Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts

Friday, August 15, 2014

Longtime brutal foe of OWS, NYPD Dep Insp Ed Winski back to old tricks again

Deputy Inspector Ed Winksi, known to aggressively arrest activists for exercising Freedoms of Assembly and Speech, was present for questionable arrests during #NMOS14 NYC

Promoted up the NYPD ranks from Captain to Deputy Inspector in reward for his tactics and methods to suppress activists, Winski has earned the ire of advocates for free speech

New York Police Department Deputy Inspector Ed Winski was present for at least one false arrest of activists taking part in the Manhattan event in coordination with last night's National Moment of Silence in remembrance of the victims of police brutality. The #NMOS14, as the national events were tagged on Twitter, inspired similar demonstrations across the United States after police in Ferguson, Missouri, shot an unarmed Black teenager, Michael Brown, on Aug. 9. Mr. Brown's murder by police was preceded by the murder of another Black man, Eric Garner, this time by NYPD, on July 17. Both cases have stirred passions for an overhaul of discriminatory and militarized policing tactics.

Dep. Insp. Winski can be seen in the above Vine video as the "white shirt" police officer, who is standing behind another white shirt officer on the left. Ironically, Dep. Insp. Winski oversaw what activists are now calling a false arrest during the #NMOS14 NYC demonstration that was meant to draw attention to racially-motivated policing tactics.

Dep. Insp. Winksi was first identified in a blog post by the political blogger Suzannah B. Troy in the above viral video originally uploaded to the Vine account of ReQ Cartier.

Deputy Inspector Winksi is the subject of a Change.org petition started 2 years ago, calling for the mayor of New York City to fire the out-of-control police officer.

Many police reform activists have decried the fact that the city's new mayor, Bill de Blasio, has kept Dep. Insp. Winksi amongst the NYPD's top ranks. Mayor de Blasio campaigned last year on a promise to overhaul the NYPD, but since his election last November, the then-mayor-elect made the regressive appointment of William Bratton as police commissioner. The mayor further raised raising questions about his commitment to overhauling the NYPD when he defended Commissioner Bratton's use of a disputed theory of policing known as Broken Windows, which targets people of color and low-income communities for over-policing. Many police reform activists view Commissioner Bratton's use of Broken Windows as a replacement for the discredited NYPD tactic of stop-and-frisk, which was recently ruled to be unconstitutional. Commissioner Bratton's controversial appointment flew in the face of Mayor de Blasio's promise to end racially-motivated policing tactics that target people of color and low-income communities.

That Dep. Insp. Winski is back to his old tricks only adds to the impression being made by police reform activists that Mayor de Blasio basically exploited his bi-racial family, most prominently his son, Dante, in a focus-group tested campaign commercial just to win last year's mayoral election, and that Mayor de Blasio never had any serious intention to overhaul the NYPD, much less to either end the pattern of false arrests of activists, to end the over-policing of people of color and low-income communities, or to establish a commission to investigate corruption by the NYPD including its Internal Affairs Bureau.

RELATED


Petitioning Bill de Blasio : Fire Deputy Inspector Ed Winski and Call For an Independent Investigation of NYPD (Change.org)


massage therapist in NYC

Michael Hayes, LMT, has practiced massage for more than 20 years as a licensed massage therapist in New York City. The offices of Flatiron Massage are located in the Flatiron District of Manhattan.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

A decade later, the New York City Council is still going through the motions on activists' Constitutional rights

Councilmember Ydanis Rodriquez promised to question the District Attorneys of New York about the prosecutorial crackdown against activists. Why doesn't he ask them about complying with the twin City Council resolutions from 2004 ?

Before a joint hearing of the the New York City Council Public Safety and Finance committees met to discuss a proposed expansion of the NYPD force by 1,000 new officers, Councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez tweeted that he would promise to call on the district attorneys of New York City to account for the prosecution of protesters. Councilmember Rodriguez, who was arrested when police raided the Occupy Wall Street encampment in 2011, is upset with law enforcement's focus on arresting protesters, like himself and Cecily McMillan, even though such arrests -- and their subsequent prosecution -- violate the peaceful political activities of protesters, acts which are protected by guarantees under the Bill of Rights.

