thepeoplesrecord:

Franklin McCain, one of the “Greensboro Four” who in 1960 sat down at a whites-only lunch counter in North Carolina and launched a sit-in movement that would soon spread to cities across the nation, has died.
McCain died Thursday “after a brief illness at Moses Cone Hospital in Greensboro.”
McCain once told NPR, as WUNC says, about how he overcame any fear about being arrested — or having something worse happen:


"I certainly wasn’t afraid. And I wasn’t afraid because I was too angry to be afraid. If I were lucky I would be carted off to jail for a long, long time. And if I were not so lucky, then I would be going back to my campus, in a pine box."


In it remembrance of McCain, the station adds this account of the historic day in 1960:


"McCain and his classmates walked into the store, purchased some items and then walked over to the segregated counter. McCain recalls:
" ‘Fifteen seconds after I sat on that stool, I had the most wonderful feeling. I had a feeling of liberation, restored manhood; I had a natural high. And I truly felt almost invincible.’
"He hadn’t even asked for service. When McCain and the others did, they were denied. A manager told them they weren’t welcome, a police officer patted his hand with his night stick. The tension grew but it never turned violent.
"As McCain and the others continued to sit at the counter, an older white woman who had been observing the scene walked up behind him:
" ‘And she whispered in a calm voice,boys, I’m so proud of you.’
"McCain says he was stunned:
" ‘What I learned from that little incident was don’t you ever, ever stereotype anybody in this life until you at least experience them and have the opportunity to talk to them."
"Woolworth’s closed early and the four men returned to campus with empty stomachs and no idea about what they had just started. The next day another 20 students joined them and 300 came out by the end of the week. Word of the sit-ins spread by newspapers and demonstrations began in Winston-Salem, Durham, Asheville and Wilmington; within 2 months of the initial sit-in, 54 cities in nine different states had movements of their own.
"The Greensboro lunch counter desegregated six months later."



Source

thepeoplesrecord:

Franklin McCain, one of the “Greensboro Four” who in 1960 sat down at a whites-only lunch counter in North Carolina and launched a sit-in movement that would soon spread to cities across the nation, has died.

McCain died Thursday “after a brief illness at Moses Cone Hospital in Greensboro.”

McCain once told NPR, as WUNC says, about how he overcame any fear about being arrested — or having something worse happen:

"I certainly wasn’t afraid. And I wasn’t afraid because I was too angry to be afraid. If I were lucky I would be carted off to jail for a long, long time. And if I were not so lucky, then I would be going back to my campus, in a pine box."

In it remembrance of McCain, the station adds this account of the historic day in 1960:

"McCain and his classmates walked into the store, purchased some items and then walked over to the segregated counter. McCain recalls:

" ‘Fifteen seconds after I sat on that stool, I had the most wonderful feeling. I had a feeling of liberation, restored manhood; I had a natural high. And I truly felt almost invincible.’

"He hadn’t even asked for service. When McCain and the others did, they were denied. A manager told them they weren’t welcome, a police officer patted his hand with his night stick. The tension grew but it never turned violent.

"As McCain and the others continued to sit at the counter, an older white woman who had been observing the scene walked up behind him:

" ‘And she whispered in a calm voice,boys, I’m so proud of you.’

"McCain says he was stunned:

" ‘What I learned from that little incident was don’t you ever, ever stereotype anybody in this life until you at least experience them and have the opportunity to talk to them."

"Woolworth’s closed early and the four men returned to campus with empty stomachs and no idea about what they had just started. The next day another 20 students joined them and 300 came out by the end of the week. Word of the sit-ins spread by newspapers and demonstrations began in Winston-Salem, Durham, Asheville and Wilmington; within 2 months of the initial sit-in, 54 cities in nine different states had movements of their own.

"The Greensboro lunch counter desegregated six months later."

(Source: thepeoplesrecord, via politicsd00d)

thepeoplesrecord:

