Contact Me By Email


What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White

Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.


This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Thousands on HIV drugs desperate amid budget woes  | ajc.com

Thousands on HIV drugs desperate amid budget woes | ajc.com

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Cash-strapped states are cutting back on a program that provides free medicine to people with HIV, leaving thousands of patients to wonder where their drugs will come from and stirring fears of a return to the days when an AIDS diagnosis meant certain death.

At least 19 states have taken such steps as capping enrollment, dropping patients, instituting waiting lists, lowering the income ceiling for eligibility, and no longer covering certain drugs or tests.

The AIDS Drug Assistance Program is funded by the federal and state governments and run by the states. It provides free drugs in all 50 states and U.S. territories. But because people are living longer with HIV and the recession has created more demand for the program, states have been unable to keep up.

"It's very frustrating to be stuck in this position at this age and not feel well and be wondering if I am going to die any differently than the people who I helped die in the '80s," said Stephen Farrar, 55, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who has HIV and is going on Florida's waiting list. "Am I going to be one of those people?"

Health officials and advocates believe most people on ADAP's waiting lists are getting AIDS drugs free from pharmaceutical companies. But advocates say an unknown number are falling through the cracks of those programs, which provide only a patchwork of coverage and have widely varying income requirements.

AIDS drugs can be extremely expensive — a single one can cost more than $20,000 per year, and patients often need to take a cocktail of prescriptions to treat the disease or keep symptoms at bay.

In nine states, more than 4,500 people with HIV are on ADAP waiting lists or can't get into the program because enrollment is capped, according to the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors.

More than 300 people who had coverage were dropped this year, after five states lowered their income eligibility limits to as little as $21,000 per year. Hundreds more face the same fate by February if more states follow through on plans to cut their eligibility, the alliance said.

Several states have started covering fewer drugs — only AIDS medications, for example, but not drugs for conditions often developed by those treated for HIV.

The cutbacks have set off alarm among some HIV patients, with some people cutting pills in half to make them last longer, said Stephen Hourahan, executive director of AIDS Project Rhode Island, a state that was hit hard by the economic downturn and which instituted a waiting list this fall.

"There were stories of people calling us in a panic because they were afraid they were going to die if they didn't have their meds," he said.

Waiting lists have been instituted previously for the program, said Ann Lefert of the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors. But as demand has spiked, she said, the lists now are bigger than ever before.

The program had more than 168,000 people nationwide on its rolls in 2009, the most recent numbers available. The federal government spent $860 million on ADAP programs in the fiscal year that ends March 31, while states spent $336 million. In 2009, California, for example, spent $71 million, Texas $27 million and Illinois $14.5 million.

Nearly 1,400 people entered the program every month nationwide this year, compared with half that number in 2008, the alliance said. While many states have increased money sent to the program, it often hasn't been enough to keep up with demand, and they've had to cut services. Despite the greater need, 12 states have put less money into their drug programs.

Most people on ADAP don't qualify for Medicaid because they are not sick enough to be considered disabled. Some who do qualify can get only limited drug coverage; ADAP covers the gap.

Making sure patients with HIV take their medications faithfully is a high priority of health care workers because it reduces the chance they will develop resistance to drugs and may also lower the risk of transmission.

Farrar lost his health insurance this month, more than a year after losing his job doing hair and makeup at a Florida TV station. Once his final insurance-covered prescriptions run out, he will have to worry about filling 17 prescriptions — two AIDS drugs and the rest for related ailments, such as arthritis and wasting, a severe weight loss. He will be one of more than 2,400 patients on Florida's waiting list, which was started June 1.

The cuts hit even those with insurance because copays can reach $500 to $700 per month for a single drug, and ADAP often helps with those copays.

"This is a huge financial burden on folks, but there's not a whole lot we can do," said Kevin Sullivan, executive director of the Ohio AIDS Coalition. The state has more than 370 people on the waiting list and dropped more than 250 others from the program because of now-lower income limits.

The process for getting free drugs from pharmaceutical companies can be difficult to navigate because each has different rules, with some limiting patients' income to $21,000 per year and others covering patients who make up to $54,000.

Patients who take many drugs from different makers, like Farrar, have to qualify for multiple drug company programs. If they qualify for one but not another, they might have to change their drug regimen, which can affect their health.

Elaine Henderson, 39, of Cleveland, gets her single AIDS drug through a pharmaceutical company's free program but worries about what will happen if the company changes its requirements.

"Right now, I'm hoping that I'll be OK until ADAP is fixed. If not, then I'll be in trouble," she said.

During the summer, after several states instituted waiting lists, the federal government infused the program with $25 million, which helped some states eliminate waits. But that fell about $100 million short of what AIDS advocates estimated was needed, Lefert said. The House recently approved a $60 million increase for the year starting April 1, but it hasn't passed the Senate and would not solve the program's woes for the current fiscal year, Lefert said.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said states must do their part to provide money, but given the economic slump, the federal government needs to step in and do more.

"Just to let people hang out there without any notion of where they're going to get their lifesaving treatments or drugs, it's really morally offensive," she said.