Ydanis Rodriguez photo Ydanis-Rodriguez_zps8ba979d6.jpg

When The New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin wrote about Councilmember Rodriguez's complaints, Mr. Goodwin blamed law enforcement reform advocates for demonising the New York Police Department, but Mr. Goodwin failed to see how, left unchecked, the NYPD's pattern of misconduct and brutality leads to the police department's ruination of its own reputation. Reasonable people can see how the NYPD has had a long history of controversies and scandals, when it comes to failing to respect citizens' First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly. Police have gone so far as to make arrests of activists without probable cause, violating activists' Fourth Amendment rights. Police have also violated due process by denying activists' rights to parade permits and other approvals to facilitate peaceful political demonstrations. Based on the extreme abuses by the NYPD, the New York City Council passed a decade ago two resolutions, affirming activists' constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate without fear of reprisal, arrest, or vindictive prosecution for expressing their political beliefs. These resolutions were enacted following controversies in police tactics following the large anti-war rally of February 15, 2003, but apparently nothing's changed since this, since the police continue to unlawfully target activists for arrest, and prosecutors unlawfully target activists for prosecution.

Councilmember Rodriguez has a checkered record for law enforcement reform. He talks the talk, but when reform activists objected to Mayor Bill de Blasio's appointment of William "broken windows theory" Bratton as police commissioner, Councilmember Rodriguez defended Commissioner Bratton. It's unclear from press reports if Councilmember Rodriquez questioned the city's district attorneys at yesterday's joint hearing about the pattern of oppressive prosecution of activists. Nevertheless, it bears repeating that the district attorneys are answerable to the pressures of their political supporters. But at the very least, the district attorneys should take guidance from the twin City Council resolutions enacted ten years ago.

Locally, it is supposed to be the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, who is supposed to oversee the prosecution of crimes. Instead of focusing on major political and corporate corruption cases, which he rarely appears to prosecute, D.A. Vance rather chooses to obsess with the peaceful political activities of activists. D.A. Vance works for the New York State attorney general, Eric Schneiderman. Both D.A. Vance and Mr. Schneiderman have pretty much abdicated corruption prosecution to U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. More so than the others, D.A. Vance is vulnerable to the political realities of how he can run for office. District attorneys in the five boroughs of New York run for office with the approval of the local county political organization. Since New York is overwhelmingly a Democratic Party enclave, the county Democratic Party chair of each borough must approve of each respective district attorney candidate running for office, meaning D.A. Vance would not dare sacrifice his political career by prosecuting political corruption of officials, operatives, or lobbyists loyal to the county political organization, chaired in his case by Assemblymember Keith Wright, which approves of his candidacy. That is to say, D.A. Vance will not prosecute candidates for public office, their political operatives, or big money donors, who may be engaged in corruption, otherwise D.A. Vance risks alienating himself from his own political supporters. Instead, D.A. Vance touts his prosecution record against activists, paralleling the DOJ's own suppression campaign against activists.

It remains to be seen if the scripted gestures of City Council hearings under Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito will have the same toothless effect on law enforcement reform as the twin City Council resolutions passed a decade ago under former City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. The twin resolutions appeared to have no impact on the offices of the city's district attorneys. So long as the government fails to guarantee that police won't use acts of misconduct or brutality against citizens peacefully organizing around their political beliefs, it's difficult to tell how long opponents of reform, like Mr. Goodwin, as well as the city's district attorneys and their political supporters, will be able to benefit from their own constitutional rights. The consequences of demagoguery by opponents of law enforcement reform are obvious : opponents spread fear by predicting spikes in crime to keep the larger citizenry scared of advocates pushing for a reshaping of police tactics. But once one reasons that some citizens have no protections for free speech, assembly, and probable cause, among other rights and civil liberties, one moves the entire citizenry down the slippery slope toward anarchy.

EXCERPT


from :
Vol. III, Chapter 7 of
Roots of Betrayal : The Ethics of Christine Quinn
by Louis Flores

After the February 15 anti-war rally, progressives, including supporters of the NYCLU’s efforts to keep the police in check, pushed the City Council to pass two resolutions. These resolutions came about because of the lingering sting of the anti-war rally’s failure to receive a march permit. That other demonstrations were subsequently denied permits, or were subjected to police actions to subvert demonstrations, added fuel to the fire. The first resolution, which was adopted on February 4, 2004, called upon federal, state, and local officials, including city agencies such as the NYPD, to affirm and uphold the civil rights and civil liberties of citizens wishing to hold political demonstrations in New York City. Christine was one of its sponsors. The second resolution, passed on June 28, 2004, called on all government officials to uphold the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and assembly. Again, Christine was one of its sponsors.

