06-29-09

Rothschilds Rockefellers Filling Their US Secrete Prisons, CMUs, with Innocent Arabs and Americans

The biggest recipients of US Affirmative Action in the history of the United States, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and communi$t$, they own our banking system and make trillions off it tax free, unconstitutionally and without Congressional input created Communication Management Units, CMUs, secrete prisons within prisons operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons and are filling them with innocent Arabs and Americans, reports Democracy Now! in an article which can be found on the web site, Dandelion Salad. How do we know the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and communi$t$ are behind these unConstitutional secrete prisons called CMUs, Communication Management Units? Logic. If it is evil, unConstitutional, antiChrist, fulfills prophesy found in the Biblical Book of Revelations, and promotes placing the United States in a totalitarian communi$t police state, then the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and communi$t$' are in on it. Why are the bad guys so interested in putting innocent Americans, now labeled American terrorists, in prisons along side so called Arab terrorists? The bad guys are interested in and are in the process of making Americans terrorists by precedent in the eyes of the law. They do this by trying Americans in the same kangaroo fashion the bad guys are trying Arabs and labeling them terrorists. The Rothschilds, Rockefellers and communi$t$ are interested in stealing the money of rich Americans, especially rich Jewish Americans, and are developing and making legal through legal precedent a three part procedure to achieve this goal - torture, confess, convict - all done in secrete. Why isn't Obama against this? Obama is in on it. Obama is the bad guys' replacement for comrade Little George. What do comrade Obama and comrade Little George have in common? When they wiggle their lips they lie. Lying is the common thread which binds communi$t$ together. The following articles are recent examples of Obama lying to the American people and the world. What Obama is doing as US President is making war on the United States which is treason. US reneges on Iraq withdrawal promises

White House Drafts Order on Indefinite Detentions

Read the following article and vomit. How can the USA ignore the US Constitution to the degree mentioned in this article? The bad guys own members of the US Congress, US Supreme Court, Timothy Geinther, and others and direct them to make war on the USA. This is what makes the unConstitutional stuff this article refers take place. One last question. Who are and where did the Arabs locked up in CMUs come from? Guantanamo? You bet cha. Impeach Obama before its too late and you are locked up in a CMU!

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/animal-rights-activist-jailed-at-secretive-prison-gives-first-account-of-life-inside-a-cmu/

Animal Rights Activist Jailed at Secretive Prison Gives First Account of Life Inside a “CMU”
Posted on June 25, 2009 by dandelionsalad
Dandelion Salad

Democracy Now!
June 25, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Animal Rights Activist Jailed at Secretive Prison Gives First Account of Life Inside a “CMU”
In a Democracy Now! exclusive interview, we speak with Andrew Stepanian, an animal rights activist who was jailed at a secretive prison known as a Communication Management Unit, or CMU. Stepanian is believed to be the first prisoner released from a CMU and will talk about his experience there for the first time. He was sentenced to three years along with six other activists for violating a controversial law known as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of CMUs. We also speak with Stepanian’s lawyer and a reporter covering the story. [includes rush transcript]