In the meantime, states are looking for ways to move money around in their budgets to cover ADAP.

Rhode Island was able to close its waiting list this month after finding money elsewhere in the budget. Florida's program, which has a deficit of $15 million to $17 million for the current fiscal year, hopes to do the same, but that probably would not happen until July.

But Sullivan, of the Ohio AIDS Coalition, said: "This is going to take a federal solution. To expect the states with their budget crises to bail this out is not realistic."

Farrar said he has written to his congressman and President Barack Obama about his plight.

"I'm in limbo. It's very stressful," he said. "I don't have much hope that it's getting any better."

___

December 16, 2010 06:13 AM EST

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Columbia j-school staff: WikiLeaks prosecution ‘will set a dangerous precedent’ | Poynter.

Columbia j-school staff: WikiLeaks prosecution ‘will set a dangerous precedent’ | Poynter.

Romenesko Misc.
Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism faculty and officers tell President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that “while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment” and that “as a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.”


President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

December 13, 2010

Dear Mr. President and General Holder:

As faculty members and officers of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, we are concerned by recent reports that the Department of Justice is considering criminal charges against Julian Assange or others associated with Wikileaks.

Journalists have a responsibility to exercise careful news judgment when classified documents are involved, including assessing whether a document is legitimately confidential and whether there may be harm from its publication.

But while we hold varying opinions of Wikileaks’ methods and decisions, we all believe that in publishing diplomatic cables Wikileaks is engaging in journalistic activity protected by the First Amendment. Any prosecution of Wikileaks’ staff for receiving, possessing or publishing classified materials will set a dangerous precedent for reporters in any publication or medium, potentially chilling investigative journalism and other First Amendment-protected activity.

As a historical matter, government overreaction to publication of leaked material in the press has always been more damaging to American democracy than the leaks themselves.

The U.S. and the First Amendment continue to set a world standard for freedom of the press, encouraging journalists in many nations to take significant risks on behalf of transparency. Prosecution in the Wikileaks case would greatly damage American standing in free-press debates worldwide and would dishearten those journalists looking to this nation for inspiration.

We urge you to pursue a course of prudent restraint in the Wikileaks matter.
Please note this letter reflects our individual views, not a position of Columbia University or the Journalism School.

Respectfully,

Emily Bell, Professor of Professional Practice; Director, Tow Center for Digital Journalism

Helen Benedict, Professor

Sheila Coronel, Toni Stabile Professor of Professional Practice in Investigative;
Director, Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism

June Cross, Associate Professor of Journalism

John Dinges, Godfrey Lowell Cabot Professor of Journalism

Joshua Friedman, Director, Maria Moors Cabot Prize for Journalism in the Americas

Todd Gitlin, Professor; Chair, Ph.D. Program

Ari Goldman, Professor

LynNell Hancock, Professor; Director, Spencer Education Journalism Fellowship

Marguerite Holloway, Assistant Professor; Director, Science and Environmental Journalism

David Klatell, Professor of Professional Practice; Chair, International Studies

Nicolas Lemann, Dean; Henry R. Luce Professor

Dale Maharidge, Associate Professor

Arlene Morgan, Associate Dean, Prizes and Programs

Victor S. Navasky, George T. Delacorte Professor in Magazine Journalism; Director,
Delacorte Center for Magazine Journalism; Chair, Columbia Journalism Review

Michael Schudson, Professor


Alisa Solomon, Associate Professor; Director, Arts Concentration, M.A. Program

Paula Span, Adjunct Professor

Duy Linh Tu, Assistant Professor of Professional Practice; Coordinator, Digital Media Program

Monday, December 13, 2010

10 Infamous Cases of Wrongful Execution | Criminal Justice Degrees Guide

10 Infamous Cases of Wrongful Execution | Criminal Justice Degrees Guide

There’s no doubt about it – the U.S. criminal justice system is not perfect. And those imperfections become apparent when someone is the innocent victim of the death penalty. Wrongful executions have been happening for hundreds of years, but until the advent of DNA evidence and improved forensics technology, these individuals have remained guilty as charged. Today, DNA evidence has exonerated and released 15 death row inmates since 1992, but only eight inmates have been acknowledged of their possible innocence after execution by the Death Penalty Information Center. Here are 10 infamous cases of wrongful execution that deserve a second look:

  1. Claude Jones: Claude Jones was executed in 2000 for the murder of liquor store owner Allen Hilzendager, in San Jacinto County in 1989. On Nov. 14, 1989, Jones and another man were seen pulling into a liquor store in Point Blank, Texas. One stayed in the car while the other went inside and shot the owner. Witnesses who were standing across the road couldn’t see the killer, but Jones and two other men, Kerry Dixon and Timothy Jordan, were all linked to the murder. Although Jones said he never entered the store, Dixon and Jordan testified that Jones was in fact the shooter and they were both spared the death penalty. The deciding factor and only admissible evidence in Jones’ conviction came down to a strand of hair that was found at the scene of the crime. A forensic expert testified that the hair appeared to have come from Jones, and he was sentenced to death. Forensic technology was underdeveloped during the 1990 trial and it wasn’t able to match Jones’ DNA with the hair sample. Therefore, before his 2000 execution, Jones’ attorneys filed petitions for a stay of execution with a district court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and requested that the hair be submitted for DNA testing that was now possible, but all courts and former Texas Governor George W. Bush denied Jones and he was executed. In an attempt to prove that Texas executed an innocent man, the Innocence Project and the Texas Observer filed a lawsuit in 2007 to obtain the strand of hair and submitted it for DNA testing, which was determined to be the hair of the victim.
  2. Jesse Tafero: Jesse Tafero was executed by electric chair in 1990 for murdering two Florida police officers, Phillip Black and Donald Irwin. The murders occurred on Feb. 20, 1976, when Black and Irwin approached a parked car at a rest stop and found Tafero, his partner Sonia "Sunny" Jacobs, her two children and Walter Rhodes asleep inside. They were ordered to get out of the car when the officers saw a gun lying on the floor inside the car and, according to Rhodes, Tafero proceeded to shoot both officers and took off in their police car. They disposed of the police car and stole a man’s car, but were arrested after being caught in a roadblock. The gun was found in Tafero’s waistband, although it was legally registered to Jacobs. Tafero had been convicted of robbery and had served seven years of a 25-year sentence before being convicted for murder. Tafero and Jacobs claimed that Rhodes was the lone shooter, but Rhodes testified against them in exchange for a lighter sentence. Rhodes later admitted that he was responsible for the killings, but Tafero was still sentenced to death.
  3. Cameron Todd Willingham: Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 for murdering his three young daughters by intentionally setting fire to the family home in Corsicana, Texas. The arson-murder case fueled much controversy about Willingham’s guilt, which was determined by the case’s primary evidence – the arson investigators’ findings. They determined that the fire was deliberately set with the help of a liquid accelerant due to specific burn patterns, laboratory tests and points of origin. Willingham maintained his innocence and appealed his conviction for years, but was executed at the Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville on Feb. 16, 2004. In 2009, the Texas Forensic Science Commission panel reevaluated the case and determined that state and local arson investigators used "flawed science" when they labeled the fire as arson. Although advances in fire science and arson investigations have improved since 1991, the year of the fire, experts now believe the Corsicana Fire Department was negligent in their findings. The science commission is still investigating the arson ruling, and if the judge clears Willingham, it would be the first time an official has formally declared a wrongful execution in Texas.
  4. Larry Griffin: Larry Griffin was executed in 1995 for a drive-by shooting that killed 19-year-old drug dealer Quintin Moss in St. Louis. Griffin immediately became a suspect because his older brother Dennis Griffin, another well-known drug dealer, was murdered just six months earlier. Moss was believed to have killed Dennis Griffin. Although there were a number of possible suspects in the murder of Moss, a witness account by a white man named Robert Fitzgerald, who claimed to have seen the shooting, knew the license plate number of the vehicle and could identify the gunman was all it took to have Griffin arrested. Fitzgerald was a convicted felon who had a long history of run-ins with the law, which raised concerns about the legitimacy of his story. During the 1993 hearing, Fitzgerald admitted to being unsure if Griffin was the man in the car after all. There were two key witnesses who wavered and a third person whose testimony could have helped Griffin, but was never contacted by either the defense or prosecution. Griffin continued to proclaim his innocence until his execution. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund investigated the case after Griffin’s execution and wanted to uncover more witness accounts that could support their claim that Missouri executed an innocent man.
  5. Ruben Cantu: Ruben Cantu was executed in 1993 for the murder-robbery of a San Antonio man at the age of 17. Cantu had no previous convictions, but was pinpointed as a violent murderer who shot one victim nine times, as well as shot the only eyewitness nine times with a rifle, but he lived to testify. Juan Moreno offered his testimony to police and identified Cantu as the shooter, but later recanted, admitting that he said Cantu out of influence and fear of authorities. Although the case had a compelling witness testimony, there was no physical evidence that linked Cantu to the crime. In addition, his co-defendant David Garza, who allegedly committed the murder-robbery with Cantu, remained silent and signed a sworn affidavit allowing his accomplice to be falsely accused. Cantu maintained his innocence until his execution and claimed that he had been framed in this capital murder case.
  6. David Spence: David Spence was executed in 1997 for murdering three teenagers in 1982 in Waco. Spence was convicted of raping, torturing and murdering two 17-year-old girls and murdering an 18-year-old boy. As the original allegations go, Spence was hired by convenience store owner Muneer Deeb to kill one girl and he ended up killing these three teens by mistake. Deeb was charged and sentenced to death, but later received a re-trial and was acquitted. Authoritative sources even had serious doubt about Spence’s guilt. Although there was no clear physical evidence to link Spence to the crime, prosecutors used bite marks that were found on one of the girl’s body and matched it to Spence’s teeth. Even jailhouse witnesses were bribed into snitching on Spence. Despite weak evidential support and jail mate testimonies, Spence was executed.
  7. Carlos De Luna: Carlos De Luna was executed in 1989 for the 1983 stabbing of Wanda Lopez, a Texas convenience store clerk. There were two eyewitnesses who played a key role in the conviction of De Luna. Before the murder-robbery, George Aguirre was filling up at the gas station where the crime occurred, when he saw a man standing outside the store slide a knife with the blade exposed into his pocket and enter. The man asked Aguirre for a ride to a nightclub, but he refused and went inside the store to warn Lopez about the suspicious man. Aguirre left and Lopez called the police to describe the man. As she was on the phone with a dispatcher, the man came back into the store and robbed her. The second witness, Kevan Baker, pulled into the station and heard bangs on the station’s window and saw a man struggling with a woman. As Baker approached the gas station, the murderer threatened him and took off. When police searched the area, they found De Luna not far from the station. He was shirtless and shoeless in a puddle of water and screamed, "Don’t shoot! You got me!" Both Aguirre and Baker confirmed De Luna was the man at the station. Little to no physical evidence was collected at the crime scene, including blood samples and fingerprints that could have helped De Luna. De Luna maintained his innocence and repeated that Carlos Hernandez was the actual killer. Despite Hernandez’s trouble with the law and repeated confessions to the murder, De Luna was executed.
  8. Joseph O’Dell: Joseph O’Dell was executed in 1997 for raping and murdering Helen Schartner. O’Dell was convicted on the basis of blood evidence and a jailhouse snitch. O’Dell represented himself and continued to proclaim his innocence in various unsuccessful appeals to the Virginia Supreme Court, Federal District Court and the Supreme Court. O’Dell requested that the state submit other pieces of evidence for DNA testing, but he was refused. Despite much effort and several appeals, the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld his conviction and reinstated his death sentence. After his execution, Lori Urs, an anti-death penalty advocate and former wife to O’Dell, sought to further investigate the case and exonerate O’Dell based on mistaken blood matches, court opinions and refusal of DNA testing. However, the last of the DNA evidence from O’Dell’s case was burned in March 2000 and the appeals were laid to rest.
  9. Leo Jones: Leo Jones was executed in 1998 for murdering a police officer in Florida. Although Jones confessed 12 hours after the murder, he said that he was forced to say he did it during hours of intimidating police interrogation, where they threatened his life and made him play Russian roulette. One witness believed that the police department was out to get Jones because he had assaulted an officer once. The same two arresting officers were released from the department shortly after for using violence in other cases. Despite repeated appeals, other potential suspects and witness testimonies in support of Jones’ exoneration, the sentencing stood as is. Jones was also denied another method of execution and was killed by the electric chair.
  10. Timothy Evans: Timothy Evans was sentenced to death by hanging for the murder of his daughter in 1949 at their home in Notting Hill, London. Evans maintained his innocence and repeatedly accused his neighbor, John Christie, of murdering his wife and daughter. The police investigation and physical evidence used to convict Evans was weak. After Evans’ trial and execution, Christie was found to be a serial killer who was responsible for murdering several women at his residence. There were massive campaigns to overturn Evans’ conviction and an official inquiry was conducted 16 years later. It was confirmed that Evans’ daughter had been killed by Christie, and Evans was granted a posthumous pardon. This case of injustice had a strong influence in the UK’s decision to abolish capital punishment.