These nonbinding resolutions were all that the City Council could muster. There was no more that New York City residents, be they activists or not, could expect in terms of oversight and accountability with regards to the NYPD’s record of violating the First and Fourth Amendments. While it is true that a resolution does lend the authority and influence of the City Council’s support to the cause of protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the City Council was capable of doing more, like withholding funding for controversial police tactics, subpoenaing records of police misconduct and brutality, or referring incidents for further investigation and possible prosecution. But the City Council did neither. In the hearings leading up to the adoption of the first resolution, it was clear that the NYPD was engaging in serious violations. A special report from the City Council Committee on Governmental Operations showed that, “In the aftermath of the numerous confrontations between demonstrators and police at the February 15th rally the Civilian Complaint Review Board (“CCRB”) investigated 54 complaints containing 114 allegations of misconduct by police officers.” Among the NYPD violations the report found was that the police department’s Technical Assistance Response Unit provided to CCRB heavily edited videos in a deliberate effort to disguise the police officers who committed violations. “Thus, many complaints were dropped where the officers went unidentified.” This is how the NYPD operated when it knew its actions were not going to be supervised or subjected to any accountability. How were the City Council resolutions going to address the underlying and ongoing violations of the NYPD ?

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Obama Administration Is “Greatest Enemy" of Freedom of the Press

NYTimes Reporter : Obama White House Is ‘‘Greatest Enemy of Press Freedom’’ Today

From Poynter :

New York Times reporter James Risen, who is fighting an order that he testify in the trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA officer accused of leaking information to him, opened the conference earlier by saying the Obama administration is “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.” The administration wants to “narrow the field of national security reporting,” Risen said, to “create a path for accepted reporting.” Anyone journalist who exceeds those parameters, Risen said, “will be punished.”

It's not known, though, if staff reporters at The New York Times are able to give voice to the serious constitutional violations by the Obama administration, then why won't the newspaper's political editor allow reporters to fully report the truth as news ?

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Will Mayor de Blasio withdraw subpoenas to former Village Voice editor over NYPD Quota Recordings ?

PUBLISHED : WED, 12 MAR 2014, 06:23 PM
UPDATED : SUN, 23 MAR 2014, 01:55 PM

''In what The New York Times described as a 'broadly worded, five-page subpoena,' New York City lawyers are demanding that former Village Voice reporter Graham Rayman turn over tape recordings police officer Adrian Schoolcraft made of his superiors at the NYPD’s 81st precinct in Brooklyn," Time magazine reported last December, adding, "The tapes were the basis for Rayman’s book, The NYPD Tapes, which alleges officers manipulated crime data in the Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood in Brooklyn."

It's questionable why city lawyers are infringing on Mr. Rayman's free press protections under the First Amendment, and many bloggers are concerned that the NYPD is harassing Mr. Rayman in retribution for Mr. Rayman's exposé of police corruption. Because of the legal wrangling with the city, one activist, Suzannah B. Troy, wondered whether the litigation was an excuse used by the new owners of the Village Voice to lay-off Mr. Rayman.

"The city should always be challenged when it uses subpoena power against a journalist," Mr. Rayman told amNewYork.

Will the so-called "progressive" new mayor withdraw these questionable subpoenas and end the police department's other violations of the First Amendment ?

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Media Pushing Back Against Obama Censorship and Propagandizing White House Communications

Reporter Bob Franken Blasts Obama on MSNBC: ‘Most Hostile’ to Press ‘in U.S. History’

Earlier today on MSNBC, during a segment moderated by anchor T.J. Holmes, the seasoned journalist Bob Franken described the Obama administration's efforts to control the media as the "most hostile to the media that has been in United States history."

This is not surprising.

Dana Milbank, from The Washington Post, spoke about a report published last week in which Mr. Milbank asserted that President Barack Obama is propagandizing White House communications.

Meanwhile, Amy Holmes said that the White House was trying to censor the media. She pointed out that Jay Carney had a media background, and now that he was the White House press secretary, he should know better about White House efforts to only get "happy talk" reported by the media.

