• I saw a news story in November 2011 about the NYPD and the Wikileaks truck at OWS – left comments about it later at emptywheel, thought it was funny that with all the crime on Wall Street, the thing they went after was you and your truck for using windshield wipers without your lights on. That’s another picture stuck in my head.

    NYPD ‘Loses’ the Occupy Wall Street Wikileaks Truck

    But last Thursday morning—the morning of Occupy Wall Street’s big day of action—Stoeckly was pulled over on Broadway and Cedar Street near Zuccotti Park. The cops used the fact that his license plate was crooked, and that he turned on his windshield wipers without his lights as pretense to pull him over, Stoeckley told us in a phone interview. (New York law requires drivers to use headlights “whenever you are using your windshield wipers to clear rain, snow, sleet, etc.”)

    Police demanded to search the vehicle, and when Stoeckley refuse they arrested him for “Obstructing Governmental Administration.” Stoeckley’s lawyer, Wiley Stecklow, said he’s concerned Stoeckly was arrested “unlawfully,” simply for “refusing to consent to a search.”

    Grateful for all you do and the art you do it with. Thanks.

  • Clark, I wish I knew…did you see the incident when Daniel Ellsberg tried to talk to Manning?


    Anderson: What happened in your encounter with Manning in the courtroom last month?

    Ellsberg: Did you read that I was expelled? People didn’t know why. It was very simple. I of course didn’t have a chance to talk to Bradley—essentially nobody but his family and his lawyer had. So, I did want to let him know that I was supporting him. And he was looking straight ahead, as he always did, and the lawyers were out of the room in a conference with the judge. So he was just sitting there with one military lawyer next to him, and I went up to him and tapped his chair and said, “Hi, Bradley, I’m Dan Ellsberg.” Well, before he could even turn around, I was jerked out of the room by two hefty military police. And I said, “What’s this about?” They said. “It’s against the rules.” I said, “It didn’t occur to me there was such a rule,” and they showed me a run-down, which said, “Don’t chew gum, [etc.]. …” I said, “I don’t see anything here that says ‘Don’t talk to a defendant.’ ” One of them said, “Well, it’s a norm.” I told them I was a defendant in a case like this for five months and nobody protected me from conversing. It’s a general rule—they want to have as much control over [Manning] as possible. His lawyer said he was sure I wouldn’t be able to talk to him.

    So, I questioned whether there was such a rule. A guy in charge of security said, “Well, now you’ve been warned, so you can go back in.”

    That’s a picture that sticks in my head.

  • http://www.correntewire.com/collateral_murder_in_court_manning

    has tweets from Kevin as it happened

    (Did David Finkel’s having covered the same incident in his book already published, that Manning read online, have any effect on the trial? Seems like it should have.)

    Sorry I’m late to this, best wishes to all.

  • Hi, sorry I missed this book salon. I just started reading from the top and saw the Bobby thread. Maybe this (video and transcript) is pertinent — McGovern is retired CIA and Rowley is retired FBI, speaking on recent panel called Beyond Orwell: Surveillance, Secrets and Whistleblowing in the Security State:

    Beyond Orwell: Ellsberg, Greenwald, Drake, Rowley, Radack and McGovern panel at Georgetown, April 22, 2014 – transcript

    RAY McGOVERN: …I want to acknowledge all the lessons that I’ve learned from the people I’m sitting with here, particularly from Coleen. I knew about Frank Church and other high-level people who were investigating the abuses of the CIA in the mid ‘70s. I knew about them being monitored. But then I said, “Coleen, how do you suppose that Bobby Kennedy stooped so low as to authorize the monitoring of Martin Luther King, Jr., and provoking him and trying to get him to do all manner of – trying to get the goods on him?” And Coleen said – (Ray hands off to Coleen, offscreen – silence)


    [offscreen]: That’s real cute, Coleen.

    COLEEN ROWLEY: Well, I think it is this go along and when you have the forces around you, the big word for this is katagelophobia, and it was in your book, fear of ridicule. And you have all of these powerful people around and J. Edgar Hoover putting this piece of paper – by the way, that paper that authorized the monitoring of Martin Luther King was all of a paragraph. That’s all it was. No facts in there at all. And yes, he signed it, and I think that’s to a large extent why people – they’re in there and they think, “Well, I’ve got to do this. Sign off.”

    RAY McGOVERN: But I thought you also said that Bobby, they had the goods on Bobby and Jack and all the young ladies that they were courting with. Is that part of it?

    COLEEN ROWLEY: Yeah, well, J. Edgar Hoover. There you go.

    RAY McGOVERN: Okay, there it is folks. Blackmail? You think we’re crazy? No, there it is. Martin Luther King, Jr., being subjected to this intrusive surveillance and all manner of provocations because Bobby Kennedy and Jack Kennedy were afraid that J. Edgar Hoover would divulge some things, okay?

    I know that’s later than the Seeger issue, but when did Hoover start being Hoover? Reagan was one of his Hollywood sources back in the day.

