Activism Is Not a Crime: Why I Will Not Testify Before This Federal Grand Jury

Peacenik will not be watching the State of the Union speech tonight. Peacenik doesn't want to puke. There seems to be little doubt that Obama is on board with the dismantling of Social Security and the last shreds of the social safety net. But he probably won't say anything tonight for or against. It should be astounding that the Tea Party is running the agenda. But it isn't. Meanwhile Obama's justice department continues to harass anti-war activists, just like George Bush's justice department harassed activists. Obama is not defending civil liberties, the poor, the unemployed or the sick. Peacenik doesn't care how eloquent Obama might be. The message is bad. No amount of eloquence will improve it.

by Maureen Murphy

I have been summoned to appear before a federal grand jury in Chicago on January 25. But I will not testify, even at the risk of being put in jail for contempt of court, because I believe that our most fundamental rights as citizens are at stake.

I am one of 23 anti-war, labor and solidarity activists in Chicago and throughout the Midwest who are facing a grand jury as part of an investigation into "material support for foreign terrorist organizations." No crime has been identified. No arrests have been made. And when it raided several prominent organizers' homes and offices on Sept. 24, the FBI acknowledged that there is no immediate threat to the American public. So what is this investigation really about?

The activists who have been ensnared in this fishing net work with different groups to end the US wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, to end US military aid for Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and US military aid to Colombia, which has a shocking record of repression and human rights abuses. All of us have publicly and peacefully dedicated our lives to social justice and advocating for more just and less deadly US foreign policy.

Read on...

Vindication for G20 Protesters

The protesters may be vindicated but Peacenik is still waiting to see some justice. Have any police officers been charged with anything more than removing their name tags. Who gave the order to charge and assault the peaceful protesters in Queen's Park, the designated protest area? Who gave the order to not intervene when some protesters started smashing windows? When is there going to be a full public inquiry? And who will insure the safety of protesters the next time a legitimate protest comes up? A mindset has been created in the police of the country that it is ok to assault protesters. How is that mindset going to be changed? And can someone explain to Peacenik why card carrying unionized police forces side so gleefully with their fascist corporate masters....who would like nothing more than to de-unionize the police, cancel their pensions, and cut their wages. It doesn't make sense. The protesters were on the side of the police.

by Linda McQuaig

In the aftermath of the G20 fiasco here last summer, one thing Torontonians agreed on was that such summits should be held in isolated venues — on military bases, on ocean-going vessels, on melting glaciers — anywhere but where lots of people reside.

But beyond being upset with the expense and disorder that weekend, many Torontonians (and city council) sided with the police, assuming that the arrest of 1,105 people must have somehow been justified, given the rampage of a small group through the downtown core.

What is now unmistakably clear — with the release of a searing report by Ontario Ombudsman André Marin and startling new video evidence of police beatings obtained by the Star’s Rosie DiManno — is that the vast powers of the state were unjustifiably used against thousands of innocent protesters, as well as against others doing nothing more subversive than riding a bike or picking up groceries.

Read on...

This is the Security State Steve Built

Yep, this is the society Stevie Harper wants for Canada. And for some weird reason lots of Don Cherry type neanderthals seem to want it too. Peacenik thinks people should stop spending all their time watching Dancing with the Stars, and start thinking about what is happening. Mr. Ignatieff. What do you have to say? Mr Ignatieff?

Why the Tories keep whipping up fear of terrorists, criminals and peaceful protestors.

Police apprehend G20 protestor Natalie Gray in Toronto. Photo: Natalie Gray.

For those considering issue triage -- picking five or six issues to focus on -- in the fight to rid the country of the current government, one area that is critical to the outcome is exposing the Harper government's construction of the national security state.

I am referring here to the commitment of the Harper government to implementing policies that increase the importance of a war-fighting military in Canadian society, its preoccupation with tough-on-crime legislation, its blank cheque to security operations like the one "protecting" the G20 summit, and its continued efforts to convince Canadians that they face the constant risk of terrorist attack.

The flip side of the coin: criminalizing dissent and trashing civil liberties so that opposition to this agenda can be kept to a minimum.

Read on...

Dude: Where's Punditman's Country?

punditman says...
Antiwar.com's Jason Ditz yesterday said it "ought to be shocking to Canadians" that their government issued a "collective yawn" regarding the Omar Khadr confession, and that "some reports had Khadr pleading guilty in the hopes of being returned to Canada instead of spending the rest of his life in military prisons." He thinks that this government "would generally act as an advocate for its citizens when they get detained by a foreign power..."

