On the 30th anniversary of Philadelphia police’s terroristic siege on the MOVE organization on August 8, 1978, Basics linked up with MOVE member Ramona Africa . Ramona Africa is the only living adult survivor of the Philadelphia police’s second major attack on MOVE’s home in 1985, where 11 people died, five of whom were children. The following is a transcript from our interview with her.

Basics: Ramona Africa, can you tell us about MOVE and its history?

Ramona Africa: The MOVE organization is a revolutionary organization founded by a man called John Africa. John Africa brought people together from all different religious, political, socio-economic backgrounds and made us a family, cementing the bond of our family with one common belief and that belief is life. Whether it’s the air, water, the earth that feeds us, human life, animal life, plant life - all life - is important and is our priority. Toward demonstrating our belief, our first public demonstrations were at the zoo, at the circus, at unsafe boarding homes for the elderly, at the reservoir and water treatment plant, at meetings held by DuPont chemicals, corporations like that who poisoned the environment…

Basics: How long ago was that?

Ramona Africa: This was in the early 1970s. Because we demonstrated and put out such clear information about the wisdom of John Africa, the government started hearing what we were saying and seeing our example. They wanted to stop us from waking people up and setting an example for people. They initially tried to co-opt us by offering us by offering us funding and offices. But we made it clear that we didn’t want anything from them and we didn’t need anything from them. So when they couldn’t use that soft soap with us they came with the iron fist of brutality. When we would set up a peaceful demonstration at some institution of this system, they would come and tell us that we couldn’t demonstrate. We confronted them about it and said “Why, what are you talking about? Isn’t this America where people have freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest? Does the constitution say, except MOVE?” Of course, they didn’t want to hear that, so that’s when the beatings began. Our brothers would be beaten bloody into broken limbs and consciousness; pregnant MOVE women would be beaten, stomped, kicked into miscarriage. MOVE took a strong position after this continuously happened. We said “We are a peaceful people, we are uncompromisingly opposed to violence. But we’re not confused and we’re not stupid. We understand clearly, based on the teachings of John Africa, the difference between violence and self-defense. We don’t believe in violence, but we do believe in self-defense. That is the law – the law of life. There is not a species on the face of this earth that does not instinctively defend itself when attacked. You’re not violent if you defend yourself, but you are violent if you are attacked and you refuse to defend yourself because then you’re encouraging violence, perpetuating violence. Because then you are masochistic, self-destructive, suicidal, and MOVE is none of those things. So when we made our position clear, the government really got its back up, because they didn’t want us influencing people with that kind of understanding and information. At that point, they just determined that they had to get rid of us, anyway they had to, even if it meant killing us. And that’s what the first major police attack on MOVE on August 8, 1978 was really all about.

Basics: What happened on August 8, 1978?

Ramona Africa: On that day, they used the excuse of our home having housing code violations to try to evict us out of our homes. This government has never cared about poor black people living in homes that have housing code violations. I mean, when did they start caring about that? That was the excuse they used to send hundreds of officers out to our homes to kill, not to arrest. In their fervour to kill off MOVE, they ended up shooting one of their own to death. Of course, there’s no question that they were going to blame MOVE for this. They failed to kill MOVE members so the next best thing was to put MOVE in prison for as long as possible. This is why they charged my family, the nine MOVE members, with murder and put them in prison for 30-100 years.

Basics: So the MOVE9 political prisoners, as we have come to know them, date back to that August 8, 1978, 30 years ago. Was that the last attack on MOVE?

Ramona Africa: Yes. In 1980, our home in Richmond, Virginia was attacked by police. Our sisters were arrested, they took our kids, put them in foster homes, and we had to fight to get them back. All of that in conspiracy with the Philadelphia government influencing the Richmond, Virginia government, because there was never any problems in Richmond, Virginia.

Then, on May 13, 1981, in Rochester, New York, the Federal government, the FBI, the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attacked our family and arrested our family in Rochester. John Africa, being one of the people who was arrested, went on trial in Federal court in Philadelphia, were they brought him back to. In an unprecedented and historical act that the history books will never tell people about, John Africa – a money-poor black man with long naughty hair, wearing a sweat-shirt, boots, jeans – went into Federal court, representing himself, not presenting any evidence, not cross-examining any witnesses, not putting on any witnesses, not making an opening statement, and sleeping with his head down on the table through much of the trial, only speaking briefly to make a half-hour closing statement, was acquitted of every single charge that the Feds could put on him. That is historical, unprecedented by any black man in the federal courts or any white man in the federal courts.

Finally, when John Africa came home and we stepped up our campaign to free the MOVE9, there was a second attack in 1985 when police came out to our home again, hiding behind a lie that neighbours were complaining about us. They used this as an excuse to come out to attack us, determined to do what they failed to do in 1978. They came out in 1985 with the makings of a bomb supplied by the Federal government, a helicopter supplied by the Pennsylvania government, and using Philadelphia city cops to attack us. They dropped a bomb on our bomb igniting a fire. Now the fire department was at the scene from the very beginning putting water into our home trying to flush us out. But when the bomb ignited a fire they refused to put the fire out.

When we who were in the basement realized that our home was on fire, we made several attempts to get our children, our animals, and ourselves out of that blazing inferno. And ever attempt was met with a barrage of police gun fire, deliberately aimed at us to try to prevent us from escaping. As a result, men, women, and babies – five babies and six adults – and numerous animals, were all burned alive and shot to death. The bodies were found to have many bullets in them.

I am the only adult survivor, along with one little boy who survived. People ask me how did we survive, how did I survive, and I have no answer other than that it must have been some miracle and that I still have some work to do.

Basics: The repression against MOVE is quite evident. From the perspective of those who have power in this society, what does MOVE represent to them? Does it represent a threat to their power?

Ramona Africa: Absolutely those in power see MOVE as a threat, and we are. We don’t believe in this system. We’re not impressed with it, we’re not intimidated by it, and we don’t want anything that it has. They can’t bribe us with anything or threaten to take anything away from us. They have nothing that we can’t do without – and that gives us all the leverage in the world. What they do with other organizations is try to intimidate them, if not try to seduce them with things, positions, money, or whatever. But they can’t do that with us. We don’t believe in this system at all, and we can substantiate why we don’t believe in it.

Look at this country. When at when this continent was invaded: the air was pure, the water was clean, the earth was fertile and productive. There were no hospitals or prisons. But since this so-called civilization was introduced to North America, look at the mess that it’s made. And we’re supposed to believe in this? No, we won’t. We can substantiate our positions, but they can’t substantiate their’s. They cannot trick or fool us. We’re not imprisoned by their concepts, like legality. They can tell us what’s legal and illegal all day – we don’t care, that doesn’t mean anything to us. Tell us what’s right, and we’ll deal with that. A lot of things were legal, but they were wrong. Slavery was legal, apartheid was legal, slaughtering the Natives of this country was legal, the Holocaust was legal. None of these things were right. Resisting all of those things – slavery, apartheid, the Holocaust – were illegal, seen as crimes. But it wasn’t wrong. So we’re not going to be imprisoned by the concepts invented by our enemy. And because they can’t trick us or fool us, that makes us a threat to them.

MOVE people, we keep on fighting: they keep coming at us, and we keep coming right back because we don’t see any alternative option. It’s not an option to just throw our hands up and give in. We have children to think about it, who will have children, who will have more children, and we’re raising our children to be revolutionaries with that fire that John Africa put in us. We will never give in to this system. They don’t have enough cops, guns, jails, prison guards, sheriffs, courts to make MOVE people give in to this rotten system.

Basics: Close to home, Toronto, where Basics is based out of, there is a land reclamation struggle being led by Six Nations right now, especially the Mohawk Warriors. One of the principles that they live by is to preserve the earth and life for the seven generations to come. Would you have any principles to offer up to other peoples struggling for justice and freedom?
Ramona Africa: The foundation of our belief is life – you have to put life first, on a very personal level. For example, MOVE people have things, but we don’t beat or chastise our children for breaking or losing something. Life is our priority, and the feelings of our children who are alive are more important to us than some dead thing that has no feelings. This is how people must begin to think and live: putting priority on life, all of life. Until people do that, we aren’t going nowhere. Those people who are oppressing us, life means nothing to them. It’s the root of criminality, for instance. Young teenagers may kill another for a pair of sneakers or a jacket. They may take a life for something that’s not a life, that has no feelings at all. But they do that because life means nothing to them, and that’s the example that they’re getting from this system.

For instance, when that situation happened in Littleton, Colorado at Colombine highschool where some of the students were shooting up all those other students, Clinton was on the news telling people that we need to teach our children how to resolve conflict by means other than violence, while at the same time Clinton was bombing kids in Kosovo. What message are children getting when they see cops shooting at people 41 times and hitting them 19 times?

The bottom line for MOVE is to make life a priority.

Basics: Well, with love and revolutionary thanks for this interview, are there any final thoughts you may want to add?

Ramona Africa: On a move to my MOVE family, to Mumia Abu-Jamal, long live Leonard Peltier, the Puerto Rican independistas, the Zapatistas, long live all freedom fighters: The Earth Liberation Front, the Animal Liberation Front, long live all those who love life enough to fight for life and freedom. Long live the spirit of resistance, long live revolution! Long live John Africa, and down with this rotten-ass system! ON A MOVE!

Basics: ON A MOVE! Basics Community Newsletter, Philadelphia.

The US Supreme Court Monday refused to hear arguments for a new trial for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther accused of killing a police officer who has become an icon for anti-capital punishment campaigners.

His lawyer Robert Bryan has already said he will seek to bring a second Supreme Court appeal -- on the grounds of racism... Read more...