Mr. Milbank pointed out that President Obama made promises of "new transparency." Instead, Mr. Milbank said that the Obama White House is now prosecuting reporters under the Espionage Act.

You can see the Obama administration's clamping down on the First Amendment in how it refuses to honor the Freedom of Information Act request filed in the case of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hero Lt. Daniel Choi.

Read more : Reporter Bob Franken Blasts Obama on MSNBC: ‘Most Hostile’ to Press ‘in U.S. History’

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

DOJ First Amendment Violations : A Valid Concern

I just called, and I was told that the FOIA request I sent to the Department of Justice hasn't been tracked into their computer system. I left a voicemail after being transferred twice. It's interesting to learn yesterday about the DOJ getting phone records of the Associated Press, a clear violation of the First Amendment. The FOIA request I submitted on April 30, 2013, was about the government arresting activists. Among the information I requested was whether the DOJ considered First Amendment rights, among other rights, when prosecuting cases. Based on how the DOJ treats the First Amendment rights of the press, it concerns me that the First Amendment rights of activists may not be being protected.

2013-04-30 Lt Daniel Choi DOJ FOIA Request Louis Flores by Connaissable

“I am part of a global civil rights and human rights movement,” Lt. Daniel Choi declared shortly before his conviction, according to RH Reality Check. He spoke in favor of non-violent civil disobedience as a form of free speech : “I feel that the First Amendment is on trial today.”

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Fried Frank Represents Brookfield In OWS Lawsuit Over Library Destruction

How much lower can Fried Frank go ? Sarge Shriver's former law firm represents Brookfield Properties in the Occupy Wall Street lawsuit over Mayor Bloomberg's raid of Liberty Square, which destroyed the People's Library.

From The Village Voice :

... the City of New York will pay more than $365,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by people whose property was destroyed when the New York Police Department raided Zuccotti Park and evicted Occupy Wall Street on November 15, 2011. Occupy Wall Street had brought the suit against the city over the destruction of the People's Library, a collection of about 5,500 donated books that formed a central part of the community that sprung up for two months in the park. In the eviction, many of the books were completely destroyed, and others were so badly damaged as to be unusable. Occupy Wall Street claimed $47,000 in damages, all of which the city agreed to pay today.

On top of the damage claims, the city will also pay $186,350 in fees and costs to Occupy Wall Street's lawyers.

Sarge Shriver's old law firm, Fried Frank, represented Brookfield Properties in the Occupy Wall Street lawsuit over the destruction of the People's Library and the NYPD raid of Liberty Square. Sarge Shriver was known as the architect of President Johnson's war on poverty. He was known for his Progressive and humanitarian causes. With its defense of Brookfield Properties in this lawsuit, and the law firm's work to represent Bill Rudin in his takeover of St. Vincent's Hospital, Sarge Shriver's legacy is now being betrayed by Fried Frank.

2013-04-09 Occupy Wall St v City of New York Settlement (People's Library Destruction Lawsuit)

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Anonymous - Message to America

Hello all of America. Hello Mister president. We are Anonymous. Dear Mister president, We would like to ask you, are you happy with what you have allowed the United States to become? The entire country a war machine, people rising in protest against you, and the city governments allowing the brutal beatings and arresting of citizens across America. By allowing this to happen you are a disgrace to the office of presidency. You mister president, you need ought rightfully to set your political career aside and focus on the city streets of your own country. So far you have done nothing about the thousands of people arrested in the streets for exorcising their first amendment rights. Stop and listen to the people you took an oath to uphold, stop treating the people of America like terrorists with the building of FEMA camps to imprison all who stand up against political control. You Mister President are a failure to America.

Citizens of the United States. The corporations that profit from permanent war need us to be afraid. Fear stops us from objecting to government spending on a bloated military. Fear means we will not ask unpleasant questions of those in power. Fear permits the government to operate in secret. Fear means we are willing to give up our rights and liberties for promises of security. The imposition of fear ensures that the corporations that wrecked the country cannot be challenged. Fear keeps us penned in like livestock.

And yet, Who will govern the governors? There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. We alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray. We alone are the safest depository of the ultimate powers of government.

It is for this reason that our constitution was written. America, and the world at large is becoming informed and in turn preparing. Soon, We the people will no longer stand by in silent consent. This is a call to every citizen, this is a message to all of government.

