Mediaboss Marketing

Its fair to say that the average Indians faith in the judiciary and the Constitution in general is at an all-time low. A few days ago, we learned that former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, will be a Rajya Sabha MP soon. This is less than a year after he presided over his own sexual harassment allegation hearing just one of the many unpopular decisions he took in the last year of his career, all of which favoured the Narendra Modi government (Ayodhya, the Rafale deal and so on). The most contentious issue in India (other than the governments handling of COVID-19, of course) today, after all, is an act that many of us feel is unconstitutional (violates Article 14, for starters) and yet, the fight against the CAA is led by street protests, not legal challenges.

When did the executive branch begin to bend the judiciary to their (political) will in India and how? Sixteen Stormy Days (Penguin Random House India), a new non-fiction book by Tripurdaman Singh, tries to answer this question and address the long-term effects of the First Amendment to the Indian constitution.

Sixteen Stormy Days, by Tripurdaman Singh

As the author says, How did this magnificent Constitution, the most elaborate declaration of human rights yet framed go from being a charter of freedom & fulfillment of the dreams of Indias people in 1950 to being an impediment in the will of the same people by 1951?

Why did Jawaharlal Nehru push so hard for the First Amendment in 1951, especially in the face of challenges both within the provisional parliament (general elections were still a few months away) and from various High Courts? The answer is both simple and not. The objective was three-fold: the abolition of the zamindari system (the impediment being the right to property), the application of caste-based reservations (the impediment being the right to equality) and the censoring of publications deemed as national security threats (the impediment being freedom of speech).

Each of the three objectives, therefore, involved a clash between political objectives and fundamental rights. This brought Nehru back to the original question: why do we have fundamental rights in the first place? Is it not to protect the most vulnerable among us? Nehru was certainly correct in his over-arching view of things that as long as structural inequities existed in the Indian state (the caste system, for instance, something that persists to this day and is easily Indias biggest social justice issue), fundamental rights could be misused to privilege the powerful over the weak. Zamindari did need to go, caste-based reservations were needed in India (still are).

As part of its agenda, the Congress wanted to abolish the zamindari system as soon as possible. Obviously, faced with the overnight evaporation of their power, the zamindars of Bihar in particular fought back hard, helped by allies like Rajendra Prasad, Indias first President. On 12 March 1951, the Patna High Court struck down the Bihar Land Reforms Act, saying that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution (which pertains to the equality of all citizens in the eyes of the law).

In a searing indictment of the Congress party and the Bihar governments manifest authoritarianism, the judges denounced the Act as an unconstitutional law enacted in the belief that the right of the plaintiffs to challenge it and ask for relief from its operation has been taken away. The courts decision shook the government and the Congress party to its core. It shattered the illusion of the current regime having inherited the absolute power of the Raj. The Bihar Land Reforms Act bit the dust. An entire pillar of the Congress partys social agenda stood virtually crippled.Singhs research is thorough. He excels in the blow-by-blow accounts of those crucial weeks when Nehru tried to bring his allies and his opponents around to his point of view. (Realpolitik is a thorny affair at the best of times, one that Singh is clearly familiar with). Immediately after the Patna High Court ruling, Nehru had a fairly strong-worded statement for the press:

If the Constitution is interpreted by the Courts in a way which comes in the way of the wishes of the legislature in regard to basic social matters, then it is for the legislatures to consider how to amend the Constitution so that the will of the people as represented in the legislature should prevail.

Most students of history and/or political science will, I am sure, find the back-and-forth between Nehru and BR Ambedkar, or between Prasad and Nehru, compelling reading. This is among the reasons why Singhs work is such a valuable resource. To his credit, the book is also accessibly written, for the most part, only slipping into legalese at a few places every now and then small blemishes in an otherwise thoroughly professional job.

I was also impressed by the fact that Singh, despite his Bharatiya Janata Party affiliations (his father Mahendra Aridaman Singh re-joined the BJP in 2017; at various points through the 90s and 2000s, he had been a part of the Samajwadi Party and Janta Dal as well), isnt interested in painting Nehru as an outright villain (although predictably, his book has been gleefully reported on by right-wing publications with a history of Islamophobia and publishing falsehoods like Swarajya magazine, complete with headlines blasting Nehru). As the author himself pointed out in a recent interview, he saw Nehru as a hard-nosed politician (and not as the saboteur of fundamental rights in India, despite his stand here). Hopefully, this sense of nuance also reaches Singhs colleagues in the BJP soon.

