The Sparrow Project

Activists Declare Victory as Ruling Cripples Indefinite Detention Under the NDAA

admin — Thu, 17 May 2012 12:51:42 +0000

[New York, NY] Today as congress prepares to vote on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) a federal judge has handed down a ruling that would prohibit the enforcement of two highly controversial sections within the NDAA should it pass. The 68 page ruling handed down by the newly-appointed NYC Federal Judge Katherine Forrest issues a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of sections 1021 & 1022 (sections subjecting apprehended targets to indefinite military detention) and moreover facially challenges that the sections are unconstitutional. Judge Forrest’s ruling is being championed by journalists and activists as a tremendous victory for civil liberties, due process and human rights.

The ruling came as part of a lawsuit filed by attorneys Bruce I. Afran and Carl J. Mayer on behalf of 7 high-profile plaintiffs including former New York Times war corespondent Chris Hedges, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, celebrated writer and linguist Noam Chomsky, Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen founder of the activist media group RevolutionTruth, Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien founder of the web campaign “US Day of Rage.” Each of the plaintiffs in the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit share a common narrative that their constitutionally protected work, either in activism or in journalism would be chilled by the over-broad provisions set forth under the NDAA.

“Judge Forrest has splendidly defended the Constitution—which has been under almost continuous attack by the Bush and Obama administrations—by abrogating the NDAA, the latest assault on the First and Fifth Amendments. It’s a great day for all who want to live in a free society!” says Daniel Ellsberg, plaintiff in the case.

“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” judge Forrest wrote. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” said plaintiff Chris Hedges “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation.”

Hedges v. Obama quickly became a multi-plaintiff action with the help of Jennifer Bolen who sought out candidates whose otherwise constitutionally protected activities could be the subject of judicial overreach under the NDAA. ”I initiated this multi-plaintiff lawsuit because we have witnessed the government use the war on terror as an excuse to steadily destroy the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution,” said Bolen “Today was an amazing victory—perhaps the most encouraging ruling against the US government in years— already it has given a lot of people hope. This is only the beginning, but now we know we can win.” Judge Forest, upon hearing the testimony of the plaintiffs Bolen selected, determined that some had already changed their associative conduct protected under the first amendment. Seeing that the NDAA’s inability to identify actors already had an impact on the plaintiffs conduct further influenced Forest’s ruling.

“Section 1021 tries to do too much with too little – it lacks the minimal requirements of definition and scienter that could easily have been added, or could be added, to allow it to pass constitutional muster,” Forrest wrote.

“This is a victory in a case that many have regarded as having no prospect of success. Let this victory be a message to everyone, not only in the US, but around the globe – to be encouraged to stand up and speak out in the fight for our freedoms and rights. To not give up. To not be silenced. We will win in the end. This is just the beginning,” said Occupy London organizer and plaintiff Kai Wargalla.

“Through the action of a few individuals we managed to turn the tables in the favor of a world we all choose to live it, a world that honors in action and by law freedom of expression and speech. With the ruling of Judge Forrest the USA might have a change to reclaim the important role of setting the global standards for freedom of information and speech, ” said Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir.

“No nation on earth ever found just or stable governance in vague laws with secret interpretations. No executive can ever claim independence or strength when their office is owned by entrenched and corrupt factions, who use financial power to change laws to make themselves richer and silence dissent. Government’s independence derives from its dependence on the people alone. Those are our principles. I am very happy with the Judge’s ruling today. It’s not over yet,” said plaintiff Alexa O’Brien of US Day of Rage.

The actions in the courtroom were complimented by a groundswell of grassroots support from activists mobilized largely through the internet. “More than 50,000 Revolution Truth and Demand Progress members have signed up as grassroots supporters of the lawsuit, and nearly 250,000 Demand Progress members have urged Congress to end indefinite detention. We hope this injunction will serve as a wake up call to Congress, make it clear just how egregious was the inclusion of indefinite detention in last year’s NDAA, and get them to strike that language during today’s vote.” said David Segal, Executive director at Demand Progress a grassroots campaign that will bring nearly 300,000 signatures of supporters speaking out against indefinite detention to congress today.

This grassroots effort was largely made possible by volunteers like Lucas Vazquez, a Student Activist and Organizer with Occupy Wall Street. When asked about yesterday’s ruling Lucas had this to say, ”I volunteered to work on the NDAA lawsuit because I feel a responsibility as an activist and Occupier to challenge the government’s unconstitutional and expanded powers to target the activist community, among many other groups, through the broad and undefined language in section 1021.” For other volunteers like Andy Stepanian, who coordinated media relations for the lawsuit and once served a federal prison sentence for his activism, the effort was personal. ”Having served time in federal prison alongside other political detainees the legal challenge to the NDAA’s indefinite detention provisions is a deeply personal battle for me,” said Stepanian “I hope that judge Forrest’s ruling will open a door for examinations of the over-broad Material Support for Terrorists Statute, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, and other intentionally vague designer statutes.”

A call-in press conference will take place at 10am EST on Friday May, 18th, 2012 to allow members of the press to speak with the plaintiffs and the legal team, to request a dial-in number & pin for the call please email Andy Stepanian at andy[at]sparrowmedia[dot]net. Judge Forrest’s ruling is available in it’s entirety HERE. You can read or print a copy of the plaintiffs lawsuit HERE and the text of the NDAA in its entirety is available HERE. For more information on the case and it’s plaintiffs please visit www.stopNDAA.org

Comprehensive Resource List & Schedule of Actions for the May 1st General Strike #M1GS

admin — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:14:56 +0000

While American corporate media has focused on yet another stale election between Wall Street-financed candidates, Occupy has been organizing something extraordinary: the first truly nationwide General Strike in U.S. history. Building on the international celebration of May Day, past General Strikes in U.S. cities like Seattle and Oakland, the recent May 1st Day Without An Immigrant demonstrations, the national general strikes in Spain this year, and the on-going student strike in Quebec, the Occupy Movement has called for A Day Without the 99% on May 1st, 2012. This in and of itself is a tremendous victory. For the first time, workers, students, immigrants, and the unemployed from over 125 U.S. cities will stand together for economic justice.