Knowledge is free. We are anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

FBI OWS Documents

On Page 61, redacted notes show that a sniper was being planned to take out leadership of OWS protesters in Houston, Texas. It is unclear who was planning the sniper attacks.

FBI Occupy Wall Street "OWS" Documents

On 22 November 2011, the FBI lied when it said that it had no documents on the Occupy Wall Street protests : FBI Claims It Does Not Have Any Documents on Occupy Wall Street (Truthout)

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Are NYPD Cyber Searching Political Blogs ?

NYPD continue to monitor peaceful activists in violation of the Handschu Agreement. In this latest case, NYPD officials are visiting this blog even though NYPD refuse to answer to a Freedom of Information request by the author of this blog.

Remember, this is on top of the fact that there have been allegations that Speaker Quinn has instructed the NYPD to use physical force against the author of this blog.

If Speaker Quinn can't find a way to violate due process by firing you, then she puts the NYPD on the case, to harass and cybermonitor you ?

2012 11 24 NYPD Cybermonitoring Louis Flores Handschu Agreement

Saturday, August 11, 2012

In John Waters's Film, Female Trouble, Aunt Ida Plays With Her Breasts (Edith Massey), But Once Suzannah B. Troy Talks Politics, YouTube Drapes e-Burka Over Her Videos : Censorship ?

It is a shame to see how blogs and YouTube videos, which discuss critical news about SAIC and the billion-dollar high-tech deals that give birth to insider dealing and mega corruption, can be labeled with adult warnings, but I've seen clips of John Waters' movies on YouTube with nudity and self-gratification scenes, but that's deemed perfectly funny by our admittedly raunchy online standards.

But as soon as a blogger starts talking about RICO charges and triple damages and civil and criminal trials, then we focus our eyes and attention on boobs, and we find reasons to restrict access to information that no msm outlet is putting out there. I wonder what would happen if I shaved my chest and put on a pair of falsies under a bikini top ? Would you give me a free pass, like topless YouTube clips of Edith Massey ? Would I finally get some attention focused on my Kickstarter project ?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/louisflores/roots-of-betrayal-the-ethics-of-christine-quinn

But then again, I'd probably get labeled as adult content by your same sick and twisted double standards, and I'd only succeed at getting warnings on my online content.

Just because all men stare at Suzannah's boobs don't mean we should drape a digital full-body cloaks (aka ''adult warnings'') on her YouTube videos -- against her will.

Did I miss something, or isn't this exactly what you are doing to her work ? She's too sexy even in clothes, so let's drape her videos in adult warnings like a quasi "e-burka."

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Bad Corporate Person of the Week: Verizon

Our pick for the bad corporate "person" of the week : Verizon.

From : arstechnica

Verizon pressed its argument against the Federal Communications Commission's new network neutrality rules on Monday; filing a legal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The company argued the FCC's rules not only exceeded the agency's regulatory authority, but also violated network owners' constitutional rights. Specifically, Verizon believes that the FCC is threatening its First Amendment right to freedom of speech and its property rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Read more : Verizon: net neutrality violates our free speech rights. Company argues FCC regulations run afoul of Fifth Amendment property rights too

Friday, June 8, 2012

OWS Brooklyn Bridge Lawsuit Update

Class Action Lawsuit Against NYPD Over Mass Arrests On The Brooklyn Bridge

Legal opinion by judge, allowing Occupy Wall Street protesters and other plaintiffs to sue the NYPD in a class action based on the police entrapment and brutality during the Brooklyn Bridge protest.

2012 06 07 OWS Brooklyn Bridge Arrests Garcia v Bloomberg Opinion and Order

Class action complaint from mass NYPD arrests of Occupy Wall Street activists.

2011 10 OWS Brooklyn Bridge Arrests Class Action Complaint Garcia v Bloomberg

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Obama Signs Anti-Protest Trespass Bill H.R. 347 Into Law

President Barack Obama signed H.R. 347 into law, a bill that could drastically limit the ability of Americans to assemble and protest. Sometimes referred to as the Trespass Bill, the wording in the new law now makes it a federal offense to assemble at many political events, essentially criminalizing protesting.

Notwithstanding the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, both houses of Congress passed, and President Obama signed into law, legislation that most people view as unconstitutional. Did anybody read the First Amendment ?