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

See more here:
Sixteen Stormy Days: Tripurdaman Singh's account of the First Amendment to Indian Constitution makes for... - Firstpost

Police entered the Kent home with their guns drawn. Angela Simmons panickedand held up her hands.

Crisis and opportunity had collided to bring Simmons into the Kent homein 2013. In the aftermath of the recession, when foreclosed houses around King County sat empty,Simmons was introduced to an ancient legal principle called adverse possession that resulted in her living in one suchabandoned home that she hoped one day would be hers.

Some may think of it as squatters rights, but adverse possession, enshrined in 19th century Washington law and common law going back centuries, theoretically can provide a path to property ownership through moving into an abandoned home without permission, paying taxes on the property and maintaining the place as an owner would. The challenge is to avoid getting caught.

But Simmonsnever thought that what she was doing could be considered criminal.

She wasnt the only one.

A man namedNaziyrYishmaEltaught a program in south King County on financial self-empowerment, including a course on adverse possession. At that time, several people, including Simmons,had signed ontoYishmaElsprogram, paid to become members of what he called the Association of Autonomous People. Then, some moved into foreclosed or otherwise vacant homes.

It was a perfect storm of factors: after the housing bubble burst, mortgages became harder to get for some. At the same time, homelessness also started to rise in King County beginning in 2012.

But adverse possession also often attracts attention from law enforcement and prosecutors, and both forces came down hard on YishmaEl. For his business advising people on financial empowerment and how to use the adverse possession law,YishmaElwas charged with theft and conspiracy but acquitted by a jury for all but one misdemeanor the unlawful practice of law which the state Supreme Court upheld last month.

Back in 2013,Simmons exchanged emails withYishmaEl, who sent her information on Washingtons adverse possession process and a spreadsheet of vacant homes.

SoSimmons, then working in city government,looked up the laws and even asked the attorneys she knew about adverse possession. It was real, they told her, though they didnt know how anybody mightactually goabout it.

For Simmons, the prospect of owning her own home in the area the ultimate stability for her kids looked very far away, even on a government salary.Soshetook the plunge. Shesettled on a four-bedroom home in a suburban Kentculde sac.

The home was in dire need of repair, so Simmons labored for weeks to fix up the house, remodeling the kitchen and roof. She hired a landscaper, installed an alarm and painted an eggplant accent wall.

It didnt last long. Shortly after Simmons moved in,a neighbor called the police.

An ancient law

Squatting, adverse possession and homesteading all have long histories in Washington state. Homesteaders played a major role in settling the Northwest, often outside the bounds of what waslegal. Many white settlerswho started farms in the Washington Territory before the land waseven surveyed, including on Native land, were later grantedlegal ownershipof it by the U.S. government.

Squatting in vacant buildings in Seattlealsoserved as amajorprotest tool of activistsin the 90s.After protesters agitating for more low-income housing occupiedabandoned buildings,two of those buildings were redeveloped to house people with low incomes and formerly homeless people.

The lesser-known law of adverse possession has been on the books since the late 19th century, though in recent years, activists have suggested adverse possession as a common-sense way to combat the homelessness and affordable housing crisis.

Prosecutorsalleged thatYishmaEltook advantage of people living at the margins through his business, for which he charged $7,000 for membership.YishmaElcountered that he warned his clients he was not a lawyer and advised them that the process wouldnt be easy.

I explained to each and every one of them, even on the day that this happened, look, the cops are going to be on there, he said. Youre going to have to fight this.

In California,community organizer Steven DeCaprioused the states adverse possession law toadvocate for people experiencing homelessness and to successfully occupyan abandoned home.

Two decades ago, DeCaprio found himself homeless in Oakland after losing a jobat Whole Foods. He had already seen squats in Europe protests that eventually blossomed into communities with schools and music venues while on tour with his punk band.

I just started researching and looking into it and the phrase adverse possession came up and I looked into it and eventually started squatting and litigating those squats, DeCaprio said.

DeCapriofound himself in and out of court, and in and out of various homes he and others attempted to occupyin the Bay Area. He founded an organization, Land Action, to help people do the same.