See below for what we believe to be the most comprehensive list yet compiled of cities where Occupy May Day events are being planned, as well as other resources. Note: This is a living document. Check back for updates! If you have any additional events, please let us know in the comment section of this article. You are encouraged to share this page in as many ways as possible!

General Resources

NYC Full Schedule of Permitted and Unpermitted May Day Events Actions - w/ NYC list of endorsements
6 Ways to Get Ready for the May 1st GENERAL STRIKE
Why And How To Strike On May Day
Global Facebook Event
Follow on Twitter: @OccupyGenStrk | @StrikeEverywher | #M1GS | #GeneralStrike
MayDaySolidarity2012
StrikeEverywhere.net
WhyIStrike.tumblr.com
HowIStrike.tumblr.com
MayDayGallery.tumblr.com

Key City-wide May Day Sites

New York City - MayDayNYC.org
Bay Area, California - StrikeMay1st.com
Chicago - ChicagoSpring.org/May1
Southern California - OccupyMay1st.org
Seattle - May1stSeattle.org
Cities on Twitter: @OWSMayDay @BayAreaStrike | @oo_mayday

Show Your Solidarity!

Find a nearby city with planned action
A – B

O – R

S – W

International

Note: May 1st is a nationally-recognized holiday (International Workers´ Day or May Day) in over 80 countries. It would be impossible to list every demonstration worldwide. The following list only reflects May Day events organized by Occupy-related groups in direct solidarity with #OWS.

Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Athens, Greece
Auckland, New Zealand
Brussels, Belgium
Barcelona, Spain
Den Haag, The Netherlands
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
London, England
Melbourne, Australia
Montreal, Quebec
Ottawa, Ontario
Rome, Italy
Seoul, South Korea
St. Johns, Newfoundland
Sydney, Australia
Toronto, Ontario
Utrecht, The Netherlands (re-occupying Ganzenmarkt)

Support:

An Injury to One, is an Injury to All: Occupy the Justice Department on April 24th, 2012

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 04:29:27 +0000

Now that the celebrated, radical journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, is off death row, many dare to imagine the next step—his release from prison. On December 9, 2011 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, where over 1,100 people gathered to mark the 30th anniversary of Mumia’s incarceration, Archbishop Desmond Tutu asked our nation to “rise to the challenge of reconciliation, human rights, and justice” and called for Mumia’s “immediate release.” And when Frances Goldin–Mumia’s literary agent–called on the audience to OCCUPY the Justice Department, the call was met with a roar of excitement.

On April 24, 2012, Mumia’s 58th birthday, we will gather at the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Washington, DC. A large-scale, vibrant and colorful rally will amplify our formal request that Eric Holder immediately meet with a delegation to discuss police corruption and civil rights violations in Mumia’s case and in the cases of hundreds of other defendants in Philadelphia. Some demonstrators will engage in acts of civil disobedience to draw greater attention to these injustices.

PLEDGE TO OCCUPY THE DOJ

On April 24, consider joining a group of renowned citizens in an act of civil disobedience, among them Danny Glover, Frances Fox Piven, Norman Finkelstein, and M1 of Dead Prez. Your pledge to engage in an act of civil disobedience will be critical to reaching our goals of enlisting the participation of other activists and ensuring news coverage of the case and of our broader demands. If you cannot commit to civil disobedience, you can pledge to be at the demonstration.

Because Mumia’s removal from death row coincides with the dramatic shift in consciousness brought by the Occupy Wall Street movement and the execution of Troy Davis, we now have a unique window of opportunity to fulfill one of the most important moral assignments of our time: to build a movement that will link all of the violations in Mumia’s case and his fraudulent trial to the crisis of mass incarceration, so as to win this innocent man’s freedom. Short term goal: release Mumia. Long term goal: end mass incarceration.
Attorneys will be available to answer questions and to support this important demonstration.

“there is something in the soul… …that cries for freedom!” Twenty-first century social movements around the world are illuminating the root causes of social crises, class inequality, bigotry, human rights violations, and environmental degradation. Here in the U.S. we have seen how, in the face of the growing OCCUPY movements, the state has intensified its campaign to restrain people and silence dissent. From the incarceration of state critics and whistle blowers (Bradley Manning), the pepper spraying of peacefully protesting students in California and the passage of repressive legislation (HR 347 & NDAA) to the warehousing of millions of poor Black and Latino people in American prisons and the increased scapegoating and detention of immigrants — the state is ramping up repressive measures.

On April 24, we will breath life into the old labor slogan: “an injury to one, is an injury to all.” On that day we will say that we are all Mumia, we are all immigrants, we are all Bradley Manning, we are all poor, we are all Palestinian, and we are all Troy Davis.

For 30 years, in a death row cell, Mumia has offered a radical critique of power and injustice through his regular radio commentaries and seven published books. His defiant voice in the face of state repression has taught us all something about courage and the human spirit’s inclination toward freedom. His message articulates our highest aspirations as a society. On April 24, make a placard and write on it all of your grievances. They will be welcomed. Above all, on that day, bring your fighting spirit and your desire to live in and create a decent and different world.

The police who shot, brutalized, and arrested Mumia Abu-Jamal in 1981 — for the shooting death of Officer Daniel Faulkner — were under scrutiny by a Department of Justice investigation of the Philadelphia Police Department. The probe, which began in 1979, marked the first time in United States’ history that the federal government sued a police department for civil rights violations and charged an entire police department, rather than individual officers, with police brutality. The DOJ suit maintained that the Philadelphia police’s practices of “shooting nonviolent suspects, abusing handcuffed prisoners, suppressing dissension within its ranks, and engaging in a pattern of brutal behavior ‘shocks the conscience.’” Only days after the end of Mumia’s fraudulent trial and conviction, 15 of the 35 police officers involved in collecting evidence in his case would be convicted and jailed, as a result of this federal investigation, on charges which included graft, corruption, and tampering with evidence to obtain a conviction. Chief among these officers was Alfonzo Giordano, the police inspector who led the crime scene investigation in Mumia’s case. The DOJ investigation remains unfinished: it did not provide relief for defendants like Mumia who were convicted by the testimonies and work of these corrupt and convicted cops.