video: EXCLUSIVE: Animal Rights Activist Jailed at Secretive Prison Gives First Account of Life Inside a “CMU”
Guests:
Andrew Stepanian, animal rights activist who recently served a twenty-six-month federal prison sentence including six months in a Communication Management Unit in Marion, Illinois.
Paul Hetznecker, Philadelphia-based attorney representing Andrew Stepanian.
Will Potter, freelance reporter who focuses on how the war on terrorism affects civil liberties. He runs the blog GreenIsTheNewRed.com.
transcript:
AMY GOODMAN: The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Prisons challenging the legality of two secretive prison units in Indiana and Illinois. The prisons, known as Communication Management Units, are designed to severely restrict prisoner communication with family members, the media and the outside world.
The prisons were opened by the Bush administration with little public scrutiny. The first CMU was opened in 2006 in a special isolated wing of the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana. A second CMU was opened last year in Marion, Illinois.
Most of the prisoners held in the CMUs have been Muslim men, but the units have also held several non-Muslim political activists, including environmental and animal rights activists.
The government has provided little information about the special prison units. A search on the Bureau of Prisons website yields just one document even mentioning the program. The ACLU lawsuit marks the first high-profile legal challenge to the prisons.
While President Obama has pledged to close Guantanamo and secret overseas prisons, he has said nothing about these secretive prison units known by some prisoners as “Little Guantanamo.”
Today, in a Democracy Now! exclusive, we speak to Andrew Stepanian, an animal rights activist who was held at the CMU in Marion, Illinois. He is believed to be the first prisoner released from a CMU.
In 2006, Andrew Stepanian was sentenced to three years in prison for violating a controversial law known as the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Stepanian and six others were jailed for their role in a campaign to stop animal testing by the British scientific firm Huntingdon Life Science. They were convicted of using a website to “incite attacks” on those who did business with Huntingdon Life Science. Together, the group became known as the SHAC 7.
Andrew Stepanian joins us here in our firehouse studio, as does his attorney Paul Hetznecker. We’re joined in Washington, DC, by the journalist Will Potter. He runs the website greenisthenewred.com.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now!. Andrew, well, welcome to—if you could call it a free life outside of bars, welcome to life outside of the bars.
ANDREW STEPANIAN: It’s an honor to be here, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: How long were you in prison?
ANDREW STEPANIAN: I was in prison about thirty-one months in total.
AMY GOODMAN: Thirty-one months. How much of that time were you at the CMU in Marion?
ANDREW STEPANIAN: My last five-and-a-half months of incarceration I spent there.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your experience there.
ANDREW STEPANIAN: I was moved in June of last year, so about a year ago, to the CMU of Marion in Marion, Illinois, and I was brought there unannounced. It was about 5:10 in the morning when my cell door opened, and I guess the prison equivalent to a SWAT team came, and I thought I was being disciplined for something. I didn’t understand what was going on. They told me that everything was going to be OK and that I should just stay calm. And they brought me to the mail room. They locked me in a room in the mail room, and at that point they put handcuffs on me, a black plastic box around the handcuffs, shackles on my feet, an additional waistband, restraints that are kind of abnormal for most prisoners to be put in. And they apologized to me. And they said I got to go someplace, and they can’t tell me where I’m going. And it wasn’t ’til I hit the ground in Illinois that I was able to figure out where I was going.
AMY GOODMAN: And where was that?
ANDREW STEPANIAN: Marion, Illinois, United States Penitentiary, where inside the penitentiary is a prison within the prison, designed as a Communications Management Unit, or CMU.
AMY GOODMAN: And describe what it was like there.
ANDREW STEPANIAN: The Communications Management Unit is a prison within the actual prison. It’s set up in the former hole of the United States Penitentiary, which was the first supermax prison in the federal penal system in the United States.
It’s since been decommissioned as a medium-security federal prison, but all the similar restraints of the maximum are still there. In addition to that, netting and other fences have been put up to prevent people from, say, putting out notes or sending out messagery from the unit itself. The unit doesn’t have normal telephone communication to your family. The unit doesn’t have normal visitation, like you would be able to communicate with your family or embrace them or hug them. These are restraints that are normally put on people that are considered to be the most violent and have the most egregious offenses. And yet, in this case, almost every person that was at the CMU was either a minimum-security case or, at most, a medium-security level, which gives you all the freedoms of being able to walk around a room normally with your family, spend about eight hours in a normal visiting day, say, walking around a patio or sharing snacks from a vending machine. These are the normal visits that a prisoner would be able to experience. These normal visits are denied.
Normal phone calls, usually 300 minutes a month for an average inmate, are denied. Instead, you have to make an appointment to make one phone call a week, and that needs to be done with the oversight of a translator, a live monitor and someone from Washington, DC. So it needs to be done during certain hours. It needs to be done during weekdays. So it could only be done from the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and so that limits the amount of time that you’d be able to get in contact with your family. Say if you have a working-class family, and you’re trying to get in touch with your wife, and your wife doesn’t get off work until 4:00 p.m., well, you’re pretty much out of luck then.
Most of the men that are in these units are Muslim. I, myself, am not Muslim. From what I observed, about 70 percent of the men that were there were Muslim and had questionable cases that were labeled as either extremist or terrorist cases. But when I grew to meet them, I realized that the cases were, in fact, very different, and their personalities affected, you know, my judgment of them to think that they’re better people than that.
AMY GOODMAN: Paul Hetznecker, you’re Andy Stepanian’s attorney. Explain under what charges he was convicted. Explain the law and how it has changed.
