Thursday, December 3, 2009

Lynne Stewart jailed; loses appeal



Lynne Stewart jailed; loses appeal

Appeals court seeks extended sentence

BY JEFF MACKLER

The following article appears in the December issue of Socialist Action newspaper.

The Nov. 16 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, to reject radical New York attorney Lynne Stewart’s appeal of her 2005 frame-up conviction on five counts of aiding and abetting terrorism is a legal and political atrocity. The court’s ruling is in line with the 9/11 witch-hunt “anti-terrorism” climate that has been orchestrated to stifle dissent, justify war and, in Stewart’s words, “chill the defense bar.” In interviews with the press, Stewart predicted that the ruling would set the stage for the upcoming U.S. prosecutions of Guantanamo prisoners.

The Second Circuit’s virtually unprecedented decision to order the revocation of Stewart’s bail and her immediate imprisonment took both her legal team, headed by Joshua Dratel, and federal district court officials by surprise since such orders are, as a rule, left to the district court judge—in this case John Koeltl, who presided over Stewart’s jury trial and sentencing. It took two days of discussions, legal wrangles, and informal meetings until Stewart was finally ordered to report for incarceration. She and her supporters used the time to organize two impressive send-off protest rallies in New York’s Foley Square, as well as a series of press conferences and a major interview on Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now!”

Stewart is currently at the Manhattan Correctional Center. Due to new regulations pertaining to overcrowded federal prisons, she may serve at least 10 months, if not all of her 28-month sentence there—unless the Second Circuit’s efforts to extend her sentence are successful.

The court’s decision affirmed all five conspiracy charges against Stewart. But its seething contempt for Koetl’s 28-month sentence, as opposed to the 30 years sought by government prosecutors, led the court to remand the issue of the length of the sentence to Koeltl with instructions that he consider whether Stewart had perjured herself during her court testimony. If so, the majority of the three-judge panel argued, her sentence should be extended.

The dissenting Judge Walker insisted that Stewarts’s 28-month sentence was “breathtakingly low” and “extraordinarily lenient,” and therefore, “substantially unreasonable.” He insisted, in the face of Supreme Court rulings that give federal judges wide discretion in sentencing, that it be vacated immediately as opposed to being referred back to Koeltl. Walker has called for an en banc hearing (a decision of all the Second Circuit judges) to consider his dissent.

Stewart’s trial took place in the shadow of the post-9/11 prosecutions and mass arrests of some 2000 Muslim-Americans, whom the government sought to associate wholesale with terrorist activities based on their national origin and religious preference alone.

The charges against Stewart referred to the fact that she had issued two press releases on behalf of her client, Omar Abdel-Rahman, an Egyptian cleric who she had defended against conspiracy charges of planning to blow up New York monuments. The Clinton administration’s attorney general, Janet Reno, declined to prosecute Stewart for what was at that time (before 9/11) considered at worst a minor infringement of a Special Administrative Measure (SAM) prohibiting making defense clients’ views known through press releases or other such public vehicles.

Punishment for such violations, as was the case with Stewart initially, was usually limited to temporary cancellation of attorney-client visiting rights until a new SAM, with clear guidelines, was signed. But in the post-9/11 climate of endless wars abroad, the Patriot Act, and associated attacks on civil liberties at home, government officials sought to make an example of Stewart, an outspoken radical critic of U.S. policies. Her “minor infraction” was elevated to a major conspiracy.Stewart’s legal team in the Omar Abdel-Rahman case included former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and former American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee president and founder, Abdeen Jabarra. Sheik Omar, in Lynne's view, was an innocent victim of reactionary "conspiracy laws" aimed at political dissidents.

The two press releases issued by Stewart were published by the Reuters news agency. They asserted Sheik Omar’s views on a cease-fire accord that his Egyptian co-thinkers had been considering scrapping in light of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s repeated violations, including the U.S.-backed Egyptian dictator’s routine torture and murder of political prisoners and political opponents. His release affirmed, “I [Omar Abdel-Rahman] am not withdrawing my support of the cease-fire, I am merely questioning it and I am urging you, who are on the ground there to discuss it and to include everyone in your discussions as we always have done." The cease-fire remained intact and no one was harmed in any way as a result of the Sheik’s press statement.