After more than a decade of fixing up a long-abandoned home, DeCaprio eventually acquired the title through adverse possession.His story made national headlines and wound up in an online presentation ofYishmaEls still available to watch on YouTube.

But in Washington, owning a home through adverse possession is much more difficult because of the length of time involved. California only requires five years of occupying a home intended for adverse possession; Washington in most cases requires 10.

Its not usually a successful strategy just because the period of time is so long, says EduardoPealver, a property law expert and dean of Cornell Law School. Among the ways to acquire property, its one of the riskier ones.

Typically, before that 10 yearperiod is up, an owner will show up to kick you out. Plus, theres potential criminal liability,Pealversaid, as if youre breaking and entering onto the property.

But the switch that flips when the clock runs out thats what makes it enjoyable to teaching students about adverse possession,Pealversaid.

Because its so counterintuitive,Pealversaid. Youre engaging in trespass and thats bad, but if you do it long enough you become the owner.

A long road to get back on their feet

When Simmons explained to the Kent police what was going on,she handed them a packet of paperwork she had filed with King County, including a notice of adverse possession.

Police chalked the dispute up to a civil matter meaning they couldnt do anything about it and left.

Then, shortly after her interaction with police, Simmons found out the home was being put up for auction? Itleft her scrambling.Simmonshad sunk an estimated $5,000 into the home, all of which went to waste. She had paidYishmaEl $2,500.

Others who learned about adverse possession from YishmaEl had worse outcomes. Holli Gaines was homeless with her son and her newborn, living out of her car, for more than two months after she was arrested for burglary in ahomeshe found throughYishmaEls course. (The burglary charge was later dropped). Another woman who followed the adverse possession course lost all her family photos after she was arrested.

Unpopular views

On a recent Friday afternoon,YishmaEl, now 50, had just learned that the Washington Supreme Court had upheld his misdemeanor conviction. It frustrated him. He considered his business and what he advised his clients a matter of his First Amendment rights.

There was no responsibility or accountability on the police,YishmaElsaid of the justices decision. He believes the charges on which some of his clients were arrested never would have held up in court.

By his own account,YishmEelhad spent much of his early life angry. Angry at the bullies in his Omaha neighborhood who targeted his family because they were Black. Angry at the system.

And even with this adverse possession, in a way, it was kind of my way of thumbing my nose to the system,YishmaElsaid. Weve got one of the most prosperous countries in the world, we have homeless people, we have people that work full time job, they dont get a high wage, but theyre on the verge of being homeless.

YishmaElstill fiercely believes in the potential of adverse possession and is convinced it could be a partial solution to the regions current homelessness crisis. Hes also considering taking his unlawful practice of law ruling to federal court as a First Amendment challenge.

King County prosecutors have a different view ofYishmaEl. To them, he was an opportunist who already had an embezzlement conviction on his record and took advantage of people on the margins during an economic crisis.

You cant just walk into a home and claim itsyours,King County senior deputy prosecuting attorney Jennifer Atchison said.

DeCaprio, the man who successfully used adverse possession in California,agrees withYishmaElsargument whileskeptical of his business model. He calledthe recent Supreme Court ruling an affront to freedom of speech, the right to organize, the right to engage in public discourse, and opens the door for unlimited targeting of individuals who hold unpopular views.

As for Simmons, seven years after she attempted to find a home she could own, shes still renting. Until last year, her daughter still asked about when the family might go back to the big Kent house.

She still wants a stable home for her kids,now determined to do it the hard way.

She is convinced her best shot at that in King Countys tight real estate market is to wait until another economic downturn, when more houses might go up for auction at cheaper prices.

Atchison,the King Countyprosecutor,believes that another economic downturn will almost certainly resultin morecases likeYishmaEls, when homes areforeclosedonand people see an opportunity.

But ifYishmaElsclients had stayed in the homes long enough, could they have succeeded?

Atchison paused before answering. Possibly.

This story has been corrected to reflect the proper spelling of Eduardo Pealvers name.

Continue reading here:
In times of housing crises, Washingtons old squatters rights law is put to the test - Seattle Times

Lata Nott is chief content officer of the Freedom Forum.

In times of crisis, safety and freedom may seem like theyre at odds with each other. A society that respects individual liberty cant implement the same kinds of drastic laws and policies that a more authoritarian one can.