Secret Trans Pacific Partnership treaty chapter reveals even greater corporate control & international policing measuresNovember 14, 2013
On November 13, WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. The WikiLeaks release of the text comes ahead of the decisive TPP Chief Negotiators summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013. The chapter published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents. Significantly, the released text includes the negotiation positions and disagreements between all 12 prospective member states.
The TPP is the forerunner to the equally secret US-EU pact TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), for which President Obama initiated US-EU negotiations in January 2013. Together, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. Both pacts exclude China.
Since the beginning of the TPP negotiations, the process of drafting and negotiating the treaty’s chapters has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy. Access to drafts of the TPP chapters is shielded from the general public. Members of the US Congress are only able to view selected portions of treaty-related documents in highly restrictive conditions and under strict supervision. It has been previously revealed that only three individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 ’trade advisers’ – lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart – are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.
The TPP negotiations are currently at a critical stage. The Obama administration is preparing to fast-track the TPP treaty in a manner that will prevent the US Congress from discussing or amending any parts of the treaty. Numerous TPP heads of state and senior government figures, including President Obama, have declared their intention to sign and ratify the TPP before the end of 2013.
WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange stated: “The US administration is aggressively pushing the TPP through the US legislative process on the sly.” The advanced draft of the Intellectual Property Rights Chapter, published by WikiLeaks on 13 November 2013, provides the public with the fullest opportunity so far to familiarise themselves with the details and implications of the TPP.
The 95-page, 30,000-word IP Chapter lays out provisions for instituting a far-reaching, transnational legal and enforcement regime, modifying or replacing existing laws in TPP member states. The Chapter’s subsections include agreements relating to patents (who may produce goods or drugs), copyright (who may transmit information), trademarks (who may describe information or goods as authentic) and industrial design.
The longest section of the Chapter – ’Enforcement’ – is devoted to detailing new policing measures, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, civil liberties, publishers, internet service providers and internet privacy, as well as for the creative, intellectual, biological and environmental commons. Particular measures proposed include supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards. The TPP IP Chapter states that these courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. The IP Chapter also replicates many of the surveillance and enforcement provisions from the shelved SOPA and ACTA treaties.
The consolidated text obtained by WikiLeaks after the 26-30 August 2013 TPP meeting in Brunei – unlike any other TPP-related documents previously released to the public – contains annotations detailing each country’s positions on the issues under negotiation. Julian Assange emphasises that a “cringingly obsequious” Australia is the nation most likely to support the hardline position of US negotiators against other countries, while states including Vietnam, Chile and Malaysia are more likely to be in opposition. Numerous key Pacific Rim and nearby nations – including Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines and, most significantly, Russia and China – have not been involved in the drafting of the treaty.
In the words of WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange, “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”
Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei.
Read the full secret TPP treaty IP chapter here

thepeoplesrecord:

Secret Trans Pacific Partnership treaty chapter reveals even greater corporate control & international policing measures
November 14, 2013

On November 13, WikiLeaks released the secret negotiated draft text for the entire TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) Intellectual Property Rights Chapter. The TPP is the largest-ever economic treaty, encompassing nations representing more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. The WikiLeaks release of the text comes ahead of the decisive TPP Chief Negotiators summit in Salt Lake City, Utah, on 19-24 November 2013. The chapter published by WikiLeaks is perhaps the most controversial chapter of the TPP due to its wide-ranging effects on medicines, publishers, internet services, civil liberties and biological patents. Significantly, the released text includes the negotiation positions and disagreements between all 12 prospective member states.

The TPP is the forerunner to the equally secret US-EU pact TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), for which President Obama initiated US-EU negotiations in January 2013. Together, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. Both pacts exclude China.

Since the beginning of the TPP negotiations, the process of drafting and negotiating the treaty’s chapters has been shrouded in an unprecedented level of secrecy. Access to drafts of the TPP chapters is shielded from the general public. Members of the US Congress are only able to view selected portions of treaty-related documents in highly restrictive conditions and under strict supervision. It has been previously revealed that only three individuals in each TPP nation have access to the full text of the agreement, while 600 ’trade advisers’ – lobbyists guarding the interests of large US corporations such as Chevron, Halliburton, Monsanto and Walmart – are granted privileged access to crucial sections of the treaty text.

The TPP negotiations are currently at a critical stage. The Obama administration is preparing to fast-track the TPP treaty in a manner that will prevent the US Congress from discussing or amending any parts of the treaty. Numerous TPP heads of state and senior government figures, including President Obama, have declared their intention to sign and ratify the TPP before the end of 2013.

WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange stated: “The US administration is aggressively pushing the TPP through the US legislative process on the sly.” The advanced draft of the Intellectual Property Rights Chapter, published by WikiLeaks on 13 November 2013, provides the public with the fullest opportunity so far to familiarise themselves with the details and implications of the TPP.

The 95-page, 30,000-word IP Chapter lays out provisions for instituting a far-reaching, transnational legal and enforcement regime, modifying or replacing existing laws in TPP member states. The Chapter’s subsections include agreements relating to patents (who may produce goods or drugs), copyright (who may transmit information), trademarks (who may describe information or goods as authentic) and industrial design.

The longest section of the Chapter – ’Enforcement’ – is devoted to detailing new policing measures, with far-reaching implications for individual rights, civil liberties, publishers, internet service providers and internet privacy, as well as for the creative, intellectual, biological and environmental commons. Particular measures proposed include supranational litigation tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards. The TPP IP Chapter states that these courts can conduct hearings with secret evidence. The IP Chapter also replicates many of the surveillance and enforcement provisions from the shelved SOPA and ACTA treaties.