Ich sehe schon, Amerika ist ein humanitärer Staat und sorgt für seine Bürger. Alle sind gleich, Amerika ist ein freiheitlich demokratisches Land. Es achtet die Menschenrechte... oh, ich glaube mir wird ganz plötzlich fürchterlich schlecht!

Ich hoffe es kommt nicht so wie auf den Bildern. Jochen hat etwas über Mumia veröffentlicht. Grüße an Big Berta.

Der Scanner war zu klein oder das Papier zu groß und ich muß noch etwas am Bild überarbeiten.

Ergänzung. Quelle: Laut der NRhZ könnten die Agenturmeldungen falsch sein.

"Auch über die Berufung von Mumia Abu Jamals Anwalt gegen die rassistische Geschworenenauswahl im ursprünglichen Verfahren und die Irreführung der Jury durch den Staatsanwalt.bei der Urteilsfindung wegen angeblichen Mordes an einem Polizisten kann auf US-Bundesebene nicht entschieden worden sein, weil dieser Antrag von der Verteidigung noch gar nicht gestellt worden ist, teilt das Netzwerk mit."

]]> http://frombehindbars.wordpress.com/?p=186 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:32:35 +0000 frombehindbars http://frombehindbars.da.wordpress.com/2008/10/02/new-british-mumia-film-acquired-by-sundance/ PhillyIMC

NEW YORK, Oct. 1 (UPI) -- Sundance Channel has announced it acquired "In Prison My Whole Life," a feature documentary executive produced by British actor Colin Firth.

Directed by Marc Evans and written by Evans and William Francome, the film "follows 25-year-old William Francome's investigation into the arrest of Mumia Abu Jamal, famed death-row prisoner and award-winning Black Panther journalist," Sundance Channel said in a news release.

"Francome, born on the day of Mumia's Dec. 9, 1981 arrest (for the killing of a Philadelphia police officer), engages intellectuals, writers and musicians in an effort to expose the truth about justice in America for black activists in general and Mumia in particular."

Featuring interviews with Alice Walker, Noam Chomsky, Mos Def, Snoop Dogg and Steve Earle, the film is scheduled to premiere on Sundance Channel Dec. 8.

Jury of Peers? (Mumia’s message to CR10)

Check out Mumia’s new radio-essay on the issue of the fair jury, including this special message to the CR10 conference: http://prisonradio.org/JuryofPeersMumia.htm

Read Journalists for Mumia’s interview with CR10’s Rose Braz:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/07/organizing-to-abolish-the-prison-industrial-complex/

As well as Portland’s KBOO radio interview with Journalists for Mumia: http://kboo.fm/node/9541

Also, the Sept./Oct. flyer update from Journalists for Mumia (Abu-Jamal-News.com), with a new legal update:
http://abu-jamal-news.com/docs/crflyer.pdf

The Batson issue is central to Mumia’s case. These are just a few facts:
---On May 17, before The US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued that that there is strong evidence of racist jury selection at the 1982 trial. The LDF Amicus Brief concludes, “it becomes abundantly clear that he has set forth a prima facie case of discrimination,” based on the standards established by the US Supreme Court’s 1986 Batson v. Kentucky ruling, establishing a defendant’s right to a new trial if proven that jurors were excluded on the basis of race. 

---The LDF argues that DA prosecutor McGill's conduct “strongly suggested discriminatory intent,” and other evidence “strongly suggests” that this discrimination “was common practice,” in the DA's office. At Abu-Jamal’s trial, McGill used 10-11 of his 15 peremptory challenges to remove otherwise acceptable black jurors. 

---Philadelphia was over 40% black, but the jury had 10 whites and only 2 blacks. A survey of homicide cases tried by McGill from Sept., 1981 to Oct., 1983, reveals, “the odds that Mr. McGill would peremptorily challenge an African-American potential juror were 8.47 times greater than for non-black jurors.” 

---From 1977-1986 (when current Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell was the District Attorney), Philadelphia prosecutors struck 58% of black jurors, but only 22% of the white jurors.

The Batson issue is central to Mumia’s appeal before the US Supreme Court. Check out more below here.
Listen to Christina Swarns of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund present on the Batson issue for Mumia on May 17, 2007: http://abu-jamal-news.com/audio/m17/LDF.mp3

And, other shorter clips from Swarns’ presentation: http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=May17Audio

LEGAL UPDATE:

New Guilt-Phase Trial Denied!

Ruling against three different appeal issues, the court has refused to grant either a new guilt-phase trial or a preliminary hearing that could have led to a new guilt-phase trial for Mumia. 

However, on the issue of racist jury selection, also known as the Batson claim, the three judge panel of Thomas Ambro, Anthony Scirica, and Robert Cowen split 2-1, with Ambro dissenting. 

The 1986 Batson v. Kentucky ruling established the right to a new trial if jurors were excluded on the basis of race. At the 1982 trial Prosecutor McGill used 10 of his 15 peremptory strikes to remove otherwise acceptable black jurors, yet the court ruled that there was not even the appearance of discrimination. 

Judge Thomas Ambro’s Dissent 

In his dissenting opinion, he wrote that the denial of a preliminary Batson hearing “goes against the grain of our prior actions…I see no reason why we should not afford Abu-Jamal the courtesy of our precedents.”

Mumia will be filing an appeal with the US Supreme Court by the deadline of Oct. 20, unless he applies for a 60 day extension. 
Mumia can still be executed! 

On March 27, the three-judge panel unanimously affirmed Federal District Court Judge William Yohn’s 2001 decision overturning the death sentence. Citing the 1988 Mills v. Maryland precedent, Yohn had ruled that sentencing forms used by jurors and Judge Sabo’s instructions to the jury were potentially confusing, and jurors could have mistakenly believed that they had to unanimously agree on any mitigating circumstances in order to consider them as weighing against a death sentence.

A New Penalty-Phase Trial?

Now, if the District Attorney wants to re-instate the death sentence, the DA must call for a new penalty-phase jury trial where new evidence of Mumia’s innocence can be presented. However, the jury can only choose between a sentence of life in prison without parole or a death sentence. 

Or, the DA can appeal this ruling to the US Supreme Court by the deadline of Oct. 20. The DA has not stated whether or not it will: 
(1) appeal this to the US Supreme Court, or 
(2) accept the Third Circuit ruling and either request a new sentencing trial or accept life in prison without the chance of parole.

"The powerful have resources that the powerless do not. The powerless suffer silently and often alone, and their hearings result in stone-faced denials or meaningless platitudes that preserve the prerogatives of power." -Mumia Abu-Jamal (p. 125, South End Press, 2004)

This case was one of the reasons I started over-verifying everything I heard before making a decision on what I believed about it.

The reality was that Mumia was the only cab driver parked in a garage across the street from where his brother was being pulled over.  Danny Faulkner, the police officer, was doing a routine traffic stop when the driver of the car got out and hit him.  Danny took out his nightstick and defended himself.  Mumia got out of his cab, ran across the street, and shot Danny in the back.  Danny turned and fired back, hitting Mumia.  But Mumia stood over Danny as he breathed his last and emptied his gun into the young cop's head.  Witnesses proved what happened, as did forensic evidence, including gunpowder residue on Danny's jacket and on the hands of both men.  Mumia's own brother admitted what had happened.  And Mumia, coming into the hospital, screamed, spit and swore that he'd done it and he hoped the cop was dead.

Something similar happened with Tookie.  Remember him?  Stanley "Tookie" Williams was convicted of murdering four innocent people during a robbery.  He was caught on tape later making fun of the noises his victims made as they died, gasping for air and pleading for mercy.  Both of these men came back later and tried to say they didn't do it and came up with a litany of different stories to explain the airtight evidence that proved their guilt.  Somehow, both men have been nominated for the Nobel Prize and have continued to draw thousands of followers.

Why?  Is the draw that so many feel to them somehow linked to the draw that some women feel to marry imprisoned convicts?  Is it desperation to feel wanted?  Or is it just sheer stupidity?  I've yet to figure it out.  I have worked in four different prisons, including a juvenile facility, and I will never understand it.  What in the world makes so many people so gullible that they'd be willing to believe anything said by a convicted murderer?

It's scary to me sometimes not only how gullible they are, but how vehemently they defend their position once convinced.  I've always been of the belief that if something is proven wrong, I don't want anything to do with it.  I'm loyal to my friends because they've earned my trust, not because of their skin color.  I vote conservative because those ideals usually make sense to me, but that doesn't mean I always vote for one party or the other.  I cannot imagine what it is that makes so many people so bull-headed that they flatly refuse to see a differing point of view.  What's more mind-boggling is that they're usually the ones screaming for "tolerance."

Tookie, I'm glad you're gone.  If you really felt remorse then I'm happy.  Mumia, I hope you rot behind bars, and the kind of people I see championing your cause speaks to your character and the lack of validity to your claims.  To those of you who follow these monsters...'nuff said.

But at that time I also developed a keen interest in an album release that would change my worldview. Rage Against the Machine’s album titled “The battle of Los Angeles” would not only be my first rock album but also my first ‘political’ album.

Glued to MTV in the afternoon hours after school I thought to be able to find more music of that kind. It was my only source of music back when I was thirteen. But I soon came to realize that neither MTV, nor Bush jr or Al Gore were meant to remain choices of my life.

It all started with RATM’s video “Testify”. Not only did I consciously start to hate the trash MTV was feeding me every afternoon after school. I also started to question both candidates – and the system itself. Though unequipped with political arguments besides the ones the RATM video presented to me I was now a vacillating force searching for means of resistance.

The Battle of Seattle in 1999, the presidential elections in 2000, and 9/11 put Rage Against the Machine’s theory in ‘Testify’ into practice (for me): We found your weakness and it’s right outside your door. To me this was a novel idea at the age of thirteen but it seemed to be proven over and over again throughout the years.