AMENDMENT I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(Censorship update : The original video blogged on this post was banned by YouTube.)

Sunday, March 20, 2011

CENSORED : True News From Change NYC Blog

Update : True News From Change NYC Blog Has Been Restored

Google Blogspot Blog Has Been Removed For No Reason ; Blogger Community Suspects Political Censorship ; Call To Action

True News From Change,Blogspot,Google,Censorship,Gary Tilzer

Please send an e-mail to press@google.com and copy Gary Tilzer, the owner of the censored blog, at Gtprinter@aol.com -- demanding that the True News blog be restored.

True News is a blog dedicated to reporting about government scandals, politics, and transparency. (Here is the cached version of the True News blog.)

This is not the first act of censorship against Mr. Tilzer. Before the 2010 election, a YouTube video that Mr. Tilzer produced was banned by NBC/YouTube and had to be replaced with an edited version. In the last couple of years, others have faced incidences of cyber censorship or retaliatory activity. One and a half months before the 2009 election, the YouTube channel owned by the artist and political commentator Suzannah B. Troy was likewise censored, until bloggers and a lawyer intervened on her behalf. In 2010, this blogger was attacked by computer viruses 3 or 4 times, including on the day this blogger reported to the New York Department of State Committee on Open Government an act of censorship committed by Brad Hoylman.

Flashback : Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed Internet freedom as tool to ‘spread truth and expose injustice’

We need your help to keep courageous bloggers, like Mr. Tilzer, doing what they do. If you are reading this, it is because you are turning to the Internet for reliable information. For it to be here, bloggers, like Mr. Tilzer, have to be able to do their work without fear of retribution or censorship.

Friday, January 28, 2011

Egypt And The U.S. : Interference With The Internet #LeakSpin

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak :
The Countdown To Regime Change

The right to Internet access is so critical to citizens' participation in their own governments that the revolution taking place in Egypt has implications for the United States. Tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama addressed the bloody crackdown on the protests in Egypt.

From The New York Times :

Mr. Obama also said that Egyptian officials should "reverse the actions that they have taken to interfere with the Internet, cellphone service, social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century." He added, "going forward, this moment of volatility has to be turned into a moment of promise."

In a 2007 editorial ABC News online, Internet access was described as an important underpinning to democracies. When the governments of Burma and China restricted Internet access, the consequences to freedoms were indisputable. ''Democratic governments understand the connection between human rights and Internet freedom. They have been quick to condemn the Internet crackdown in Burma and China and the lack of Internet freedom in much of the world,'' wrote Leslie Harris.

Remember that before the Egyptian government suspended Internet access inside its country, ''President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States ... .''

Remember that before the Egyptian government shut down cellphone service, President Obama ordered the Justice Department to obtain a secret court order to demand that Twitter turn over, among other things, the ''subscriber names'' of the five individuals associated with WikiLeaks, an act that would blatantly deny subscribers their rights to due process.

Earlier today, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also made a statement to express her request that the Egyptian government restore Internet access.

''Mrs. Clinton also urged the government 'to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communications,' referring to its decision — apparently unprecedented — to cut off all Internet services in the country, as well as mobile phone networks in some areas,'' reported The Times.

For the U.S. government to actualise the exceptionalism that we know it to have, and for the U.S. government to truly support democracy in Egypt, it must be more honest about the dishonesty of the Egyptian government (''GOE''). Today, WikiLeaks published new U.S. Embassy cables, including one that gave some perspective into the inside information available to the U.S. government.

''The GOE has not begun serious work on trying to transform the police and security services from instruments of power that serve and protect the regime into institutions operating in the public interest, despite official slogans to the contrary.''

#CableGate, #LeakSpin, #09CAIRO79

Saturday, December 18, 2010

Of Benazir Bhutto #LeakSpin

After The WikiLeaks Publications, What Needs To Be Explained About The Assassination Of Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto returned to Karachi on 18 October 2007 to prepare for the 2008 Pakistan national elections ; the BBC reported that Ms. Bhutto's return was the result of a ''power-sharing agreement with President Musharraf.'' She was assassinated on 27 December 2007. One day after the assassination of Ms. Bhutto, Hana Levi Julian published a report in IsraelNationalNews.com that the governments of each of Israel, the U.S., and Great Britain had ignored Ms. Bhutto's appeals for protection. Yet, after the publication by WikiLeaks of U.S. State department diplomatic cables, the exact role of the U.S. in Ms. Bhutto's October 2007 return to Pakistan, and her obvious need for protection, needs to be explained. For, in one of the cables, Asif Zardari, Ms. Bhutto's widower, recounted how Ms. Bhutto ''had returned despite the threats against her because of support and 'clearance' from the U.S.''

