By Lynn Koh for War Times/Tiempo de Guerras
By now, most War Times/Tiempo de Guerras readers have heard about the September 24th FBI
raids on peace activists' homes in Minneapolis and Chicago and at the Minneapolis office
of the Twin Cities Anti-war Committee. We add our voices to the rest of the progressive
movement, and all those who value democracy, in denouncing these raids. We believe that
the peace movement must support the folks who have been targeted for their antiwar work.
Plans for solidarity demonstrations are developing quickly. The Anti-War Committee has
called for a demonstration at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, September 27, 2010 at the Minneapolis
offices of the FBI, 111 Washington Street, South. Click here for more information.
We encourage War Times readers to call U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder at 202-353-1555
and to send emails to the Department of Justice at AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. Ask Attorney General
Holder to put an end to the FBI’s attacks on peace activists.
What do we know about these raids?
On Friday, September 24th the FBI raided at least six homes in Chicago and Minneapolis,
with the explanation that peace activists were providing “material support to foreign
terrorist organizations,” namely the FARC in Colombia, the Peoples Front for the
Liberation of Palestine, and Hezbollah. The FBI also raided the office of the Anti-war
Committee in Minneapolis, which had organized a demonstration during the 2008 Republican
National Convention. Some of the peace activists whose houses were raided are members of
the Anti-War Committee. The New York Times quotes an FBI spokesperson who said the raids
were part of “an ongoing Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation.”
While no arrests have been made so far, the activists have been served with grand jury
subpoenas.
The raids appear to be 'fishing expeditions' -- attempts to gather as much personal
information as possible from the activists’ homes in the hopes of bringing some charges
against them. The search warrant which we have seen authorizes the federal agents to
seize all documents and records related to any activities in the US or overseas,
especially those related to the FARC, PFLP, and Hezbollah, as well as emails, phone
records, and internet usage; it also asks for information pertaining to the activists'
work in a left group called Freedom Road Socialist Organization. Click here to download a
PDF of the search warrant.
What do these raids mean?
Many of the communities we work with live with state violence on a daily basis. Still, we
believe these events to be of signal importance to the antiwar movement. In the post-9/11
political landscape, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras has worked to bring an internationalist
perspective to the antiwar movement, a perspective which focuses not only on the domestic
costs and victims of war, but also on the suffering war and occupation bring to peoples
around the world. We believe this perspective is essential to achieving a U.S. foreign
policy based on justice and solidarity rather than on either domination or
isolationism.The FBI raids occur months after a 6-3 Supreme Court decision upholding a
broad interpretation of 'material support to foreign terrorist organizations', whereby
offering advice, training, and service to a designated terrorist organization constitutes
material support for terrorism -- even if the service in question has nothing to do with
any 'terrorist' act. In this context, Friday’s FBI raids contribute to the
criminalization of any communication with any group the U.S. State Department has
designated a terrorist organization. Even advocating negotiating with one of these named
groups may become a crime, not to mention deeper attempts to build solidarity with groups
struggling against war and occupation. (It should be noted, for example, that Hezbollah
forms part of the democratically elected government of Lebanon.) These raids, and the
policy that underlies them, strike directly at the internationalist perspective that
grounds all of War Times/Tiempo de Guerras’ work.
War Times has been a multigenerational project from its inception in 2001, and several of
our members lived through periods of heightened government repression. These new FBI
raids bring those experiences to mind, not least because of the deliberate and
comprehensive targeting of Freedom Road Socialist Organization. The warrant authorizing
the search of one peace activists’ home instructs government agents to look for any
materials related to the recruitment and political education activities -- referred to
somewhat quaintly as 'indoctrination' -- of Freedom Road Socialist Organization.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised to see a resurgence of FBI raids and grand jury
subpoenas focused on today’s peace activists. This kind of red-baiting and demonization
of the Left have a long history in the United States. These tactics have served U.S.
government efforts to undermine many social movements, from workers' rights to civil
rights. The best known examples include the machinations of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
against Bayard Rustin, Stanley Levison, and the entire leadership of the southern civil
rights movement. Such methods are also familiar to people who worked in solidarity with
Central American peoples fighting dictatorship and U.S. intervention during the 1980’s,
and in the anti-apartheid movement in the 1990’s.
So these tactics of intimidation are familiar. But that doesn’t mean we can ignore them.
Unless we challenge the legitimacy of the FBI's raids now -- loudly, visibly, and in as
many ways as possible -- the anti-war movement may be facing a more dangerous and
difficult road than we had imagined.