It wasn’t only the Bolsheviks in 1917 who found power laying around in the streets. My early teens had kick started with global capitalism being under attack and it was those years that Rage Against the Machine’s late works rapped us a story of a class and people long forgotten in the mainstream media.

Capitalism was not the end of history as we were singing songs of making capitalism history in our childhood bedrooms. Prosperity through free trade was countered with an album by Leftöver Crack called “F*ck world trade”. And at a time when both presidential candidates supported the death penalty Brother Mumia – after years of struggle – came into our consciousness and remains there until today.

In Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States of America it read: “the past is told from the point of view of governments, conquerors, diplomats and leaders”. It taught me something valuable which my parents could not teach me. On the one side, that all society is divided into oppressors and oppressed and on the other side, that the memory of our class and its allies must be carried into the present and the future.

We owe this to all those thirteen year old boys and girls searching for answers. And bands like Rage Against the Machine can spark that light of resistance in times when Obama and McCain are still supporting the war on terror and free trade.

The only change we can believe in is ourselves in united struggle.

recorded 1/20/08

1) 2:39 Radio Essay - short Mp3

2) 3:39 Radio Essay - long Mp3

The Economics of Gangsters

[col. writ. 1/19/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

As Americans begin to taste the bitter dregs of recession; the economy spirals to the top of primary election rhetoric.  Briefly displacing the issue of Iraq.

Both Republicans and Democrats join in rare bipartisan agreement on an economic stimulus package -- a government dole out of roughly $800 per taxpayer -- which, when received, will be spent, and this spending will stimulate, or boost, the lagging economy.

I don't want to be a downer, but I feel compelled to say, if the economy can be sparked by so modest a boost, are the problems really that serious, or are they far more serious than politicians are letting on?

It seems to me that politicians are skirting the obvious: U.S. economic problems aren't displacing problems in Iraq: in fact, Iraq -- its costs in blood and treasure -- are driving this period of economic instability, recession and job losses.

How?  Well, while the defense industries, and related businesses of oil and mercenary-type outfits (like Blackwater) are making big bucks, this wealth is narrowly distributed.  In past wars, workers were driven into factories to build the weapons of World Wars I and II, and so money was widely circulated, particularly among Blacks, newly arrived from the segregated South, or among women, who entered factories to work machines vacated by millions of white men who were Drafted to man the war front (remember Rosie the Riveter?)

This new so-called volunteer army is largely the product of an economic draft, of poor and working class youth hoping to get a leg up in the rat race of attending increasingly unaffordable colleges.

While this hope and dream is often unrequited, what are the economic prospects of tens of thousands of men and women who return legless, armless-- or mindless -- after repeated tours in Iraq?

And the Iraq war, which will cost perhaps upwards of trillions of dollars before all is said and done, is really designed to economically benefit few -- again, oil companies and their subsidiaries. And, of course, petroleum-based fossil fuels have their own ecological, and social costs - that we've not even begun to tally.

While Bush and the Saudi princes do their sword-dance (ironic given the $20 billion Saudi-U..S. weapons deal Bush brings), the economy - and the ecology -burns.

Housing foreclosures are spiking; manufacturing flees to China; gas prices rise; neighborhoods decline into hellholes for survival; and schools resemble training camps for prison.

And prison?  Perhaps they are America's lone growth industry.

Wars are poor replacements for ailing economies. For they produce nothing, but pain, loss and ultimately -- more war.

This war, started by neo con nitwits and the Texas/Bush Mafia, has produced pain, loss and death on an epic scale.

No politician now running has the barest notion of how to end the cycle -- for they too are trapped in an imperial web, spun by big business.

They promise no solution, just an extension of the same, elsewhere.

--(c) '08 maj

'68 -- Then and Now

[col. writ. 8/19/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Ona Move!

Thank you, Re-Create '68, for inviting me to join your efforts in Denver, to practice real democracy in the shadows of the Empire.

When I think of the DNC, I'm reminded of the words of the great French writer, Voltaire, who, when speaking of the Holy Roman Empire, quipped it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

The Democratic National Committee is neither democratic, nor national, nor a committee. If it were democratic why would it reject the voices of the people, who protest against its rule? If it were national, it wouldn't be driven by imperialist and globalist corporate interests. (Let us not forget William J. Clinton - perhaps the best known globalist (NAFTA?) in the country). And if it were truly a committee then anybody could join it - not just the political puppets of corporate power.

In 1968, a Democratic mayor named Daley unleashed brutal and vicious cops on people who dared protest against the Democratic Party's support for the atrocities in Vietnam. Those young people were allegedly protected under the free speech 'guarantees' of the Constitution. Instead, they got the crap beat out them.

It was imperial war then - and it's imperial war now, and only the names and faces have changed (some names - there's still a Mayor Daley in Chicago).

In fact, things are more repressive today than they were in '68, for then, anti-war activists and students could at least march through the streets. They got their asses whipped, but at least they marched. Today, city governments have built cages for protest. So much for respect for the constitution!

Now, as in LA 2000, you can get your ass whipped -- in a cage!

That is what American democracy looks like in 2008.

For another idea, look at what Pakistan did a few days ago. When the head-of-state violated the constitution, the people took to the streets. When he brought out the troops, they continued to protest. And they demanded impeachment!

There, democracy forced a dictator to resign!

There, democracy marches - ona move!

Here, democracy is in cages, hidden in the boondocks, while alleged representatives sell their souls to the highest corporate bidder, to further the interests of imperial war.

Here, politicians take the label of 'democrat', hire the cops to beat you, hire the media to slander you, so that they can send your children to war for oil pipelines, or to protect foreign despots and princes.

Here, democracy is on life-support, while paid-for politicians give mouth to mouth to imperialism, rampant globalization and the ravaging of the poor.

Our revered ancestor Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will." Your protests are in that great spirit of resistance.

We only need more!

Ona Move! Long Live John Africa!

I thank you all!

Mumia Abu-Jamal

(c) '08 maj

The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!

Listen to audio here

Thank you, Re-Create '68, for inviting me to join your efforts in Denver, to practice real democracy in the shadows of the Empire.

When I think of the DNC, I'm reminded of the words of the great French writer, Voltaire, who, when speaking of the Holy Roman Empire, quipped it "was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire."

The Democratic National Committee is neither democratic, nor national, nor a committee. If it were democratic why would it reject the voices of the people, who protest against its rule? If it were national, it wouldn't be driven by imperialist and globalist corporate interests. (Let us not forget William J. Clinton - perhaps the best known globalist (NAFTA?) in the country). And if it were truly a committee then anybody could join it - not just the political puppets of corporate power.

In 1968, a Democratic mayor named Daley unleashed brutal and vicious cops on people who dared protest against the Democratic Party's support for the atrocities in Vietnam. Those young people were allegedly protected under the free speech 'guarantees' of the Constitution. Instead, they got the crap beat out them.

It was imperial war then - and it's imperial war now, and only the names and faces have changed (some names - there's still a Mayor Daley in Chicago).

In fact, things are more repressive today than they were in '68, for then, anti-war activists and students could at least march through the streets. They got their asses whipped, but at least they marched. Today, city governments have built cages for protest. So much for respect for the constitution!

Now, as in LA 2000, you can get your ass whipped -- in a cage!

That is what American democracy looks like in 2008.

For another idea, look at what Pakistan did a few days ago. When the head-of-state violated the constitution, the people took to the streets. When he brought out the troops, they continued to protest. And they demanded impeachment!

There, democracy forced a dictator to resign!

There, democracy marches - ona move!

Here, democracy is in cages, hidden in the boondocks, while alleged representatives sell their souls to the highest corporate bidder, to further the interests of imperial war.

Here, politicians take the label of 'democrat', hire the cops to beat you, hire the media to slander you, so that they can send your children to war for oil pipelines, or to protect foreign despots and princes.

Here, democracy is on life-support, while paid-for politicians give mouth to mouth to imperialism, rampant globalization and the ravaging of the poor.

Our revered ancestor Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has and never will." Your protests are in that great spirit of resistance.

We only need more!

Ona Move! Long Live John Africa!

I thank you all!

Mumia Abu-Jamal

The Democratic National Committee is neither democratic, nor national, nor a committee. If it were democratic why would it reject the voices of the people, who protest against its rule? If it were national, it wouldn't be driven by imperialist and globalist corporate interests. (Let us not forget William J. Clinton - perhaps the best known globalist in the country). And if it were truly a committee then anybody could join it - not just the political puppets of corporate power.

-Mumia Abu-Jamal

I'm going to give Obama a breather tonight, because as washed up ol' Ice-T says, "Don't hate the player, hate the game." And Obama isn't much to blame for continuation and promotion of neoliberal and conservative leanings within the Democratic party and so-called progressive mainstream politics; the individual really has little influence in politics and are really just reactionary reflections of the macro-system. The United States' political system is fundamentally flawed and this Democratic National Convention is such a biting reminder of how messed up things are.