OCCUPY THE DOJ’S DEMANDS
• Release Mumia Abu-Jamal
• End Mass Incarceration & the Criminalization of Black & Latino Youth
• Jobs, Education, & Health Care. NOT JAILS!
• End solitary confinement & stop torture
• End the racist death penalty
• Hands off immigrants
• Free all political prisoners

What the Arrows on That Seal Above Your Head Represent… The Sentencing of Tarek Mehanna

admin — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:22:18 +0000

Last week Tarek Mehanna, a man charged with providing material support to terrorists, stood in front of a Massachusetts federal judge awaiting sentencing. Most would be weary after spending 2.5 years in solitary confinement but Tarek appeared defiant, while still polite, and deeply rational. While most use this brief moment in front of the judge to grovel for a lesser sentence, Tarek used his time to explain not only his rich personal philosophical history but the rich history of American social struggle that helped inspire his choices.

Tarek’s activism, albeit controversial, echoes the sentiments of so many other anti-war activists, however his narrative of resistance is an Islamic one. Tarek spoke truth to power and his words were undeniably rational, a patriotic tale of defending one’s community, and a cautionary tale of the personal costs of acting out in solidarity. His words may be the most eloquent summary of why western foreign policies are cultivating violent responses, and how those natural reflexes are then labeled terrorism by popular propaganda. As a non-violent offender with no direct terror links Tarek’s case underscores the judicial over-reach of post 9/11 “material support” for terrorist laws. After reading this statement Tarek was sentenced to 17.5 years in federal prison. Whether or not you share Tarek’s worldview should not matter, we invite you to look past religion and with an open mind read his entire sentencing statement below…

TAREK’S SENTENCING STATEMENT
APRIL 12, 2012
Read to Judge O’Toole during his sentencing, April 12th 2012.

In the name of God the most gracious the most merciful Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy ” way, as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very hard-and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a cell.

In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about myself for a few minutes.

When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to call them, “terrorists.” I wasn’t born in a Muslim country, though. I was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people: how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe, take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I’m no different. So, in more ways than one, it’s because of America that I am who I am.

When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors, there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that paradigm – Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I even saw an ehical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.

By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III.

I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and the civil rights struggle.

I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned about, I found myself consistently siding with the oppressed, and consistently respecting those who stepped up to defend them -regardless of nationality, regardless of religion. And I never threw my class notes away. As I stand here speaking, they are in a neat pile in my bedroom closet at home.

From all the historical figures I learned about, one stood out above the rest. I was impressed be many things about Malcolm X, but above all, I was fascinated by the idea of transformation, his transformation. I don’t know if you’ve seen the movie “X” by Spike Lee, it’s over three and a half hours long, and the Malcolm at the beginning is different from the Malcolm at the end. He starts off as an illiterate criminal, but ends up a husband, a father, a protective and eloquent leader for his people, a disciplined Muslim performing the Hajj in Makkah, and finally, a martyr. Malcolm’s life taught me that Islam is not something inherited; it’s not a culture or ethnicity. It’s a way of life, a state of mind anyone can choose no matter where they come from or how they were raised.

This led me to look deeper into Islam, and I was hooked. I was just a teenager, but Islam answered the question that the greatest scientific minds were clueless about, the question that drives the rich & famous to depression and suicide from being unable to answer: what is the purpose of life? Why do we exist in this Universe? But it also answered the question of how we’re supposed to exist. And since there’s no hierarchy or priesthood, I could directly and immediately begin digging into the texts of the Qur’an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, to begin the journey of understanding what this was all about, the implications of Islam for me as a human being, as an individual, for the people around me, for the world; and the more I learned, the more I valued Islam like a piece of gold. This was when I was a teen, but even today, despite the pressures of the last few years, I stand here before you, and everyone else in this courtroom, as a very proud Muslim.

With that, my attention turned to what was happening to other Muslims in different parts of the world. And everywhere I looked, I saw the powers that be trying to destroy what I loved. I learned what the Soviets had done to the Muslims of Afghanistan. I learned what the Serbs had done to the Muslims of Bosnia. I learned what the Russians were doing to the Muslims of Chechnya. I learned what Israel had done in Lebanon – and what it continues to do in Palestine – with the full backing of the United States. And I learned what America itself was doing to Muslims. I learned about the Gulf War, and the depleted uranium bombs that killed thousands and caused cancer rates to skyrocket across Iraq.

I learned about the American-led sanctions that prevented food, medicine, and medical equipment from entering Iraq, and how – according to the United Nations – over half a million children perished as a result. I remember a clip from a ’60 Minutes‘ interview of Madeline Albright where she expressed her view that these dead children were “worth it.” I watched on September 11th as a group of people felt driven to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings from their outrage at the deaths of these children. I watched as America then attacked and invaded Iraq directly. I saw the effects of ’Shock & Awe’ in the opening day of the invasion – the children in hospital wards with shrapnel from American missiles sticking but of their foreheads (of course, none of this was shown on CNN).

I learned about the town of Haditha, where 24 Muslims – including a 76-year old man in a wheelchair, women, and even toddlers – were shot up and blown up in their bedclothes as the slept by US Marines. I learned about Abeer al-Janabi, a fourteen-year old Iraqi girl gang-raped by five American soldiers, who then shot her and her family in the head, then set fire to their corpses. I just want to point out, as you can see, Muslim women don’t even show their hair to unrelated men. So try to imagine this young girl from a conservative village with her dress torn off, being sexually assaulted by not one, not two, not three, not four, but five soldiers. Even today, as I sit in my jail cell, I read about the drone strikes which continue to kill Muslims daily in places like Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Just last month, we all heard about the seventeen Afghan Muslims – mostly mothers and their kids – shot to death by an American soldier, who also set fire to their corpses.

