Ten years of unjust imprisonment

On June 4, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta upheld the convictions of the Cuban Five, the five men who were working to stop Miami-based terrorists from attacking Cuba and Cuba-related targets.

In reaction to the decision, organizations around the world and across the country mobilized to hold emergency actions on June 5 and 6. More protests are forthcoming.

The FBI arrested the Five—Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González, and René González—almost 10 years ago, on Sept. 12, 1998. They were unjustly charged with espionage crimes, although they were never engaged in espionage conspiracy nor intended to. Their target was not the U.S. government, but rather the terrorist organizations in Miami.

After a trial in Miami—the one city guaranteed to return a conviction—regardless of the evidence or charges—against any defendant who is in support of Cuba, the Five were convicted on all 26 federal counts and given four life sentences and 77 years collectively.

Although the recent Atlanta court decision remanded Antonio's and Ramón's life sentences and Fernando's 19-year term back for re-sentencing to the trial judge, Gerardo's double life sentences remain, and the convictions are still in place. The defense team, which includes civil rights attorney Leonard Weinglass, will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if needed.

Having come here to oppose terrorism, having never possessed or used weapons, having never committed any act of violence, having risked their lives to save others' lives, the Five do not belong in prison.

But this case has never been about legalities or crime. It is about the 50 years of aggression against Cuba, which includes the use of terrorism against the people of Cuba. The bombings, assassinations, biological warfare and other tactics employed by Cuban-American terrorist organizations centered in Miami have killed 3,478 Cubans collectively.

On the very same day as the Atlanta court's decision against the Five, an entirely different process was taking place in New Orleans. The notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was on the docket, and the justice system treated him with "kid gloves."

Although Posada has yet to be tried for the 1976 murder of 73 people who died in a Cuban airliner bombing that he masterminded, although Posada boasted of being responsible for a wave of deadly bombings in Cuban hotels in 1997, although he sneaked into the United States illegally in 2005, Posada now walks the streets of Miami as a free man. He understands so well that he is being given special treatment by the U.S. government that he has the audacity to exhibit his paintings in a Miami gallery.

He obviously has no worries that he might be extradited to Venezuela, where he planned the  1976 plane bombing. In early May, he appeared at a Miami fundraising dinner in his honor, and made a call to "sharpen our  machetes for the difficult days ahead."

But the men who monitored the actions of terrorists like Posada, in order to stop their reign of terror, are in U.S. prisons.

As the Cuban Five's 10th anniversary of imprisonment approaches, please learn about their case at http://www.freethefive.org and help organize support for them in the months of September and October, to demand their immediate release.

Extradite Posada, Free the Five!

Breaking down Obama's speech to AIPAC

The following are some excerpts from the speech of Barack Obama to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convention in Washington DC, June 4, 2008, with comments . If anything Hillary Clinton's speech that followed was even more aggressive and over-the-top in its pandering, but it is Obama of course who is the Democratic nominee.

"It was just a few years after the liberation of the [Nazi concentration] camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security."

Ben-Gurion simply "declared" the state of Israel, and it appeared!! No mention here – or anywhere in the entire speech –of the dispossession of the Palestinians. Nor any mention of the role of imperialism and colonialism in the creation of the state of Israel.

"Flying in an [Israeli Defense Forces] helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line [sic].

No mention of Palestinian casualties in number of deaths have been something like 100 times those on the Israeli side, not counting the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been jailed, tortured, had their villages, homes,, olive groves demolished, etc.

"I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party."

Absolutely right; until Bush, the Democrats were considered the bigger supporters of Israel. But now they're about the same. This "support" is based neither on sympathy for Jewish people nor the supposed control of U.S. foreign policy by a pro-Israel lobby, but is instead due to the vital role Israel plays in the U.S. empire.

"Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation."

Apparently Obama thinks the U.S. went to war against the wrong member of Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil.'

"Iraq is unstable, and al-Qaida has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace (sic) with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people."

Again, only the Israelis have borne the "heavy burdens."

"And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety. The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed."

This section could have been called "Making the Empire Stronger."

"And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region."

Here Obama is being truly disingenuous. Knowing full well, as he does, that the dispossession of the Palestinians is a major "root" cause of the conflict in the region, he dodges by inserting the word "all." The vast petroleum reserves and the region's strategic location are of course other root causes.