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Will Facebook, Twitter continue to support online freedom of speech? - International Business Times

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...Image via CrunchBaseWill Facebook, Twitter continue to support online freedom of speech? - International Business Times

The recent debate over the ethics of releasing the American cables by Wikileaks has spawned a new debate about freedom of speech on the internet.

The internet has been a god-sent boon for dissidents and freedom fighters, who wished to get across their message without resorting to underground presses and other ways. The first instance of what could be called the success of social networking sites like Facebook aiding this kind of activism was when the site was accused of participating in a plot against the Iranian government during a trial of protestors.

The question now, however, is how long and to what extent will these sites continue to support such agendas as their own while struggling against their corporate and profit-conscious mindsets.

Facebook currently has over 500 million users worldwide. Twitter has over 200 million users. These sites are closely being watched by investors to see how their revenue model grows. Being associated with unwanted conflicts hurts the market value as well as the brand value of these companies, which are now increasingly focussing on marketing and ad revenues.

Wikileaks, in contrast, is like journalists' tool for information.

Mastercard and Visa withdrew their support for the site, albeit citing possible violations of their policies in supporting the site early last week.

Many commentators believe that the two companies were feeling the pressure from the government, and had to act to preserve the goodwill of the government towards their debt-laden firms.

The two firms no doubt felt that pressure from both sides of the political aisle, as Attorney General Eric Holder promised to explore all legal options against WikiLeaks while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and others have branded him a "terrorist," Andy Greenberg said in Forbes.

Amazon Web Services, which rented web space to Wikileaks, and EveryDNS, an internet-addressing service, also withdrew their support for the website, making it clear they would not be associated with a site that could be committing "illegal activities."