Still fighting, Lynne’s attorneys asked the Second Circuit for a delay of her incarceration so that Lynne could undergo a Dec. 6 surgery scheduled at Lenox Hill Hospital. Her request was denied. Lynne, a diabetic with hypertension and recovering from breast cancer, will now have her operation performed at a prison-administered facility. Her request that her M.D. daughter observe the operation was similarly denied.

Meanwhile, a new sentencing hearing before Judge Koeltl is scheduled for Dec. 2 at the Foley Square Federal Courthouse. Federal prosecutors are expected to ask for the maximum sentence possible. Also appearing in court will be Mohamed Yousry, Lynne’s innocent co-defendant and translator. Koeltl was also ordered to reconsider Yousry’s 20-month sentence. The prison term of a third defendant in Lynne’s case, Ahmed Sattar, who was sentenced to 20-plus years, was not challenged.

One can only speculate as to whether Judge Koeltl will stand by his original sentence. If he does, government prosecutors are expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. They, and obviously the Second Circuit, are outraged that a “convicted terrorist” has been traversing the country for the past five years, free to champion her own cause and those of all others who suffer political repression. It was clear from Judge Koeltl’s relatively short sentence and high praise of Lynne’s record as an attorney and caring human being (a “credit to her profession,” said Koeltl during the sentencing hearing) that he felt compelled to take his distance from the government’s desire to put Lynne, 70, in prison for what would amount to the rest of her life.

Stewart will be appealing her conviction, as well as any lengthening of her sentence, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her defense committee is being re-enforced, with fresh forces joining the effort to further expose the political nature of her frame-up.

Lynne's parting words brought tears of joy to her supporters at the final New York rally, where she was escorted to the courthouse for incarceration. She pointed to the urgency of winning Mumia Abu-Jamal’s freedom and to fighting against new efforts toward Mumia's execution. She reminded her supporters of Joe Hill's admonition, "Don't Mourn! Organize!" Pam Africa, leader of the fight for Mumia's freedom, was present and prominent among Lynne's many supporters at this inspiring and tragic send-off of a fighter who is loved and admired by all who cherish justice and freedom.

The Nov. 21-22 meeting of the Coordinating Committee of the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations, of which Lynne has been an active member, unanimously approved a resolution condemning her persecution and incarceration.

Tax-deductible contributions can be made payable to: “National Lawyers Guild Foundation (memo box, "Lynne Stewart defense") and mailed to: Lynne Stewart Defense Committee, 350 Broadway, Suite 700, New York, NY 10013. Lynne is an avid correspondent. She would like nothing more than to hear from friends and supporters. Write her at: Lynne Stewart 53504-054, MCC-NY, 150 Park Row, New York, New York 10007.

Jeff Mackler is the West Coast Coordinator of the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee

Monday, November 23, 2009

A Workers’ Action Program to Meet the Economic Crisis




A Workers’ Action Program
to Meet the Economic Crisis
Socialist Action

Socialist Action calls on the leaders of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win federations, and of independent unions, to call an Emergency Congress of Labor at which representatives of the working class can draw up a set of demands to meet the crisis and vote on a strategy to win them. Such a Congress should make sure there is representation from the most embattled segments of the class, such as immigrant workers, oppressed nationalities and women, retirees, the disabled, etc. We therefore encourage that the Congress be open to representatives of immigrant workers’ centers, the NAACP, NOW, and similar organizations.
At this Congress, Socialist Action would ally with class-struggle militants to push for adoption of the following demands:

* Not a cent to bail out the bankers! Nationalize the entire banking system under the control of capitalism’s victims, not its agents! Open the capitalists’ books so we can determine what has been stolen, hidden or squandered at our expense! Make the banks, corporations and the ruling class pay the full price of the crisis!
* No to mortgage foreclosures! Reduce present mortgage payments in proportion to the capitalist-caused decline in value!
* For worker’s control of the monopoly corporations in manufacturing and mining, energy, and transportation. This is necessary to meet the twin crises of the economy and climate change. We call for the election of committees of workers to run these industries.
* Jobs for all at top union wages! Reduce the workweek to 30 hours with no cut in pay to provide jobs for all!
* Restore and guarantee all pensions! For a real Social Security system that pays pensions at union wage levels! Eliminate the private health insurers and providers, and merge Medicare and Medicaid into a free, universal, and public health system that covers all needed services without charge!
* Bring all the troops home now from Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country where they’re stationed. End all US aid to Israel! Instead spend the trillions for war on rebuilding the nation’s inner cities, schools and hospitals. One hundred percent tax on the war industries!
* The bipartisan support for bailing out the ruling class shows once again that workers need our own political organ: Break with the twin parties of capital! For a Labor Party based on a fighting union movement and all the oppressed and exploited!

For more information, email philly.socialistaction@gmail.com
www.socialistaction.org

Friday, November 20, 2009

Lynne Stewart in Jail!



by Jeff Mackler

Protest Lynne Stewart's incarceration!
San Francisco Federal Courthouse, 7th and Mission, SF
Monday, November 23, 5:00 pm

Dear Friends of Lynne Stewart,

I just got off the phone with Lynne Stewart a few minutes ago, that is, late Wednesday (early Thursday, November 19, New York time). She bravely told me that she has been ordered to report to U.S. Federal Marshals to be imprisoned at 5 pm, Thursday, November 19. There will be a 4 pm NY rally of her supporters, who will escort her to the courthouse for imprisonment.

In San Francisco, we will rally on Monday, Nov. 23 to protest Lynne's frame-up trial and imprisonment. Be there! (See above.)

Background:

Following the November 16 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit that rejected Lynne Stewart's appeal of her 1995 frame-up conviction on five counts of aiding and abetting terrorism, Lynne's legal team as well as the federal district court were in a quandary as to how to proceed. (Lynne has been a leading civil and human rights attorney for 30-years. She is a member of the National Lawyers Guild and a member of the Continuations Committee of the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations.)

The Second Circuit made what amounted to an unprecedented decision to not only affirm her conviction and reject her appeal but to order that her bail be revoked and that she be remanded to prison. But lacking clear orders as to who would carry out this decision and when it would happen, the last two days have seen Lynne appear, along with her supporters at two rallies in her defense and numerous press conferences and interviews while judges and lawyers tried to ascertain what to do. That decision has been made and Lynne will begin serving a 28-month prison term.

However, the Second Circuit's 2-1 decision also remanded the issue of the length of Lynne's sentence back to Judge John Koeltl's Federal District Court ordering Koeltl to reconsider the 28-month jail sentence that he originally imposed. Obviously furious at the relatively short duration of the sentence, the Second Circuit accepted the prosecution's assertion that Koeltl had not properly considered the question of whether or not Lynne has perjured herself during her trial. If that were to be determined, according to the Second Circuit, the length of Lynne's sentence could be extended. The single dissenting judge went further -- expressing his outrage at Lynne's relatively short sentence and suggesting that a qualitatively longer sentence be imposed than the majority contemplated. The government originally demanded a 30-year sentence!

Still fighting, Lynne's attorneys will ask the Second Circuit for a delay in her incarceration based on Lynne's scheduled December surgery. Here too, Lynne guesses that this will be denied, with the court holding that prison facilities are adequate for any medical needs that Lynne, a diabetic with hypertension and recovering from breast cancer surgery, may have.

Meanwhile, a new sentencing hearing before Judge Koeltl is scheduled for December 2 at the Foley Square Courthouse. Federal prosecutors are expected to ask for the maximum sentence possible. Also appearing in court will be Mohamed Yousry, Lynne's innocent co-defendant and translator. Koeltl was also ordered to reconsider Yousry's 20-month sentence. The prison term of a third defendant in Lynne's case, Ahmed Sattar, who was sentenced to 20-plus years, was not challenged.

At this point we can only speculate as to whether Judge Koeltl will stand by his original sentence or be pressured by the Second Circuit to extend Lynne and Mohammed's sentences. The judge is known to carefully consider his sentences. Close observers believe that he is unlikely to bend and impose a longer sentence.