This puts more of an onus on citizens of a democracy to make responsible choices. As we face a virus that we can easily pass on without realizing it, that may not cause any symptoms in those who are young and healthy but is potentially deadly to the elderly and those with preexisting conditions, we need to keep in mind that our independent media and civil society can be assets in this fight, as long as we balance our personal freedoms with care and compassion for each other.

As I write this column,7,038 people have tested positive forCOVID-19 in the United States. The highly contagious nature of the virus has led Ohio to postpone its presidential primary, Washington and Maryland to shut down all restaurants and bars (except for delivery and takeout) and California to call for all people 65 and older to shelter inside their homes. More than 30 states have closed their schools. On Sunday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that no gatherings of 50 people or more be held in the U.S. for the next eight weeks. On Monday, it amended thatwarning to apply to gatherings of more than 10 people. Imcertain that by the time you read this,there will be more cases of COVID-19, as well as more shutdowns, both voluntary and mandated by state and local officials.

All of this was unimaginable last week. Just last month, the coronavirus seemed like a rather distant problem,even though the firstconfirmed case in the U.S. occurred in late January. We had several weeks to observe Chinas handling ofCOVID-19and at first,a lotof our conversations had a tone of reluctant admiration for howswiftly an authoritarian government couldact in the face of an outbreak. In a matter of days, the Chinese government had quarantined entire cities, suspended travel, closed schools and businesses and built two new specialized hospitals. What democracy could matchthat?

It didnt take long forthe truth to come to light. Not that the Chinese government had been censoring information and violating civil liberties that was sort of a given but that censoring information and violating civil liberties actually made the outbreak worse. Chinas suppression of news about the outbreak prevented health care practitioners and individuals from being able to take appropriate precautions and hindered officials from being able to coordinate a response. As this personal essay from an anonymous resident of Wuhan put it, Before this coronavirus, I always thought it was OK to sacrifice some level of democracy and freedom for better living conditions. But now I have changed my attitude. Without democracy and freedom, the truth of the outbreak in Wuhan would never be known.

Of course, now that its our turn to deal with the virus, its hard to argue that were doing much better. For weeks, the Trump administration downplayed the severity of the situation, contradicting public health experts and news media reports and delaying containment and mitigation efforts. According to The Washington Post, early problems with manufacturing coronavirus tests, along with an initial decision to test only a narrow set of people and delays in expanding testing to other labs, gave the virus a head start to spread undetected and helped perpetuate a false sense of security that leaves the United States dangerously behind. Officials in China are reportedly watching our mishandling of the outbreak with a mix of shock and pleasure. They find it hard to believe that the worlds top superpower might be bungling its response to the virus, even after having had weeks to prepare for its possible arrival.

As the national security law blog Lawfare has pointed out, many observersare using the coronavirus as a proxy war for democracies versus authoritarian systems. This is,of course, an oversimplification, but it does highlight an important truth civil liberties do have an impact on how governments deal with crises. Our freedoms of press and speech ensure the free flow of information, but they also allow misinformation to spread. And while South Korea, a fellow democracy but one with less regard for civil liberties,was able to curtail its COVID-19 outbreak by forcibly shutting downa series of churches where the virus initially spread, its hard to imagine an American government official doing the same. Such an action, might register to many Americans as an egregious violation of basic First Amendment instincts regarding the freedom of religion, right to assemble and separation of church and state.

Our state, city and federal officials do have the power to place people in isolation or quarantine, but that power is tempered by the Constitution (the government cannot confine people arbitrarily and without adequate explanation) and by the norms of our society (the impact on liberty means that these are considered measures of last resort). Officials in the U.S. are more likely to recommend that people voluntarily practice social distancing. And even when they do make some aspects of this behavior compulsory, these policies arent nearly as draconian as they would be in an authoritarian system. WhenOhio Gov. Mike DeWine ordered bars, restaurants and recreation centers closed,he added, we hope that Ohioans will follow this advice. Just as with every other law or rule, you cant enforce it every time. Compare this to language a Chinese party committee used to discourage citizens from hiding infections: Whoever deliberately delays or conceals reporting for the sake of their own interests will be forever nailed to historys pillar of shame.