Though the verdict on the legality of Wikileaks' action is still out, it is obvious that companies are protecting their commercial interests.

Which is why the reactions of Facebook and Twitter, the two most important online commodities, are being watched closely.

These two website were heralded as the promoters of freedom of speech. However, in recent times, Facebook has faced intense criticism over its privacy policies that is cashing in on users' information available on the site. Facebook has also begun to block messages containing "illegal links" such as torrents or copyright infringed material.

Neither of the two websites have made a statement about the content posted on their websites regarding the Wikileaks issue. But there have been complaints that Twitter was trying to block Wikileaks-related terms from its list of trending topics.

The website denied this report and stated that these topics fell off the trending list because "not enough people were talking about them."

Meanwhile, hackers have made it clear that their support lies with Julian Assange by launching a cyber attack on all the sites and services that withdrew support to WikiLeaks. On the other had, Facebook shut down a page on the website that belonged to the hackers, while it is still unclear where Twitter stands on the issue.

Various Twitter groups seemingly affiliated with the organization provide rough estimates of its influence: Anonops has nearly 10,000 followers; Operation Leakspin has more than 1,300 followers; Anonymous Operations has about 1,200 followers, Washington Post said in a report.

Anonymous is one of the groups that tried to shut down websites for disabling or suspending services to Wikileaks.

When contacted through Twitter, Anonymous members said in recent days they have been driven by fears of civil rights intrusions and totalitarian futures, the Post said.

Facebook and Twitter continue to play a strong role in freedom of speech in the internet age. Now, the world awaits reactions from the companies to see if they will let this continue or if they would let corporate interests take centre stage.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

WikiLeaks Attacks Illegal Says Internet Society - PCWorld

Logo used by WikileaksImage via WikipediaWikiLeaks Attacks Illegal Says Internet Society - PCWorld

Takedown attempts against WikiLeaks undermine what the Internet stands for, says the nonprofit group dedicated to open use of the Internet.

Dec 11, 2010 9:11 am
Takedown attempts against WikiLeaks undermine what the Internet stands for, and those responsible should be tracked down and prosecuted, says the Internet Society, a nonprofit group dedicated to the open use of the Internet.
Could Wikileaks spawn troubles for the IT industry?

In its December newsletter, ISOC says it recognizes that WikiLeaks' posting of diplomatic cables is a worry to some, but knocking the site offline is illegal.
"Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence," ISOC says, "and appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the air."
Wikileaks has suffered distributed DoS attacks and in response supporters of WikiLeaks have launched DDoS attacks of their own against Visa, Mastercard, and Amazon.com.
"The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility of the Internet," ISOC writes. "We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that those principles are currently at risk.
"Free expression should not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet."
WikiLeaks has managed to continue posting the leaked documents and fresh ones with help from mirror sites around the world.
ISOC notes that due to the very resilient design of the Internet, the attempts to keep WikiLeaks offline have failed, but they have had a negative effect on the Internet in general.
The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all access to Wikileaks material," ISOC says. "This further underscores that the removal of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation."

Personal Democracy Forum Wikileaks And Internet Freedom


Watch live streaming video from pdfleaks at livestream.com

pdfleaks on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Thursday, December 09, 2010

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed | Business | The Guardian

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed | Business | The Guardian

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

Other cables released tonight reveal:

• US diplomats' fear that Kenya could erupt in violence worse than that experienced after the 2008 election unless rampant government corruption is tackled.

• America asked Uganda to let it know if its army intended to commit war crimes based on US intelligence – but did not try to prevent war crimes taking place.

• Washington's ambassador to the troubled African state of Eritrea described its president, Isaias Afwerki, as a cruel "unhinged dictator" whose regime was "one bullet away from implosion".

The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks target MasterCard and Visa over their decision to block payments to the whistleblowers' website.

The website's founder, Julian Assange, spent a second night in jail after a judge refused him bail prior to an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria demonstrated the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people live below the poverty line.

Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business competition in the contested Niger Delta – and how, with some prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the US government was "leaky".

But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into the Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders, as recorded in a confidential memo from the US embassy in Abuja on 20 October 2009.

At the meeting, Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil concessions from China. She said the minister of state for petroleum resources, Odein Ajumogobia, had denied the letter had been sent but Shell knew similar correspondence had taken place with China and Russia.


Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread pollution and environmental damage in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage have proliferated.

The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. "Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin," said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."

The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog Platform. "Shell claims to have nothing to do with Nigerian politics," he said. "In reality, Shell works deep inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria to its own advantage."

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."

Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.

"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta," the cable said.

Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian market. In June last year, Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries, pipelines and gas power stations.

Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive intelligence about Gazprom, a possible rival, which she said had secured a promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17trn cubic feet of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves. "Pickard said that amount of gas was only available if the GON were to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target." Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting "from Russia", according to the memo.

The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: "You are seeking our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements you say it contains."