Should Koeltl refuse to add additional years to Lynne's prison term, the government is expected to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Government prosecutors and obviously the Second Circuit are outraged that a "convicted terrorist" has been walking around the streets for the past five years, free to champion her own cause and those of all others who suffer political repression. It was clear from Judge Koeltl's short sentence and high praise of Lynne's record as an attorney and human being, a "credit to her profession," said Koeltl during the sentencing hearing, that he felt compelled to take his distance from the government's desire to put Lynne, 70, in prison for what would amount to the rest of her life.

Lynne will appeal the Second Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. She has repeatedly stated that her prosecution and persecution are consciously orchestrated by the government to chill the defense bar, that is, to instill the fear of government prosecutions into any attorney who seeks to afford alleged terrorists or others who are victims of unjust government persecution a vigorous and dedicated defense. Lynne points to the upcoming U.S. prosecution efforts of Guantanamo prisoners as a prime example.

Again, join us on Monday, November 23 at 5:00 pm at the San Francisco Federal Courthouse, 7th and Mission.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information contact: Jeff Mackler, Coordinator, West Coast Lynne Stewart Defense Committee 510-268-9429, . Mail tax-free contributions payable to National Lawyers Guild Foundation. Write in memo box: "Lynne Stewart Defense." Mail to: Lynne Stewart Defense, P.O. Box 10328, Oakland, CA 94610.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Socialism 101

Note: This list is by no means finished or complete. We recommend that new members read some basic theory. Of course, theory in itself is not enough. Socialists must combine the study of theory with action. Learning and struggle are never done.

Membership in Socialist Action is open to anyone who is in general agreement with our program and agrees to fight alongside other Socialist Action comrades in the struggle for a better world. We don't expect, or require, that every new member will have a vast knowledge of Marxist theory. A desire to learn and to fight the bosses are the best qualifications for membership.


Our Constitution

Introduction to Socialist Politics:
- What is Socialism?
- How to Make a Revolution in the U.S.
- What Would a Socialist America Look Like?
- Marxism vs. Anarchism
- A Marxist Analysis of Cuba

Basic Marxist Classics:
-Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx*

-Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Frederick Engels*

- The 3 Component Parts of Marxism by V.I. Lenin

- The Transitional Program by Leon Trotsky

- Vanguard Parties by Ernest Mandel

-On Black Nationalism by Leon Trotsky

-How a Minority Can Change Society by George Breitman

-The Right of Nations to Self-Determination by V.I. Lenin

-Socialism on Trial by James P. Cannon

-The Mass Strike, by Rosa Luxemburg

-Cuba: The Acid Test by Joseph Hansen

-On Lesbian/Gay Liberation (Fourth International Document)

-The Struggle for Women's Liberation (Fourth International Document)

The Marxist Theory of the State
State and Revolution by Lenin *
The Marxist Theory of the State by Ernest Mandel

Marx's Method:

ABC's of Materialist Dialectics by Leon Trotsky

Elements of Dialectical Materialism by George Novack

The Fourth International

The Malcolm X Internet Archive

* Study guides available on request



Friday, November 13, 2009

Rebeca Doran Speaks on Kevin Cooper Death Penalty Case

VIDEOS: Rebecca Doran speaks about Kevin Cooper





Thursday, November 5, 2009

Mumia Faces New Execution Threat

BY JEFF MACKLER


After almost 28 years on Pennsylvania’s death row and innumerable battles in the U.S. criminal injustice system, innocent political prisoner, journalist and world renowned “Voice of the Voiceless” Mumia Abu-Jamal lost his final appeal on April 6, 2009. Ignoring it’s own precedents and those of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals below it, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to affirm what had been the “law of the land” for decades, that the systematic and racist exclusion of Blacks from juries voids all guilty verdicts and mandates a new trial.

In Mumia’s 1982 trial presided over by the notorious “hanging judge” Albert Sabo, the prosecutor Joseph McGill used 10 or perhaps 11 of his 15 peremptory strikes against Black jurors. But as with virtually all court decisions over the past decades in Mumia’s case, the “Mumia Exception,” the contorted interpretation of the “law” to reach a predetermined result, was once again applied, with the high court refusing to review the twisted logic of its subordinate bodies thereby allowing Mumia’s frame-up murder conviction to stand.