    Actually, trying to figure out the dates, Seeger testified before HUAC in 1955, was indicted for contempt of Congress in 1957 and convicted in 1961; and wikipedia has this for MLK:

    FBI and King’s personal life
    FBI surveillance and wiretapping

    FBI director J. Edgar Hoover personally ordered surveillance of King, with the intent to undermine his power as a civil rights leader.[133][196] According to the Church Committee, a 1975 investigation by the U.S. Congress, “From December 1963 until his death in 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was the target of an intensive campaign by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to ‘neutralize’ him as an effective civil rights leader.”[197]

    The Bureau received authorization to proceed with wiretapping from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in the fall of 1963[198] and informed President John F. Kennedy, both of whom unsuccessfully tried to persuade King to dissociate himself from Stanley Levison, a New York lawyer who had been involved with Communist Party USA.[199][200] Although Robert Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of King’s phones “on a trial basis, for a month or so”,[201] Hoover extended the clearance so his men were “unshackled” to look for evidence in any areas of King’s life they deemed worthy.[202]

    (Source for footnotes 201 and 202 is: Herst, Burton (2007). Bobby and J. Edger.)

    I know I’m mixing and meandering – Seeger and MLK and Bobby – trying to get oriented. I don’t see mention of Bobby’s role in Pete’s contempt prosecution on either of their wikipedia pages, nor in the linked David Garrow Atlantic article on the FBI and MLK that says Bobby signed MLK’s FBI wiretap authorization on 10/10/63 and that it was secret until May 1968 (that’s interesting timing, given Bobby’s candidacy and his speech breaking the news about MLK’s death in April 1968 – who decided to release that info? Did Bobby address it?).

    I do see that Pete was a Kennedy Center honoree in 1994. And I see Seeger’s organization and sloop Clearwater to promote cleaning up the Hudson River – must be in confluence with Bobby Kennedy Jr.’s Riverkeeper – how close?

  • In Kevin’s link @4, CCR identifies the court opinion as the one from September 2010:

    In March 2010, CCR filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal on the basis of newly-discovered evidence from four soldiers stationed at the base at the time of the deaths, who describe a high-level cover-up and say they were ordered not to speak out. Their accounts strongly undercut the military’s claim that the deceased committed suicide in their cells, and suggest that they may have been killed at a CIA-run black site at Guantanamo. The district court denied the motion in September 2010, holding that even if the men were victims of homicide by the defendants, the claims involved the treatment of Guantanamo detainees, and therefore, national security, which barred a remedy. The court further held that the defendants were entitled to immunity because they were acting “within the scope of their employment,” again, even if they were involved in homicide.

    Clicking into the 9-29-2010 opinion (2010-09-29 Order and Opinion Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration – pdf), I think this is what you’re looking for:

    As part of its motion, the government included a “Certification of Scope of Employment” from Phyllis J. Pyles, Director of the Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. (Id., Ex. A.) Ms. Pyles certified that at the time of the conduct alleged in the Amended Complaint, the individual defendants in the case were acting within the scope of their employment. (Id., Ex. A. at 2.) The Court concurred, concluding that it was bound by the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Rasul I, which stated that even “seriously criminal” acts fall within the scope of employment where the acts “[a]re intended as interrogation techniques to be used on detainees.” Al-Zahrani, 684 F. Supp. 2d at 113-14 (quoting Rasul I, 512 F.3d at 658); see also id. at 114 (finding defendants’ alleged conduct “foreseeable and incidental to defendants’ positions as military, medical, or civilian personnel in connection with Guantanamo”).)

    And that is how we crown our good from sea to shining sea. With security blankets, or sheets. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Wish it would be like when Blackwater changed its name to Xe etc. Goodbye legal liability, hello clean slate.

  • The stated reason for opening them was to control and isolate prisoners from being able to communicate to the outside world.

    The lawsuit does not challenge that practice if it is truly necessary,

    Explain please?

  • Does anyone know the answer to this question? Anecdotally I’ve heard that people in Southern California who install solar still have to hook up through SDG&E, legal requirement. In the story I heard, when SDG&E power went out, even though these people had installed solar, it couldn’t work because it shunted through SDG&E. Seems like [...]

  • thatvisionthing commented on the diary post Tomgram: Peter Van Buren, I’m a Whistleblower: Want Fries with That? by Tom Engelhardt.

    2014-04-24 13:48:04View | Delete

    Peter, this is so well written, so important. I usually skim the tops of posts and then “my brain fills up” and I skip someplace else. I read this post all the way to the bottom. I wish I could think of something wise to say about how to start fixing things. Talking. I’m grateful [...]

  • Is it Obama’s move? Or is it the Supreme Court’s, deciding whether or not to accept Risen’s petition for writ of certiorari? Does Risen’s petition trigger an Obama (and Sterling?) response to the Supreme Court too? (Papers linked at NYT list three parties.)

  • Fracking/drilling companies not just using Army psyop manuals against activists (“insurgents”), but using active duty service men and women against general citizens, according to the 2011 CNBC article, to affect/effect municipal governments and developing local regulations.