UGA to Mark 50th Anniversary of Desegregation

UGA to Mark 50th Anniversary of Desegregation

ATHENS, Ga. (AP) - One of the first blacks to register at the University of Georgia after the school was desegregated is returning to the college to mark the 50th anniversary of the event.

Charlayne Hunter-Gault is a 1963 graduate of the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at UGA.

Hunter-Gault is an award-winning journalist who has worked for The New York Times, National Public Radio and CNN. She returns to the campus on Jan. 9, the anniversary of the day she and Hamilton Holmes became the first two African-Americans to register for classes at UGA. On Jan. 10, Hunter-Gault will deliver a 50th anniversary lecture. On Jan. 11, she will join in a campus-wide discussion about her 1992 memoir, "In My Place.

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

Wikileaks and the arrest of Julian Assange « UK Human Rights Blog

Picture of Julian Assange during a talk at 26C3Image via WikipediaWikileaks and the arrest of Julian Assange « UK Human Rights Blog

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was arrested yesterday and refused bail after a hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court.

He was not arrested in relation to the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, but rather on suspicion of having sexually assaulted two women in Sweden. His lawyers have said that “many believe” the arrest was politically motivated.

The mechanism for his arrest is of interest. He was arrested under a “European arrest warrant”, with a view to extraditing him to Sweden to face the charges. Carl Gardner explains the process in an excellent post on his Head of Legal Blog:

All this is happening under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. Sweden having issued a European arrest warrant (here’s the Interpol “red notice”) it seems Assange attended a police station this morning, and was arrested presumably under section 3. The initial hearing today took place in accordance withsections 7 and 8, the district judge simply setting the date of the full extradition hearing (or at least its formal opening) under section 8(1)(a), and making a decision on bail or custody in the meantime.

European arrest warrants make it relatively easy for European states to extradite suspected criminals such as Assange. They have been fairly controversial (see this post) and are currently under review by the coalition government (see our post), alongside the also-controversial extradition arrangement with the United States. It would appear that the United States have not submitted their own extradition request, which may reflect the difficulty in finding a crime to accuse him of.

Gardner finds it unsurprising that bail wasn’t granted in this case, given the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood that he may have fled the jurisdiction. In relation to the Swedish charges, the New York Times reviews the law relating to sexual assault in Sweden, which is not much stricter on sexual assault than other European states.

The full extradition hearing has to be within 21 days. A judge will have to decide (again, thanks to Carl Gardner):

whether the offence he’s wanted for is an “extradition offence” (section 10read with section 64, I think in this case section 64(3) in particular); there seems to be no dispute about this;
whether extradition is “barred” under section 11, which it is by reason of “extraneous conditions” under section 11(1)(b) read with section 13 if extradition is really about punishing him for his political views, or if they might prejudice his trial, and
whether extradition would comply with human rights (section 21).
According to Afua Hirsch at The Guardian, Assange will argue, amongst other things, that he would be unfairly deprived of his liberty in Sweden and therefore should be protected under human rights law.

Human rights law is often (some say increasingly) invoked, although rarely successfully, in extradition proceedings. If a person can show that there is a real risk of his rights – such as to a fair trial or against inhuman and degrading treatment – being breached in the receiving state, then a UK court will not extradite him as that would amount to a UK public authority – the court – causing the breach, which is unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

For example, the High Court recently questioned whether the Russian criminal justice system was too corrupt to ensure a fair trial for a man faced with extradition (see my post). The court was asked to decide whether the lack of accountability of prosecutors in Russia would lead to a “flagrant denial of justice” if a man were extradited. The extradition request ultimately failed for other reasons, but the judge expressed significant concerns in relation to the Russian justice system.

But Sweden is not Russia. Assange may argue that since the charges are politically motivated, he will not receive a fair trial. But without solid proof of such serious allegations, he will not succeed. European Arrest Warrants are designed to make extradition between states simple and quick, and it will be difficult even in such a high-profile case to prevent this happening.

He may also invoke the right to freedom of expression. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that everyone has a right to freedom of expression, but a state can restrict that right, amongst other reasons, in the interests of national security and the prevention of crime. If Assange was facing extradition to the United States, which may follow soon, this argument would be at front and centre.

But as things stand, unless he can show that the sexual assault allegations are politically motivated, which seems unlikely, it is hard to see how freedom of expression will play much of a part. The Wikileaks site is still running despite his arrest, and freedom of expression rights can legitimately be breached to prevent crime.

Update, 8 December 2010 - Afua Hirsch, writing on Guardian.co.uk, asks what is likely to happen next for Assange:

In short, for every politician itching to put Assange on trial, there is a legal obstacle to be overcome, which makes one thing and one thing only certain – for the question of Assange’s future under the law, there is no end in sight.

US: Clarify Position on Targeted Killings | Human Rights Watch

US: Clarify Position on Targeted Killings | Human Rights Watch

Ruling on Targeted Cleric Highlights Need to Explain Legal Basis for Lethal Attacks

December 7, 2010
(New York) - The US government should immediately clarify its legal rationale for targeted killings, Human Rights Watch said in a letter today to President Barack Obama.