The consolidated text obtained by WikiLeaks after the 26-30 August 2013 TPP meeting in Brunei – unlike any other TPP-related documents previously released to the public – contains annotations detailing each country’s positions on the issues under negotiation. Julian Assange emphasises that a “cringingly obsequious” Australia is the nation most likely to support the hardline position of US negotiators against other countries, while states including Vietnam, Chile and Malaysia are more likely to be in opposition. Numerous key Pacific Rim and nearby nations – including Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, South Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines and, most significantly, Russia and China – have not been involved in the drafting of the treaty.

In the words of WikiLeaks’ Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange, “If instituted, the TPP’s IP regime would trample over individual rights and free expression, as well as ride roughshod over the intellectual and creative commons. If you read, write, publish, think, listen, dance, sing or invent; if you farm or consume food; if you’re ill now or might one day be ill, the TPP has you in its crosshairs.”

Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei.

Read the full secret TPP treaty IP chapter here

(Source: thepeoplesrecord)

you-are-the-universe:

YOU THINK YOU KNOW SOMEONE, AND THEN HE GETS ON A STAGE AND BLOWS YOUR MIND

Matt Damon isn’t asking you to start a revolution, but when you hear this, you might anyway. If you don’t love what you’re hearing after the first 29 seconds, jump to 3:31 for a nugget of truth that every American can stand behind.

thepeoplesrecord:

White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAASeptember 18, 2012
The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.
On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.
Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.
At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.
“Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision,” writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.
“The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction,” Hedges writes. “This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.”
Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.
“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.
Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations.
“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran tells Hedges. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”
Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government.
Under the NDAA, Americans “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” can be held in prison cells “until the end of hostilities,” vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.
“Because the language is so vague in this law,” Mr. Mayer explains to RT, “if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies”
“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,”Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”
Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”
“The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush,”writes Hedges. “Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal — warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.”
In his latest blog post, Hedges acknowledges, “The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months.”
Source
So even though a judge found multiple parts of the NDAA to be unconstitutional, Obama’s administration is still fighting to indefinitely detain Americans in military prisons. 
Yay, democracy.
Update: Obama wins the right to indefinitely detain Americans without due process. 

thepeoplesrecord:

White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAA
September 18, 2012

The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.

On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.

Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.

At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.

“Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision,” writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.

“The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction,” Hedges writes. “This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.”

Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.

“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.

Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations.

“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran tells Hedges. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”

Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government.

Under the NDAA, Americans “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” can be held in prison cells “until the end of hostilities,” vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.

“Because the language is so vague in this law,” Mr. Mayer explains to RT, “if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies”

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,”Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”

Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”

“The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush,”writes Hedges. “Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal — warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.”

In his latest blog post, Hedges acknowledges, “The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months.”

Source

So even though a judge found multiple parts of the NDAA to be unconstitutional, Obama’s administration is still fighting to indefinitely detain Americans in military prisons. 

Yay, democracy.

Update: Obama wins the right to indefinitely detain Americans without due process. 

(Source: thepeoplesrecord, via theyoungradical)

fightitrightnow:

Occupy not safe from FBI surveillance

From any government related surveillance likely.

(Source: )

politicsd00d:

allofthems:

fuckyeahfeminists:

“I came to the United States on an H-2B guestworker visa from my home in Tamaulipas, Mexico. I work in a small town in Louisiana with other guestworkers, peeling crawfish for a company called C.J.’s Seafood, which sells 85% of its products to Walmart. Our boss forces us to work up to 24 hours at a time with no overtime pay. No matter how fast we work, they scream and curse at us to make us work faster. Our supervisor threatens to beat us with a shovel to stop us from taking breaks. We live in trailers across from the boss’s house, and we’re under surveillance all the time. The supervisors come into our trailers without warning, and they threaten to fire us if we leave after 9 p.m. The supervisor also locked us in the plant so we couldn’t take breaks. We want to work. We need to support our families. But we also want to be treated like human beings”

- Ana Rosa Diaz, 40

Sign the Petition to tell Walmart that these abuses are unacceptable and MUST stop!

Jesus

This post is in relation to this post. Even though I reblogged the other post the link leads to the source post.

This is the reason why I get so pissed whenever people try to tell me that Wal-Mart is a “grassroots” company and that we should support Wal-Mart because of it. >:(

occupyallstreets:



Court Orders Twitter To Hand Over Occupy Protester’s Tweets
A New York judge Monday ordered Twitter to turn over data on one of its users involved in the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, in a case watched closely as a test of online freedom of speech.
Manhattan criminal court Judge Matthew Sciarrino ruled that law enforcement had the right to see tweets and other user data from Malcolm Harris, who is being prosecuted for disorderly conduct in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protest on the Brooklyn Bridge last year.
The judge said that the tweets are not private information and thus not subject to the constitutional guarantee of privacy.