PAUL HETZNECKER: Well, first of all, it’s an honor to be here.
I think that this particular statute, in its application, reflects a long tradition of a war on dissent in this country. And unfortunately, in this case, what Andrew was convicted of was a violation of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, a—really conspiracy to commit a violation of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, which is now under legal challenge, constitutional challenge, for the overbroad nature of the language within the statute. It really encompasses both what is considered normally, typically, criminal behavior—vandalism, criminal mischief, those kinds of things—and it overlaps into what is First Amendment-protected activity, that has long been traditionally protected by the First Amendment and has been considered part of our tradition of dissent in this country.
AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly what he was convicted of.
PAUL HETZNECKER: He was convicted of the conspiracy to commit a violation of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act. And specifically, what they allege was—and their theory of prosecution kind of changed—but what they alleged was that the website upon which information was disseminated about the movement, and particularly this political movement in targeting the Huntingdon Life Science Corporation, that those who essentially passed on communications to others or actually reflected communiques from others that were involved in the movement were involved in inciting others to commit crime.
And it harkens back a real dangerous, dangerous challenge to our First Amendment protections in this new frontier of the internet, where both the political expression and government repression are battling out in this new frontier. And it’s a very dangerous precedent, because the individuals that were convicted under the statute were not individuals that were shown to be involved in direct criminal conduct.
And in particular, Andrew Stepanian’s case, much of the evidence against him was really a reflection of his protected activity at home demonstrations, at various corporate targets where he would demonstrate within the bounds of civil injunctions that limited time, place and manner restrictions. And so, his involvement, essentially, according to the government, was really his association with others that were operating the website. And that’s where it presents a very dangerous, dangerous precedent—
AMY GOODMAN: And—
PAUL HETZNECKER: —for activists in this country—I’m sorry.
AMY GOODMAN: The law that was called the Animal Enterprise Protection Act was changed to include the word “terrorism.”
PAUL HETZNECKER: Yes, and it’s been amended. It was amended in 2006, which encompassed essentially what the SHAC 7 were charged with doing, which was running a political campaign through the website, essentially with other tertiary corporate targets. And as a consequence, the challenge to the statute, both at trial but also on appeal, is that essentially what these individuals were involved in was an agreement, not a criminal agreement, but an agreement to express their political views and act upon their political views against this particular political target.
And I think this particular statute—and I call it a designer statute, because I think it’s really been promoted; it was promoted initially by the pharmaceutical companies—but this particular designer statute, so to speak, really presents a very dangerous precedent to all political activists, because it essentially, as I said before, intermingles protected activity with the crimes of—the uncharged crimes of other people. In this particular case, the prosecution alleged that there was actions of harassment by unidentified people to these tertiary corporate targets, by people that were never charged in this particular indictment. And yet, the conspiracy, the web of the conspiracy, envelops those who were simply passing on communications regarding those activities.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Paul Hetznecker, the Philadelphia-based attorney representing Andrew Stepanian, and Andrew, himself, who has just come out of serving a twenty-six-month federal prison sentence. When we come back, we’ll also be joined by Will Potter, who’s written extensively about these CMUs, Communication Management Units, where Andrew Stepanian served at Marion in Illinois. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We are today joined by Andrew Stepanian in a Democracy Now! exclusive. He is just out of serving a twenty-six-month federal prison sentence, six months of that time at a CMU, at a Communications Management Unit. Paul Hetznecker is his attorney. Will Potter is a freelance reporter who’s reported extensively focusing on how the war on terrorism affects of civil liberties.
Andrew, how did the CMUs get established?
ANDREW STEPANIAN: I believe in 2005 they made an initial round to set up something like the CMU, and at the time it was called the CTU, counterterrorism unit. This didn’t meet the regular approval process, which has to go through the Administrative Procedures Act and go through the oversight of Congress. Harley Lappin, director of the BOP, then went back and, on his own, sidestepped the Administrative Procedures Act. And in many senses, after he developed this unit, it calls into question the legality of the unit itself. The law states that any federal program such as this has to be done with the oversight of the Administrative Procedures Act, which means that it would have to fall under public scrutiny in Congress. The fact that this didn’t happen is mentioned within the ACLU’s lawsuit.
And I would make an appeal to the Bush administration and obviously the Obama administration to undo some of this legacy that they’ve done and to try and reverse some of the damage that’s been done by sidestepping some of our fundamental rights, and making sure that programs like this don’t get established without public discourse.
AMY GOODMAN: Will Potter, talk more about these CMUs that you have been investigating and especially the people who are brought to these Communication Management Units at Terre Haute, also at Marion, where Andrew Stepanian was.
WILL POTTER: Well, these Communication Management Units are an expansion of a continued war on dissent in this country. And what I’ve seen in my reporting is that, first, these corporations and the politicians who represent them smear activists as terrorists in the press and in briefing documents and in Congress. And then, when people are arrested, people like Andy Stepanian and Daniel McGowan and others you’ve had on this program, they are smeared before they even enter the courtroom and labeled as a terrorist in press conferences. Then, when they go to trial, they’re labeled as a terrorist again. And then, when they’re sentenced, the government pushes for terrorism enhancement penalties. And now these CMUs are really the final step, in my opinion, of this—of using that word “terrorism” to push a political agenda and to really dominate and to control—attempt to control these social movements.