Our democratic approach means that we run the risk of our citizens not taking the warnings seriously. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie observed on Monday that, There are still too many Americans going out to restaurants, bars and other public areas as if this is business as usual. In a way, this is the cost of our freedoms. Weve been advised, whether we are healthy or ill, to practice social distancing, by minimizing contact with other people, limiting nonessential travel, working from home and avoiding gatherings. But for most of us, this isnt a mandate. Instead, its a choice we make every time we cancel plans, stay in our homes and forego human contact for another day. These decisions might not make much of a difference to your personal health and safety, but can have an outsized impact on the health and safety of others. As the director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, has said, I think we as a nation have to get into a place of not just thinking about ourselves, but thinking about everybody else around us, and particularly the most vulnerable people those who are older and those people with chronic diseases. Young people may have a relatively low risk of serious illness, kids seem to have a very low risk, but if you want to avoid what could be the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, then it is incumbent on all of us to severely limit our social interactions. We need to ask the question about every interaction we have and whether it is necessary or not.

It can be quite daunting to realize that flattening the curve slowing the rate of new infections in order to buy researchers more time to develop vaccines and give hospitals some respite is a responsibility that falls on all of us as individuals. But the thing about democracies is that theyre fundamentally optimistic about human nature. We give people civil liberties, knowing full well that some will abuse those rights, because we expect that, on the whole, most will use them wisely. We protect heinous speech, false information andpointless assembly from government crackdowns because we dont want to risk infringing on valuable speech, information and assembly and with that there isaninherentassumption that its worth it, that the good outweighs the bad.

There is no requirement that you exercise your freedoms responsibly, but the fact that you have them reflects the underlying belief that you will.

Lata Nott is chief content officer of the Freedom Forum.Contact her via email at[emailprotected], or follow her on Twitter at@LataNott.

More:
FIRST FIVE: In crisis times, balancing safety and freedom - hays Post

Last week the U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga released Chelsea Manning from detainment after concluding that the grand jury that she had been subpoenaed to testify before no longer needed her, since it was being disbanded. Manning was incarcerated because of her principled stance against the secrecy of the grand jury and her refusal to cooperate in its coercive procedure.

The release of Manning came after the U.S. government tried to break her to the point of suicide. Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, wrote a letter to the U.S. government late last year indicating that Manning's imprisonment amounted to torture. Her resistance is a part of the U.S. government's war on the free press, going after WikiLeaks' publisher Julian Assange.

Assange has been charged under the Espionage Act for publishing classified documents which exposed U.S.war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. This indictment is recognized by free speech groups as an unprecedented attack on the First Amendment. In February, the first week of the U.K. hearing of the U.S. request for Assange's extradition revealed a scale of this 'war' that goes well beyond press freedom. What took place inside the Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London was a sign of a dangerous slippery slide towards fascism.

Judge Vanessa Baraitser's deliberations on the U.S.extradition request for Assange was a trial for journalism, where bullying of an innocent man is camouflaged as a judicial process and the prosecution of a publisher that has no legal ground is given legitimacy. As Assange's defense team argued, the proceedings have shown a serious disregard for the rule of law, including abuse of process and ignoring the political nature of this case.

Craig Murray, a U.K. ex-diplomat who attended the hearing everyday, gave a report of his first hand account, pointing out the very oppressive nature of the building and physical arrangement inside the maximum security anti-terrorist court. He made it clear that Assange is a remand prisoner who completed an unprecedentedly long sentence for a minor bail violation and an innocent man facing charges for publishing documents that exposed the U.S.and U.K. government's war crimes.

The former ambassador to Uzbekistan described how Assange is now treated like a violent criminal. On the first day of trial, Assange was subjected to strip searches twice, handcuffed 11 times and his court papers were removed. In the courtroom he was held behind a glass pane in the presence of private security officers, being unable to communicate with his legal team confidentially during proceedings. During the hearing, Assange spoke:

"I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing. The other side has about 100 times more contact with their lawyers per day. What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?"

Clare Daly, member of the European Parliament from Ireland for the Dublin constituency was at the hearing and commented on this draconian measure taken against international standards. She mentioned that she was shocked to see Assange isolated behind the glass window, away from his legal team. Another member of the Parliament, Stelios Kouloglou, who was also at the court observing the hearing noted how what he saw reminded him of the dictatorship in Greece.

What is this prosecution of WikiLeaks founder really about? What has quietly taken place in the U.S. government's war on free press was a shredding of the Magna Carta as the very foundation of democracy. The Magna Carta is one of the most important historical documents, having established the principle of due process. It embodies the idea that everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and that all are entitled to the right to a fair trial, thus guaranteeing the rights of the individual.

