggested organizations to donate to and real actions that the Obama Administration can take to help the Haitian people. Read more

Corporations Are Not People, Spending Is Not Speech‏

2010-01-24T21:38:00.004-05:00

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS CONDEMN SUPREME COURT'S RULING ON CORPORATE MONEY IN ELECTIONS

CALL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO OVERTURN COURT DECISION

"Free Speech Rights Are For People, Not Corporations"

WATCH AND SHARE THIS VIDEO:
http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/35

A coalition of public interest organizations strongly condemned today's ruling by the US Supreme Court allowing unlimited corporate money in US elections and announced that it is launching a campaign to amend the United States Constitution to overturn the ruling. The groups, Voter Action, Public Citizen, the Center for Corporate Policy, and the American Independent Business Alliance, say the Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC poses a serious and direct threat to democracy. They aim, through their constitutional amendment campaign, to correct the judiciary's creation of corporate rights under the First Amendment over the past three decades. Immediately following the Court's ruling, the groups unveiled a new website – http://www.freespeechforpeople.org – devoted to this campaign.

"Free speech rights are for people, not corporations," says John Bonifaz, Voter Action's legal director. "In wrongly assigning First Amendment protections to corporations, the Supreme Court has now unleashed a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in US history. This campaign to amend the Constitution will seek to restore the First Amendment to its original purpose."

Passing a constitutional amendment is a long-term project that requires hard work and grassroots organizing before it will succeed. You can help the campaign reach its goal by helping educate others and spread the word. Here are some easy ways to get started:

Spread the word.

Join us on FaceBook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Endorse as an organization.

Write to editors.

Host educational events.

Pass local resolutions.

Amend Constitution
http://www.freespeechforpeople.org

Facing 70 Years in Prison for Clothing

2010-01-20T23:50:00.001-05:00

On January 8, 2010, The Indypendent ran this story and political cartoon http://www.indypendent.org/2010/01/07/facing-70-years about the outrageous case of Syed Fahad Hashmi, an American citizen who has not been convicted of any crime yet who has been held for more than two years under the harshest conditions of solitary confinement not at Guantanamo, Bagram or some black site but at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Lower Manhattan. He is accused by a government informer of allowing a duffel bag of waterproof socks and raincoats to be stored at his house that, without his knowledge, went to terrorists in Afghanistan. His trial was scheduled to begin in February but has been again delayed.

Held under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs), Fahad, who is a US citizen and Brooklyn College graduate who grew up in Flushing, Queens, has been allowed no contact with anyone except his lawyers and one immediate family member every other week; no calls, no letters, no radio, no newspapers until they are 30 days old and censored by his jailers; no contact with other prisoners; no group prayer or worship; and for more than 29 months now, no fresh air or sunlight. His cell is electronically monitored inside and out, so he showers and goes to the bathroom in view of the camera. He is allowed only one hour "out" of his cell but must exercise alone in a solitary cage. Under the Classified Information Procedures Act but in direct contradiction to basic due process, the U.S. government has not allowed Fahad to review all of the evidence against him. Fahad is charged with four counts of “material support of terrorism.” The "centerpiece" of the U.S. government's case against Fahad is that for two weeks he allowed an acquaintance who had a suitcase full of waterproof socks and ponchos to stay in his apartment. This acquaintance allegedly delivered this suitcase to a member of Al Qaeda and used Fahad's cell phone to call co-conspirators.

ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:
The official website of the Free Fahad campaign is www.freefahad.com You can watch a video with Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights speak about the case there. There is also a statement of concern petition there signed by over 500 prominent scholars and writers and you can add your name to the list.

Please send an email to Attorney General Eric Holder and US Attorney for the Southern District of New York regarding the Special Administrative Measures under which Fahad is held. There is an email form to Eric Holder and the US Attorney you can use on-line at: http://www.educatorsforcivilliberties.org/. There are also links to other stories that prominent media have already published about the case including Democracy Now, The Nation and others.

Theaters Against War http://www.thawaction.org has information about vigils being held on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday (Jan 18) and, beginning in February, twice a month - every 2nd and 4th Monday of the month. The vigil dates are: February 8 and 22, March 8 and 22 and April 12 and 26. The vigils take place every Monday night from 6-7PM directly outside the Metropolitan Correctional Center, 150 Park Row (at the corner Pearl Street), in lower Manhattan. Take the 4/5/6 train to Brooklyn Bridge – walk north on Centre Street to Pearl Street which is located between the two major federal courthouses on Foley Square. Walk down Pearl Street until it dead-ends on Park Row and look for the vigil.

Bhopal: 25 years of poison

2010-01-20T23:11:00.000-05:00

Dec 3, 2009 marked the 25th anniversary of the entirely preventable Bhopal disaster which killed 20,000 and has left 500,000 injured, maimed or chronically ill. Union Carbide purchased by Dow Chemical in 2001 still has not been held accountable. This wrenching account from The Guardian describes the factory conditions before and after the disaster, Union Carbide's negligence, and the ongoing health and environemental effects suffered by the victims to this day.

U.S. based persons can donate to help the victims via the Pesticide Action Network North America. You can donate to support either the Bhopal Medical Appeal (the Margaret Mead award-winning Sambhavna Clinic) or the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal.

Insurance Industry Whistleblower Wendell Potter Blasts Senate Panel Rejection of Public Insurance Option

2009-09-30T20:38:00.000-04:00

Published on Wednesday, September 30, 2009 by Democracy Now!
Insurance Industry Whistleblower Wendell Potter Blasts Senate Panel Rejection of Public Insurance Option

Efforts to create a government-run health insurance plan were dealt a setback Tuesday after the Senate Finance Committee rejected a pair of amendments to create a public option. Both amendments were defeated when a group of Democrats, including Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus, joined with Republicans to oppose the public option. We speak with Wendell Potter, the former chief spokesperson at CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest private insurers, and now one of the health insurance industry’s most prominent whistleblowers.