These are just the stories that make it to the headlines, but one of the first concepts I learned in Islam is that of loyalty, of brotherhood – that each Muslim woman is my sister, each man is my brother, and together, we are one large body who must protect each other. In other words, I couldn’t see these things beings done to my brothers & sisters – including by America – and remain neutral. My sympathy for the oppressed continued, but was now more personal, as was my respect for those defending them.

I mentioned Paul Revere – when he went on his midnight ride, it was for the purpose of warning the people that the British were marching to Lexington to arrest Sam Adams and John Hancock, then on to Concord to confiscate the weapons stored there by the Minuteman. By the time they got to Concord, they found the Minuteman waiting for them, weapons in hand. They fired at the British, fought them, and beat them. From that battle came the American Revolution. There’s an Arabic word to describe what those Minutemen did that day. That word is: JIHAD, and this is what my trial was about.

All those videos and translations and childish bickering over ‘Oh, he translated this paragraph’ and ‘Oh, he edited that sentence,’ and all those exhibits revolved around a single issue: Muslims who were defending themselves against American soldiers doing to them exactly what the British did to America. It was made crystal clear at trial that I never, ever plotted to “kill Americans” at shopping malls or whatever the story was. The government’s own witnesses contradicted this claim, and we put expert after expert up on that stand, who spent hours dissecting my every written word, who explained my beliefs. Further, when I was free, the government sent an undercover agent to prod me into one of their little “terror plots,” but I refused to participate. Mysteriously, however, the jury never heard this.

So, this trial was not about my position on Muslims killing American civilians. It was about my position on Americans killing Muslim civilians, which is that Muslims should defend their lands from foreign invaders – Soviets, Americans, or Martians. This is what I believe. It’s what I’ve always believed, and what I will always believe. This is not terrorism, and it’s not extremism. It’s what the arrows on that seal above your head represent: defense of the homeland. So, I disagree with my lawyers when they say that you don’t have to agree with my beliefs – no. Anyone with commonsense and humanity has no choice but to agree with me. If someone breaks into your home to rob you and harm your family, logic dictates that you do whatever it takes to expel that invader from your home.

But when that home is a Muslim land, and that invader is the US military, for some reason the standards suddenly change. Common sense is renamed ”terrorism” and the people defending themselves against those who come to kill them from across the ocean become “the terrorists” who are ”killing Americans.” The mentality that America was victimized with when British soldiers walked these streets 2 ½ centuries ago is the same mentality Muslims are victimized by as American soldiers walk their streets today. It’s the mentality of colonialism.

When Sgt. Bales shot those Afghans to death last month, all of the focus in the media was on him-his life, his stress, his PTSD, the mortgage on his home-as if he was the victim. Very little sympathy was expressed for the people he actually killed, as if they’re not real, they’re not humans. Unfortunately, this mentality trickles down to everyone in society, whether or not they realize it. Even with my lawyers, it took nearly two years of discussing, explaining, and clarifying before they were finally able to think outside the box and at least ostensibly accept the logic in what I was saying. Two years! If it took that long for people so intelligent, whose job it is to defend me, to de-program themselves, then to throw me in front of a randomly selected jury under the premise that they’re my “impartial peers,” I mean, come on. I wasn’t tried before a jury of my peers because with the mentality gripping America today, I have no peers. Counting on this fact, the government prosecuted me – not because they needed to, but simply because they could.

I learned one more thing in history class: America has historically supported the most unjust policies against its minorities – practices that were even protected by the law – only to look back later and ask: ’what were we thinking?’ Slavery, Jim Crow, the internment of the Japanese during World War II – each was widely accepted by American society, each was defended by the Supreme Court. But as time passed and America changed, both people and courts looked back and asked ’What were we thinking?’ Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by the South African government, and given a life sentence. But time passed, the world changed, they realized how oppressive their policies were, that it was not he who was the terrorist, and they released him from prison. He even became president. So, everything is subjective – even this whole business of “terrorism” and who is a “terrorist.” It all depends on the time and place and who the superpower happens to be at the moment.

In your eyes, I’m a terrorist, and it’s perfectly reasonable that I be standing here in an orange jumpsuit. But one day, America will change and people will recognize this day for what it is. They will look at how hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed and maimed by the US military in foreign countries, yet somehow I’m the one going to prison for “conspiring to kill and maim” in those countries – because I support the Mujahidin defending those people. They will look back on how the government spent millions of dollars to imprison me as a ”terrorist,” yet if we were to somehow bring Abeer al-Janabi back to life in the moment she was being gang-raped by your soldiers, to put her on that witness stand and ask her who the “terrorists” are, she sure wouldn’t be pointing at me.

The government says that I was obsessed with violence, obsessed with ”killing Americans.” But, as a Muslim living in these times, I can think of a lie no more ironic.

Tarek Mehanna
4/12/12

Help The Alyona Show Find the Congressman at the Heart of Tim DeChristopher’s Isolation

admin — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 19:40:30 +0000

Tim DeChristopher was thrown into the isolation of the Secure Housing Unit or SHU reportedly because one angry Congressman complained about a letter DeChristopher sent while in low security custody in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.You can read the letter here…While our followers likely know about imprisoned environmental activist Tim DeChristopher, many do not know that he recently spent 3 weeks in isolation because an anonymous member of congress wrote a letter to the FBOP complaining about his correspondence. For additional background on what transpired over those three weeks we encourage you to read Jeff Goodell’s comprehensive account for Rolling Stone. Last night we were contacted by the producers of RT America’s The Alyona Show who ran a segment on Tim’s isolation. They told us about their efforts to determine the identity of the congressperson responsible for Tim’s transfer to an isolated unit, read below to find out how you can help them, we encourage everyone reading this to get involved with their effort.