"These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be . . . "Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us."

This is true only if the word "us" it taken to mean U.S. imperialism. Israel is an extension of U.S. power and instrument of U.S. domination in the region.

"That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage."

No other state in the region comes close to Israel's military power, thanks to the hundreds of billions in military assistance and advanced weaponry given over the past four decades.

"I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened . . . "As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation."

Has Obama put dollar figures on any other programs he says he will implement, like job training, healthcare, affordable housing, etc., etc?

"First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world . . . .As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security."

Note: "to help Israel achieve the goal of two states"—an interesting way of framing a supposed "negotiating process."

"The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot."

Very democratic outlook – no elections should be held if the "wrong" party might win.

"The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid."

Reflecting the sharp rise in extreme anti-Arab racism among the Israeli public, the leader of one of the more influential Israeli parties, Avigdor Lieberman –until recently a deputy prime minister – openly calls for the expulsion of the entire Palestinian population. But that apparently doesn't qualify as "extremism" for candidate Obama, who once upon a time expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

This line caused an angry response from even most U.S.-dependent figures in the Palestinian Authority and throughout the Arab world.. Today, Obama has gone even further in this position in an interview with CNN.

"The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat."

This is a reference to Israel's unprovoked and illegal bombing of a facility in Syria several months ago.

"There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

"But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq . . . Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure."

The last three paragraphs emphasize the theme that Iraq was the wrong war in the Middle East.

"Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future."

A "responsible, phased redeployment," "we will get out as carefully as we careless getting in," – are clear statements that an Obama administration has no intention of really leaving Iraq. In hiss CNN interview today, June 6, with Candy Crowley, Obama affirms that he intends U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. Here, too, the colonialist language common to leading Democrats and Republicans about pressuring Iraqi "leaders to take "meaningful responsibility for their own future."

"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

What the transcript leaves out here is that Obama repeated the last sentence twice, followed by a one word sentence, "Everything," after which he paused and looked around for emphasis and as if to say, "get it?" Obama also called for tightening economic sanctions, which had such deadly effects on Iraq from 1990-2003, on Iran.

Final note: Obama's speech should not be seen as simply pandering to the pro-Israeli faction in the U.S. It was a major foreign policy speech, affirming that while he has serious tactical differences with Bush and the Neocons in regard to the Middle East (due primarily to their failures), he fully and unreservedly shares the strategic objective of long-term U.S. domination in the vitally important region.

Bolivian right-wing holds vote on regional autonomy

A grave political crisis is looming as a secessionist referendum takes place in Bolivia.

The separatist movement is headed by ultra-right forces, which organized the illegal and unconstitutional vote in the eastern department (state) of Santa Cruz, to declare its autonomy. Beni, Pando and Tarija—also departments in the eastern region known as the "Media Luna" (half moon)—will hold similar referenda in coming weeks.

The goal of the referendum is two-fold. First, it seeks to put political and economic control of the country’s considerable oil and natural gas wealth in the hands of the separatist elements within the Bolivian bourgeoisie. Secondly, it seeks the overthrow of the government of Evo Morales, which has emphasized the empowerment of the historically oppressed, majority Indigenous population and has pursued the nationalization of the country’s resources.

In a May 1 statement, Fidel Castro warned that right-wing elements in the Bolivian military might be planning an outright overthrow of Morales.

The Organization of American States held two emergency meetings, at which Bolivia’s foreign minister David Choquehuanca denounced the Media Luna governors for illegally dividing the country. Since Bolivia achieved independence from Spain in 1825, it has seen more than 200 coup d’états—half of all the coups in Latin American history.

At an urgent meeting of "In Defense of Humanity" network held on April 12 and 13 in Venezuela, prominent anti-imperialist intellectuals and artists from Latin America and the United States discussed a plan of action to defend the Bolivian government against the impending referendum.

The meeting produced a statement of solidarity denouncing the right-wing secessionist efforts. Its text follows below:

"The Conspiracy to Divide Bolivia Must Be Denounced

"The process of changes in favor of the Bolivian majority is at risk of being brutally restrained. The rise to power of an Indigenous president with unprecedented support in that country and his programs of popular benefits and recovery of the natural resources have had to face the conspiracies of the oligarchy and United States interference from the very beginning.