And what they’re doing is selecting people, not because of their crimes, but because of the politics of their crimes. I mean, as Andy Stepanian has said, he and Daniel McGowan and the others in this facility are not there because they harmed anyone. They’re not there because they approach anything that most reasonable people would consider even close to being terrorism. They’re there because, according to the government, in part, they have very strong networks of support. I was there for Daniel McGowan’s sentencing in Oregon, and I was also there for the SHAC trial and the SHAC appeal. And one thing that came upon over and over again was listing how these individuals have support websites, how they have individuals supporting them and donating money, donating books, organizing benefit shows, doing media, going on Democracy Now!. That actually came up in Daniel McGowan’s sentencing. So it’s clear that these people are being targeted because they have a strong network of support that can get information out. And putting them in these facilities is an attempt to neutralize that.
AMY GOODMAN: A few quotes from the Bureau of Prisons. We recently wrote them some questions about the situation at the CMUs. Traci Billingsley, chief public information officer at the Bureau of Prisons, said, “Inmates can have visitors, including children, and all visiting is non contact [and] there are no restrictions forbidding media access. As with all other inmates, media requests are considered on a case by case basis.”
She also said, “I don’t have the specific demographics at this time, however, race and religion play no factor in an offender’s designation to this unit. It’s solely based on their need for [increased] monitoring of their communications.” Will Potter?
WILL POTTER: Well, it’s more of this doublespeak coming from the Bureau of Prisons and from the US government. I mean, they say that race and religion play no part in this, but according to the transfer papers for both Daniel McGowan and Andy Stepanian, they’re listed as being, quote, “affiliated with a domestic terrorist organization, the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, and having ties to these groups.” So, on the one hand, we have prosecutors saying, “Believe us, this is not political,” saying over and over again, “This is not a political move. These facilities are just like every other facility.” Then, on the other hand, they’re specifically saying this political nature of these cases and why these people need to be in restrictive facilities.
I mean, it’s really important to remember that these Communications Management Units are, in many ways, as restrictive, or even more so, than the most severe facilities in the country, than ADX Florence, the supermax, than the special housing units or the holes, the special administrative measures that the Attorney General can issue. All of these powers already exist. Communications between inmates and to the outside world are already monitored. So these additional restrictions are being pushed simply because of the political nature of these cases.
AMY GOODMAN: Andrew, you have talked about racial profiling at these prisons. Explain who was at your prison and at Terre Haute.
ANDREW STEPANIAN: I was advised not to talk about the specific names of the individuals that were there, but—I can’t speak directly about Terre Haute. Anything that I would say would be conjecture based on transfers into Marion. But what I do know is, of the demographic of the people that are there, over 70 percent of the people that were at Marion at the time when I left, and I think it was twenty-four people on the day that I left—over 70 percent of them were Muslim.
And at a glance, what it appears to be is that they don’t want people that are either considered to be fundamentalist in Islam or more devout than your average American in Islam to be circulating amidst the regular prison populace in the Bureau of Prisons. Whatever their objective in doing so, I mean, that would have to come from the Bureau of Prisons. But one can surmise it’s because they don’t want the spread of Islam in the prisons or that they’re trying to silence communications from these individuals, because perhaps their cases are in question themselves, and they don’t want to allow them access to the media.
It’s the antithesis of the statement from the woman from the Bureau of Prisons that you just read, in the sense that, yes, they do have a policy in place that allows someone to be reviewed for a media visit, but what it shows in practice is that they’re going to deny every single media attempt to contact an individual, and they’re going to deny that ability to that individual to reach out to the media. And it’s very easy for them to do so. They control all the mail that goes in and out, and they control all the phone calls.
AMY GOODMAN: Will Potter, Andrew may be advised not to be able to talk about the names of the people at the Marion CMU or Terre Haute, but can you tell us about a few of who these people are? And then I want to ask you about who lobbied for the legislation that’s in place right now. But first, the prisoners.
WILL POTTER: Well, part of that is still hard to come by. I mean, I’ve compiled lists working with attorneys that have been following these cases and that are working with some of the defendants involved in the other cases related to Operation Backfire and the SHAC 7 cases, but the government won’t come forward with a list of who is actually there, which I think really speaks to and contradicts the statement that you read from the Bureau of Prisons. They are trying to hide who these people are.
Despite that, some information has come out. In addition to Andy Stepanian, Daniel McGowan it there right now. He was a environmental—or is an environmental activist. He was rounded up as part of Operation Backfire for property crimes in the name of the environment. He didn’t harm anyone. And he was sentenced using a terrorism enhancement, and he was transferred to the Communication Management Unit. And as I mentioned before, the judge in that case made a point of singling out McGowan and saying he has a vocal and strong network of support, and she chastised him for that.
In addition to that, there’s a physician named Rafil Dhafir. He sent medical supplies to the people of Iraq through a charity. He was convicted of violating the economic sanctions on Iraq, in what is believed to be the first conviction of violating those US-imposed sanctions that were killing thousands of children a year by restricting medical and basic humanitarian supplies from entering the country. He is in that facility, as well. And, of course, Andy Stepanian.