Moreover, several months following Ms. Bhutto's assassination, Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, had kicked the proverbial hornet's nest after it came to light that Mr. Khalilzad was providing advice and counsel (in some form or another) to Mr. Zardari. In the diplomatic confusion that played out in the news article published in The New York Times, it was reported that :

''Officially, the United States has remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf, and there is concern within the State Department that the discussions between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, could leave the impression that the United States is taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.''

If the U.S. was, indeed, remaining ''neutral,'' as The Times had reported, then what did Mr. Zardari mean when he said that his late wife ''had returned despite the threats against her because of support and 'clearance' from the U.S.?''

The foreign policy in play by the U.S. during the time leading up to, and following, Ms. Bhutto's return to Pakistan, and her subsequent assassination, reveal the doomed U.S. strategy in Pakistan, and, to some extent, in Afghanistan. After having invested billions of dollars in planning a strategy of the war in Afghanistan on an expectation of a partnership with Pakistan, and in particular with then-President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, the Bush administration was surely already ''taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.''

Militants Set The Agenda

Following the coördinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush became obsessed with causing regime change in Iraq, even though Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. After it became apparent that the president did not believe that diplomacy alone was going to lead to regime change in Iraq, the president mobilised a unilateral first-strike in March 2003 against Iraq, in spite of opposition from the United Nations. This, and other belligerent examples of U.S. foreign policy under the Bush administration, would leave no cause to doubt that the Bush administration wanted to single-handedly ''control'' the circumstances of individual countries, during the prosecution of the war on terror. So, naturally, in August 2008, when John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, became ''angry'' over news that the U.S. United Nations Ambassador Khalilzad was offering counsel to Mr. Zardari in the time leading up to the Pakistan national elections, it was precisely because the aim of U.S. involvement in Pakistan was never to promote democratic elections, but to reserve the channels of communication and assistance between Pakistan and the U.S. solely at the hands of Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher, Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan, and Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State.

Notwithstanding Ambassador Patterson's remarks to Mr. Zardari, wherein she said that, ''we continue to support the [Pakistan People's Party] and our shared struggle against extremism and in favor of the democratic process in Pakistan,'' the U.S. couldn't even tolerate any kind of assistance or counsel that was being provided to Mr. Zardari or to the Pakistan People's Party, as evidenced by the backlash faced by Ambassador Khalilzad.

On the one hand, the U.S. wanted regime change in Iraq, but it could not, on the other hand, support democracy-building in Pakistan.

A Limited Strategy Of Containment

Many members of the U.S. Congress maintained close relations with Ms. Bhutto, according to one of the cables. Not only that, but three unnamed U.S. Senators also interceded on behalf of Ms. Bhutto's safety, when she requested President Musharraf for '' 'basic security,' including vehicles with tinted windows and private guards in addition to police guards. '' What is more, even as Ms. Bhutto's life was in danger, the CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer was in possession of information about the danger Ms. Bhutto was in, but he chose not to report about it until after she was killed.

If it was true that the Bush administration did not want any non-State Department channels of communication or support to be involved in the Pakistan national elections, then how did the Bush administration react, officially or unofficially, with the 3 U.S. Senators and the reporter, Mr. Blitzer ?

Beyond that, now that we are in the midst of the Cablegate news cycle, will the Obama administration deal with Julian Assange's role in the publication of the State Department cables the same way that the Bush administration dealt with the trading of sensitive information regarding Ms. Bhutto's safety, which would no doubt have risen to be considered, at the very least, sensitive State Department information, by the 3 U.S. Senators and the reporter, Mr. Blitzer ? Whatever the approach that the Obama administration takes in respect of Mr. Assange, it will look like a selective and arbitrary application of restrictions that would apply to Mr. Assange, but not to Mr. Blitzer.