What you can do:
• Call the Attorney General’s office at 202-353-1555 and demand an end to political
intimidation of peace activists.
• Call or write the “newspapers of record” such as the New York Times and Washington
Post, asking them to give full and prominent coverage to this story.
• Write a letter to the editor of your local paper, explaining why this kind of
intimidation is a danger to democracy.
• Call your local members of Congress to demand that the FBI stop harassing peace
activists.
• Participate in any local actions to protest these raids.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Tightened muzzle on scientists is 'Orwellian'
Documents reveal federal researchers, whose work
is financed by taxpayers, need approval from Ottawa
before speaking with media
By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News
Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says
the public has a right to know what scientists are discovering
and learning.
The Harper government has tightened the muzzle on federal scientists,
going so far as to control when and what they can say about floods at
the end of the last ice age.
Natural Resources Canada (NRC) scientists were told this spring they
need "pre-approval" from Minister Christian Paradis' office to speak with
journalists. Their "media lines" also need ministerial approval, say
documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information
legislation.
The documents say the "new" rules went into force in March and reveal
how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands,
but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.
They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from
scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often
of significant public interest -- be it about fish stocks, genetically
modified
crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River.
"It's Orwellian," says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of
Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists
are discovering and learning.
Scientists at NRC, many of them planetary experts, study everything
from seabeds to melting glaciers. They have long been able to discuss
their research, until the rules changed this spring.
"We have new media interview procedures that require pre-approval
of certain types of interview requests by the minister's office," wrote
Judy Samoil, NRC's western regional communications manager, in a
March 24 e-mail to colleagues.
The policy applies to "high-profile" issues such as "climate change,
oilsands" and when "the reporter is with an international or national
media organization (such as the CBC or the Canwest paper chain),"
she wrote.
The Canwest papers are now part of Postmedia Network Inc.
Samoil later elaborated, saying "the regional communications
managers were advised of this change a couple of weeks ago."
The documents show the new rules being so broadly applied that
one scientist was not permitted to discuss a study in a major research
journal without "pre-approval" from political staff in Paradis' office.
NRC scientist Scott Dallimore coauthored the study, published in the
journal Nature on April 1, about a colossal flood that swept across
northern Canada 13,000 years ago, when massive ice dams gave
way at the end of the last ice age.
The study was considered so newsworthy that two British universities
issued releases to alert the international media.
It was, however, deemed so sensitive in Ottawa that Dallimore, who
works at NRC's laboratories outside Victoria, was told he had to wait
for clearance from the minister's office.
Dallimore tried to tell the department's communications managers
the flood study was anything but politically sensitive.
"This is a blue sky science paper," he said noting: "There are no
anticipated links to minerals, energy or anthropogenic climate change."
But the bureaucrats in Ottawa insisted. "We will have to get the
minister's office approval before going ahead with this interview,"
Patti Robson, the department's media relations manager, wrote in
an e-mail after a reporter from Postmedia News (then Canwest News
Service) approached Dallimore.
Robson asked Dallimore to provide the reporter's questions and
"the proposed responses," saying: "We will send it up to MO
(minister's office) for approval." Robson said interviews about the
flood study needed ministerial approval for two reasons: the inquiring
reporter represented a "national news outlet" and the "subject has
wide-ranging implications."
The documents show several communications managers, policy
advisers, political staff and senior officials were involved drafting
and vetting "media lines" on the ancient flood study.
Dallimore finally got clearance to talk to reporters from Margaux
Stastny, director of communication in Paradis' office, on March 31,
a week after NRC communications branch was told the study was
appearing in Nature, and two days after reporters began
approaching Dallimore for interviews.
By then, the reporters' deadlines had passed and they had already
completed their stories about the ancient flood. Canwest News
Service, CBC, ABC, Reuters and other organizations based their
reports on interviews with co-authors of the study from universities
outside Canada that responded to interview requests promptly.
This effectively "muzzled" Dallimore by not allowing him to do
timely interviews, says Weaver, at the University of Victoria, who
says the incident shows how "ridiculous" the situation has got in
Ottawa.
"If you can't get access to a nice, feel-good science story about
flooding at the end of last glaciation, can you imagine trying to get
access to scientists with information about cadmium and mercury
in the Athabasca River? Absolutely impossible," says Weaver, in
reference to growing controversy over contaminants downstream
from Alberta's oilsands.
Environment Canada and Health Canada now tightly control media
access to researchers and orchestrate interviews that are approved.
Environment Canada has even produced "media lines" for federal
scientists to stick to when discussing climate studies they have
coauthored with Weaver and are based on research paid for
through his university grants.