If TV coverage were any indicator, the DNC would be one of the most important political occurrences of the entire year (I think I counted at least ten channels covering the convention). But really it's completely irrelevant to our political state and just a perfect display of the sensationalized, personalized, and completely irrelevant nature of US politics. This convention looks like something the blatantly corporate-loving Republicans would dream up but for a party (and candidate) that claims to fight for the working-class, oppressed people of the US, this convention is totally out of touch with reality. The convention is being held in a corporate sponsored arena (the Pepsi Center), with Walt Disney World-esque light shows and entertainment, and hundreds of pre-made, laminated signs for the audience to hold up for each speaker (so much for the claim of being environmentally sustainable). Only invited guests are able to attend the convention and no one from the "general public" is even able to get inside. There is no freedom of speech; only sterile, pre-approved addresses by sterile, pre-approved speakers. The speakers that do have the opportunity to talk, tell highly-personalized stories, almost completely ignore the important issues at hand, and seem to just bask in privilege, non-confrontation, and armchair liberalism while on stage. I appreciate Michelle Obama for telling such a heart-warming story about Barack and herself but I really don't give a shit. What does he plan on doing with Iraq, the economy, Russia, the environment, corporate control, fair trade, and domestic social welfare? I'm sure thoughtful political discussion would ruin the Democrats' party. And enough with the nice-guy, family-man irrelevant bullshit. I'm sure Bush is a nice guy and a great dad and we see what he's done. We see where the Democrats interests are: with the privilaged. As Mumia says above, \"The Democratic National Committee is neither democratic, nor national, nor a committee.\" So much for the populism that the Democratic party has touted. So much for planning a movement of "change.

But this is just typical of the US political discourse. We focus so much on the individual and put our trust in politicians that we become so easily apathetic, frustrated, and disjointed when they undoubtedly fail us. US politics have fallen victim to individualism, which makes people think that religion, personal traits, family, and personal history are important to be president, when they are not. This focus on personal politics has made the poor, rural Southern whites, first-generation immigrants, women from "traditional" backgrounds, and many black people turn away for progressivism, when, in all reality this movement benefits them the most. I'm not naïve enough to expect all or even a majority of oppressed peoples to collectively act due to the constant pressure of the system and general conservativeness of the American political environment (I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone say Obama is "too liberal") but I do hope for the resurgence of an issue-based, community driven democracy.

There is hope, even in Denver during this convention. There are Recreate '68 protests, which Mumia speaks of in his broadcast. These protests confront the Democrats on problems such as Iraq and human rights abuses. They will feature some great speakers such as Ida Audeh, a Palestinian refugee, Kathleen Cleaver of the Black Panters, and Fred Hampton, Jr. And some of my favorite hip-hop groups will be performing: Dead Prez, Public Enemy, and Blue Scholars. So thank you to the people carrying on real democracy in Denver this week. Power to the people.

In fact, Gallup shows McCain up! Can Hillary do anything about it?

It's official: Barack Obama has received no bounce in voter support out of his selection of Sen. Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate.

Gallup Poll Daily tracking from Aug. 23-25, the first three-day period falling entirely after Obama's Saturday morning vice presidential announcement, shows 46% of national registered voters backing John McCain and 44% supporting Obama, not appreciably different from the previous week's standing for both candidates. This is the first time since Obama clinched the nomination in early June, though, that McCain has held any kind of advantage over Obama in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

Depuis 26 ans, l’affaire Abu-Jamal soulève la polémique à travers le monde. Pour le plus célèbre condamné à mort (et ses comités de soutien, dont le plus important se trouve en France), c’est la conspiration d’un Etat contre « la voix des sans voix ». Le journaliste noir qui dérange et que l’on veut taire à tout prix. Pour les autres, il  est tout simplement coupable d’assassinat. Avec le temps, le sort de Mumia, dans le couloir de la mort, le destine à devenir le symbole de la lutte contre la peine de mort. Sans pour autant se faire une idée sur sa culpabilité, toutes les associations contre la peine de mort le soutiennent. Mais les actions en sa faveur, venant du monde entier, les tentatives d’exécution de 1995 et 1999 -annulées grâce aux mobilisations internationales- et les failles du procès de 1982 n’ont pas suffit à valider les multiples requêtes en appel, en faveur d’un nouveau procès, pour celui qui clame son innocence depuis plus d’un quart de siècle. Les 3 juges, chargés d’examiner les requêtes reposant sur les inégalités du procès vieux de 26 ans, ont entendu les arguments de la Cour d’appel fédéral (lire encadré du compte rendu, audience du 17 mai 2007). C’est la reconnaissance sur l’habea corpus (loi fédérale liée aux droits fondamentaux de la constitution américaine) qui a sauvé Mumia. A défaut de lui procurer  un nouveau procès, les juges ont préféré conclure à un vice de procédure et commuer la peine de mort en peine à perpétuité. Pour comprendre, comment ce sombre procès, de 1982, s’est déroulé, il est essentiel de revenir aux faits et comme le précise notre regretté Jacques Derridas, dans la préface du livre de Mumia Abu-Jamal, En directe du couloir de la mort, «On passerait des heures à énumérer toutes les irrégularités qui ont entaché cette mascarade judiciaire  dont tous les éléments sont maintenant rassemblés et bien connus du monde entier». Cette nouvelle enquête permet de mieux cerner le cas Abu-Jamal et de lui apporter un éclaircissement pour tous ceux qui le souhaitent. 

« Habeas corpus » Les droits individuels ou « bill of right ». Le 5ème amendement de la Constitution américaine stipule que tout citoyen a le droit d’être jugé par ses pairs. Les jurés en 1982 étaient en majorité blanc (10 blancs/2 noirs). Mumia est victime de la partialité des jurés. Le 6ème amendement dit que toute procédure pénale de l’accusé doit bénéficier d’un procès public et rapide par un jury impartial de l’Etat où le crime a été commis. Il doit être informé de son accusation, confronté aux témoins. Il a le droit d’avoir l’assistance d’un avocat. Tous les témoins de la défense ont été rejetés. Il n’y a eu aucune confrontation de reconnaissance avec les témoins à charge. Mumia n’a pas eu le droit de se défendre correctement. Son avocat incompétent, commis d’office n’a pu obtenir que 150 euros pour enquêter. Mumia souhaitant se défendre lui-même, s’est vu refuser toute défense et expulser de son propre procès. Le 14ème amendement proclame le droit de citoyenneté pour toute personne née et naturalisée aux Etats Unis.

La sentence de la condamnation à mort donnée par le juge Sabo s’est portée essentiellement sur trois éléments :
1. La « confession » d’Abu-Jamal pendant le transport à l’hopital « j’ai tiré sur ce fils de pute et j’espère que ce fils de pute est mort »
2. Les trois témoins certifient avoir vu Abu-Jamal tirer sur le policier, une balle dans le dos et une en pleine tête.
3. Le révolver trouvé par la police appartient à l’accusé.  

Un juge morbide  pour un procès expéditif :
Le juge Sabo, détient le record des condamnations à mort aux Etats Unis. Dans une période de 14 années, il a mis trente-et-une personnes dans le couloir de la mort. Tous afro-américains sauf deux. Membre de la Fraternal Organization of  Police (F.O.P) –association qui milite jusqu’à ce jour contre Mumia- Cet ancien shérif adjoint a décidé, à deux reprises, du sort de Mumia. La première fois, il le condamne à la peine capitale pour meurtre au premier degré avec préméditation. Il l’expulse de son propre procès, parce que Mumia voulait user de ses droits d’assumer sa propre défense (l’avocat commis d’office selon lui est incompétent) et de bénéficier de l’assistance de John Africa, en qui il avait confiance. Le jugement s’est déroulé avec un avocat « non préparé », qui, même s’il avait été compétent, sans Mumia, ne pouvait pas connaître les circonstances et les interrogations faites aux témoins. De plus aucun procès verbal n’est parvenu dans sa cellule. La deuxième fois, lors de l’audience en 1995 - appel à la Cour suprême de Pennsylvanie (recours « post condamnation »)- il refuse les 22 arguments de la défense. Il appuie l’ordonnance d’exécution, en formulant 290 conclusions. Aucune en faveur de Mumia. Le 7 août 1995, dix jours avant l’exécution prévue, Mumia est sauvé de la mort, in-extremis, par un report de la peine par la Cour suprême. Ce juge, se confondant en excuse envers la veuve du policier, annonce solennellement qu’il ne pourrait y avoir d’exécution avant que Mumia n’épuise tous ses appels.

Une balle « perdue »
En décembre 1981, Daniel Faulkner, officier de police de Philadelphie a été tué par balles. Il a été touché dans le dos. Le premier coup n’a pas été mortel. Il était encore capable de riposter. Mais l’autre balle a atteint la tête. Mumia Abu-Jamal, alors chauffeur de taxi, déposant un client, assiste à l’altercation entre son frère et un officier de police. Il sort de sa voiture pour rejoindre son frère. Quelques minutes plus tard une patrouille de police, arrivant sur les lieux, trouve Mumia assis tout près du policier mort, un révolver (obtenu légalement par Mumia) à quelques pas de lui. Abu-Jamal est blessé dans l’estomac. La balle extraite du corps, appartient bien au révolver de l’officier de police mort. Celle de ce dernier est trop endommagée pour être identifiée avec certitude. Les expertises ne démontrent pas que la balle provenait du révolver de Mumia. Impossible maintenant de le vérifier. Selon Albert Sabo, juge de l’audience en appel (Post Conviction Relief Act) en 1995, la balle extraite du corps de l’officier est perdue. Transporté à l’hôpital, dans un état critique, Mumia est opéré et sauvé.