    “Range employs dozens of veterans and active service men and women,” Pitzarella said. “One employee who works with municipal governments in Pennsylvania has a background in psychological operations in the Army. Since the majority of his work is spent in local hearings and developing local regulations for drilling, we’ve found that his service in the Middle East is a real asset.”

    (I need a blinking red font option.)

  • I loved the #MillionMaskMarch! Twitter pic diary: http://correntewire.com/happy_november_v_loving_the_millionmaskmarch

    Also loved the Russell Brand-Jeremy Paxman youtube and his essay on Revolution, so I don’t begrudge him the attention or association. I doubt #MMM did either, but what do I know. Wish I could have bought the New Statesman Revolution issue here in the U.S. but couldn’t find one. But I called around and nobody had it or would order it. I think what he’s saying is seriously important. Maybe a dog whistle 99% of us hear and 1% can’t.

  • California:


    Justices Say Jurors May Not Vote Conscience

    Ruling: The law must be followed even if panelists believe the result will be unjust, state’s highest court finds.


    SAN FRANCISCO — Jurors must follow the law–not their consciences–even when they strongly believe the law will produce an unjust result, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

    And if you say the two magic words, “jury nullification” during voir dire:


    [The judge] asked me the same question another way and I said I would vote my conscience. And then he dismissed me, saying it was too bad when people couldn’t follow the law, making it clear that he thought I was a rotten citizen and that no one else in the courtroom should even think of thinking like me. I tried to say, I think I would be following the law, the Constitution, but nope I was out. And it wasn’t just sit down and be quiet, it was court stopped until I left the room. I thought, wow, those must be powerful words.

  • Congress, eh. Will be irrelevant – superseded. Yves Smith last Sunday on Harry Shearer’s Le Show, on the TPP trade agreement and its Atlantic counterpart being worked up in secret right now:


    YVES SMITH: Another thing that this deal would prohibit is capital controls. …things like, for example, money laundering provisions, that’s a capital control.

    Game over, Maxine. And sorry, congresspeople not allowed to participate in the planning:

    YVES SMITH: But the Obama administration has done a tremendous job of keeping this all under wraps. You know, at the very top of this show you commented how very little has been written about it, and that’s because of these extreme secrecy provisions, that only little bits of the text have been leaked. Nobody really knows what’s happening. Even the congressmen who’ve read the text have been told they can’t talk about it in any meaningful way. I think the only one who squawked about it a bit is Alan Grayson. And even then he said it took him six weeks of fighting with the trade representatives office to even sched– they were basically stonewalling him on scheduling a time for him to read what they’d allow him to read.

    But corporations are:

    HARRY SHEARER: Well, let’s take as written, or take as read, the easy jibe that this is the most transparent administration in history, dot dot dot. But are there legitimate reasons, while this is in the negotiating process, for keeping the U.S. desired language so secret?

    YVES SMITH: No. Particularly since they’re actually sharing it with something like 600 corporate representatives who are parties to this deal. So basically the corporations that have an interest in this deal going forward get to see the language. Why doesn’t the public get to see the language?

    Labor unions are not:

    HARRY SHEARER: Now, I’ll ask you a dumb follow-up question. Any labor unions among them?


    What a deal!

  • As Lester Freamon says in The Wire “You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don’t know where the fuck it’s gonna take you.”

    Freamon! Hugs! Thanks DSW, perfect. Great youtube.

  • thatvisionthing commented on the blog post Over-Classification at the State Department

    2013-11-06 10:30:22View | Delete

    (We didn’t organize ourselves under an authority, we organized authority under ourselves)

  • thatvisionthing commented on the blog post Over-Classification at the State Department

    2013-11-06 10:26:07View | Delete

    Hi Peter! I’m wondering…

    1) what this maybe says about how govt deals with frontdoor USPS mail privacy law, even while it’s institutionalizing backdoor spying on us? Snailmail, even junk mail, is still entitled to 4th Amendment privacy… maybe how the govt itself sorts out public privacy notices and rules in and down through its various agencies and levels is interesting to wonder about? See, even trying to put the idea in words ties me in knots. How we live out paradoxical rules, bound to come out funny. Catch-22.


    (Maybe make the USPS product look silly so we don’t take expectation of privacy seriously and won’t miss USPS when the state has withered it away?)

    2) Maybe this is literally a cover letter. I think I remember that it took 40 years for the Pentagon Papers’ blue cover to be unclassified; till then it was evidence that the PPs existed, which govt could not admit? So protecting your enclosed financial data is presumed to have been covered by the associated but unattached and losable letter? “We meant well.”

    3) Maybe this is about getting us accustomed to an approving board for all official information we may receive? There’s a scale; there’s a scalemaster? One of the happiest things I noticed once was that the Constitution has no title. We just spoke our government into being. (Shh!! don’t tell, don’t look) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Constitution_of_the_United_States,_page_1.jpg

    So grateful for all you do.

  • Remember when we used to despise them? And we were different? I feel like a child and so old at the same time.

  • Load More