Ditz, a well-meaning American, is perhaps a tad naive when it comes to assessing the mindset of the Harper government, or perhaps, the country in general right now. Punditman suspects, unfortunately, that the Harperites are not alone in their yawns. The problem goes beyond the Omar Kadre case. It is cultural and crosses party lines.

In fact, there is a rather disturbing trend when it comes to the erosion of human rights in Canada in general. It has been happening for years but culminated in the appalling abuse of power and anti-democratic measures imposed by the Ontario Liberal government and the police and security forces hired during the G-20 last June. This spawned the travesty of justice that is the Alex Hundert case, and the ludicrous case of "Officer Bubbles" trying to sue people on Youtube for expressing their opinions about him being...well...a jackass!




That's an opinion by the way. Does punditman now get sued as well? How have we allowed this alarming erosion of our rights to happen?

Punditman is afraid the answer may be that many Canadians are actually cheering this anti -civil liberties trend that appears to be infecting the populace like a nasty viral infection. That's what a permanent War on of Terror does. First it turns citizens into cowards; then it sickens the body politic itself. Are basic human rights and free speech that fragile? Dude, where's punditman's country?

Toronto police can use sound cannons, but at lower range

Peter Edwards Staff Reporter

Police dealing with G20 demonstrators can use high volume “sound cannons” for crowd control, but with restrictions, a Superior Court judge ruled this morning.

Justice D.M. Brown ruled Toronto police can only use the noise blasters at their lower decibel range. Ontario Provincial Police still have the discretion to use the cannons at both the lower and highest decibel settings, the judge said, because their guidelines for use are more cautious. That means the OPP can’t come right up to someone and blast them.

“Common sense dictates that police forces have to be prepared to cope with possibility of demonstrations turning unlawful,” Brown ruled on Thursday. “The police must attempt to protect those peaceful protesters who want no part of any unlawfulness, and they must be able to control any unlawful rump that remains.”

Read on

Peacenik thinks this is a small victory for the people. A very small victory.

Police Get New Powers for G20

New regulations give police right to search anyone near security fence Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/25/g20-new-powers.html#ixzz0rrtJwa

TORONTO - Police forces in charge of security for the G20 in Toronto have been granted special powers for the duration of the summit.

'Don't touch that fence!' The new legislation allows police to search anyone within five metres of the G20 security fence in downtown Toronto (Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press)

The new powers took effect Monday and apply only along the border of the G20 security fence that encircles a portion of the downtown core. This so-called red zone includes the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where delegates will meet.

The new powers are designed specifically for the G20, CBC's Colin Butler reported Friday.

Ontario's cabinet quietly passed the new rules on June 2 without legislature debate.

Read on...

Peacenik thinks this is wrong. No public debate. Is this how fragile our civil liberties are?

Water cannon added to G20 security arsenal

A demonstrator lies on the ground after being hit by a police water cannon during an anti-government rally in Valparaiso, Chile, May 21 2010. Ivan Alvarado/Reuters

Toronto — The Canadian Press

Police have added a water cannon to their arsenal as they step up security ahead of this week's G20 summit in Toronto.

Provincial police Const. Michelle Murphy of the Integrated Security Unit says the water projection system will be used to control large crowds if there are riots.

Activists have promised to be out in force to protest the two-day summit of world leaders that starts Friday.

Const. Murphy says the security plan is moving ahead as planned and officers are being put in place.

Read on...

Fear Rules

punditman says...Don't succumb to the fear. So now Haliiburton is building detention centers in Florida with no one there and no signs? Punditman is emailing someone he knows in Tallahassee...

Who Spent All That Money For What?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The power of irrational fear in the US is extraordinary. It ranks up there with the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, and the financial gangsters. Indeed, fear might be the most powerful force in America.

Americans are at ease with their country’s aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, which has resulted in a million dead Muslim civilians and several million refugees, because the US government has filled Americans with fear of terrorists. “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.”

Fearful of American citizens, the US government is building concentration camps, apparently all over the country. According to news reports, a $385 million US government contract was given by the Bush/Cheney Regime to Cheney’s company, Halliburton, to build “detention centers” in the US. The corporate media never explained for whom the detention centers are intended.

Most Americans dismiss such reports. “It can’t happen here.” However, In northeastern Florida not far from Tallahassee, I have seen what might be one of these camps. There is a building inside a huge open area fenced with razor wire. There is no one there and no signs. The facility appears new and unused and does not look like an abandoned prisoner work camp.