The Founding Fathers of the United States considered this protection against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment essential in securing individual liberty. For this, they aimed to guarantee the constitutional due process right of habeas corpus, in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

By prosecuting Julian Assange, the U.S.government is not only violating the First Amendment, but also engaged in a direct assault on the core of civil liberties. The steps toward destruction of the constitution didn't just begin now. It didn't happen accidentally, nor does this government's obstruction of human rights only concern Assange as an individual. If we look carefully, we can see a series of events that were carefully orchestrated, leading to the extremely disturbing scenario of the detention of a multi-award winning journalist inside a glass box, as seen during the extradition hearing.

Assange through his work with WikiLeaks came to understand the hidden oppressive force that has insidiously stripped him of his own democratic rights. In his 2006 essay Conspiracy as Governance, he wrote:

Authoritarian regimes create forces which oppose them by pushing against a people's will to truth, love and self-realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce further resistance. Hence such schemes are concealed by successful authoritarian powers until resistance is futile or out weighed by the efficiencies of naked power. This collaborative secrecy, working to the detriment of a population, is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.

What Assange described as "conspiratorial interactions among the political elite" can be identified in power networks documented by Peter Phillips in his book "Giants: The Global Power Elites." This includes efforts such as the Project for the New American Centuryan enterprise established in 1997 for the purpose of exercising American global leadership. Consisting of top-level personale in the George W. Bush administration, it aims for total military domination of the world.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, networks of "collaborative secrecy" that Assange analyzed, seemed to have gained momentum. Investigative journalist John Pilger revealed the American plan to exploit a catastrophic event and the way the 9/11 disaster provided the "new Pearl Harbor" (discussed in the plan) as the opportunity for the extremists in America to grab the world's resources.

Right after the event the U.S., supported by its close allies, invaded Afghanistan. Then, just weeks later The USA PATRIOT Act, that radically expanded the government's capability of surveillance, was developed as anti-terrorism legislation. The following year, in 2002, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was set up in Cubain violation of due process clauses of the Constitution. From the Iraq War in 2003 to the passing by Congress of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), that completely dismantled the principle of habeas corpus, the erosion of civil liberties was made under the pretext of "fighting terrorism"America's official mission to wipe out al Qaeda and the terrorist Taliban leaders.

How did this radical transgression against democracy come about? Author Naomi Klein in "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" investigated how the state exploits crises through taking advantage of the public's psychologically vulnerable state to push through their agendas. She described the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq as a prime example of this shock doctrine.

The terror invoked by the Bush doctrine of "war on terror" in the wake of 9/11 was truly an attack on the heart of democracy. It paralyzed people and decapitated their ability to define reality, uprooting them from their own history. With the mainstream media broadcast of repeated images of the collapse of the Twin Towers, a climate of fear was amplified.

In response to the event portrayed as "terrorist attacks", President Bush in his address to Congress and the American people, expressed his patriotism with the deep emotional tones of vendetta. While the nation was disoriented, and before people had time to process this tragic incident or even really know who perpetrated it, the narrative of victimization was deftly put forth. Many wrapped themselves in the flag and joined the drumbeat of war with a sense of righteous self-defense.

The hearts of people that had frozen became numb. Many of us became unable to feel a sense of wrongness in the face of injustice. A steady advance in the reduction of civil liberties came to be normalized. In the euphemisms of "enhanced interrogation" and "extraordinary rendition" reprehensible human acts such as torture and kidnapping were made more acceptable. The term "bulk collection" was used to disguise "mass surveillance", making unconstitutional NSA spying of an entire world seem less severe or immoral. Cruel killings of civilians became less sensational when they are called "noncombatants" or become "collateral damage" after they were killed.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Two months after 9/11, in a news conference, President Bush urged the international community to form a coalition for military action. He said, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror!"claiming there is no neutrality in this war against terror. With a police crackdown on activists creating a chilling effect, the nation entered a political winter. Consequently, Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential election appeared to have lifted up the dark cloud of the post-9/11 world. Yet by the end of 2009, the American public became disillusioned with Obama's empty promises of "hope and change."

In spring of 2010, as waves of apathy were moving through the country, a shift in the tide emerged. WikiLeaks published classified military footage of the July 2007 attack by a U.S.Army helicopter gunship in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad. The video, titled "Collateral Murder", depicted the killing of more than a dozen men, including two Reuters' staffers.

