Debo Adegbile

Debo Adegbile

This post is about the Senate vote that failed to confirm Obama's nomination to the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.  It failed mostly because of the case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and more importantly a scare campaign by the GOP, and the defection of 7 Democrats who joined them in voting no.

I must point to Chris Hayes' great piece here and Democracy Now! here

Wikipedia on Mumia Abu-Jamal

Mumia Support Website, FreeMumia.com

WaPo, How Mumia Abu-Jamal Doomed Dego Adegbile

WSJ Explaining Mumia Case

Myths and Facts


Here from the Washington Post, are some examples of the smear campaign

The New Hampshire GOP blasted out a statement this afternoon declaring: "SHAHEEN VOTES FOR RADICAL OBAMA NOMINEE WHO DEFENDED UNREPENTANT COP KILLER." The North Carolina Republican party issued a statement saying: "Kay Hagan Votes For Extremist DOJ Nominee Who Helped Get A Convicted Cop Killer Off The Hook."

and this I was not aware of until now, that

In 2009, Van Jones' support for a new trial for Abu-Jamal was one of the things Republicans seized on while pushing for his ouster from the White House.

Here from 2011 is an article on the Supreme Court ruling, posted on FreeMumia.com

Today the United States Supreme Court rejected a request from the
Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office to overturn the most recent federal appeals court decision declaring Mumia Abu-Jamal’s death sentence unconstitutional. The Court’s decision brings to an end nearly thirty years of litigation over the fairness of the sentencing hearing that resulted in Mr. Abu-Jamal’s being condemned to death.

Here is John Robert's past history as a defense attorney

What kind of person would defend a butcher with the blood of eight people on his hands? It was Chief Justice John Roberts, who devoted 25 pro bono hours to Ferguson’s case when he was working in private practice.

continued

Not everyone is willing to extend that view to Debo Adegbile, President Obama’s nominee to head the civil rights division at the Department of Justice.  

 continued

The conservative campaign against Adegbile recalls an effort during Obama’s first term to attack Justice Department officials as terrorist sympathizers because they had successfully represented Gitmo detainees. That effort fizzled when a group of conservative attorneys signed a letter defending those officials as having done their part to ensure due process. 

Here is Senator Patrick Leahy's statement, who Adegbile worked for in the Senate, pointing out the hypocrisy of voting against Adegbile's nomination based on Mumia's case, but also voting against bulletproof vests for police officers.

Despite Debo’s expertise, some are opposing his nomination based on a single case:  Mumia Abu-Jamal’s appeal of his death sentence for the 1981 murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner.  It should go without saying that we all condemn the murder of Officer Faulkner.  That was a horrific tragedy, and my heart goes out to Mrs. Faulkner and all family members who have lost a loved one in the line of duty.  Officer Faulkner served bravely to protect our community and to defend our system of justice and our Constitution.  It is officers like Officer Faulkner that drive many of us to support programs like the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program.  I only wish that my proactive effort ignited as much passion from my friends on the other side of the aisle as their negative reaction to this nominee.  Unfortunately, not a single Senate Republican has joined me in this fight to protect the lives of police officers since 2008.

Someone solely watching Fox News might think this nominee himself was a criminal but of course he is not.  The attacks launched against this nominee demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a lawyer and the very constitutional system of justice that law enforcement officers all swear an oath to protect.  It is time to clear the record. (emphasis mine)

Here is Senator Tom Harkin, who I have mentioned a lot in previous blog posts, on the Senate Vote link

Earlier today a vote was taken in the United States Senate that, to this Senator, marked about the lowest point that I think this Senate has descended into in my 30 years here,” Harkin began.

If you are a young white person, and you go to work for a law firm … and that law firm assigns you to a pro-bono case to defend someone who killed eight people in cold blood … my advice from what happened today is you should do that. It’s part of your legal obligation, part of your procession. Because if you do that, who knows, you might wind up to be the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

However, if you are a young black person, and you go to work for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and they assign you under your obligations as an attorney in keeping with your oath of office, they assign you to appeal a case of someone who committed a heinous murder … the message sent today is don’t do it. Don’t do it. Because you know what, if you do that, in keeping with your legal obligations and your profession, you will be denied by the U.S. Senate from being an attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice.

I will fully admit that those of us on the left have not been completely innocent, often making the same charges when we look at prosecutors and defense attorneys in cases we don't agree with.  Regardless, both roles are crucial, and while reforms are needed in the criminal justice system, nominations of qualified nominees should go through the Senate without smear campaigns based on false accusations, while those who are against it claim the moral high ground.


This post can go by many themes, as do many GOP actions, especially since Obama has been President.

• Ripples of Racism
• Hurdles of Hatred
• Hypocrisy of History
• Radical Revisionism by Republicans
• GOP "forgets" our Founder's real ideals

This post will focus on John Adams, William Kunstler, and Stanley Cohen as lawyers who live the Constitutional right that those accused of a crime have access to a defense lawyer.

The 6th Amendment 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

America has built into its Constitution the right of the accused in a criminal case the right to a defense attorney.  This is repeated in Miranda Rights, and in the history of our country, including our Founding Fathers.

From NOLO on Miranda Warnings

Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial. Of course, as with nearly all legal rules, there are exceptions. (To read about one such exception, see The Emergency Exception to the Miranda Rule.) 

The Emergency Exception to Miranda was used in the Boston Marathon Bombing case, and was widely discussed in the news at the time.