A federal court judge's dismissal of a lawsuit on December 7, 2010, challenging the US government's targeted killing program abroad underscores the urgent need for the Obama administration to publicly explain its policy, Human Rights Watch said. Judge John Bates of the US district court in Washington, DC dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds but did not address the merits of the case.
"President Obama should answer the fundamental questions of how his administration determines whether a person may be targeted," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Such operations may be lawful under certain circumstances, but absent clear boundaries, they will inevitably violate international law and set a dangerous precedent for abusive regimes around the globe."
The lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, challenged the US government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to be hiding in Yemen. The US government says al-Awlaki is linked to the Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula but has not brought formal charges against him. The lawsuit also sought to have the government disclose the legal standard it uses to place US citizens on alleged government "kill lists."
The Obama administration dramatically expanded the use of targeted killings outside of traditional battlefields following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of these killings are conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency through the use of Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (drones). The US government asserts that it has authority under international law to use lethal force outside of clearly defined war zones because it is engaged in a global armed conflict with al Qaeda and associated forces.
Human Rights Watch recognizes that the US government has a responsibility to respond to national security threats. The deliberate use of lethal force can be legal in operations involving a combatant on a genuine battlefield, or in a law enforcement action in which the threat to life is imminent and there is no reasonable alternative.

"US government claims that the entire world is a battleground in which the laws of war are applicable undermine the protections of international law," Roth said. "This discredited notion invites the application of lethal force by other countries in situations where the US would strongly object to its use."

Monday, December 06, 2010

In Calif., Prop. 8 Debate Tests Limits Of Tolerance : NPR

In Calif., Prop. 8 Debate Tests Limits Of Tolerance : NPR

Supreme Court to Hear Wal-Mart Discrimination Case - NYTimes.com

Supreme Court to Hear Wal-Mart Discrimination Case - NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion. The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.

The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class- action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and, products liability and other claims.

If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case.

Brad Seligman, the main lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a telephone interview after the court decision: “Wal-Mart has thrown up an extraordinarily broad number of issues, many of which, if the court seriously entertained, could very severely undermine many civil rights class actions. We welcome the court’s review of this limited issue, and we’re confident that the core of our action will go forward.”

In their brief urging the justices to deny review, the plaintiffs had said Wal-Mart’s objection to class-action treatment boiled down to the enormous size of the class.

“Petitioner returns repeatedly to the refrain that the certified class is very large, a fact that is indisputably true but legally irrelevant,” the brief said. “The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest employer and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner.”

Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the plaintiffs, who worked in 3,400 different stores in 170 job classifications, cannot possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate.

In April, an 11-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled by a 6-to-5 vote that the class action could go forward.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for the majority, said the company’s policies and treatment of women were similar enough that a single lawsuit was both efficient and appropriate. He added that the six women who represent the class, four of whom had left Wal-Mart, had claims typical of the other plaintiffs.

The size of the proposed class was not an obstacle, Judge Susan P. Graber wrote in a concurrence.

“If the employer had 500 female employees, I doubt that any of my colleagues would question the certification of such a class,” Judge Graber wrote. “Certification does not become an abuse of discretion merely because the class has 500,000 members.”

That drew a sharp dissent from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. “Maybe there’d be no difference between 500 employees and 500,000 employees if they all had similar jobs, worked at the same half-billion square foot store and were supervised by the same managers,” he wrote. “But the half-million members of the majority’s approved class held a multitude of jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart’s hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female).”

“They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit,” Judge Kozinski concluded.

In a second dissent, Judge Sandra S. Ikuta said that allowing the case to go forward as a class action would prevent Wal-Mart from presenting tailored defenses to individual claims.

In their briefs in the case, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277, the two sides cited the work of the court’s newest justices to the court. Wal-Mart twice relied on an influential unsigned law review note that Justice Elena Kagan wrote as a student at Harvard Law School on class certification in employment discrimination suits.

The plaintiffs responded by noting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor had voted to certify an even larger class action in an antitrust case involving eight million merchants when she was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York. Wal-Mart was a plaintiff in that class action.

Judge Sotomayor acknowledged that the very fact of class certification provided the plaintiffs with “leverage in settlement negotiations.”

“While the sheer size of the class in this case may enhance this effect,” she added, “this alone cannot defeat an otherwise proper certification.”

Never has the line between entertainment and serious debate been so blurred

Never has the line between entertainment and serious debate been so blurred

False identities are as basic to comedic farce as they are to American public life. Put on a costume, learn the expected cliches and get into action. Those waiting to be hustled are already in place.

When we see the Republicans digging in their heels as they thunder about how harmful it will be to the middle class if the Bush tax cuts are not sustained for the wealthiest 2% of the American public, we find ourselves right in the middle of a dangerous farce. The elephants, who love to present themselves as financially responsible, are willing to foist $700 billion in debt on this nation in order to make sure that the GOP can hold its position as a shill for the rich.