"There is no question that there is an orchestrated campaign at the
federal level to make sure that their scientists can't communicate to
the public about what they do," says Weaver, adding that the
crackdown is seriously undermining morale in federal labs. "Science
is about generating new knowledge and communicating it to others."
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
is financed by taxpayers, need approval from Ottawa
before speaking with media
By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News
Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria, says
the public has a right to know what scientists are discovering
and learning.
The Harper government has tightened the muzzle on federal scientists,
going so far as to control when and what they can say about floods at
the end of the last ice age.
Natural Resources Canada (NRC) scientists were told this spring they
need "pre-approval" from Minister Christian Paradis' office to speak with
journalists. Their "media lines" also need ministerial approval, say
documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information
legislation.
The documents say the "new" rules went into force in March and reveal
how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands,
but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.
They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from
scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often
of significant public interest -- be it about fish stocks, genetically
modified
crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River.
"It's Orwellian," says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of
Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists
are discovering and learning.
Scientists at NRC, many of them planetary experts, study everything
from seabeds to melting glaciers. They have long been able to discuss
their research, until the rules changed this spring.
"We have new media interview procedures that require pre-approval
of certain types of interview requests by the minister's office," wrote
Judy Samoil, NRC's western regional communications manager, in a
March 24 e-mail to colleagues.
The policy applies to "high-profile" issues such as "climate change,
oilsands" and when "the reporter is with an international or national
media organization (such as the CBC or the Canwest paper chain),"
she wrote.
The Canwest papers are now part of Postmedia Network Inc.
Samoil later elaborated, saying "the regional communications
managers were advised of this change a couple of weeks ago."
The documents show the new rules being so broadly applied that
one scientist was not permitted to discuss a study in a major research
journal without "pre-approval" from political staff in Paradis' office.
NRC scientist Scott Dallimore coauthored the study, published in the
journal Nature on April 1, about a colossal flood that swept across
northern Canada 13,000 years ago, when massive ice dams gave
way at the end of the last ice age.
The study was considered so newsworthy that two British universities
issued releases to alert the international media.
It was, however, deemed so sensitive in Ottawa that Dallimore, who
works at NRC's laboratories outside Victoria, was told he had to wait
for clearance from the minister's office.
Dallimore tried to tell the department's communications managers
the flood study was anything but politically sensitive.
"This is a blue sky science paper," he said noting: "There are no
anticipated links to minerals, energy or anthropogenic climate change."
But the bureaucrats in Ottawa insisted. "We will have to get the
minister's office approval before going ahead with this interview,"
Patti Robson, the department's media relations manager, wrote in
an e-mail after a reporter from Postmedia News (then Canwest News
Service) approached Dallimore.
Robson asked Dallimore to provide the reporter's questions and
"the proposed responses," saying: "We will send it up to MO
(minister's office) for approval." Robson said interviews about the
flood study needed ministerial approval for two reasons: the inquiring
reporter represented a "national news outlet" and the "subject has
wide-ranging implications."
The documents show several communications managers, policy
advisers, political staff and senior officials were involved drafting
and vetting "media lines" on the ancient flood study.
Dallimore finally got clearance to talk to reporters from Margaux
Stastny, director of communication in Paradis' office, on March 31,
a week after NRC communications branch was told the study was
appearing in Nature, and two days after reporters began
approaching Dallimore for interviews.
By then, the reporters' deadlines had passed and they had already
completed their stories about the ancient flood. Canwest News
Service, CBC, ABC, Reuters and other organizations based their
reports on interviews with co-authors of the study from universities
outside Canada that responded to interview requests promptly.
This effectively "muzzled" Dallimore by not allowing him to do
timely interviews, says Weaver, at the University of Victoria, who
says the incident shows how "ridiculous" the situation has got in
Ottawa.
"If you can't get access to a nice, feel-good science story about
flooding at the end of last glaciation, can you imagine trying to get
access to scientists with information about cadmium and mercury
in the Athabasca River? Absolutely impossible," says Weaver, in
reference to growing controversy over contaminants downstream
from Alberta's oilsands.
Environment Canada and Health Canada now tightly control media
access to researchers and orchestrate interviews that are approved.
Environment Canada has even produced "media lines" for federal
scientists to stick to when discussing climate studies they have
coauthored with Weaver and are based on research paid for
through his university grants.
"There is no question that there is an orchestrated campaign at the
federal level to make sure that their scientists can't communicate to
the public about what they do," says Weaver, adding that the
crackdown is seriously undermining morale in federal labs. "Science
is about generating new knowledge and communicating it to others."
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