“If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy,” he said in an 11-page ruling.
“The constitution gives you the right to post, but as numerous people have learned, there are still consequences for your public posts. What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you.”

The ruling reaffirmed the judge’s refusal of a motion by Twitter to quash the subpoena. He did grant Twitter’s request to protect anything tweeted before December 31, or more than 180 days old, without a search warrant.
Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel Alonso said after the ruling: “We are pleased that the court has ruled for a second time that the tweets at issue must be turned over. We look forward to Twitter’s complying and to moving forward with the trial.”
Twitter said it was studying its next move.

“We are disappointed in the judge’s decision and are considering our options,” a statement from the San Francisco firm said.
“Twitter’s terms of service have long made it absolutely clear that its users ‘own’ their content. We continue to have a steadfast commitment to our users and their rights.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and others have cited the case as a test of free speech online. The ACLU said it hopes the decision is eventually overturned.

“The information being requested in this particular subpoena would provide the government with a wealth of knowledge about the user’s communications and geographic locations for a three-and-a-half month period,” ACLU attorney Aden Fine said.
“The request covers all of the user’s tweets (no longer available on Twitter), as well as his subscriber information, which includes his personal email address, the IP addresses he used,” Fine said,
“The government shouldn’t be able to get this sensitive and constitutionally protected information without a warrant and without first satisfying First Amendment scrutiny.”

occupyallstreets:

Court Orders Twitter To Hand Over Occupy Protester’s Tweets

A New York judge Monday ordered Twitter to turn over data on one of its users involved in the Occupy Wall Street protest movement, in a case watched closely as a test of online freedom of speech.

Manhattan criminal court Judge Matthew Sciarrino ruled that law enforcement had the right to see tweets and other user data from Malcolm Harris, who is being prosecuted for disorderly conduct in connection with the Occupy Wall Street protest on the Brooklyn Bridge last year.

The judge said that the tweets are not private information and thus not subject to the constitutional guarantee of privacy.

If you post a tweet, just like if you scream it out the window, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy,” he said in an 11-page ruling.

The constitution gives you the right to post, but as numerous people have learned, there are still consequences for your public posts. What you give to the public belongs to the public. What you keep to yourself belongs only to you.

The ruling reaffirmed the judge’s refusal of a motion by Twitter to quash the subpoena. He did grant Twitter’s request to protect anything tweeted before December 31, or more than 180 days old, without a search warrant.

Chief Assistant District Attorney Daniel Alonso said after the ruling: “We are pleased that the court has ruled for a second time that the tweets at issue must be turned over. We look forward to Twitter’s complying and to moving forward with the trial.”

Twitter said it was studying its next move.

We are disappointed in the judge’s decision and are considering our options,” a statement from the San Francisco firm said.

Twitter’s terms of service have long made it absolutely clear that its users ‘own’ their content. We continue to have a steadfast commitment to our users and their rights.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others have cited the case as a test of free speech online. The ACLU said it hopes the decision is eventually overturned.

The information being requested in this particular subpoena would provide the government with a wealth of knowledge about the user’s communications and geographic locations for a three-and-a-half month period,” ACLU attorney Aden Fine said.

The request covers all of the user’s tweets (no longer available on Twitter), as well as his subscriber information, which includes his personal email address, the IP addresses he used,” Fine said,

The government shouldn’t be able to get this sensitive and constitutionally protected information without a warrant and without first satisfying First Amendment scrutiny.

(via politicsd00d)

occupyallstreets:

Poverty And Police Corruption In Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico, or the ‘rich port’ in Spanish, is the poorest American territory with a poverty rate of 44.8%. That is more than three times higher than that in America. 56% of Puerto Rico’s children lived in poverty, the child poverty rate in America is 25%. Out of all U.S. jurisdictions, Puerto Rico has the highest percent of teens not attending school and not working (14.6%).
According to the 2010 Census, the average income per family in Puerto Rico is $26,870. It has a per capita income of $15,203 — that’s less than half the level of the poorest state, Mississippi, where it’s $31,046 — and the official unemployment rate is 14.2 percent as of May 2012. Forty-five percent of Puerto Ricans live below the poverty line, and 20 percent of personal income in the commonwealth comes from federal or Puerto Rican public funds. (Source)
On Wednesday, ACLU filed a lawsuit against Puerto Rico police, accusing officers of using excessive force and violating civil rights during demonstrations organized by university students and public employees.
The lawsuit alleges that Superintendent Hector Pesquera has encouraged a pattern of violence against demonstrators. It seeks an injunction to force the department to create a policy on how to handle demonstrations and use of force, and to establish a system that makes it easier to file complaints and for authorities to document alleged excessive use of force.
Police violence has been amply documented in a new report released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), titled “Island of Impunity: Puerto Rico’s Outlaw Police Force”.
According to the report, the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD)’s rampant violations of human and constitutional rights range from beatings with batons and nightsticks to sexual harassment of female protesters, from the administration of pepper spray at point-blank range and potentially lethal rubber bullets to the indiscriminate use of chemical agents - including tear gas dispersed from helicopters and a highly toxic form of gas not used in the US in 50 years. Other protest management techniques are described in the report as follows:

“Officers have also used painful carotid holds and pressure point techniques intended to cause pain to passively resisting protesters by targeting pressure points on protesters’ carotid arteries, under their jaws, near their necks, their ears, or directly on the eyeballs and eye sockets. Officers also dug their fingers deep underneath students’ ears and above their jaws … Pressure point tactics not only cause excruciating pain but they also block normal blood flow to the brain and can be… fatal if misapplied.”

A 2011 evaluation of the PRPD by the US Department of Justice reasonably concluded that the purpose of such tactics was to intimidate demonstrators rather than to address legitimate threats to public safety. As for other police pastimes not readily associable with the aim of protecting people, the ACLU notes:

“Over a five-year period from 2005 to 2010, over 1,700 police officers were arrested for criminal activity including assault, theft, domestic violence, drug trafficking, and murder. This figure amounts to ten per cent of the police force, or one arrest of a police officer every 30 hours.”

Also on the PRPD resume are incidents such as the death of Jorge Luis Polaco Jimenez, an unarmed black man reportedly “shot seven times in the back while in police custody”; the death of Jose Alberto Vega Jorge, a 22-year-old witness to a Burger King robbery who was shot in the head by police while waiting to give his witness statement; and the fatal shooting of Luis L Perez Feliciano, a mentally ill Vietnam veteran. The police officers reportedly responsible for the shooting of Perez Feliciano were later awarded the Gold Medal of Valour by Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuño and the superintendent of the PRPD.
As the ACLU notes, a “ban on all First Amendment activity” was undertaken at the university and any expression of protest was limited “to small designated areas located outside the campus, called ‘free speech zones’”, also surrounded by police. It is safe to assume that parents beaten with nightsticks while attempting to deliver food to students striking against the commodification of education do not consider this sort of educational arrangement as something their kids “need”.
As for disproportionate police-to-resident ratios, the PRPD’s employment of more than 17,000 (the second largest police force in America) officers for a population of 3.7 million is more than twice the national average. However, the expansion of both mainland policing activities and of a reality in which those tasked with the protection of civil rights are often the ones violating them - indicates that Puerto Rican struggles may indeed increasingly “mirror those across America”. (Source)
The ACLU report comes nine months after the Department of Justice released its own scathing report, based on an investigation covering the years between 2004 and 2011 and outlining many of the same problems. “The Puerto Rico police department is broken,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said when the Justice Department report came out, and lawyers at the department began a series of negotiations with the Puerto Rican government to devise a “comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform.”
Puerto Rico’s Police Force has killed 21 civilians in 2010-11. Rather than confront the issue, the administration of Gov. Luis Fortuno has instead pursued a policy of denial. Its lawyers have submitted court filings that called the DOJ report unreliable, flawed and biased. Its previous police superintendent denied its findings outright. And on the day the ACLU report was released, the current superintendent, Hector Pesquera, called its findings “incorrect and irresponsible” and part of a “political agenda.” (Source)

occupyallstreets:

Poverty And Police Corruption In Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, or the ‘rich port’ in Spanish, is the poorest American territory with a poverty rate of 44.8%. That is more than three times higher than that in America. 56% of Puerto Rico’s children lived in poverty, the child poverty rate in America is 25%. Out of all U.S. jurisdictions, Puerto Rico has the highest percent of teens not attending school and not working (14.6%).

According to the 2010 Census, the average income per family in Puerto Rico is $26,870. It has a per capita income of $15,203 — that’s less than half the level of the poorest state, Mississippi, where it’s $31,046 — and the official unemployment rate is 14.2 percent as of May 2012. Forty-five percent of Puerto Ricans live below the poverty line, and 20 percent of personal income in the commonwealth comes from federal or Puerto Rican public funds. (Source)

On Wednesday, ACLU filed a lawsuit against Puerto Rico police, accusing officers of using excessive force and violating civil rights during demonstrations organized by university students and public employees.

The lawsuit alleges that Superintendent Hector Pesquera has encouraged a pattern of violence against demonstrators. It seeks an injunction to force the department to create a policy on how to handle demonstrations and use of force, and to establish a system that makes it easier to file complaints and for authorities to document alleged excessive use of force.

Police violence has been amply documented in a new report released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), titled “Island of Impunity: Puerto Rico’s Outlaw Police Force”.