1. La « confession » d’Abu-Jamal pendant le transport à l’hopital : les témoignages à charge du policier Gary Bell et de l’agent de sécurité, Priscilla Durham sont retenus malgré deux autres témoignages de la défense qui les contredisent. Tout deux ont certifié avoir entendu la confession d’Abu-Jamal. L’officier –un ami proche de D. Faulkner- se trouvait avec Abu-Jamal à l’entrée de l’hôpital quand il a entendu la confession. Priscilla Durham déclare qu’elle a rapporté les aveux de Mumia, le jour d’après, à son superviseur, mais pas à la police. Elle signale aussi que le superviseur en a fait un rapport écrit. La Cour n’en a jamais vu la couleur. Mais curieusement, son superviseur meurt subitement. Le procureur, envoie immédiatement un policier à l’hôpital et revient avec un rapport imprimé. Pricilla Durham, désavoue ce rapport attestant qu’il était manuscrit et non tapé. Le juge Sabo, malgré l’objection de la défense comme non authentique, a ajouté l’élément comme une évidence supplémentaire à la culpabilité d’Abu-Jamal. Il justifie laisser les jurés décider de la validité de cette pièce à conviction. Ces deux témoignages sont contredites par deux autres officiers de police : Gary Wakshul est resté avec Abu-Jamal, pendant le transport à l’hôpital, depuis la scène du crime jusqu’à l’intervention chirurgicale pour extraire, de son dos, la balle tirée par D. Faulkner. Il a témoigné que « l’homme noir n’a fait aucun commentaire.». Idem pour l’autre officier, Dan Williams qui déclare mot pour mot le même témoignage.

2. Les trois témoins affirment avoir vu Mumia tirer deux balles sur le policier : Le témoignage le plus dommageable pour l’accusé, est celui d’une prostituée afro-américaine, Cynthia White. Elle dit avoir vu toute la scène du meurtre depuis le début jusqu’à la fin. Pourtant ses dépositions se contredisent. Le matin du meurtre, elle déclare avoir entendu une série de coups de feu. Quelques jours après plusieurs interrogations, elle signale en avoir entendu seulement deux avant que l’officier de police ne tombe. Dans une autre déposition elle certifie que Mumia portait une arme dans sa main gauche. Trois jours plus tard, elle dit ne plus être sûre. A la Cour elle nie ses précédents témoignages. Cynthia White, prostituée et utilisant des drogues était particulièrement vulnérable pour la police qui l’interrogeait. La police aurait-elle extorqué des aveux en lui faisant dire ce qu’ils voulaient entendre pour condamner Mumia et la laisser ainsi libre de se prostituer ? Elle avait été arrêtée plus de trente-cinq fois par la police et venait d’être arrêté par deux fois peu avant l’incident. Au moment du procès, elle purgeait une peine de 18 mois pour prostitution dans le Massachussetts. D’autres prostituées qui la connaissaient ont rapporté que C.White a échangé son témoignage contre un « deal » avec la police. Amnesty International a rédigé un pamphlet, édité en 2000 : « The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal a life in the balance » mettant en lumière les nombreuses failles du procès par une enquête qui retrace l’affaire. Dans leurs informations, seule Cynthia manque, les autorités sont incapables de la retrouver. Lors de l’audience en 1995, le procureur déclare la mort de cette femme en montrant un certificat de décès au nom différent de Cynthia Williams datant de 1992. On ne saura jamais la vérité sur ce qu’elle a réellement vu.

Le deuxième témoignage, c’est celui de Véronica Jones, une autre prostituée, présente sur les lieux du crime. Véronica Jones atteste dans sa déposition initiale, avoir vu deux personnes s’enfuirent du lieu du crime. Elle revient sur sa déposition en 1995. Dans son attestation sur l’honneur, elle explique son revirement et ses démêlés avec les policiers : « ils m’ont dit que si je témoignais contre Jamal et identifiais Jamal comme celui qui a tiré, je ne devrais pas m’inquiéter à propos des charges qui pèsent contre moi…les enquêteurs m’ont harcelée, me remettant en mémoire que je risque une longue peine de prison –15 ans¬- Je savais que si je témoignais pour la défense de Jamal, j’allais me retrouver en prison pour de longues années. » En effet, juste après l’audience, le juge Sabo l’expédie deux ans en prison.  

Le troisième témoin est un jeune chauffeur de Taxi, Robert Chobert : Dans sa (toute) première déposition, il déclare avoir vu un homme tirer et partir en courant. Il mesurait environ 1 m 87 et devait peser autour de 110 kg. Mumia Abu-Jamal mesure 1 m 85 et pèse à peine 85 kg. Il dit qu’aussitôt après le coup de feu, il est sorti de son taxi, puis a marché en direction de Daniel Faulkner qui s’effondrait à terre. Par la suite dans une autre interrogation, Robert Chobert se rétracte en affirmant que c’est Mumia Abu-Jamal qui a tiré sur D. Faulkner. Comme le rappelle Dave Lindorf, avec perspicacité dans son livre, An investigation into the death row case of Mumia Abu-Jamal  : « Robert. Chobert sortirait-il de son taxi pour marcher en direction de la scène du meurtre, s’il pensait que celui qui a tué était encore assis, son revolver, à portée de main ? Personne ne lui a posé cette question là ». Expérimenté pour avoir été journaliste depuis 30 ans, Dave Lindorf a reçu le prix du meilleur enquêteur-journaliste reporter. Il connaît bien Philadelphie pour y avoir vécu avec sa famille pendant 10 ans. Il s’est avéré que le juge et le procureur ont dissimulé aux jurés que ce dernier était sur le coup d’une condamnation au moment des faits, pour avoir jeté un cocktail Molotov à l’intérieur d’une école publique… pour de l’argent. Il a été libéré sur parole. La défense a tenté de le dire au moment du procès, mais le juge Sabo a rejeté l’objection. Il affirme que ce n'est pas une preuve de faux témoignage. Robert Chobert, chauffeur de taxi conduisait illégalement. Sa licence lui a été retirée. Comme le remarque encore, Dave Lindorf : « Comment est-il possible qu’un homme, en situation irrégulière  puisse se garer juste derrière la voiture d’un policier, sortir de sa voiture pour aller au devant de la police ?». Serait-ce pour récupérer sa licence en échange d’un témoignage ?  Si les jurés en avaient pris connaissance, ils auraient eu des soupçons sur le caractère belliqueux de cet homme et auraient eu la liberté de juger de la recevabilité ou non de ses propos.
   
3. Que disent les preuves balistiques sur le révolver de Mumia ?
Cinq balles du révolver de l’accusé manquent. Mais la police oublie de vérifier si les tirs entendus provenaient bien du révolver de Mumia. Il suffit simplement de tester le canon du révolver par olfaction. Ce test est possible cinq heures après le crime. En plus de cette erreur, la police n’a relevé aucun test chimique des mains d’Abu-Jamal pour s’assurer que c’est bien lui qui a tiré avec son révolver, récemment. La toute première expertise médicale a découvert que la balle retrouvée sur le corps de D. Faulkner est d’un calibre 44, celui d’Abu-Jamal est d’un calibre 38. Au procès, l’expertise médicale n’a pas été reconnue comme une expertise balistique. 

Les témoins cruciaux morts ou disparus
Les principaux témoins qui auraient pu participer à une vraie reconstitution du crime sont soit morts, soit disparus. Le frère de Mumia, est introuvable. Pourtant il est le témoin capital de l’altercation avec le défunt policier Daniel Faulkner. M. Freemann qui accompagnait le frère est décédé d’une crise cardiaque, le même jour que l’assaut de la police philadelphienne sur le groupe MOVE en 1985. La défense n’a jamais retrouvé le riverain qui devait témoigner, le jour du jugement, avoir vu un homme tirer et s’enfuir. Le cadavre de Cynthia White n’a pas été reconnu par sa famille. Le certificat de décès du nom de William est-il bien celui de la prostituée ?

Depuis avril 1996, une loi contre le terrorisme et pour l’efficacité de la peine de mort a été validée par le président Clinton. Cette loi stipule que les tribunaux fédéraux ne peuvent plus procéder à de nouvelles enquêtes judiciaires indépendantes. Les juges doivent, dorénavant, se référer aux dossiers transmis par les tribunaux d’Etat. Le tribunal fédéral de Philadelphie, dite « haute Court » ne pourra donc plus  prendre en compte les nouvelles enquêtes.

A travers tous ces constats, il est clair qu’il y a une véritable volonté d’exécuter «the voice of the voiceless » quand Jacques Derridas  écrit à son propos « … La plupart des Noirs du jury ont été récusés, les moyens d’enquêter en fait refusés, un avocat a été commis d’office et choisi pour son incompétence, un policier qui aurait pu témoigner en faveur de l’accusé a été mis à l’écart, sans oublier les contradictions sans nombre des témoins de l'accusation... ». « La voix des sans voix », considérée comme dangereuse et subversive, depuis l’âge de 15 ans, continue de crier haut et fort, les inégalités sociales et raciales, malgré ses menottes et l’isolement sensoriel haute sécurité. De sa cellule d’environ six mètres carrés, Mumia Abu-Jamal, l’intellectuel, le journaliste et l’écrivain a publié plusieurs livres lus dans le monde entier. Il dénonce encore, les conditions inhumaines des damnés en sursis du couloir de la mort. C’est sans doute la raison pour laquelle, dans la plus grande démocratie occidentale, on la censure. Mais Mumia Abu-Jamal, en direct du couloir de la mort, nous rappelle qu’en Pennsylvanie -pourtant, lieu de naissance de la Constitution des Etats Unis- c’est la violation même de la Constitution qui est en cause, bien plus qu’un vice de procédure. Puisse sa voix continuer à être entendue depuis la France jusqu’à Washington et mettre enfin de la lumière sur l’Affaire Mumia Abu-Jamal.