DeChristopher merely “threatened” to return a corporate donor’s money and wage a campaign against her/him because he found out the donor was outsourcing jobs. He did not pose a threat to anyone. Yet for exercising free speech, he was “thrown in the hole”.

Human rights groups have compared the experience of being in the SHU to torture. After a visit, DeChristopher’s lawyer said that the normally upbeat man looked visibly disturbed after just three weeks.

The FBOP throwing prisoners in isolation without due process isn’t an irregular occurrence to be sure, but in this case, it’s particularly disturbing that it came as a result of political pressure.

Although DeChristopher is out of isolation now, we’re still keen on finding out which Congressperson thought it was a good idea to put him there in the first place. So we’re asking you, the reader, to help us. …By asking, of course.

Its true that reaching out to 435 Congresspeople is a task of biblical proportions. So it would be particularly helpful if voters with representatives on the House judiciary subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security reached out. The panel is responsible for overseeing the Bureau of Prisons, after all. So feel free to ask them to investigate the matter, if they are not responsible.

Recommended directions:

1.Get in touch with your Congressperson by calling his/her office. [Don't know how to contact your congress person? Simply click HERE & type in your zip code] Identify yourself as a constituent (and please, actually be one!) then inform the staffer that you are calling in response to a television program. Say that you are inquiring whether or not the Congressman contacted the Bureau of Prisons about taking punitive action, including recommending isolation, in response to a letter he sent on March 5.

2. You may not receive a response right away. Congressional staffers are quite busy. Be persistent. Explain to who you speak to that if you don’t receive a definitive “no” response, the lack of an answer could be construed as a passive admission. Most importantly, stress that you don’t want to hold the Congressman unfairly responsible for this. Eventually, you’ll speak to a staffer.

3. Once you finally speak to a staffer who works on the subcommittee issues, inquire who it is you’re talking to. Note who you are speaking to and the time of the conversation. Then ask them directly on the record: did your boss contact BOP about DeChristopher’s letter? Did he/she request that punitive measures be taken against Tim DeChristopher, including isolation?

4. If you don’t receive a definitive answer, ask the staffer to verify for you.

5. If the staffer actually says yes…don’t judge. Politely ask for an explanation.

Questions for Congresspeople on subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security:

1. Does the Congressperson plan on raising the issue of isolation without due process in a subcommittee hearing?

2. If so, when?

3. What is Rep. X’s position on the detention of Tim DeChristopher?

Once you receive answers about DeChristopher’s story and the subcommittee member’s position on putting prisoners in isolation without due process…reach out to us! [RT America in Washington, DC by emailing TASProducer@Gmail.com ] We will keep our viewers updated on the situation as responses roll in.

Subcommittee members:
Jim Sensenbrenner, Chairman (R-Wisconsin), Bobby Scott, Ranking Member (D-Virginia), Louie Gohmert, Vice Chair (R-Texas), Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee), Boob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), Hank Johnson (D-Georgia), Dan Lungren (R-California), Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico), Randy Forbes (R-Virginia), Judy Chu (D-California), Ted Poe (R-Texas), Ted Deutch (D-Florida), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas), Tim Griffin (R-Arkansas), Mike Quigley (D-Illinois), Tom Marino (R-Pennsylvania), Trey Gowdy (R- South Carolina), Sandy Adams (R-Florida), Mark Amodei (R-Nevada)

Activists & Journalists Sue President Over NDAA’s Chilling Effect on Constitutional Protections

admin — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:58:57 +0000

[NEW YORK, NY] The first round of statements from seven high-profile plaintiffs suing President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, House Speakers, and DOD Representatives seeking injunctive relief barring the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)’s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions of indefinite detention and suspension of Habeas Corpus was heard in federal court last week. The first hearing took place in front of Hon. Kathryn B. Forrest at the U.S. District Court in New York City on Thursday, March 29th, 2012.

During the 3/29 hearing, Alexa O’Brien of U.S. Day of Rage spoke about running the group’s website. She indicated that she received a warning about her affiliations and that she now has deep concerns about continuing her activities since the passage of NDAA.

The NDAA’s Sub-Section 1021 (b)(2) would allow the military to detain anyone it suspects “substantially supported” terrorists or their “associated forces,” and would allow the military to keep them detained until “the end of hostilities.” The specific use of the terms “associated forces” and “substantial support,” terms which have not been defined within the subsection or elsewhere in the bill, is at the core of the plaintiff’s challenge. The plaintiffs are challenging that the vague, over-broad, language is so nebulous that it creates a space where their journalism or non-violent activism may be threatened by the provisions. Moreover, Sub-Section 1021 (b)(2) creates a space for the indefinite detention of targeted individuals, including US citizens, and denies their protections under Habeas Corpus.

Icelandic Parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottír did not attend the hearing, due to her fear of being detained because of her support of WikiLeaks. She instead submitted a written piece that was read by the author Naomi Wolf. Jonsdottír’s twitter account has been subpoenaed as part of a U.S. led investigation.

Kai Wargalla, Deputy Director of RevolutionTruth and an organizer with Occupy London expressed reluctance to continue with her organization’s online “Live Panels” since they may feature individuals the U.S. government could perceive to be terrorists or as having affiliations with terrorists. When asked by the judge whether the British government had threatened her, Wargalla replied, “Other than describing my group as a terrorist group, no”.

Plaintiffs Jennifer “Tangerine” Bolen, a civil liberties advocate and independent journalist who hosts Live Panel discussions with activists and revolutionaries from around the globe, spearheaded this multi-plaintiff lawsuit due to fears of her own safety under the NDAA. Ms. Bolen, Noam Chomsky and Daniel Ellsberg were unable to testify on March 29th but may be called in Round Two of this lawsuit.

The plaintiff’s lawyers stressed that the definitional terms used in Sub-Section 1021 were vague and would have the effect of “chilling” speech and dissent due to the threat of detention. They also read into the court record that President Obama, upon signing the bill, made a statement that he signed the bill despite reservations about detention, interrogation and prosecution of American citizens. The plaintiff’s lawyers continued on to state that the bill contradicts fundamental principles of American government, and that the military should not be involved in civilian prosecutions.