According to the report, the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD)’s rampant violations of human and constitutional rights range from beatings with batons and nightsticks to sexual harassment of female protesters, from the administration of pepper spray at point-blank range and potentially lethal rubber bullets to the indiscriminate use of chemical agents - including tear gas dispersed from helicopters and a highly toxic form of gas not used in the US in 50 years. Other protest management techniques are described in the report as follows:

“Officers have also used painful carotid holds and pressure point techniques intended to cause pain to passively resisting protesters by targeting pressure points on protesters’ carotid arteries, under their jaws, near their necks, their ears, or directly on the eyeballs and eye sockets. Officers also dug their fingers deep underneath students’ ears and above their jaws … Pressure point tactics not only cause excruciating pain but they also block normal blood flow to the brain and can be… fatal if misapplied.”

A 2011 evaluation of the PRPD by the US Department of Justice reasonably concluded that the purpose of such tactics was to intimidate demonstrators rather than to address legitimate threats to public safety. As for other police pastimes not readily associable with the aim of protecting people, the ACLU notes:

Over a five-year period from 2005 to 2010, over 1,700 police officers were arrested for criminal activity including assault, theft, domestic violence, drug trafficking, and murder. This figure amounts to ten per cent of the police force, or one arrest of a police officer every 30 hours.

Also on the PRPD resume are incidents such as the death of Jorge Luis Polaco Jimenez, an unarmed black man reportedly “shot seven times in the back while in police custody”; the death of Jose Alberto Vega Jorge, a 22-year-old witness to a Burger King robbery who was shot in the head by police while waiting to give his witness statement; and the fatal shooting of Luis L Perez Feliciano, a mentally ill Vietnam veteran. The police officers reportedly responsible for the shooting of Perez Feliciano were later awarded the Gold Medal of Valour by Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuño and the superintendent of the PRPD.

As the ACLU notes, a “ban on all First Amendment activity” was undertaken at the university and any expression of protest was limited “to small designated areas located outside the campus, called ‘free speech zones’”, also surrounded by police. It is safe to assume that parents beaten with nightsticks while attempting to deliver food to students striking against the commodification of education do not consider this sort of educational arrangement as something their kids “need”.

As for disproportionate police-to-resident ratios, the PRPD’s employment of more than 17,000 (the second largest police force in America) officers for a population of 3.7 million is more than twice the national average. However, the expansion of both mainland policing activities and of a reality in which those tasked with the protection of civil rights are often the ones violating them - indicates that Puerto Rican struggles may indeed increasingly “mirror those across America”. (Source)

The ACLU report comes nine months after the Department of Justice released its own scathing report, based on an investigation covering the years between 2004 and 2011 and outlining many of the same problems. “The Puerto Rico police department is broken,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said when the Justice Department report came out, and lawyers at the department began a series of negotiations with the Puerto Rican government to devise a “comprehensive blueprint for sustainable reform.”

Puerto Rico’s Police Force has killed 21 civilians in 2010-11. Rather than confront the issue, the administration of Gov. Luis Fortuno has instead pursued a policy of denial. Its lawyers have submitted court filings that called the DOJ report unreliable, flawed and biased. Its previous police superintendent denied its findings outright. And on the day the ACLU report was released, the current superintendent, Hector Pesquera, called its findings “incorrect and irresponsible” and part of a “political agenda.” (Source)

(via politicsd00d)

thepeoplesrecord:

Last week nearly 1,000 people took over the Ohio Statehouse. Joined by others from neighboring states, they came together to protest the destructive gas drilling method called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” After rallying and marching to the Capitol building, hundreds poured in—without a permit—to hold a “People’s Assembly” to decide how they, the people, could end the practice in their state.

thepeoplesrecord:

Last week nearly 1,000 people took over the Ohio Statehouse. Joined by others from neighboring states, they came together to protest the destructive gas drilling method called hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” After rallying and marching to the Capitol building, hundreds poured in—without a permit—to hold a “People’s Assembly” to decide how they, the people, could end the practice in their state.

(via politicsd00d)

occupyallstreets:

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee is considering a stop-and-frisk policy as a way to reduce gun violence.

Lee told the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board: ”I think we have to get to the guns. I know we have to find a different way to get to these weapons, and I’m very willing to consider what other cities are doing.

Lee, a former civil rights attorney, acknowledged that such policies can be controversial, but said, “we have to get the guns.”

He told the board that he had a good conversation recently with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg about that city’s controversial stop-and-frisk policy.

Many who oppose such policies believe they unfairly target Latino and African American citizens. Supervisor Malia Cohen, who represents the Bayview-Hunters Point neighborhood, said the news was alarming.

According to a recent New York Times article, of the nearly 686,000 people stopped by New York police officers last year, 84 percent were black or Latino and 88 percent of the stops did not lead to an arrest or summons. In a letter to the Times, Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, wrote that while police may be able to stop citizens under certain circumstances, officers can then frisk them only according to another set of specific guidelines.