So, what we’re seeing here is a trend, in that not all these issues are the same, and they’re not all part of the same social movements, but these are all cases that the government has a vested interest in not allowing continued media coverage of and not allowing this to get out and to raise more of an uproar than it already has.
PAUL HETZNECKER: Amy, can I just expound upon what Will has said?
AMY GOODMAN: Paul Hetznecker.
PAUL HETZNECKER: In Andrew’s case, it’s a perfect example of what Will has talked about, which is this war on dissent, because in Andrew’s case the evidence against him was essentially that he was associating with a website, didn’t operate the website. But beyond that, the FBI wiretaps that were admitted established Andrew’s attempts, repeated attempts, to reflect his decision not to violate the time, place and manner restrictions of the civil injunctions that were imposed on certain demonstrations. And the government argues that at one point when Mr. Stepanian, communicating with another individual, another defendant in this case, decides to communicate through email, what they allege was an encrypted email, the government alleges that’s evidence of his criminal intent. And this is a frightening example of—the journey that Andrew Stepanian has gone through is a frightening example of what Will has talked about, which is this incredible attempt by the government to envelop political activists, criminalize dissent, convict them and then send them to special housing units based on a political agenda. And that’s the frightening, frightening example that Andrew Stepanian’s case presents to the American public.
And I would also urge the Obama administration to look very carefully not only into the CMUs. And there’s a long history of supermax prisons and the suppression of dissent within the prisons or expression within the prisons of political activists in this country. But what is reflected in this—the application of this statute and in Andrew’s conviction is a new attempt by the government, in a long history in this country of struggle over First Amendment rights, a new attempt by the government to suppress political dissent.
AMY GOODMAN: Will Potter, can you talk about the entities that lobbied for the American Enterprise Terrorism Act?
WILL POTTER: Sure. They’re really the most powerful players in the pharmaceutical, animal research, meat and dairy industry, the food industry, the fur industry, all of these industries that most of the activists that you’ve had on the—the animal rights activists you’ve talked to and people like Andy are targeting in their campaigns. And they push this, and they have been for quite awhile. I’ve been following various incarnations of these Animal Enterprise Terrorism legislation and ecoterrorism legislation for about nine years now. And they’ve tried it at the state level, and they finally got the expansion they wanted on the national level in 2006, as once mentioned earlier.
And the way they did that is they rushed it through—through an obscure procedure called a suspension of the rules. There were actually only six members of Congress on the House side in the room when it passed. These industries had lobbied for it heavily. And because it was an issue that these industries who have so much financial and so much influence on members of Congress, it got through with very little discussion and debate.
And actually, when I testified about the law in 2006, it really reflected the disconnect between the kind of statement you read earlier from the Bureau of Prisons and some of rhetoric of the government and what’s really going on, because just as—just after the SHAC defendants were convicted, so just after Andy Stepanian was convicted, these corporations were already pushing for an expansion of the law, saying the animal research and meat and dairy industries are being targeted, and existing legislation doesn’t go far enough. They wanted new power, new surveillance power, new terrorism power, to attack their political opponents.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Will Potter, in the last weeks, we saw the killing of Dr. Tiller, the abortion provider, the obstetrician/gynecologist, who was gunned down in church. Can you talk about the way the media, the Obama administration, talked about the—his death and link it to what we’re talking about today?
WILL POTTER: It was a drastic and—even though I’ve been covering this for quite awhile now, I was really surprised of how the press was responding to the Holocaust shootings—or the Holocaust Museum shootings and Dr. Tiller’s murder, because, mind you, with all these so-called ecoterrorism cases, the press has overwhelmingly bought into this term. It’s being used in headlines. It’s being used in the lede. It’s being used in all the government quotes and sound bites, calling these activists ecoterrorists and domestic terrorists. And they’ve never harmed anyone in the history of these movements. And despite that, according to the FBI, these animal rights and environmental movements are the number one domestic terrorism threat.
Then, when we have activists—or not activists, but individuals who go out and murder a doctor or murder or attempt to murder people in the Holocaust Museum, clearly because of their political agenda, the press is suddenly restrained. And they’re biting their tongues, and they’re being very reluctant in labeling this as terrorism. It was called an isolated individual, an individual working alone, a kind of lone wolf operation, which was a radical departure from how we’ve been talking about terrorism when it comes to these animal rights and environmental activists.
And in saying that, I’m not advocating that all of this should be labeled as terrorism and everything should be labeled as terrorism, but I think it’s a crystal clear example of how this word is being used selectively to push a political agenda. And the press has really overwhelmingly dropped the ball in being critical of these government policies and this smear campaign.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Andy Stepanian, you’re out of prison after several years in prison, a portion of that time at the CMU, this Communication Management Unit in Marion. Can you talk about your activism, reflect on that, and the future of the animal rights movement?
ANDREW STEPANIAN: I can’t really speak to the future of the animal rights movement. I’ve stepped back away from it a little bit myself, simply just out of self-preservation. But I definitely applaud people that fight for animal liberation, that fight for earth liberation, that fight for human rights and justice.