During Christopher Hedges’ testimony he delineated his coverage while embedded in El Salvador, Gaza, Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. He cited controversial people he had interviewed, many of whom have affiliations with terrorist groups. During testimony Hedges said, “…what I find to be frightening is when the definition of ‘associated forces’ is ruled by a Manichean vision of the world (such as Oliver North, George Bush, Cheney) whose thinking is binary – i.e. good/bad; black/white…. in their assessment I would be a terrorist”. He also drew a comparison between the “Authorization for Use of Military Force” passed just post 9/11 and the NDAA’s Section 1021, with the former being a declaration of war specifically on those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks whereas this new law expands beyond enemy combatants to bring ordinary people into the rubric – people who were not even part of 9/11.

While on the stand the plaintiff’s lawyer handed Hedges a list of terrorist groups as designated by the U.S. government and he indicated that he had reported on seventeen of them and that in his opinion some of these organizations are engaged in hostilities with coalition partners. He then went on to describe upcoming lectures and a book he plans to release and inferred fears about his safety in carrying them out since enactment of NDAA. He indicated his fears stem from the belief “that we’ve undergone a corporate coup d’etat in slow motion” and that “NDAA is a quantum deterioration of the ability to exercize free speech”. He further indicated that prior to the passage of NDAA he had no fear of detention. “Every investigative reporter will tell you that [information] sources have dried up. Six whistleblowers are currently detained”.

As the 3/29 hearing came to a close Judge Forrest questioned whether the language in the statute provides sufficient information for the plaintiffs vis a vis the terms “associated forces” and “substantial support” of terrorists. Points were raised in these closing discussions surrounding the fact that journalists’ speech is “chilled” because they don’t know how to interpret these terms. The government lawyers were unable to reassure the plaintiffs in these questions. The government lawyers non-response was an affirmation that the verbiage in NDAA is in fact vague, simplistic and nebulous, thus they had little to draw upon in respect to providing the plaintiffs or the judge answers.

Plaintiffs were joined by Dr. Cornel West for a press conference outside the courtroom that afternoon, an archive of the press conference is available HERE

After leaving the courtroom Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs said, “I believe the plaintiffs proved in federal court why they are ‘the Freedom Seven‘. The plaintiffs demonstrated definitively that the Homeland Battlefield Act is massively ‘chilling’ free speech and intimidating activists and journalists in this country. America is not a Battlefield and we will fight this law to the highest court in the land, if we have to.”

You can read or print a copy of the plaintiffs lawsuit at THIS LINK the text of the NDAA in its entirety is available at THIS LINK. For more information on the case and it’s plaintiffs visit www.stopNDAA.org

US anti-terrorism law curbs free speech and activist work, court told - The Guardian

The reason I’m helping Chris Hedges’ lawsuit against the NDAA - The Guardian

Lawyers tested in court over anti-terrorism act - Reuters

Lawyers tested in court over anti-terrorism act – The Chicago Tribune

Headlines – Democracy Now! (1/2)

Journalists, Activists Challenge NDAA in Federal Suit [5:30 mark] - Democracy Now! (2/2)

Someone You Love: Coming to a Gulag Near You - Truthdig

Bruce Afran, NDAA Threatens Free Speech - The Majority Report

Chris Hedges: “No Outcry Within Media” on NDAA - Current TV

Humanae Tempore Ignis (NDAA) - The Daily Kos

Hedges: NDAA is ‘chilling’ the practice of journalism - Raw Story

NDAA needs definite attention - Minnesota Daily

RT America, Newshour (Hedges Interview)

RT America, Alyona Show

Russia Voice Radio

China Daily

International Business Times (1/3)

International Business Times (2/3)

International Business Times (3/3)

Only YOU can prevent a Totalitarian police state - The Collegian

Lawsuit Seeking Injunction Against NDAA Misinterprets Law, Administration, Lawmakers Say - Homeland Security Today [negative]

U.S. anti-terrorism law curbs free speech and activist work, court told - Raw Story

Hot Stuff: NDAA Lawsuit - Smiley & West

How Does a ‘Common Citizen’ Know If They Can Be Target of NDAA? - FireDogLake

Lawyers tested in court over anti-terrorism act - MSNBC Newsvine

FindLaw

Yahoo News

Q&A with Naomi Wolf and Alexa O’Brien: the NDAA and free speech – The Guardian (Blog)

Daylong Tussle on ‘Homeland Battlefield’ Law - Courthouse News

Journalists, Activists Challenge NDAA Law – Common Dreams

Lawyers tested in court over anti-terrorism act - 99.9 Radio

Paleo Radio (Pacifica)

Court Hears Arguments In Lawsuit Against …Indefinite Detention Law - Prison Planet

‘Terrorists’ at Home - Egypt Daily News

NDAA, Who Does It Apply to? – The Lone Republic

Freedom Seven Strike Back Against NDAA And Unlimited Detention Without Due Process - Suicide Girls

PeaceNews.org

Journalists, Activists Challenge Government ‘Vagueness’ In Indefinite Detention Statute - All Voices

‘War on terror’ comes home to the US - The Gulf Times

New York Raw Video (clip of march)

Lawsuit: Journalists Fear First Amendment Infringed by NDAA – The New American

The Homeland Battlefield: ‘Hedges v. Obama’ Lawsuit Challenging NDAA Begins in NYC

admin — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 06:55:34 +0000

[NEW YORK, NY] The first rounds of statements from seven high-profile plaintiffs suing President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, House Speakers and DOD Representatives for injunctive relief barring the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)‘s “Homeland Battlefield” provisions of indefinite detention and suspension of Habeus Corpus will be heard in federal court today, March 29, 2012.