Recognizing this trick is central to understanding America today. The tradition of the hustler has swept from the world of pop entertainment to the world of politics. Reality has never been as enjoyable as fantasy, but when rabble-rousing entertainers - for the example, the Palin family - begin to dominate the big national arguments, we need to find some place in which actual facts have a sacred position of importance.

Questions of taste and preference are basic to the world of entertainment, but our enjoyments have descended into the muck exactly the same way we've seen serious political disagreement descend. Political ideology has become no more than an offshoot of entertainment advertising, where no truth is necessary.

When "King Kong" first appeared in 1933, no one had to explain that an ape 50 feet tall had never actually flipped out in Manhattan. Yet by the time of Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of "War of the Worlds," many thought they were hearing the actual reporting of an invasion from Mars.

Welles was widely blamed for creating a panic. Rupert Murdoch's Fox News network is an update of the Welles broadcast. It has the same content of illusion and fear, often resorting to fabrication. This is not solely a right-wing phenomenon: The left can also be caught smudging the lines separating truth from fiction, or putting convenient rhetorical decals on individuals.

A perfect example is the Rev. Jesse Jackson claiming that LeBron James was being treated not like a free man but a slave during the controversy over his free agency. James ended up signing with the Miami Heat, which is paying him $14.5 million this season. Jackson got to be the center of a controversy entirely of his own making. So much for fact.

And that's not quite as bad as Cornel West pretending that Jay-Z wasn't a real crack dealer: The brother was a freedom fighter and a revolutionary. Black prisoners have enough trouble with reality; they do not need a Princeton professor telling them that they're actually rebels, not acidic slime burning holes in the social fabric of their communities.

Having what remains the most successful commercial culture in the history of the world brings special problems if the techniques of business begin to overshadow our attempts to stand up to existing realities.

Hustlers will always tell you that the only rule is that money must come from your efforts, whatever they might be. That's one of the reasons that the airheads of hip hop can make recordings about how many units they've sold.

Unfortunately, the conservatives now roosting in Washington play by those same rules. Emboldened by Murdoch's attack dog of Fox News and talk show rabble-rousers, they advertise billionaires as though they're part of the beleaguered middle class. The masquerade goes on and on.

crouch.stanley@gmail.com

Stanley Crouch's column appears in the Daily Nwes every Monday. Stanley, who has written for the paper since 1995, has received many awards for his writing, including a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant. His books have been widely praised and he was recently inducted into the Academy of Arts and Sciences.

BBC News - Malaysia urged to stop caning 'epidemic'

BBC News - Malaysia urged to stop caning 'epidemic'

Caning as a form of judicial punishment in Malaysia has reached "epidemic" proportions and should be banned, according to a human rights group.

Blows administered to the body with a long cane are a legal punishment for more than 60 offences in the country.

Amnesty International claims at least 10,000 prisoners and 6,000 refugees are caned there each year.

The government says caning is a legal and effective deterrent from criminal activity.

Malaysia's law minister would not comment on the report but told the BBC that there are no plans to review the law.

Migrant workers
Amnesty says the practice amounts to cruel and inhumane treatment as it leaves both physical and psychological damage, and should be banned.

"Across Malaysia, government officials regularly tear into the flesh of prisoners with rattan canes travelling up to 160km/h. The cane shreds the victim's naked skin, turns the fatty tissue into pulp, and leaves permanent scars that extend all the way to muscle fibres," Amnesty says in a report on the practice.

WikiLeaks Vows to Never Say Die With 355 New Websites - PCWorld

WikiLeaks Vows to Never Say Die With 355 New Websites - PCWorld

WikiLeaks has asked the Web community to open mirror sites so it cannot be downed or censored and said Monday that 355 new sites are already up.

"Wikileaks is currently under heavy attack," the group said on its website. "In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, we need your help."

The site is asking people with Unix-based servers and excess hosting resources to answer its call. WikiLeaks' entire website "should not take more than a couple of GB at the moment," it said.

Mirror sites are additional websites that have all of the same information as the original site and are updated automatically each time the original site adds new content. WikiLeaks hopes the new sites can ensure the survival of the mass of leaked documents, videos and other data it has collected and published.

Last Friday, the controversial website could not be accessed through its WikiLeaks.org domain name after EveryDNS.net terminated its domain name service over repeated DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks against WikiLeaks. The U.S.-based service provider said it did provide prior notice. The move came just days after Amazon Web Services stopped hosting WikiLeaks on its servers for breaking user rules saying that websites must use their own content and not carry data that might injure others. The U.S. Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Joe Lieberman, had also asked Amazon to stop hosting the controversial website.

WikiLeaks has come under fire for publishing classified U.S. documents, including videos and documents from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as sensitive cables sent between U.S. embassies and the U.S. State Department. WikiLeaks continues to post the cables.

WikiLeaks has faced a number of DDOS attacks, designed to knock out access to the website. WikiLeaks.org appears to still be offline. New links to WikiLeaks from the company's Twitter feed are going to WikiLeaks.ch.

Netcraft, which tracks web attacks, shows in a series of graphs that WikiLeaks.org has been down since last Friday.