"In recent days, the increase in conspiracy has reached its climax. The subversive and unconstitutional actions of the oligarchic groups to try to divide the Bolivian nation reflect the racist and elitist minds of these sectors and constitute a very dangerous precedent not only for the country’s integrity, but for other countries in our region.

"History shows with ample eloquence the terrible consequences that the divisionary and separatist processes supported and induced by foreign interests have had for humanity.

"Faced with this situation, the signers below would like to express their support for the government of Evo Morales Ayma, for his policies for change and for the sovereign constituent process of the Bolivian people. At the same time we reject the so-called Santa Cruz Autonomy Statute due to its unconstitutionality and the attempt against the unity of a nation of our America."

Hundreds of prominent individuals signed, including: former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark; Nobel Prize recipients Adolfo Pérez Esquivel and Rigoberta Menchú; Professor Noam Chomsky; authors Eduardo Galeano, Ignacio Ramonet and Howard Zinn; liberation theologian Frei Betto; Cuban singer Silvio Rodríguez; ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) national coordinator Brian Becker; and Puerto Rican independence fighter Rafael Cancel Miranda.

Free Mumia Now!

Mumia Abu-Jamal, the people’s journalist, under threat of the death penalty for almost 27 years, remains in great danger. Yesterday, the 3^rd Circuit court turned down his appeal, one based on substantial issues raised before the court. Instead, the three-judge panel in a 2 to 1 decision ruled that Mumia is only entitled to a hearing for re-sentencing to either life without parole or execution.

Mumia and all his supporters are fighting for no less than his complete freedom.

This means more than ever, that the political struggle, the mobilization of people across the United States and around the world, must be raised to a higher level.

If Mumia had received proper legal defense in his 1981 trial, if he had not been before the most notorious pro-death-penalty Judge Albert Sabo—who was heard by witnesses to say, “I’m going to help them fry the n___,”—Mumia could have been free.

Mumia should never have been arrested. In a super-racist climate like Philadelphia’s—with the lynch-mob mentality of the police force and the city’s firebombing of the Move organization and murder of 11 people—Mumia was unjustly arrested and convicted.

When a police officer is killed, the police always make someone pay by false conviction, by permanent imprisonment and more often, by the death penalty.

This is evidenced by the vengeful attitude of the government and the FBI, in relation to the death of two FBI agents who were killed on Pine Ridge Reservation on June 26, 1975. Native activists shot the agents in self-defense during an FBI raid on the reservation.

In the trial of Native activists that followed, three defendants were exonerated by jury trial in Rapid City, Iowa. The FBI decided that Leonard Peltier, who had escaped to Canada, would have to pay for the death of two FBI agents.

Leonard Peltier has paid for 32 years behind bars, 32 years of unjust imprisonment. We cannot stop demanding and supporting his fight for freedom until he is home with his loved ones.

In Mumia’s case, more evidence was recently discovered in which photographs taken at the scene of the crime prove the police mishandled and manipulated the evidence.

Yet, Mumia has been denied a new trial based mainly on procedural grounds that deadlines for appeals have expired. That is because the Effective Death Penalty and Anti-Terrorism Law, signed by Clinton in 1996, severed restricted the rights of death-row inmates. The restrictions are so severe as to make it impossible to wage an effective appeal in the courts.

Imagine Mumia free. That must be our aim. The ongoing mobilizations and emergency protests in New York; San Francisco; San Jose; Seattle; Portland, OR; and Los Angeles are all important actions in the struggle to free Mumia. As a next step, Mumia’s attorney Robert Bryan will file an appeal to the full panel of the Third Circuit.

Free Mumia Now!

Ralph Nader isn't responsible for George W. Bush

On Feb. 24, political activist and consumer-rights advocate Ralph Nader announced his bid for the presidency as an independent candidate. Nader has run for president three times previously, as an independent or Green party candidate 

The expected barbs began immediately, focused not so much on any of the issues Nader raised, but simply because he dares to run and challenge the monopoly hold of the two capitalist parties. 