The hearings will begin at 9am at the US District Court Building at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan (Room 15A) and will be immediately followed by a press conference outside the court at 2:30pm beside the center statue at nearby Foley Square (Junction of Center Street & Federal Plaza map link). Taking questions at the press conference will be Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and plaintiff Chris Hedges, film maker Michael Moore, author Naomi Wolf, lead counsel for the plaintiffs Carl Mayer, as well as other plaintiffs and their activist supporters. At 3pm, following the press conference, activists with Occupy Wall Street are expected to stage at the square for an anti-NDAA protest action.

The plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama include: New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, celebrated writer and linguist Noam Chomsky, Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jonsdottir, Tangerine Bolen founder of the activist media group RevolutionTruth, Occupy London activist Kai Wargalla, and Alexa O’Brien founder of the web campaign “US Day of Rage.” Each of the plaintiffs share common narrative that their constitutionally protected work, either in activism or in journalism will be chilled by the over-broad provisions set forth under the NDAA. Naomi Wolf and Dr. Cornel West are in the process of becoming plaintiffs in this lawsuit; Wolf will read her statement in court today.

“I have had dinner more times than I can count with people whom this country brands as terrorists. But that does not make me one,” said Hedges ”if there is no rolling back of the NDAA law we cease to be a constitutional democracy. Totalitarian systems always begin by rewriting the law. They make legal what was once illegal.” He continued, “Crimes become patriotic acts. The defense of freedom and truth becomes a crime. Foreign and domestic subjugation merges into the same brutal mechanism. Citizens are colonized. And it is always done in the name of national security. We obey the new laws as we obeyed the old laws, as if there was no difference. And we spend our energy and our lives appealing to a dead system.”

“The Homeland Battlefield Law is as Orwellian as its name implies. America is not a “battlefield”; it is a democratic republic. This law is unconstitutional because it violates the free speech and due process rights of American citizens” says Carl Mayer, lead attorney on the case.

You can read or print a copy of the plaintiffs lawsuit at THIS LINK the text of the NDAA in it’s entirety is available at THIS LINK. For more information on the case and it’s plaintiffs visit www.stopNDAA.org

Repealing the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act: Event at Suffolk University

admin — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:36:20 +0000

6pm-9pm Tuesday, March 27th 2012
Suffolk University Law School
120 Tremont Street, Boston, MA 02108-4977
View Map · Get Directions · RSVP on Facebook

Suffolk Law School, Harvard Law School, and New England School of Law present a panel discussion of how the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is undermining our rights.

Featuring: Odette Wilkens, Esq. (Executive Director of the Equal Justice Alliance), Ryan Shapiro (Animal rights activist & doctoral candidate at MIT), Andy Stepanian (Ex-SHAC 7 political prisoner & cofounder of The Sparrow Project), David Nathanson, Esq. (Partner in the Boston law firm of Wood & Nathanson, LLP), Will Potter (Award-winning independent journalist & author of Green Is the New Red)

Odette Wilkens is Executive Director of the Equal Justice Alliance, whose mission is to repeal the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. She is a member of the Committee of Legal Issues Pertaining to Animals of the New York City Bar Association. That Committee issued a Comment opposing the Act before its passage, and after its passage, issued a letter, along with the Civil Rights Committee, to President Obama’s Administration and Congress calling for the repeal of the Act.

Project Censored honored her with an award in 2007 for co-authoring an editorial published in the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law: “The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is Invidiously Detrimental to the Animal Rights Movement (and Unconstitutional as Well).”

Under her guidance, the Equal Justice Alliance succeeded in persuading the National Center for Animal Law at Lewis & Clark Law School to focus their moot court competition on the AETA. That competition took place at Harvard Law School in February 2008, where Odette was a moot court judge.

She has spoken at numerous law schools, bar associations, and legal conferences on the Act’s implications for civil liberties.

Odette is also a corporate and transactional attorney focusing on information technology, and has spoken on corporate records retention policies. She was Assistant General Counsel for a major international recruiting firm after working as associate counsel at a leading technology law firm, Brown Raysman Millstein Felder & Steiner. Before becoming an attorney, Odette negotiated film license agreements, and was Assistant Corporate Secretary, for HBO. She also has an MBA in Finance from the Stern Graduate School of Business at New York University, and is a graduate of Barnard College, affiliated with Columbia University.

David Nathanson is a partner in the Boston law firm of Wood & Nathanson, LLP. Previously, he was a staff attorney in the private counsel division of the Criminal Appeals Unit at the Committee for Public Counsel Services (CPCS). From 1997 to 2001, David was a sole practitioner focusing on criminal appeals and pro bono trial representation of protestors. He joined CPCS in 2001. He returned to private practice in January 2008 as a partner with Attorney Chauncey Wood.

David’s most widely known case is [Smith v. Massachusetts, 543 U.S. 462 (2005)], holding that a granted motion for a required finding of not guilty at the close of the Commonwealth’s case may not be later reconsidered. He was also among a group of seven lawyers who successfully defended animal rights activists in Massachusetts state court against extortion charges stemming from their campaign to shame investors into divesting from a notorious animal experimentation laboratory. He has frequently presented trainings on criminal appellate matters for CPCS and for the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. David is a graduate of Rutgers University School of Law at Newark, and was a member of the Rutgers Animal Law Clinic while in law school.

Andy Stepanian is an ex-SHAC7 political prisoner and currently the co-founder of The Sparrow Project, a grassroots PR outfit that aims to braid popular culture, the arts, and revolutionary activism.

In 2002, the Financial Times characterized SHAC as “succeeding where Karl Marx, the Baader-Meinhof gang, and the Red Brigades failed.” Their actions drew the attention of Wall Street and the FBI, resulting in a politically charged landmark free speech case called the SHAC 7 trial, where Andy and 5 others were charged and convicted as terrorists for their activism. Sentenced to 3 years in prison, Andy spent his last 6.5 months in a secretive federal prison program that NPR would later name ‘Guantanamo North’.