But what has caught the attention of both legal observers and human rights activists even more is the fact that the same court, while refusing to hear Mumia’s appeal, chose to delay a ruling on a cross appeal filed by the State of Pennsylvania that seeks Mumia’s execution. Pennsylvania prosecutors, twice rejected in their efforts to impose the death penalty on Mumia (in 2001 and 2008), may have found new support in the U.S. Supreme Court.

It appears that the court’s delay in ruling on the validity of Mumia’s original execution sentence was due to its decision to grant oral arguments in the Ohio case of Smith v. Spisak, a case that might re-write or reinterpret the nation’s laws to make it easier to obtain jury verdicts calling for execution. The Court heard Ohio prosecutor’s arguments for Spisak’s execution on October 13, 2009. A ruling is expected in the year ahead.

Frank Spisak, a neo-Nazis who wore a Hitler mustache to his trial, denounced Jews, and Blacks and confessed in court to three hate crime murders in Ohio, saw his jury-imposed death sentence reversed in the federal courts when his attorney’s successfully invoked a 1988 Supreme Court decision in the famous Mills v. Maryland case. Mills requires that in order to find mitigating circumstances sufficient to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, as opposed to the death penalty, the jury’s majority decision (as opposed to unanimous decision) on each mitigating circumstance is sufficient. In both Spisak and Mumia’s case the presiding trial court judge violated Mills and in essence instructed the juries that unanimity, not a majority vote on each mitigating circumstance was required. In both cases the prosecution’s appeal was rejected and Mills was upheld, thus staying the imposed death sentences and ordering a new trial or sentencing hearing with the proper jury instructions. In both cases the prosecution, seeking to avoid a new trial in any form, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court demanding execution.

An April 7, 2009 article in the Legal Intelligencer, the oldest law journal in the country, had this to say about the Supreme Court’s decision to delay a ruling on Pennsylvania’s request to re-impose the death penalty on Mumia.

“In both cases, [Spisak and Abu-Jamal] the federal courts' decisions to overturn the death sentences hinged on Mills v. Maryland -- a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that governs how juries should deliberate during the penalty phase of a capital trial.

“The Mills ruling struck down a Maryland statute that said juries in capital cases must be unanimous on any aggravating or mitigating factor. [Emphasis added].

“The justices declared that unanimity was properly required for any aggravating factor, but that mitigating factors -- those that weigh against imposing a death sentence -- must be handled more liberally, with each juror free to find on his or her own.”

The effect of Mills was to make it harder for prosecutors to obtain death sentences in capital cases. The Intelligencer concludes, “The question now before the courts is whether Mills requires that death sentences in other states be overturned if the juries in those states are misled by faulty instructions or sufficiently vague verdict forms to believe that mitigating factors require unanimity.” [Emphasis added].

I emphasize the words “other states” because prior to this unexpected turn of events the legal community appeared to agree that Mills applied to all states. That is, if a jury was orally mis-instructed and/or received faulty or unclear verdict forms that implied it needed to be unanimous with regard to mitigating circumstances sufficient to not impose the death penalty, the death penalty was set aside and a new sentencing hearing was ordered.

This is what happened in Mumia’s case when Federal District Court Judge William H. Yohn in 2001 employed Mills to set aside the jury’s death penalty decision. Yohn gave the State of Pennsylvania 180 days to decide whether or not to retry Mumia at a new sentencing hearing where new evidence of innocence can be presented by Mumia, but where the jury can only decide between execution and life in prison without parole. At this hearing, the jury cannot make a decision regarding guilt. Since then, Pennsylvania officials have effectively stayed Yohn’s order by appealing to the higher federal courts.

In deciding to hear Ohio prosecutors’ arguments in the Spisak case with regard to Mills the Supreme Court has implied that one of the key issues they will consider centers on the interpretation of the concept of federalism, that is, that the exercise of power in the U.S. is shared in some measure between the federal government and the states. The political pendulum has swung back and forth on this issue. In past decades, the “states’ rights” interpretation was employed to justify racist state laws that denied Blacks access to public institutions and facilities. With the rise of the Civil Rights movement federal power was used to compel the elimination of the same racist laws. Justice has been far from blind in racist America. It is applied to the advantage of the working class and the oppressed only to the extent that the relationship of forces, that is, the struggles of the masses, demand it.