The Predictable Election Cycle Offensive

Even though the Bush administration was conveying, through The New York Times article about Ambassador Khalilzad, that the Bush administration did want to be seen being involved in the Pakistan national elections, in one of the State Department cables, we find that Mr. Zardari was thanking the visiting Congressional Delegation of U.S. Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) for U.S. government ''support of credible national elections'' in Pakistan. Further, the U.S. government should have reasonably expected, even without Mr. Zardari's mentioning, that ''what happens in Pakistan has a spillover effect in Afghanistan, Iran, and India.''

Indeed, not only was Mr. Zardari requesting ''U.S. blessing for his leadership,'' but, at the time of his meeting with the U.S. Congressional delegation, Mr. Zardari was also ''struggling'' with how to explain to ''rank and file'' of the Pakistan People's Party the ''idea of continuing to work with a superpower which supported Musharraf.''

Whereas the ''official'' narrative of the U.S. State Department was that the U.S. had ''remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf,'' in reality, the fingerprints of the U.S. government were all over Ms. Bhutto's return to Pakistan -- and on the meetings Mr. Zardari had, in an effort to build support for his campaign.

The ''official'' U.S. State Department narrative was a sham.

Scenesetter For The Rest Of The World

One day after Ms. Bhutto was killed, Ambassador Patterson filed a cable in which the U.S. was assessing the qualifications of Chaudhry Pervais Elahi, the Pakistan Muslim League's presumed candidate for Prime Minister. About one month later, on January 25, 2008, Mr. Zardari, Ms. Bhutto's widower, met with Ambassador Patterson. During the meeting, Mr. Zardari described the US as Pakistan's ''our safety blanket.''

But this meeting of 25 January 2008, and the intelligence and requests that were being gleamed from it, were coming too late, if one were to believe that the U.S. would be taking action to support democracy and a stable government in Pakistan. Otherwise, this meeting was coming right on time, if one were to believe that the U.S. would remain ''neutral,'' meaning that the U.S. would be taking no action to support democracy and a stable government in Pakistan.

Little more than one week later, Ambassador Patterson dispatched a cable to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen. In the cable, Ambassador Patterson expressed a need for Adm. Mullen's help with setting the scene for ''necessary reforms'' in Pakistan's military. She added :

''A year ago, Musharraf's popularity was high; we were working together to support a smooth transition to a civilian government. Beginning with his decision to fire the Chief Justice in March 2007, Musharraf has made repeated political blunders culminating in a state of emergency (SOE) and temporary suspension of the constitution. He is increasingly isolated after firing long-time advisors who disagreed with some of these decisions.''

After all of the hemming and hawing, we find out from Ambassador Patterson that, ''We can work with any of the likely candidates for Prime Minister. But it may take weeks or even months after the election before a new Prime Minister is chosen and Pakistan again has a functional government that can focus on tackling extremism and necessary economic reform.'' Too bad that Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari believed, during the time that it mattered to Ms. Bhutto's safety and to the integrity of the Pakistan national elections, that Ms. Bhutto had returned to Pakistan with any real '' 'clearance' from the U.S.''

In his meeting with the Congressional Delegation, Mr. Zardari expressed the motivating fear of the Pakistani people : '' Zardari described the general distrust of the U.S. by the public and in political circles, 'fearing you will leave us again.' '' To the detriment of the democratic elections of our partners in the war on terror, the U.S. was playing both sides of the involvement coin. And this would not have been known, either officially or unofficially, by U.S. taxpayers, some of whom are paying the ultimate price for the war on terror, until Mr. Assange published the State Department cables.

#CableGate, #LeakSpin, #10ISLAMABAD416, #07ISLAMABAD5388, #08ISLAMABAD405, #08ISLAMABAD525, #08ISLAMABAD1998, #09ISLAMABAD236, #09ISLAMABAD1438

Author's Notes

This analysis is the first edition of research, based on a review of cables released as of 17 December 2010, which originated from Islamabad. A future edition may be published, provided that further releases of related cables are made. Please check here for a link to the publication of any subsequent editions : (placeholder intentionally left blank ; no updated edition is yet available). If no updates are yet available, you will not yet see a hyperlink in the immediately-preceeding placeholder. Not all of the listed cables are referred to in this analysis, but they were considered in the composition of this analysis.

This analysis and research is published under the constitutional right of freedom of the press, which allows for communication and expression of ideas and thoughts. As a blog that operates as a form of social media journalism, this blog posting is made under the rights and freedoms afforded under the First Amendment.