And I have to say that I don’t have any regrets. I don’t have any regrets, because I know deep down inside—I mean, I’ve been involved with a variety of causes. I was doing Food Not Bombs, feeding the homeless once a week for about six years. It’s the same motivation that I had to do that every Sunday morning that brought me to question what was going on inside Huntingdon Life Sciences, the efficacy of testing on animals and the efficacy of the way we treat animals in this country. And it also brought me to New Orleans, Louisiana, to help folks after Hurricane Katrina. I mean, that’s what has motivated me to do what I do. It’s the same, I guess, tugging on my heartstrings. So I can’t say that I have any regrets for following my heart.
At the end of this prison sentence, instead of, you know, dragging my feet, I’ll look back on the fact that I had a tremendous opportunity to meet people from different cultures, to be exposed to the Islamic world and understand that it’s not something to be feared, it’s not something to be vilified. And if at any point we could reach our arm out and try to rectify some of these predicate steps that cause terrorism—and by that, I mean it seems as if our government keeps trying to find a new way to attack its opposition, as opposed to questioning what is causing people to act the way they do. This, by no means, is me trying to undercut victims of terrorism and, by no means, is me trying to make apologies for people that are terrorists. But rather, I think that we should start questioning how people are treated in other countries or third world debt or how our economy is affecting other people and causing this desperation, causing this hopelessness, that makes people do these things.
AMY GOODMAN: Very briefly, the other member of the SHAC 7, where they are now.
ANDREW STEPANIAN: Half of them are home. Darius Fullmer is home. Joshua Harper just came home recently. Kevin Kjonaas is still in prison, I believe in Minnesota. Jacob Conroy is in prison in California. And Lauren Gazzola is in prison in Connecticut. If anybody watching this show has an opportunity to write them letters and wish them well, support them in any way you can. Maybe send them a book.
AMY GOODMAN: And, Paul Hetznecker, the appeal? And we just have twenty seconds.
PAUL HETZNECKER: It is currently in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. And I believe this appeal represents a clarion call for the protection of political activity governed and always been protected in our tradition under the First Amendment.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you all for being with us. Will Potter, in Washington, freelance reporter, we will link to your articles, your blog greenisthenewred.com. Paul Hetznecker, attorney for Andy Stepanian, and Andrew Stepanian himself, just out of prison serving a twenty-six-[month] sentence.
***
ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Secret Creation Of Isolated Housing Units In Federal Prisons
American Civil Liberties Union
6/18/2009
Prisoners Unfairly Assigned To Draconian Units Government Claims Are For Terrorists
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
TERRE HAUTE, IN – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Indiana today filed a legal complaint challenging the unprecedented and secret creation of housing units inside federal prisons in which prisoners are condemned to live in stark isolation from the outside world. Called Communication Management Units (CMUs) and designed to house prisoners viewed by the government as terrorists, they were established in violation of federal laws requiring public scrutiny and today are disproportionately inhabited by Muslim prisoners – many of whom have never been convicted of terrorism-related crimes.
The complaint, which names as defendants U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder and two senior Bureau of Prisons officials, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of Sabri Benkahla, an American citizen confined in the CMU at the Federal Correctional Institution in Terre Haute, Indiana despite being found not guilty by a federal judge in 2004 of providing support to the Taliban.
“The government created CMUs without any opportunity for public comment or oversight in an effort to skirt obligations of accountability and transparency,” said David Shapiro, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project. “And after inventing these units behind closed doors, prison officials arbitrarily assigned prisoners to them without providing prisoners any real ability to challenge their placement there.”
Born and raised in Virginia and a graduate of George Mason University, Benkahla was studying Islamic law and jurisprudence in Saudi Arabia in 2003 when he was abducted at gunpoint by the Saudi secret police the night before his wedding, transferred to the custody of the FBI, flown back to America and charged with supplying services to the Taliban and using a firearm in connection with a crime of violence. After a bench trial, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema found him not guilty. Brinkema called his arrest and transfer to American authorities “a Kafkaesque situation.”
Less than a month later, however, the government – not satisfied with Benkahla’s acquittal – forced him to testify before a federal grand jury. He was accused and convicted of perjury, despite the fact that most of the allegedly false statements he was accused of making involved the same subject matter that served as the basis for his previous trial. Benkahla was sentenced to 121 months in prison, but even his sentencing judge, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Cacheris, declared unequivocally that “Sabri Benkahla is not a terrorist,” highlighted his “model citizenry,” and stated that the chances of Benkahla ever committing another crime were “infinitesimal.”
Despite Judge Cacheris’ findings, Benkahla was nonetheless moved from the Northern Ohio Correctional Facility in Youngstown, Ohio to the CMU in Terre Haute without any kind of a hearing or legitimate means of challenging his placement. He now endures severe restrictions on his communication with his friends and family and is unable to interact with non-CMU prisoners. Should he be forced to remain in the CMU, Benkahla will be prohibited from contact with visitors for the duration of his sentence – including being barred from hugging his son.
“It is simply unfair to force Sabri Benkahla to serve his sentence in a horrifically isolated housing unit designed by the government to hold terrorists when he has never been convicted of any crime of terrorism,” said Shapiro. “The Bureau of Prisons should be held accountable for these units and the people like Sabri who are wrongfully held there.”
Additional information about the ACLU’s case, including a copy of the complaint and a letter in support of Benkahla from U.S. Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, is available online at: www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/39924res20090618.html
Additional information about the ACLU National Prison Project is available online at: www.aclu.org/prison
Additional information about the ACLU of Indiana is available online at: www.aclu-in.org