Despite this limitation,” Lieberman wrote, “56 percent of those stopped by the New York Police Department in 2011 were frisked. Those frisks produced a weapon less than 2 percent of the time.

San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr seemed to downplay the possibility of the city implementing a stop-and-frisk policy in an interview with the Chronicle’s C.W. Nevius.

When (Lee) hears ‘stop and frisk,’ I think what he wants is engaged officers,” Suhr said. “He wants them talking to people. I’m not sure he understands the problems in New York City” with stop and frisk.

'Cause they have to get the guns away from the American citizens. The right to bear arms is dangerous to them. Never mind just being responsible about how guns are handed out or used. No. Instead they want to start a stop and rape… I mean frisk… a stop and frisk policy. That way they can scare people into forfeiting even more rights in the name of bullshit. Ever thought that stop and frisk isn't going to stop the people who would be committing gun crimes from committing those crimes. It would just make them more cautious and more open to covering their tracks when they do. Not to mention it would just alienate hundreds more people. What dumbasses.

I can not tell you how pissed off reading things like this makes me.

(via politicsd00d)

thepeoplesrecord:

US to spend $40 million on Guantanamo renovationJuly 5, 2012
Despite promises to close Guantanamo Bay, Washington is now preparing to invest tens of millions into renovating the controversial facility’s infrastructure.
The Pentagon is planning to install a $40-million fiber optic cable at Guantanamo, and the base’s commanders say such a long term investment in infrastructure makes sense only if the US intends to continue operating the base.
“It only makes sense to do if we’re going to be here for any period of time,” Navy Capt. Kirk Hibbert told the Miami Herald. 
The goal of the project is to bring the infrastructure of the naval base up to par with other government agencies, said Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a spokesman for the Guantanamo military commissions. The base currently relies on a single satellite, which is prone to interference during bad weather, for its communications.
An infrastructure project like this one may well suggest that the US military is preparing for long-term operations at Guantanamo. Breasseale, however, refuted these allegations, saying that the project is meant to serve the Guantanamo naval station and not the detention camp, which Washington still “has plans” to close.
The project will require congressional approval and has been included into the fiscal 2013 budget, but the survey ship USNS Zeus is expected to arrive at the naval base in upcoming weeks.
Cuban authorities have been notified about the project, but they apparently do not have any say on it. The US maintains that it is a lawful tenant of the base under a 1934 treaty that makes the lease permanent unless both governments agree to break it or if the US abandons the base property.
The US’ approach to the law in this situation should raise eyebrows, American lawyer Eric Montalvo told RT.
“If you look at the lease or you look at the terms of how the negotiation occurred, Cuba has requested that the US leave on a number of occasions,” he said. “And if you look at the terms of the agreement, they do not conform to real estate law because there is this rule against perpetuities. You just can’t have something that goes on forever in a lease, there has to be a defined beginning and a defined end.” 
The US sends an annual rent check for $4,085 to Havana. But Cuban leader Fidel Castro said in 2007 that Cuba never cashed a single check except for one occasion in 1959 when it was done due to “confusion.” Castro said that Cuba refused to cash the checks to protest the US occupation of the illegally usurped land, which he said was used for “dirty work.”
When President Obama was first running for office, he pledged in very strong terms to shut down Guantanamo. But not only did he not shut it down, the US is now renovating the facility.
In 2009, Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo. But a decision on the specifics of such a plan was postponed, and in 2011, he issued an executive order permitting the indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees.
With indefinite detentions and documented use of torture, Guantanamo has put a black mark on America’s already spotty human rights record. Within the last decade of the War on Terror, about 800 people have passed through the camp. The majority of them had nothing to do with 9/11, according to the facility’s former chief prosecutor.
At the moment the prison houses 169 detainees, about half of whom were cleared for release but have few prospects of obtaining freedom due to a ban on transfers from Guantanamo. As for the rest of the captives, some of them have a shot at a military hearing, but most of them do not have even that chance because the government says they cannot be tried for one reason or another, while the US Supreme Court keeps refusing to take up Guantanamo detainees’ petitions.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

US to spend $40 million on Guantanamo renovation
July 5, 2012

Despite promises to close Guantanamo Bay, Washington is now preparing to invest tens of millions into renovating the controversial facility’s infrastructure.

The Pentagon is planning to install a $40-million fiber optic cable at Guantanamo, and the base’s commanders say such a long term investment in infrastructure makes sense only if the US intends to continue operating the base.

“It only makes sense to do if we’re going to be here for any period of time,” Navy Capt. Kirk Hibbert told the Miami Herald. 

The goal of the project is to bring the infrastructure of the naval base up to par with other government agencies, said Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a spokesman for the Guantanamo military commissions. The base currently relies on a single satellite, which is prone to interference during bad weather, for its communications.