Since Mills was decided in the State of Maryland, the would-be Ohio and Pennsylvania executioners argue that based on the laws of their states, Mills cannot be automatically applied to the situation in Ohio where a different set of jury instructions and therefore jury deliberations were involved. Indeed, Ohio prosecutors argued before the Supreme Court on October 13 that Ohio and Pennsylvania were the exception and not the rule and that the norm in other states was to essentially reject a strict interpretation of Mills in favor of various state guidelines regarding jury instructions.

Should this “states’ rights” argument be accepted and Mills be effectively constricted, the Supreme Court could then uphold Spisak’s death sentence and, with a mere citation to Spisak and the new interpretation of Mills, uphold the Pennsylvania’s appeal seeking Mumia’s execution.

While most legal observers previously considered a Supreme Court Mills re-interpretation a virtual impossibility, the stage has now been set for such an outcome. The state’s longstanding effort o execute Mumia has been given new legal avenues for success with the top court’s decision to re-consider the Spisak case.

What the Supreme Court will do, however, is far from clear. It will also consider Spisak’s new attorney’s argument that his jury trial lawyers were incompetent in essentially arguing during their trial summation that Spisak was essentially an extreme and horrific nut case who barely understood what he was doing. Should the Supreme Court chose to ignore or side-step Pennsylvania’s Mills arguments and rule only on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel, the chances of Mumia’s execution recede considerably. The court could also chose to remand the case back to the lower courts to reconsider their previous Mills interpretation in light of the Supreme Court’s possible new instructions on this issue. Second guessing the courts in Mumia’s 28-year legal sojourn has stumped virtually the entire legal community, or at least those who believe that the laws of the land should be implemented without prejudice to the individual concerned. In virtually every instance, however, this has not been the case; an unending series of legal atrocities have been perpetrated against Mumia that expose the criminal “justice” system for the fraud it is in racist and classist America.

Mumia is far from out of danger, especially when his very life, in legal terms, presently hinges on the whims of the Supreme Court, the institution that has already denied his request for a hearing before them on another issue, the systematic and racist exclusion of Black jurors. Such exclusion is explicitly prohibited in the historic 1986 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Batson v. Kentucky. But the court once again ignored its own rulings and even decisions that strengthened Batson claims to hasten Mumia's demise. In every sense Mumia’s life is on the line as never before. Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell is pledged to sign what could be the third and final warrant for Mumia’s execution, a warrant that would likely order that his life be taken by lethal injection.

Mumia's supporters around the world and Mumia himself have long known that the battle for his life and freedom would be qualitatively more advanced by the construction of a powerful mass movement in the streets that won the hearts and minds of millions and more than reliance on a court system permeated by its very nature with class and race bias.

The state power's march for Mumia’s execution has not been limited to the courts. The 2007 “Murdered by Mumia” book co-authored by Maureen Faulkner, the wife of police officer Daniel Faulkner, who Mumia was falsely convicted of murdering, and rightwing talk radio host, Michael Smerconish, presents an outrageous account of Faulkner’s murder. While having little or no basis in the facts of the case the book has nevertheless been used to advance the Fraternal Order of Police’s longstanding campaign to execute the “cop killer.”

More recently, filmmaker Tigre Hill has produced a work scheduled for a debut in Philadelphia in December and later international distribution entitled, “The Barrel of a Gun,” wherein ex-Black Panther leader Bobby Seal’s rhetoric about “offing the pig,” is coupled with rightwinger David Horowitz’s assertions that Mumia was merely carrying out Panther policy. The three-minute preview or trailer to “The Barrel of a Gun” theorizes, without a shred of evidence, that Mumia and his brother Billy Cook, literally planned the Faulkner murder, ambush style.

Those unfamiliar with Mumia’s background and the facts of the case could only conclude that Mumia was guilty without question. That Mumia had left the disintegrating Panthers more than a decade before his frame-up trial, that he was an award-winning journalist and president of the Association of Black Journalists, a leading reporter/critic of the Philadelphia Police Department, dozens of whose officers were indicted and convicted on Justice Department charges of involvement in drug-running, prostitution, planting and falsification evidence and intimidation of witnesses, was not mentioned.