As expected, Nader immediately drew criticism from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton said, "I remember when he ran before. It didn't turn out very well for anybody -- especially our country." Both candidates are implying, directly or indirectly, that Nader's run helped George W. Bush win in 2000. 

True, the difference between Bush's and Gore's votes in Florida was less than the number of voters who cast their ballots for Nader. Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida, while Nader won 97,421 votes. That year was Nader's biggest electoral success, when he received 2.9 million votes, or 2.75% of the national vote.  

Florida was considered a pivotal state between the Democrats and Republicans, in what became an extremely controversial election, because of the highly irregular manipulation of the recount and the exclusion of tens of thousands of African American voters. The reactionary U.S. Supreme Court intervened and ordered a halt to the recount.  

The myth that Nader cost the Democrats the 2000 election is convenient for the ruling class. Never mind the deep dissatisfaction with both major parties that led to a low turnout nationwide. Never mind that 250,000 registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush in 2000. Never mind the irregularities at the polling stations in African American communities. Never mind the fact that all eight of the third parties on the Florida ballot that year received more than the 537-vote difference between Bush and Gore. The lesson we are supposed to absorb is that third parties have no place in the country's political lansdscape.   

Nader, like other alternative progressive candidates, has had to work state by state to even achieve ballot status. The obstacles are overwhelming for any party other than the Democrats and Republicans to run in the U.S. national or state elections. Nationwide, the Democrats increase this burden by dedicating a significant section of their staff to challenge progressive third parties that dare to achieve ballot status.

The Democrats claim to carry the mantle of the working class. It is true that a majority of working-class people are registered as Democrats, despite the fact that the party's leadership is thoroughly capitalist and has administered and legislated against the workers and poor, alongside the Republicans.  

The virtually unanimous votes in Congress of both big-business parties for the war budget in Iraq and Afghanistan—as well as the overall Pentagon budget — demonstrates that the Democrats are as devoted to the agenda of empire as are the Republicans. 

But the attitude of both parties toward alternative-party challengers is also proof of their role in the U.S. electoral system, which is a highly-developed vehicle to keep the capitalist class in power. 

When a party other than Democrats and Republicans runs in the elections, especially those that challenge the pro-corporate status quo, they are accused of "taking votes away" from Republican or Democratic candidates.  

This is curious logic, when you consider that the typical voter turn-out for general elections is 25 percent to 35 percent of the eligible voters (counting both registered and unregistered potential voters). The Republican and Democratic candidates never blame the non-voters—those they have failed to inspire— for the outcomes of their electoral battles.  

In the 2004 election, Democrats were so indistinguishable from the Republicans, that most people didn't even bother going to the polls. Across the country, it was a dead-heat as both tried to go further and further to the right. 

And Al Gore and the Democrats shut down a struggle in the Black community that was mobilizing to challenge the likely-stolen Florida vote, by conceding almost immediately to Bush. The African American community activists were organizing around the country, with the NAACP sending busloads of people from as far as California, to come to Florida and demand a recount. 

Although there are several other alternative parties running presidential campaigns, like our Party for Socialism and Liberation, Nader's name and reputation have given him massive national recognition.  

What the Democrats and Republicans fear is a challenge to their system. Imagine a real debate on national television: Nader criticizing the corporate control of Washington, or socialist candidates La Riva and Puryear calling for the $700 billion-dollars in annual military spending to instead be used for free healthcare, education and jobs. 

You can bet that millions, who long ago gave up voting as a futile exercise, would be inspired not only to vote, but to join the struggle to achieve real change. 

You have to imagine it, because neither Nader—nor any other progressive candidate—is allowed to appear on a national presidential debate with  the Democrats and Republicans. 

The closest any alternative candidate got to national exposure and recognition was Ross Perot, and he was allowed a place, because he was a billionaire who bought his way into the elections. 

This is the "democracy" that we are dealing with, where Hillary Clinton can raise $120 million before "Super Tuesday"—and an additional $35 million in February—and still be considered the underdog in the primaries because her competitor has raised more.  

The Party for Socialism and Liberation is using its campaign to challenge this system. Our members and supporters are busily petitioning in Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Florida, Vermont and we will be working hard through the year to qualify on almost 20 states. We welcome you to work with us.