An infrastructure project like this one may well suggest that the US military is preparing for long-term operations at Guantanamo. Breasseale, however, refuted these allegations, saying that the project is meant to serve the Guantanamo naval station and not the detention camp, which Washington still “has plans” to close.

The project will require congressional approval and has been included into the fiscal 2013 budget, but the survey ship USNS Zeus is expected to arrive at the naval base in upcoming weeks.

Cuban authorities have been notified about the project, but they apparently do not have any say on it. The US maintains that it is a lawful tenant of the base under a 1934 treaty that makes the lease permanent unless both governments agree to break it or if the US abandons the base property.

The US’ approach to the law in this situation should raise eyebrows, American lawyer Eric Montalvo told RT.

“If you look at the lease or you look at the terms of how the negotiation occurred, Cuba has requested that the US leave on a number of occasions,” he said. “And if you look at the terms of the agreement, they do not conform to real estate law because there is this rule against perpetuities. You just can’t have something that goes on forever in a lease, there has to be a defined beginning and a defined end.” 

The US sends an annual rent check for $4,085 to Havana. But Cuban leader Fidel Castro said in 2007 that Cuba never cashed a single check except for one occasion in 1959 when it was done due to “confusion.” Castro said that Cuba refused to cash the checks to protest the US occupation of the illegally usurped land, which he said was used for “dirty work.”

When President Obama was first running for office, he pledged in very strong terms to shut down Guantanamo. But not only did he not shut it down, the US is now renovating the facility.

In 2009, Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo. But a decision on the specifics of such a plan was postponed, and in 2011, he issued an executive order permitting the indefinite detention of Guantanamo detainees.

With indefinite detentions and documented use of torture, Guantanamo has put a black mark on America’s already spotty human rights record. Within the last decade of the War on Terror, about 800 people have passed through the camp. The majority of them had nothing to do with 9/11, according to the facility’s former chief prosecutor.

At the moment the prison houses 169 detainees, about half of whom were cleared for release but have few prospects of obtaining freedom due to a ban on transfers from Guantanamo. As for the rest of the captives, some of them have a shot at a military hearing, but most of them do not have even that chance because the government says they cannot be tried for one reason or another, while the US Supreme Court keeps refusing to take up Guantanamo detainees’ petitions.

Source

(Source: thepeoplesrecord, via theyoungradical)

blackamazon:

humanformat:

KOTV reports that Denise Morrison grows an edible and medicinal garden of over 100 plant varieties in her front and back yard. Last August, she received a letter from the city reporting a complaint about her yard.

She took photographs of her gardens and went to meet with city inspectors who told her “Everything, everything need to go” when she asked for problem areas to be pointed out.

Upon hearing that all of her garden would have to be destroyed she called the police who issued her a citation so she could appear in court and work it out with the city. At her court hearing on August 15 the judge directed both parties to return to court in October.

The very next day, Morrison found, and photographed, city workers cutting down most of her plants-with what appears to be a bobcat and riding lawnmower- including trees that bore fruits and nuts. It is important to point out here that the city did not have permission to take action against the garden because the judge had put off hearing their case until October.

Everything that Morrison grew could be eaten. At the time the gardener was unemployed and not covered by insurance.She used her garden not only to feed herself, but to treat her diabetes, high-blood pressure and arthritis. According to Morrison, when she explained this to the enforcement officials she was told “we don’t care.” Morrison has filed a civil rights lawsuit arguing that the enforcement officials overstepped their bounds.

If this is sounding familiar to you it’s because gardens like Morrison’s are always coming under attack. Remember the story of Adam Guerrero last year that made national headlines after Colleen blogged about it here at TreeHugger?

I wish Morrison all the luck with her lawsuit because gardens are a civil right.

Self-sufficiency is a fucking crime now?

Don’t ask for help, they say

Don’t depend on handouts they say

Don’t expect shit.

And when they see what that actually looks like

They take a BOBCAT to your property.

Tell me some more about how they don’t depend on our QUIET UNOBTRUSIVE suffering again

GOD FUCKING DAMNIT!!!! The government, the police….they have no right! Gardening is not unlawful, it is not harmful to anybody (besides groups like Monsanto). This woman has rights damnit! Everyone should!

(via politicsd00d)

"The military slang for a man killed by a drone strike is ‘bug splat,’ since viewing the body through a grainy-green video image gives the sense of an insect being crushed."

— Michael Hastings, The Rise of the Killer Drones: How America Goes to War in Secret (via theyoungradical)

(Source: mohandasgandhi, via theyoungradical)

dallalicious:

“Do you see a theme here? We are being de-humanized by both parties in our Government. They already took away your right to Liberty under the Patriot Act, and Paul Ryan and his cronies are making the Pursuit of Happiness a game for the top 1% only, and now we have Eric Holder saying that the right to Life is not so much a guarantee under the constitution as it is a sort of conditional privilege - as long as you don’t piss off anyone in power.”