Today, having exhausted most all legal remedies, Mumia’s supporters are engaged in an important campaign to demand a Justice Department civil rights investigation into charges presented by his supporters that demonstrate illegal collusion between Pennsylvania prosecutors and the judiciary. A delegation of Mumia’s defenders across the country has planned a November 12 visit to Washington, D.C. where a meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder will be sought for this purpose. Thousands of petitions demanding Mumia’s freedom obtained across the world will also be presented Holder and to officials of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Similarly, a mass antiwar protest in Washington, D.C.’s Malcolm X Park is set for Saturday, November 7. In addition to the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from the Middle East the sponsoring Black is Back Coalition is demanding Mumia’s freedom.

In the San Francisco Bay Area the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal is sponsoring a tour with Amnesty International’s Death Penalty Abolition Campaign leader Laura Moye. Entitled “Innocent but Facing Execution,” the tour will focus on the cases of Mumia, Troy Davis and Kevin Cooper, three innocent frame-up victims of America's racist criminal “justice” system.


For information in Philadelphia call: 215-476-8812. In San Francisco: 510-268-9429.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Black is Back: an antiwar mobilization & more



By CLAY WADENA and JOHN LESLIE

On Nov. 7, a national demonstration, called by the Black is Back Coalition, will be held in Washington, D.C. There will be a march and a rally in Malcolm X Park. People are marching under the call, “Resist U.S. Wars and Occupation in the U.S. and Abroad! Reparations Now!”

Some additional demands are “Free all political prisoners!” “Single payer health care/Medicare for all!“ “Stop police violence and Black community containment policy!” “Stop gentrification, home mortgage foreclosures! Bail out the victims!” and “No AFRICOM!”

Endorsers include the African Peoples’ Socialist Party, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, Mumia Abu Jamal, the hip-hop group Dead Prez, Pam Africa, Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report, Rosa Clemente (2008 Green VP candidate), the National Assembly to End the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and Occupations, Larry Hamm of the Newark, N.J., Peoples’ Organization for Progress, and others. For Black people of various political viewpoints to state their opposition to the policies supported by both major capitalist parties is only natural on the heels of eight years of the reactionary and racist policies of the Bush administration, including the criminal neglect of New Orleans both during and after Katrina. For many, however, the election of Barack Obama increased illusions that somehow U.S. capitalism might be humanized by his administration and the Democratic Party.

Obama’s record in power is now clear: he is continuing the policies of the Bush regime with the wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. And again following in Bush’s footsteps, Obama has been quick to bail out the banks and big business with subsidies while leaving working people floundering in the economic crisis.
Black people have borne the brunt of the recession. Black unemployment, now 15.4 percent by official figures, has surged much more drastically than that of whites (9 percent). Continuing as victims of Jim Crow’s legacy, Black people continue to be the “first hired and the first fired.”

Recently, ultra-right mobilizations in opposition to Obama’s proposed (far from adequate) health-care reforms have taken on a racist, and at times proto-fascist, character. Anti-reform reactionaries raised the slogan of “take our country back”—their code for calling for the removal of the first Black president. This racist reaction to Obama’s policies has served to reinforce the tendency of reformists to take an uncritical stance towards Obama.

As the Black is Back “Call To Action” states: “Many well-meaning people in this country and around the world are afraid to take more progressive political positions for fear of being seen as anti-Black. … The political paralysis now being experienced by anti-war and other progressive movements suffer from the lack of a Black-led anti-imperial movement to off-set the traps set by Obama’s so-called ‘post-racial’ politics that perpetuates the same oppressive militarist agenda well known during the Bush regime.”Revolutionary socialists recognize the need for a multi-racial fightback against war, racism, and oppression. We also understand that the racist dynamics of U.S. society may require the self-organization of oppressed people into fighting organizations of their own.

Black workers have traditionally played a vanguard role in the U.S. class struggle—from the formation of the CIO, to the civil rights movement, to the auto strikes of the 1960s (i.e.,Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement). Black is Back can be a step toward a revival of those goals. For more information go to http://blackisbackcoalition.org/.