La strage dei MOVE

La storia americana recente è costellata di episodi agghiaccianti che purtroppo non trovano abbastanza spazio sui canali di informazione. Uno di questi riguarda la persecuzione ed il genocidio attuato dalle autorità statunitensi nei confronti del gruppo dei MOVE, sorta di piccola organizzazione anarco-primitiva di afroamericani fondata da John Africa nel 1972 a Philadelphia, una comune di dissidenti politici improntata ad una vita a contatto con la natura e priva di tecnologia, a lungo osteggiata dal governo con motivi del tutto pretestuosi. Di questo avvenimento sono venuto a conoscenza solo di recente grazie alla visione di “Tutta la mia vita in prigione”, documentario su Mumia Abu-Jamal, giornalista e attivista delle Pantere Nere e vicino ai MOVE, dal 1982 nel braccio della morte in seguito ad un processo-farsa per omicidio, simbolo dell'ingiustizia a sfondo razziale imperante negli USA.

Nel 1987, a seguito di alcuni scontri con la polizia incaricata di far sloggiare i Move dalla loro residenza, un agente rimase ucciso, in condizioni poco chiare, e quando la comunità si trasferì in un altro quartiere, il neoeletto capo della polizia, peraltro nero – a riprova che la solidarietà fra neri altro non è se non un concetto razzista, purtroppo - Wilson Goode, ordinò che il palazzo dove essa viveva venisse bombardato da un elicottero, una vera e propria azione di guerra interna che causò un gigantesco incendio. I pompieri non fecero nulla per spegnere il fuoco. All'interno della casa dei MOVE c'erano donne, uomini, bambini, animali. Quando la gente all'interno della casa cominciò ad uscire cercando di salvare la vita dei bambini, la polizia deliberatamente cominciò a sparare. 11 persone adulte, 5 bambini e 6 cani vennero uccisi. Una strage di stato alla quale sopravvisse la sola Ramona Africa, seppur riportando gravi ustioni sul corpo. Una strage che tutto il mondo vide. Ad oggi nessun ufficiale, nessun poliziotto, è stato processato, è stato condannato o incolpato per aver ucciso tutta quella gente. Nessun ufficiale della polizia si trova nel braccio della morte insieme a Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Queste le parole di Sue Africa, condannata a 12 anni di reclusione:

“I MOVE non credono nella violenza, ma nell'autodifesa. L'autodifesa e' un diritto dato da Dio. La strategia e' rispondere con le stesse armi. Se la polizia di Philadelphia viene con il pugno noi risponderemo con i pugni, se vengono con i bastoni noi risponderemo con i bastoni, se verranno con le armi, noi useremo le armi. Perché la polizia non saprà come comportarsi, perché loro capiscono solo quel tipo di linguaggio. Loro si sentono forti solo perché hanno le pistole, e se noi avremo le pistole loro avranno paura. Questa è strategia rivoluzionaria. Questo è quello che John Africa ha insegnato ai MOVE. John Africa ci ha insegnato che tutto quello che il governo ha e fa è intimidazione, è terrore, è trovare il modo di dimostrare il suo potere. Se noi togliamo loro la possibilità di intimidire, non intimidendoci, dimostreremo che il governo è senza potere. Non hanno più nessun potere su di noi. Questo è il motivo per cui il sistema ha paura di John Africa. Perché questa è la determinazione che John Africa ha insegnato ai MOVE. Se tutti quanti scacciassero la paura che il potere infonde, come hanno fatto i MOVE, non avremmo più oppressori, noi avremmo la libertà e l'uguaglianza. Nel 1978 I MOVE cominciarono ad essere imprigionati per lunghi anni. John Africa disse che ci sarebbe stato un periodo in cui I MOVE sarebbero passati per le galere. John Africa ci disse che sarebbe stato necessario continuare a dare questo esempio di lotta rivoluzionaria. Perché la gente vuole un cambiamento, ma non vede l'alternativa. Un'alternativa che sia credibile e che servirà a rivoluzionarli. Ed è per questo che è importante dare l'esempio a cui potersi affidare e avere delle persone in cui poter credere. Un esempio intramontabile, forte della critica contro il sistema. Un esempio che sarebbe rimasto sempre fedele alla lotta rivoluzionaria, di coerenza agli ideali di libertà. Questo è l'esempio che i MOVE portano avanti da oltre 25 anni. Quando Alfonso, Ramona ed io fummo arrestati, ci fu detto dai giudici, che se volevamo uscirne vivi, avremmo dovuto abbandonare i MOVE. Ricordatevi che negli Stati Uniti ci dovrebbe essere addirittura la libertà di religione, di pensiero e di idee. MOVE è la nostra religione, è il nostro modo di vivere. Ma loro ci hanno detto che se noi avessimo lasciato i MOVE, la nostra religione, saremmo stati liberi. Alfonso è sposato ed ha 5 figli, di conseguenza ciò che gli chiedevano era di abbandonare la sua famiglia, la sua vita. Oppure stare in prigione. Anche Ramona ha un marito e dei figli...Ci rifiutammo di andare contro noi stessi. Alfonso fu condannato a 5 anni di carcere invece che 2. Ramona fu condannata a 7 anni di carcere invece che 2. Io fui condannata a 12 anni invece che 6. Tutto perché noi rimanemmo fedeli alla nostra vita, alle nostre idee. Fu facile per noi decidere, malgrado ai MOVE non piaccia affatto la prigione, a nessuno piace la prigione. Ma i MOVE non sono confusi sul significato di libertà. La libertà non è uscire da un palazzo ed andare in un altro a comperare della pizza. Questo è ciò che il sistema fa credere alla gente, questo è ciò che il sistema chiama libertà. Libertà è avere la forza e la coerenza della propria libertà e di lottare per la libertà degli altri. Come si può farlo se si va contro quello in cui si crede. Questa è strategia rivoluzionaria. John Africa ce lo ha insegnato dando lui per primo un esempio di coerenza e di fedeltà alle proprie idee, partendo da se stessi. Solo cosi noi possiamo essere l'esempio che non tradirà la gente. Nove MOVE in questo momento sono in prigione: 4 donne e 5 uomini. Sono in prigione da 18 anni. E hanno accuse per 100 anni ognuno. Questo malgrado il fatto che anche loro sapevano che se avessero ritrattato sarebbero stati liberi. Avrebbero dovuto lasciare i MOVE. Questo prova il fatto che i MOVE sono in carcere non perché sono dei criminali, ma perché sono MOVE. E io ve lo posso provare. Nel 1978 durante un confronto dove furono arrestate 9 persone, per l'omicidio di un poliziotto ucciso da un proiettile, tutte e 9 furono accusate di questo omicidio, come se fosse possibile che tutte e 9 abbiano sparato insieme lo stesso proiettile. I MOVE dimostrarono che era impossibile per questi 9 uccidere quel poliziotto. Queste erano le prove che Mumia stava ricercando e diffondendo quando fu licenziato ed imprigionato. Oltre le 9 persone furono arrestati anche 3 simpatizzanti dei MOVE ed il giorno del confronto erano tutti insieme. Il giudice domandò loro se erano dei membri dei MOVE. Loro dissero no. Gli chiesero se avevano intenzione di diventare MOVE un giorno. Loro dissero no. Furono tutti rilasciati. Questo prova il fatto che MOVE sono in carcere non per i fatti a loro contestati, ma perché sono MOVE. Questo è l'esempio di come il governo degli stati uniti distrugge i suoi oppositori. Questa è la vera ragione per cui la casa dei MOVE fu bombardata. Arrivarono con centinaia di poliziotti. Arrivarono con ogni tipo di arma, incluso un missile anticarro. Loro avevano gli M 16, ed ogni altro tipo di arma da guerra. Spararono oltre 10.000 proiettili su quella casa. Tutto per 11 persone e 5 bambini. I giudici dissero che in fondo i bambini erano dei nemici tanto quanto gli adulti. Loro volevano uccidere l'esempio rivoluzionario sia nei bambini che negli adulti. Ed è per questo che ci bombardarono. Diedero l'ordine ai pompieri di non spegnere il fuoco. Eppure il compito dei pompieri è proprio quello di spegnere gli incendi. Tutto il vicinato prese così fuoco. 62 case furono incendiate. Ma a loro non interessava, erano determinati ad uccidere ogni membro dei MOVE. Non avevano considerato che Ramona sarebbe riuscita ad uscire con il suo bambino testimoniando così ciò che loro avevano fatto. Loro uccisero tutti quelli che tentarono di uscire dalla casa, c'era chi aveva i bambini in braccio. I cadaveri dei bambini e degli adulti erano pieni di proiettili. Non c'è nessun poliziotto, nessun ufficiale, che è in prigione per questo. Ramona ha fatto 7 anni di carcere. Anche mio figlio fu ucciso. Io ero in prigione con mia sorella, ed anche suo figlio fu ucciso. Noi non sapevamo cosa stesse accadendo fuori, eravamo in isolamento. Gli altri carcerati lo urlarono fuori dalle celle per farcelo sapere. Fino a quando un poliziotto non aprì la porta della mia cella e mi disse che mio figlio era stato ucciso, che la figlia di mia sorella era morta. Questo è il paese che gira per il mondo predicando la pace, predicando i diritti umani. Gli Stati Uniti sono i leader dell'oppressione e dello sterminio nel mondo. Noi abbiamo un solo nemico: l'oppressore. Noi dobbiamo essere uniti, al di là dell'ideologia. Noi dobbiamo combattere, insieme per distruggere questo nemico. Gli Stati Uniti sono la testa di questo mostro. I MOVE sono tra quelli che gli taglieranno la testa. E' per questo che combattiamo con e per Mumia Abu Jamal. Combattiamo per Silvia, per i MOVE e per tutti i prigionieri politici. LUNGA VITA ALLA RIVOLUZIONE, LUNGA VITA A JOHN AFRICA”

"L'uomo perde se muore e tutti muoriamo. Ma uno schiavo e un uomo libero perdono cose diverse. L'uomo libero perde il piacere della vita, lo schiavo ne perde la pena...ed è l'unica libertà concessa a uno schiavo, perciò non ne ha paura, perciò vinceremo."
Da Spartacus

Ciò che in un mondo sano dovrebbe essere la norma, la condizione di base, qui viene a rappresentare l'anomalia, la controtendenza e deve essere quindi ingabbiato in vocaboli che ne evidenzino tutta la stranezza e la estraneità nei confronti del normale scorrere dei tempi.