What is it for?

Who spent all that money for what?

Keep Reading...

Obama's Civil Liberties Speech

by Glenn Greenwald

Obama's speech this morning, like most Obama speeches, made pretty points in rhetorically effective ways about the Constitution, our values, transparency, oversight, the state secrets privilege, and the rule of law. But his actions, in many critical cases, have repeatedly run afoul of those words. And while his well-crafted speech can have a positive impact on our debate and contained some welcome and rare arguments from a high-level political leader -- changes in the terms of the debate are prerequisites to changes in policy and the value of rhetoric shouldn't be understated -- they're still just words until his actions become consistent with them.

Worse, Obama repeatedly invoked the paradigm of The War on Terror to justify some extreme policies -- see my post of earlier today on this practice -- beginning with his rather startling declaration that he will work to create a system of "preventive detention" for accused Terrorists without a trial, in order to keep locked up indefinitely people who, in his words, "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." In other words, even as he paid repeated homage to "our values" and "our timeless ideals," he demanded the power (albeit with unspecified judicial and Congressional oversight) to keep people in prison with no charges or proof of any crime having been committed, all while emphasizing that this "war" will continue for at least ten years. Compare the power of indefinite, "preventive" detention he's seeking to this:

Read on...

Peacenik is getting tired of Obama saying one thing and doing another. This analysis by Glenn Greenwald is good. But the networks' coverage of Cheney's response to Obama illustrates how hopeless the state of civil liberties are in the U.S.A. And btw, why is Clinton even debating George Bush in Toronto next week? Who is sponsoring that atrocity? Why is George Bush even being allowed into Canada? Peacenik hopes he gets arrested and charged with war crimes.

Civil Liberties under the Obama administration

punditman says...
I think it is safe to say that there was not only the hope—but also the assumption—that Obama would go about overturning eight years of Bush administration illegality.

Yet as Glen Greenwald, American Constitutional and civil rights litigator and Salon.com columnist says, the Obama Department of Justice is:

...not merely trying desperately to keep the Bush administration's spying activities secret, and not merely devoting itself with full force to preventing disclosure of relevant documents concerning this illegal program, but far worse, doing everything in its power even to prevent any judicial adjudication as to whether the Bush administration broke the law by spying on Americans without warrants.

Indeed, it is starting to very much to look like business as usual in Washington on the Constitutional front.

Greenwald spoke recently at the annual conference of the ACLU of Massachusetts regarding impediments to the restoration of civil liberties under the Obama administration. When you have half an hour, take the time to listen. It may change some of your assumptions:

MP3 here

House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation (6/20/2008)

Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

Washingon DC – Following a vote in the House of Representatives sanctioning warrantless wiretapping and handing immunity to telecommunications companies for their role in domestic spying, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed outrage at representatives who voted for the unconstitutional legislation. The bill, H.R. 6304, or The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed the chamber by a vote of 293 (yes) -129 (no), and is expected to be voted on in the Senate next week.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office said: "It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote. The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies.

Watching the House fall to scare tactics and political maneuvering is especially infuriating given the way it stood up to pressure from the president on this same issue just months ago. In March we thought the House leadership had finally grown a backbone by rejecting the Senate’s FISA bill. Now we know they will not stand up for the Constitution.

"No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States.

The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

"More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions.

The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House."

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35740prs20080620.html

Bush's War on Civil Liberties

Legislating Tyranny

by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
and LAWRENCE M. STRATTON

www.counterpunch.org

The George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon with an assault on U.S. civil liberty that Bush justified in the name of the “war on terror.” The government assured us that the draconian measures apply only to “terrorists.” The word terrorist, however, was not defined. The government claimed the discretionary power to decide who is a terrorist without having to present evidence or charges in a court of law.

Frankly, the Bush administration’s policy evades any notion of procedural due process of law. Administration assurances that harsh treatment is reserved only for terrorists is meaningless when the threshold process for determining who is and who is not a terrorist depends on executive discretion that is not subject to review. Substantive rights are useless without the procedural rights to enforce them.

Terrorist legislation and executive assertions created a basis upon which federal authorities claimed they were free to suspend suspects’ civil liberties in order to defend Americans from terrorism. Only after civil liberties groups and federal courts challenged some of the unconstitutional laws and procedures did realization spread that the Bush administration’s assault on the Bill of Rights is a greater threat to Americans than are terrorists.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...Yes, keep reading folks. This is a good account of the United States' slide toward fascism.