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/us-reneges-on-iraq-withdrawal-promises/

US reneges on Iraq withdrawal promises
Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:48:24 GMT
Font size :

A US soldier near the Crossed Swords monument, Green Zone, Baghdad
The United States retracts its initial promise of commitment to withdrawing its troops from Iraqi cities by the end of the month of June.

On Wednesday, a spokesman for the US military in Iraq, Brigadier General Steve Lanza, said a number of the country's troops are to remain in the urban areas after the June 30 deadline, Reuters reported.

Earlier, the US commander in Iraq, General Ray Odierno, had claimed that the military was 'absolutely committed' and had largely honored the US security agreement signed with Baghdad.

The security agreement envisages a withdrawal from the war-torn country.

Lanza cited "stability" concerns for maintaining some troop level in "Joint Security Stations" to train and advise Iraqi security forces.

The remaining contingents are to be 'extremely small", he claimed.

The US official added that "on 1 July we're not going to see this big black puff of smoke as everybody leaves the cities" based on the military's claim that it had managed to bring about a respite in al-Qaeda-linked attacks.

This is while Pentagon officials have been using "rises in violence" to prolong the US military presence in the oil-rich country.

Late last month, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Washington was to maintain its combat troops in Iraq for another 10 years despite the agreement.

He cited global trends which were "pushing in the wrong direction" to explain potential "fundamental changes" in the Army.

The military's recurrent decision changes have put an end to Iraq's hopes of regaining its sovereignty and the complete US troop withdrawal which the US had vowed would take effect by 2011.

HN/HGH/AA

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/26/white-house-drafts-executive-order-to-allow-indefinite-detentions/

White House drafts executive order to allow indefinite detentions

Share on Facebook By ProPublica

Published: June 26, 2009
Updated 14 hours ago

By Dafna Linzer and Peter Finn

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, ( communi$t propaganda, Obama is clearly against closing Guantanamo ) has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, ( that includes you and me, Americans are now classified by legal precedent as terrorists) according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. ( Certain people means, you and me, law abiding Americans) Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said. ( Concerned but doing the illegal measure anyway, proving Obama is merely Bush Worse. Obama is doing what the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and communi$t$ tell him to do)

After months of internal debate over how to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, White House officials are growing increasingly worried that reaching quick agreement with Congress on a new detention system may prove impossible. Several officials said there is concern in the White House that the administration may not be able to close the facility by the president’s January deadline. (What a pack of Obama lies. Congress voted to fund closing Guantanamo, and Obama does not want Guantanamo closed. House Vote to Block Gitmo Closure Narrowly Fails This means Guantanamo is closed, which Obama obviously does not want to Guantanamo closed. Notice the communi$t propaganda media is blatantly lying on this issue.)

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt did not directly respond to questions about an executive order but said the administration would address the cases of Guantanamo detainees in a manner “consistent with the national security interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”

One administration official suggested the White House was already trying to build support for an executive order.

“Civil liberties groups ( communi$t blatant communi$t lies. Civil liberties groups want Guantanamo closed and they want our Miranda Rights.) have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order,” the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should either be prosecuted or released.

The Justice Department has declined to comment on the prospects for a long-term detention system while internal reviews of Guantanamo detainees are underway. The reviews are expected to be completed by July 21.

In a May speech, President Obama broached the need for a system of long-term detention and suggested that it would include congressional and judicial oversight. “We must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can’t be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone,” the president said.

Some of Obama’s top legal advisers, along with a handful of influential Republican and Democratic lawmakers, have pushed for the creation of a “national security court” ( That's Martial Law, Military Tribunal and that applies to you and me, law abiding US citizens. This article is total and complete communi$t propaganda) to supervise the incarceration of detainees deemed too dangerous to release but who cannot be charged or tried.

But the three senior government officials said the White House has turned away from that option, at least for now, because legislation establishing a special court would be both difficult to pass and likely to fracture Obama’s own party. These officials, as well as others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about internal deliberations.

On the day Obama took office, 242 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. In his May speech, the president outlined five strategies the administration would use to deal with them: criminal trials, revamped military tribunals, transfers to other countries, releases and continued detention.

Since the inauguration, 11 detainees have been released or transferred, one prisoner committed suicide and one was moved to New York to face terrorism charges in federal court.

Administration officials said the cases of about half of the remaining 229 detainees have been reviewed for prosecution or release. Two officials involved in a Justice Department review of possible prosecutions said the administration is strongly considering criminal charges in federal court for Khalid Sheik Mohammed and three other detainees accused of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The other half, the officials said, present the greatest difficulty because these detainees cannot be prosecuted either in federal court or military commissions. In many cases the evidence against them is classified, has been provided by foreign intelligence services, or has been tainted by the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation techniques.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. agreed with an assessment offered during congressional testimony this month that fewer than 25 percent of the detainees would be charged in criminal courts and that 50 others have been approved for transfer or release. One official said the administration is still hoping that as many as 70 Yemeni citizens will be moved, in stages, into a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia.

Three months into the Justice Department’s reviews, several officials involved said they have found themselves agreeing with conclusions reached years earlier by the Bush administration: As many as 90 detainees cannot be charged or released.