Ryan Shapiro is a longtime animal rights activist and now a doctoral candidate in the Department of Science, Technology, & Society at MIT. His research explores the use of the rhetoric and apparatus of national security to marginalize animal protectionists as threats to the United States from the late nineteenth century to the present. As part of this work, Ryan has nearly five hundred Freedom of Information Act requests in motion with the FBI. He is also currently a plaintiff in the federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

Will Potter is an award-winning independent journalist based in Washington, D.C., who focuses on “eco-terrorism,” the animal rights and environmental movements, and civil liberties post-9/11.

His work has appeared in publications including the Chicago Tribune, the Huffington Post, and the Vermont Law Review, and he has testified before the U.S. Congress about his reporting.

Will frequently lectures about efforts to roll back civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. Speaking engagements have included the New York City Bar Association, Yale Law School, and the House of Democracy and Human Rights in Berlin. Media appearances have included the Los Angeles Times, Mother Jones, and Democracy Now.

His book, Green Is The New Red: An Insider’s Account of a Social Movement Under Siege was recently published by City Lights Books. It has been featured by NPR, The Rumpus, and Publisher’s Weekly. Kirkus Book Reviews awarded it a Kirkus Star for “remarkable merit” and named it one of the best books of 2011.

Thousands of New Yorkers Demanding Justice for Trayvon Martin will Rally Today In Union Square

admin — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:45:09 +0000

Trayvon Martin, Rest in Power by Occupy The Hood

People from across the world call for A Million Hoodies for Trayvon Martin as they stand in solidarity with the family’s quest to seek justice for the murder of their son & the arrest of his killer.

[NEW YORK, NY] On March 21st People from across the city and movements come together to stand in solidarity with the family of Trayvon Martin as they seek justice for the murder of their son. Organizers of the New York City protest are asking people from across the city to throw on their hoodie and join others in Union Square, NYC at 6:00pm as they demand justice for the murder of Trayvon Martin. Those that are unable to attend the event in New York City are asked to throw on their hoodies and share the story of both the life and death of Trayvon and his family’s fight for justice. JOIN US IN NYC – Throw on your hoodies and come gather in Union Square to show your support for justice for Trayvon Martin!

On February 26th Trayvon Martin who was 17 years old at the time of his death, was shot and killed as he walked to his father’s home from a convenience store in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon’s killer, the leader of a community “neighborhood watch” called the police to report a suspicious person when he saw Trayvon walking from the store. Trayvon a young black male was wearing at the time a hoodie and on his person was a bag of skittles and a beverage. Despite police instruction not to confront Trayvon, Zimmerman ignored instructions and followed Trayvon, cornering him and ultimately killing him. Zimmerman admitted to the shooting of Trayvon however has not been charged for the murder.

“We are tired of looking in the eyes of our brothers, our sisters, our children asking ourselves whose next? If you think tomorrow is about a protest, simply an assembly of people, you are wrong. Tomorrow, will be the night we remember the murder of Trayvon Martin and say, with one voice, never again,’” said Daniel Maree, a Digital Strategist at McCann, NY who launched the Million Hoodies event.911 recordings released of what many suspect is Trayvon pleading for help before he was shot to death, has inspired many to come together and protest the racial injustices that revolve both around Trayvon’s death and the freedom of his killer. Many supporters of Trayvon’s family come together to express to the state of Florida and the world their outrage over the death of Trayvon Martin and to call for an end to racial profiling, racial injustice and the terrorizing of black and brown communities throughout the country.

Occupy Wall Street Sets Sights on Romney Fundraiser at Waldorf Astoria

admin — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 07:56:16 +0000

[NEW YORK, NY] A pop-up occupation will confront Governor Mitt Romney as he arrives in New York for a fundraising luncheon at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel at 11am on Wednesday, March 14th 2012.This event targeting the presidential hopeful and his fundraising base of special interest lobbyists is one of the first in a series of actions some occupiers are calling ”The American Spring.”

Occupy Wall Street, along with a broad coalition of community advocacy organizations including UnitedNY, the Strong Economy for All Coalition, Occupy the Dream, New York Communities for Change, Dream Act Scholars / NY Dream Act Coalition, Rebuild the Dream, Community Voices Heard, Move On, Vocal New York and Make the Road New York have signed onto this large event, uniting themselves around a message that our elections are not for sale and that corporations (unlike voters) are not people.

With growing concern over the blurred line between corporate lobbying and campaign finance many activists have honed their focus onto landmark corporate personhood rulings like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, underscoring that these rulings further erode the mainstream democratic process activists use to influence policy and social change. Mitt Romney has made himself a champion of this corporate personhood argument and this has drawn fire from activists and occupiers alike.

“Creative visuals like a hula hoop flash mob will highlight Romney’s all-too-creative use of tax loopholes while large placards reading ‘Mr. 1%’ will draw attention to the governor’s cartoonish wealth and incestuous relationship with his corporate sponsorship,” says Brendan Burke of Occupy Wall Street ”New Yorkers will converge at the Waldorf with a simple message that democracy is not for sale, that money is not speech, and that corporations also need to pay their fair share.”

For some of the activists the narrative of fiscal accountability is deeply personal, “In 1996, the city of New York mailed me a bill for $.75, and hounded me about it until I finally purchased a $1 money order, and spent another $.32 in postage to send it to them,” said Margaret Passley, a Brooklyn homecare worker. ”It’s disturbing that wealthy executives like Mitt Romney are allowed to get away with paying next to nothing in taxes, while regular people like me are held to a higher standard.”

“Mitt Romney prides himself as the owner of two Cadillacs, yet students around the country continue to struggle to pay their tuition while working and going to school full-time,” said Jason Javier, a Student Activist. ”Education is key to ensuring that this generation is able to support families and invest in their communities. When corporations and the wealthy don’t pay their share, while accepting government refunds, they are taking money that could help students cover tuition costs. Romney’s greed, and disregard for regular people like us solidify his position as the poster boy of the 1%.”

Joining the governor at the Waldorf fundraiser will be Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan Chase CEO and John Paulson of Paulson & Company. Politico has published a partial list of the event’s co-chairs HERE.