Le varie forme che il buon senso e l'intelligenza con naturalezza assumono sono come impacchettate e decorate con un teschio, in modo che lo stolto ne percepisca il carattere di “corrente di pensiero stravagante” o di filosofia di vita da classe agiata o di pseudoconfessione religiosa.

Il pacifismo come movimento dimostra la sua inutilità col suo semplice essere riconosciuto come tale.
In un una società umana ove fosse “attuabile” - anche se nessun verbo è più errato – non esisterebbe perchè sarebbe la condizione normale e l'unica concepibile mentre in questa, dove la cultura dominante è quella violenta ed imperialistica è uno sforzo inutile.

Pertanto il pacifismo deve rimanere una tendenza individuale dettata dal semplice ragionamento, perchè dalla presa di coscienza, quella vera, non può che scaturire la violenza, verbale o fisica.
Sin dall'infanzia mi sono sempre interrogato sul come potesse esistere una reale divisione fra “pacifisti” e “non pacifisti”, come se qualcuno avesse piacere che la propria casa venisse bombardata o che la propria madre venisse sgozzata. Questo perchè ho sempre dato all'abusato vocabolo, in maniera del tutto naturale ed istintiva, un significato che ritengo l'unico possibile e sensato: quello di volontà di non attacco . Significato che ho scoperto essere di pochi.

Mi sono ritrovato alla perfezione nelle parole già citate di Malcom X: “la violenza come autodifesa non la chiamo violenza, la chiamo intelligenza”, che definiscono un concetto di pacifismo non fanatico e costruttivo, la vera forma, secondo me, di non-violenza. Essa si propone di salvaguardare la dignità e la libertà dell'individuo, laddove la nonviolenza passiva, lungi dall'eliminare la violenza, diventa addirittura complice del suo attuarsi. Non difendersi non è né utile né virtuoso, è solo stupido.

Purtroppo l'accezione comune di pacifismo è quella macchiettistica e le bandierine arcobaleno danno solo adito alla ridicolizzazione di esso da parte di guerrafondai di ogni tipologia, ed è giusto che sia così; non c'è nulla di più idiota del porgere l'altra guancia, dell'amare il proprio carnefice e solo organizzazioni criminali come quelle religiose potevano incoraggiare certe pratiche antiumane ed innaturali.

Questa forma di pacifismo deviato può essere frutto di semplice ingenuità, ma è spesso è figlia di una vigliaccheria indotta dalla demagogia democratica imperante e dall'instupidimento di matrice religiosa. E' un pacifismo che porta a non schierarsi ma a vedere la pace come una possibilità di riconciliazione fra le parti, anche quando una di esse è la causa del conflitto, e non può essere che così.

Chiedere “la pace” è come voler far pace con l'assassino della propria famiglia, ma questo, purtroppo, viene capito dai più solo a famiglia sterminata.

Quando un malvivente fa irruzione in un'abitazione trucidando qualcuno, se ne chiede l'incarcerazione, persino la morte, e nessuno si sogna di scendere in piazza per chiedere la pace in un corteo; sarebbe assurdo, eppure è quello che normalmente avviene quando è un esercito su ordine di un politico a trucidare migliaia di persone.

C'è quindi una differenza notevole fra l'affermare di essere “per la pace” e l'essere “contro la guerra”, la stessa, abissale, che c'è fra l'attacco e l'autodifesa e che non può essere ignorata. Vero è che il pacifismo indistinto e blando offre una comoda posizione e non attira contro di sé troppe antipatie e quindi ci si può sentire “impegnati” anche contrattando e scendendo a compromessi col nemico. Siccome non ho le palle di dire :”sei un criminale e meriti di morire”, allora mi accontento di “voglio la pace”. La pace per tutti, indistintamente, anche per chi non la merita, ma sì; perdoniamo chi tortura e distrugge con il pacifismo omertoso.

Chi ha metà coscienza si limita ad ammette l'esistenza di un problema, chi l'ha intera è pronto a farne anche nome e cognome, è quindi molto facile distinguere un antagonista da un antagonista moderato. E' più facile parlare astrattamente di “pace” e “guerra” senza scendere nel concreto e senza fare le dovute distinzioni fra le varie forme di “estremismo”, l'altra parola-gabbia quasi unanimamente condannata. Non si contrasta ideologicamente la guerra se non si odia visceralmente ogni singolo esponente di ogni apparato militare e dell'industria di morte che l'industria bellica, se non lo si detesta fino a desiderarne la scomparsa e la cancellazione fisica.

Il politicamente corretto e la moderazione poco si addicono alle contestazioni e ne mortifica anzi il senso.

Quando, oltre ad aver perso la libertà insieme alla volontà di riacquisirla e di mezzi per farlo, si è perso anche l'odio fisiologico e il naturale istinto vendicativo, allora si è toccato il fondo e la distopia di “1984” cessa di essere tale.

Quando si è riposta ogni fiducia nell'istituzione, la stessa dalla quale si è oppressi, tanto da delegare ad essa il compito di fare giustizia – la loro giustizia – si è totalmente schiavi, poiché il sistema statale non si accontenta di essere temuto, ma vuole essere amato, e ci riesce; ci riesce ogni volta che sento padri e madri ai quali è morto ammazzato un figlio, da persone o dal lavoro, chiedere “giustizia” e ripudiare la vendetta, confidando nella legge e nelle istituzioni.

Più dell'ingiustizia, più dell'impotenza e della paura vile, mi terrorizza la mancanza di rancore, mi terrorizza la sottomissione spontanea.

Succede così che in Cina, dove i migranti impiegati nel settore edile (e non solo) non sono pagati dai datori di lavoro, uno operaio del Jiangsu si dà fuoco sulla piazza Tienanmen per protestare contro il governo e i capi della sua ditta per il mancato salario: ci si automortifica e autodistrugge pur di non nuocere al padrone, l'odio è represso e sfocia nell'autolesionismo. Quando un potere arriva a produrre questo, ha raggiunto il suo scopo ultimo; il suddito oppresso non soffre più come una vittima impotente, ma come un amante tradito e deluso.

Io considero la vendetta, in ogni sua manifestazione, la forma di umanità più pura e perfetta, ineguagliabile nella sua compiutezza. La vendetta cieca, rabbiosa, irragionevole, la vendetta senza compromessi. La vendetta irreversibile e appagante. Penso alla scena iniziale di Amistad di Spielberg, in cui lo schiavo trafigge ferocemente con la spada il petto del capitano della nave che l'aveva strappato alla libertà: perfetto, è tutto in quei due minuti, o nell'estremo slancio di un toro che trapassa da parte a parte il torero nell'arena, come purtroppo raramente accade, in un atto meno consapevole ma per questo ancora più perfetto, poiché, come afferma la dinamica, ad ogni azione corrisponde sempre una reazione uguale e contraria. Quella è l'unica forma di giustizia che io concepisco. Lì vedo un senso compiuto. E non c'è sadismo alcuno; se l'autodifesa è un diritto naturale, non c'è sadismo nel gioire della buona riuscita di un'azione autodifensiva. In quest'ottica, la vendetta non è che un'autodifesa posticipata, pur sempre sacrosanta.

Essa è un atto puro figlio di un sentimento puro: l'odio. Non serve precisare come tutto ciò nulla abbia a che vedere con la legge del taglione, come potrebbero obiettare molti superficiali, espressione, quella, dello stesso stato oppressivo che qui si condanna in quanto nemico della libertà individuale totale.
Quando parlo di vendetta, non parlo di vendetta manovrata da un'autorità e da essa legittimata, parlo di vendetta istintuale, individuale e pertanto fine a se stessa, un concetto che travalica persino i concetti di giusto e di sbagliato, che è al di là del bene e del male.

L'odio e la vendetta oggi sono condannati, sono tabù dei quali ci si vergogna e questo è spaventoso; il centrismo ha vinto e con esso la demagogia. Sono sicuro, sicurissimo, che esistano afroamericani che neghino in qualche modo le deportazioni del colonialismo, neghino la schiavitù, neghino la loro storica oppressione per mano dei bianchi, così come esistono afroamericani cristiani, adoranti ciò in nome di cui sono stati brutalizzati e schiavizzati.

L'odio, la violenza, non risolvono niente, diranno molti, ma sono barlumi irrinunciabili di libertà, irrinunciabili per sentirsi vivi, e la vendetta è un valore da riscoprire.

Penso che sia più facile e preferibile pentirsi di aver odiato che rimpiangere di non averlo fatto.

]]> http://ajdele.wordpress.com/?p=111 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:00:24 +0000 ajdele http://ajdele.da.wordpress.com/2008/08/07/i-knew-it/ Everyone remember the Elliot Spitzer sex scandal?  Did it seem strange to anyone else that out of a bunch of people the FBI were tracking, only Spitzer's name was leaked?  I did.  Wasn't he number 9, who were the other 8?  Were there only 9 on the list, who was listed after him?  But really thats not as important as the real quesion of why.  Who did Spitzer piss off that he had to be removed from office or disgraced beyond credibility?

I had thought that it had something to do with the election.  This was around the time when all you heard about were the superdelegates and who they were supporting.  For a couple mintues it was close enough between Clinton and Obama that one delegate might have made the difference.  Within the Democratic party I am pretty sure that a democratic governer would have been a superdelegate because of his position.  Maybe Spitzer was a superdelegate supporting the wrong canidate?