The White House has spent months meeting with key congressional leaders in the hopes of reaching agreement on long-term detention, even as public support for such a plan has wavered as lawmakers have sought to prevent detainees from being transferred to their constituencies.

Lawyers for the administration are now in negotiations with Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) over separate legislation that would revamp military commissions. A senior Republican staff member said that senators have yet to see “a comprehensive, detailed policy” on long-term detention from the administration.

“They can do it without congressional backing, but I think there would be very strong concerns,” the staff member said, adding that “Congress could cut off funding” for any detention system established in the United States.

Concerns are growing among Obama’s advisers that Congress may try to assert too much control over the process. This week Obama signed an appropriations bill that forces the administration to report to Congress before moving any detainee out of Guantanamo and prevents the White House from using available funds to move detainees onto U.S. soil.

“Legislation could kill Obama’s plans,” said one government official involved. The official said an executive order could be the best option for the president at this juncture. Under one White House draft that was being discussed earlier this month, according to administration officials, detainees would be imprisoned at a military facility on U.S. soil but their ongoing detention would be subject to annual presidential review. U.S. citizens would not be held in the system.

Such detainees — those at Guantanamo and those who may be captured in the future — would also have the right to legal representation during confinement and access to some of the information that is being used to keep them behind bars. Anyone detained under this order would have a right to challenge his detention before a judge.

Officials argue that the plan would give detainees more rights and allow them a better chance to one day end their indefinite incarceration than they have now at Guantanamo.

But some senior Democrats see longterm detention as tantamount to reestablishing the Guantanamo system on U.S. soil. “I think this could be a very big mistake, because of how such a system could be perceived throughout the world,” Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) told Holder.

One administration official said future transfers to the United States for long-term detention would be rare. Al-Qaeda operatives captured on the battlefield, which the official defined as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and possibly the Horn of Africa, would be held in battlefield facilities. Suspects captured elsewhere in the world could be transferred to the United States for federal prosecution, turned over to local authorities or returned to their home countries.

“Going forward, unless it’s an extraordinary case, you will not see new transfers to the U.S. for indefinite detention,” the official said.

Instituting long-term detention through an executive order would leave Obama vulnerable to charges that he is willing to forsake the legislative branch of government, as his predecessor often did. Bush’s detention policies suffered successive defeats in the courts in part because they lacked congressional approval and tried to exclude judicial oversight.

“There is no statute prohibiting the president from doing this through executive order, and so far courts have not ruled in ways that would bar him from doing so,” said Matthew Waxman, who worked on detainee issues at the Defense Department during Bush’s first term. But Waxman, who waged a battle inside the Bush administration for more congressional cooperation, said the “courts are more likely to defer to the president and legislative branch when they speak with one voice on these issues.”

Walid bin Attash, who is accused of involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 and who was held at a secret CIA prison, could be among those subject to long-term detention, according to one senior official.

Little information on bin Attash’s case has been made public, but officials who have reviewed his file said the Justice Department has concluded that none of the three witnesses against him can be brought to testify in court. One witness, who was jailed in Yemen, escaped several years ago. A second witness remains incarcerated, but the government of Yemen will not allow him to testify.

Administration officials believe that testimony from the only witness in U.S. custody, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, may be inadmissible because he was subjected to harsh interrogation while in CIA custody.

“These issues haven’t morphed simply because the administration changed,” said Juan Zarate, who served as Bush’s deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“The challenge for the new administration is how to solve these legal questions of preventive detention in a way that is consistent with the Constitution, legitimate in the eyes of the world and doesn’t create security loopholes that cause Congress to worry,” Zarate said.

ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. Its content is in the public domain.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/06/19/house-vote-to-block-gitmo-closure-narrowly-fails/

House Vote to Block Gitmo Closure Narrowly Fails
Congress Remains Determined to Stall Detainee Releases
Jason Ditz, June 19, 2009
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment
A vote that would have mandated continued funding to keep the detention center at Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely narrowly failed in the House of Representatives yesterday 212-213. Republicans in favor of the amendment claimed that the loss “paved the way for terrorists to come to the US.”

But the vote was just the latest in a string of efforts by Congress to stall the closure of the facility, which included stripping the funding to close the facility out of the recently passed emergency war funding bill.

After his inauguration, President Obama promised to have the facility closed within a year. But five months later little effort has been made to that end, and the White House even praised Congress for denying them the funds to fulfill the pledge.

At particular issue is what to do with the detainees. Former Vice President Dick Cheney suggested earlier this month that the only alternatives are lifetime detention or mass execution, and the Obama Administration appears to be considering both, though its ideal appears to be to release those detainees to other countries.

That appears to be a difficult proposition, as those countries wonder why the US won’t take any of the detainees itself. Congress is vociferously opposing that, and the administration is left trying to sell it as a possibility to other countries, while assuring Congress it will never happen.

Congressional control over the funding to close the facility gives it a myriad of options to forestall its closure. But while Congress is suddenly finding itself willing to buck the executive branch on the question, one can’t help but wonder where their oversight was while the facility was being created and filled in the first place.