The release of the Collateral Murder video brought a real catalyst for change. In the 17-minute film that portrayed the everyday life of the brutal military occupation in Iraq, we were given an opportunity to see with our own eyes who those labeled as enemies in the "war on terror" really werea group of adults and children trying to defend themselves from being shot and journalists risking their lives to do their job.

The light that unveiled the U.S.military's senseless killing was the conscience of the U.S.Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. It brought an awakening to the heart that remembers our inherent obligation to one another, helping to recover stolen memories of our own history.

The act of conscience of this young American whistleblower was met with cowardliness and indifference of the established media. Manning first reached out to major U.S. news outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post with material that exposed U.S. war crimes, but they turned her away.

With a vacuum of moral courage in the media landscape, WikiLeaks became the publisher of Manning's last resort. Nelson Mandela, who led the emancipation of South Africa, once spoke on how courage is "not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it" and that "the brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear."

In the face of the prevailing terror of an authoritarian state, WikiLeaks demonstrated truly fearless journalism, igniting the courage of their sources. A project of Sunshine Press launched in 2006, WikiLeaks began to melt frozen hearts, revealing the reality covered up by the corporate media.

In releasing the Collateral Murder video, Assange indicated that the purpose of this publication was to show the world what modern warfare actually looks like and that "his mission is to expose injustice, not to provide an even-handed record of events." An Australian journalist, Assange explained how WikiLeaks gave a political slant to their naming of the video as a way to give it maximum political impact, because the organization wanted to "knock out the euphemism of 'collateral damage', so when anyone watches it they will think 'collateral murder'."

In the summer of 2010, the light of transparency grew stronger. WikiLeaks published the Afghan War Diary, the trove of U.S.classified military records concerning the war in Afghanistan, revealing around 20,000 civilian deaths by assassination, massacre and night raids. This was quickly followed by their subsequent release of the Iraq War Logs, which informed people in Iraq about 15,000 civilian casualties previously unreported and not known to the international community. WikiLeaks' release of 779 classified reports on prisoners of the U.S.military prison in Guantnamo shed light on illegal detention and interrogation practices that were carried out during the Bush regime.

After their release of documents concerning wars in the oil-rich Middle East, the Pentagon swiftly attacked WikiLeaks. Despite the organization's careful harm minimization efforts of redacting sensitive information, U.S. Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen threatened the whistleblowing site with a bombastic line of "blood on their hands." This official spokesperson of the Pentagon called WikiLeaks publications "reckless" and "irresponsible" although not one single shred of evidence has ever been brought forth that any of these disclosures caused anyone harm.

At the time WikiLeaks began publishing the U.S. Diplomatic Cables, revealing countless wrongdoing, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (in the Obama administration) strongly condemned the whistleblowing site. Clinton, who admitted the Iraq War was a mistake and confessed how the U.S.had created Al Qaeda and ISIS, said: "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community."

Contrary to the U.S.government's portrayal of itself as a victim, WikiLeaks' released documents which have shown the truththat they are the perpetrator of human rights abuses, engaging in illegal wars. Manning's conscience, through WikiLeaks' brave act of publishing, was a response to the U.S.imperial war of aggressionthe massive political offence committed against the entire world.

America's political offense continued even after the Bush-Cheney era. President Obama not only refused to prosecute the previous administration's war criminals, he himself became a successor to their crimes. In 2009, instead of withdrawing troops, he added more, fueling the war in Afghanistan. Despite his promised "sunshine" policyto make the government more transparent Obama waged an unprecedented war against truthtellers, charging Manning and the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden under the Espionage Act.

With his 2012 campaign slogan of "Forward", Obama went "forward" with Guantanamo Bay and drone attacks. He signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 that contained controversial provisions of a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention, which is still effective today. With his "kill list", this supposedly 'progressive' president expanded the power of the executive branch in ways that enabled him to act as accuser, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner all in one, including assassinating anyone, even U.S. citizens.

In 2012, declassified military documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the U.S.government has designated WikiLeaks and Julian Assange as enemies of the United States, putting the media organization in the same legal category as Al Qaeda and violent terrorist groups.