But no, it wasnt even that complicated.  It was all about money.  Thanks to the work of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who does his reporting from death row, we can find who Spitzer was making mad.

http://www.prisonradio.org/MumiaBeyondSpitzer.htm

Spitzer was one of the few taking action to help homeowners against the large banks who were continuing to get rich off the slide down into the vally in which we presently find ourselves.  Or maybe still sliding down.  Regardless of his sexual misadventures he was one of the few trying to fight for the people who needed fighting for, who needed representation.  Let anyone who wonders, look and see what powers are really in charge of our nation.  Its not Republicans or Democrats, but money.  But of course money has had a best friend in the office the oval office these past 7.5 years.

The criminal "justice" system and the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal
--U.S. Court of Appeals Rejects Mumia's Petition for a re-hearing

By Jeff Mackler

When I learned that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had on July 22, 2008, denied Mumia Abu-Jamal a re-hearing—thus leaving Mumia’s fight for justice and freedom in the hands of the court of last resort, the U.S. Supreme Court—my immediate thought was that we were once again witnessing the operation of the racist "Mumia Exception."

This is the notion that regardless of previous decisions and precedents of the U.S. judicial system—from the Third Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court—when it comes to their application to Mumia’s case, the "law" means nothing.

A close look at Mumia’s case lends some credence to the "Mumia Exception," or "Mumia Law" concept, as it is sometimes called. In virtually the exact same circumstances, bound by the important U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Batson v. Kentucky, the Third Circuit had previously thrown out convictions in capital cases when Blacks were excluded from juries.

In Mumia’s case, 11 of 14 Black jurors were excluded by preemptory challenges of the prosecution. One might have concluded that the three-judge panel of the Third Circuit that decided this issue four months ago in March 2008, might apply the same precedent and grant a new trial. They didn’t.

That’s why Mumia asked for a re-hearing before the whole panel, or nine judges of the Third Circuit. Maybe the entire court would remember that they themselves had previously decided this issue in several cases before them. Maybe they would remember that one of their own, Justice Alito, now sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, had written the decision and had sharply noted that the exclusion of even one juror on account of race, voided the trial result. And maybe the Third Circuit would take into account that the U.S. Supreme Court, in a powerful decision in the Snyder case, only months before, had affirmed, if not strengthened its Batson ruling.

But this did not to come to pass. The Third Circuit, with nine judges participating, without comment, rejected the en banc (entire court) re-hearing that Mumia had requested.

Mumia’s attorney, Robert R. Bryan, commented: "Simply put, we did not receive the needed majority vote from the nine sitting judges; at least five votes for a rehearing were necessary. However, Justice Thomas L. Ambro continues to urge the granting of relief on the issue of racism in jury selection. That position, as detailed in his brilliant dissenting opinionof March 27, 2008, will continue to serve as a beacon of hope as we press on for a new trial and Mumia’s freedom.

"Judge Ambro said that the ‘core guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will not discriminate on account of race, would be meaningless were we to approve the exclusion of jurors on the basis of ... race.... I respectfully dissent...’

Bryan’s report continued: "Mumia and I had a legal conference this afternoon [July 22]. He, as I, was stunned by the federal court’s refusal to grant relief since it flies in the face of established legal precedent in both the U.S. Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. I am furious because racism continues to raise its ugly head in this country, and should have no place in our legal system.

"The indisputable facts are that the prosecutor engaged in racism in selecting the jury in this case, and that bigotry lingers today in Philadelphia. It would be naive not to realize that this case continues to reek of politics and injustice."

Bryan told Socialist Action that he would file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court within 90 days or by Oct. 20, 2008. This is a request that the U.S. Supreme Court certify that they will hear the case. The court has no legal obligation to do so. Indeed it routinely rejects 90 percent of such petitions in death penalty cases.

If the Court denies the petition, Mumia’s legal options are finished. He will either remain in prison for the rest of his life with no possibility of parole, or will have to defend against renewed efforts by the state to seek his execution.

Bryan will also appeal the Third Circuit’s rejection of another critical issue raised in his defense. This is the fact that Pennsylvania prosecutor Joseph McGill told the jury in his summary remarks at Mumia’s 1982 trial that they need not concern themselves if they were not certain about Mumia’s guilt or innocence. McGill explained that this was because Mumia would have "appeal after appeal," and therefore any errors that might have occurred could be corrected.

McGill’s "appeal after appeal" formulation had been the subject of appeals in several cases prior to Mumia’s, with the result that the convictions obtained was struck down and new trials ordered. In Mumia’s case the Third Circuit, apparently "forgot" its own precedent—that is, a reassertion of the fundamental principles that juries must find guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," that juries must begin with the presumption of innocence," and that juries and only juries have the responsibility of determining guilt or innocence.

McGill’s assertion to the jury that they could effectively suspend any reasonable doubt they might have—and by implication, leave it to higher courts to determine guilt or innocence—was not challenged at trial by the presiding "Hanging Judge" Albert Sabo or by the Third Circuit.

"The Mumia Exception:" another look

A closer examination reveals that the "Mumia Exception" really doesn’t exist. The vast majority of capital cases, if not all cases, that come before the courts in capitalist America are riddled with race and class bias.

The ruling class itself is well aware of this fact, as is any student who embarks on the study of law in the U.S., not to mention the millions who are victims of this supposed system of "blind justice." Capitalist law is the product of capitalist power—that is, it reflects the needs and interests of the corporate elite who rule America today. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world and the largest percentage of its population on death row.

This is not a statistical aberration. The United Nations recently issued a report condemning the U.S. for its race bias in what passes for its criminal "justice" system.

Today’s "prison industrial complex" serves multiple purposes. It provides a cheap source of labor, a few cents an hour, for hundreds of major capitalist industries and the increasingly privatized prison "industry" provides a ready source of capital paid to corporate outfits who profit handsomely from prison construction and administration.

Prior to 1996, when the U.S. Congress passed the infamous Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), signed by then President Bill Clinton, a full 40 percent of all state court convictions in capital cases were reversed on appeal to the federal courts. The reason? An important study found that police intimidation of witnesses, planting and falsification of evidence and incompetent counsel were rampant in the system.

But rather than correct the racist and classist "system," an impossible task in the framework of capitalism, the government sought to intensify it by "effectively" eliminating appeals to the federal courts.

The AEDPA was in fact designed to abolish habeas corpus, the right to appeal to the federal courts. It accomplished this by replacing the historic "presumption of innocence" with a new requirement that federal courts were required to grant a "presumption of correctness" to the findings of what are essentially racist and classist state courts.

The implementation of this new criteria, essentially the barbaric imposition of a presumption of guilt, has produced an explosion of death-row inmates, a killing field of the oppressed who are awaiting execution, a phenomenon condemned throughout the world as the U.S. remains among the two or three nations to retain the death penalty.

It is therefore fair to say that the bias in Mumia Abu-Jamal’s case is symptomatic of the racism that permeates thecriminal justice system in the U.S. rather than an exception to it. At the same time, it is also accurate to conclude that the entire court system—in the face of the power of the international movement that for 26 years has worked to challenge Mumia’s frame-up and prevent his execution—has geared up to justify its existence in the eyes of millions who still have illusions that they live in a democratic society.

The "appearance" of justice is important to the ruling rich, as they find it increasingly difficult to maintain this illusion. Hence the passage of the AEDPA, the Patriot Act, and the associated and massive infringements of civil and democratic rights that are justified in the name of pursuing the government’s "war on terrorism."

The July 22 decision to reject Mumia’s appeal is but the tip of the iceberg in regard to the legal atrocities that have been committed to keep this innocent man on death row. His is a case study in the use of lying witnesses, falsification of evidence, manipulation of the crime scene, witness intimidation, police lying, exclusion of evidence proving innocence. His case also contains a myriad of constitutional violations, including rejection of Mumia’s right to act as his own counsel, his physical exclusion from a majority of trial proceedings against him, the racist exclusion of Black jurors, and a racist judge who ruled against more than 100 motions presented by Mumia’s defense team.

Indeed, Mumia’s original federal appeal included 29 instances of constitutional violations based on the facts of the case, 28 of which were rejected on the grounds that the AEDPA today requires federal courts to presume that the "facts" found by the racist court of Judge Sabo must be presumed to be correct. After 26 years, they have all been proven to be fabrications, a fact that has zero weight in today’s criminal justice system.

This is no exaggeration. A low point in Mumia’s legal battle came in the statement of Federal District Court Judge William H. Yohn Jr., who cited a Supreme Court ruling that "innocence is no defense."

Yohn’s citation was in response to clear evidence produced by Mumia that he had not been and could not have been the person who murdered Police Officer Daniel Faulkner on Dec. 9, 1981. Yohn's logic held that innocence is trumped by timeliness—that is, if the evidence is submitted beyond a statutory deadline, even if conclusive, it is irrelevant. The legal process must embody "finality," says the "law of the land" today, even if the final result is the execution of an innocent man.

Mumia’s legal appeal must be accompanied by a reinvigorated and massive expansion of the movement that has fought so hard and long for his freedom. As we go to press, the International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, and several other defense groups across the country are preparing coordinated plans to challenge the latest court decision and to make the political price of Mumia’s continued incarceration too high to pay. They seek a new trial and Mumia’s freedom.

At the same time, the state of Pennsylvania is evaluating whether it will proceed with their efforts to reverse a previousfederal district court decision that ruled that the death penalty had been improperly imposed. Pending the outcome of the state’s decision, Mumia remains on death row. The threat of execution by lethal injection remains on the table.

For further information contact ICFFMAJ, (215) 476-8812 or the Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, (510) 268-9429,freemumia.org.
http://freemumia.org