From secret grand jury investigation to extrajudicial financial blockade, to harassment of WikiLeaks' associates at borders (including Assange's lawyer), the Obama administration attacked the publisher who has fiercely defended the public against the empire's repeated human rights abuses and egregious political offenses. Now, in the Trump administration's indictment against Assange on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer crime, we are seeing the escalation of this unprecedented war against the First Amendment.

Assange's U.S.extradition case is our fight against the empire's perpetual "war on terror"the war that started with lies, and a war with no end. This is a political battle and Assange's freedom cannot be won by the court.

Julian Assange created a new form of journalism that enabled a free press to perform its true functionthe role of watchdog for democracy. WikiLeaks opened a possibility for ordinary people to use information as power to participate in unfolding events, thwart authoritarian planning, so as to never repeat the tragic hijack of history that led to atrocities in distant landskilling tens of thousands of innocent people.

Networks of contagious courage that emerged through waves of whistleblowers began to dissolve the conspiracy of governance. The heart of democracy that is resuscitated now inspires us to move toward justice, to recognize our own significance and look one another in the eyes as we become who we are meant to be movers and shakers of our own history. Only through the courage of each individual to overcome fear and confront this terror that has been unleashed, can we end this war and free those who sacrificed their liberty, so we all can be free.

Read the rest here:
Assange's Extradition: An Escalation of the US War on Terror - Common Dreams

Thats how you diversify the economy here. Its going to be mineral-based, said Bob Vlaisavljevich, mayor of nearby Eveleth. If copper is down, youve got three other minerals. Thats where you get those dips, not the peaks and valleys where people are losing their homes, moving away. As far as diversification, thats how its going to be.

Twin Metals said the 100-acre site wont pose the environmental risk that people fear. The company insists its method of processing the mine waste wont jeopardize the surrounding lakes and waterway. Proponents point to an underground nickel-copper mine in operation on Michigans Upper Peninsula as a model for the industry in northern Minnesota.

Environmentalists insist otherwise. They say the nickel-copper mining process, no matter how technologically advanced, will risk leaching sulfuric acid, heavy metals and sulfates into the surrounding watershed. A statewide poll released last month showed that a majority of Minnesotans opposed the project near Ely.

Our communities have built our way of life around the wilderness. This poll makes clear that the majority of Minnesotans stand with us in protecting our nations greatest canoe country wilderness, said Becky Rom, national chairwoman of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters.

Nonetheless, the Twin Metals project, still in the planning and permitting phase, is estimated to directly employ 700 people and create 1,400 spinoff jobs for the area. And it isnt the only nickel-copper project in the area. A mining company called PolyMet has gotten all of its permits for a similar mine in nearby Hoyt Lakes, but the project is tied up in complex litigation.

Trumps steel tariffs and protective trade policies have left a region long dependent on mining here wanting even more. The president imposed a 25 percent tariff on most imported steel in 2018, but most people dont highlight the policy as the saving grace Trump touts it to be. While steel prices initially shot up, theyve settled back down as the U.S. steel industry continues to undergo a somewhat painful transformation.

Theres sure no boom up here, Gary Skalko said. After nine terms as mayor of the town of Mountain Iron the self-described hippie and former school teacher is standing down. Hes a strong supporter of the mining industry, but he senses a change in culture.

Im a pro-choice guy. Im still worried about losing my First Amendment rights, not my Second Amendment rights. I felt [Trump] should have been convicted for what he did, he said. Why would I represent people who dont have the same values? Theres so much hatred on both sides.

Preserving our way of life has become a rallying cry in the region. Rep. Pete Stauber, a former Duluth police officer who once played professional hockey, flipped the state's 8th Congressional District to red in 2018. He used the phrase in his campaign.

Stauber is not running a political campaign, hes running a cultural campaign, and its invincible as far as Im concerned, said Aaron Brown, a fifth generation Iron Ranger who teaches at Hibbing Community College and writes commentary on local issues.

It all comes down to a cultural balance that remains undecided and almost a sense of inferiority that comes from an up and down economy, he said.

Presidents have come and gone. Clinton and Bush and Obama and now Trump, said Brown. Very different policies but this place hasnt changed that much, and I think theres something about the hollowing out of the industrialization of this area that we feel that we no longer have any control over our self-destiny and I think that just feeds into our politics.

* * *

See the original post:
Minnesota on the edge: Ive voted Democrat my whole life. Its getting tougher. - POLITICO