Justia.com 4/22/2013

While it is important that the media and the public understand that the public safety exception should guide courts, not law enforcement, it is equally important that law enforcement officers understand the same. The public safety exception is not a carte blanche for law enforcement officers to cite public safety in disregarding arrestees’ constitutional rights; rather, it is a means by which courts may acknowledge (and not penalize) that certain specific lines of questioning were done with the good-faith intent of preserving public safety.

While it is important that the media and the public understand that the public safety exception should guide courts, not law enforcement, it is equally important that law enforcement officers understand the same. The public safety exception is not a carte blanche for law enforcement officers to cite public safety in disregarding arrestees’ constitutional rights; rather, it is a means by which courts may acknowledge (and not penalize) that certain specific lines of questioning were done with the good-faith intent of preserving public safety. - See more at: http://verdict.justia.com/2013/04/22/mirandas-public-safety-exception#sthash.mICWZWo4.dpuf

New Yorker 4/21/2013

Tsarnaev might not be able to be Mirandized at the moment—it is not clear how bad his condition is. [Update: he was questioned Sunday, without a Miranda warning.] But there was a decision not to do so as soon as he was captured.

continued

The loose notion that there is a fixed forty-eight-hour waiver became so quickly entrenched that there seemed to be more worries about the clock ticking than about the timer on any bomb still out there; Lindsey Graham, on CNN, suggested that it constituted a sort of deadline for starting to treat him as an enemy combatant. (Graham did remind people that, being an American citizen, Tsarnaev couldn’t be tried before a military commission.

Before Glenn Greenwald started disclosing NSA documents leaked by Whistleblower Edward Snowden, Greenwald wrote about Lindsey Graham's comments about the Boston Bombing and about a precedent, Jose Padilla [emphasis mine]

But given how Graham's statements were treated like some sort of shocking aberration, it is worth noting that the US government previously did exactly what he advocated. In 2002, US citizen Jose Padilla was arrested on terrorism charges on US soil (at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport), and shortly before he was to be tried, the Bush administration declared him to be an "enemy combatant", transferred him to a military brig, and then imprisoned him (and tortured him) for the next 3 1/2 years without charges, a lawyer, or any contact with the outside world. That was the incident that most propelled me to start political writing, but it barely registered as a political controversy.

The brilliant blogger Marcy Wheeler also was discussing the Boston Marathon case before the Snowden documents were released.

April 20, 2013 link

Now, thus far, I’m actually not that worked up about Miranda rights (though I may get there soon). As Orin Kerr explains, the public safety exception is a legally recognized law, and Miranda itself only limits what can be admitted as testimony against Dzhokhar in his trial (I’m betting he’ll plead guilty in any case). The government appears to have so much evidence against him in any case, any confession he makes will likely not be necessary to convict him.

 Marcy writes that instead of Miranda, the bigger issue is not bringing a defendant before a judge fast enough

But the big issue, in my opinion, is presentment, whether he is brought before a judge within 48 hours. In addition to stretching Miranda, the government has also been holding and interrogating suspects for periods — up to two weeks for American citizens and far longer for non-citizens — before they see a judge.

 continued

In my opinion, two of the most troubling cases like this, both involving naturalized citizens accused of terrorism, are Faisal Shahzad and Manssor Arbabsiar.
Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, was held and questioned, reportedly with the help of the HIG, for two weeks before he first appeared before a judge. Each day during that period, he signed a waiver of his right to appear before a judge. Ultimately, he plead guilty, so no one every questioned whether his confessions were coerced or not.

 continued

There are a lot of reasons why delaying reading Dzhokar his Miranda rights are wrong, ethically. But I’m not as worried about that as the possibility they’ll stash Dzhokar away for a couple of weeks without a lawyer or any oversight. And in any case, the Administration seems intent on developing both means of curtailing rights.

The lawyer and blogger at Emptywheel known as Bmaz replies in a comment that

the presumption of Rule 5 I/A presentment within 48 hours still holds, absent exceptional circumstances. That said, the medical disabilities are likely such exceptional circumstances.

More on Miranda and Boston Bombing case:
New York Times 4/21/2013



The talk about treating an American citizen as an enemy combatant and stripping him of his rights flies in the face of another case in Boston, The Boston "Massacre" of 1770, when British soldiers, still in a British Colony at the time, fired on a group of protestors, killing 5 and injuring 6 others.  John Adams, who was later to become our President, defended the BRITISH soldiers, as an example of the equal rights of the accused to a defense when charged with a crime.

A great article on the Boston "Massacre" and John Adams's defense of the accused British Soldiers by John Tobin is available here

Here are some key points from the article

 

After his retirement, John Adams's reflections on the case brought up an earlier part of American history, the prosecution of the Quakers and "witches"----Adams saw a wrong verdict would have been a further stain on the country.

The Governor of Massachusetts Thomas Hutchinson, and future President John Adams both believed in the rule of law, seeking justice for those killed and injured, and the inherint right to an effective defense for the accused.  THAT is what America was founded on, and this is what the GOP has used against Adegbile, the nominee for the Department of Justice Civil Rights division.


Source

Adams’ [sic] defense of these British soldiers was a reflection of his personal integrity and sense of justice, for by this time, he had certainly lost any sympathy or loyalty for a British government he believed was becoming increasingly tyrannical.

John Kennedy writing in Profiles in Courage writes about John Adams's

selfless risks he had taken in defending the British soldiers at the Boston Massacre source

writing (pg 200)

To close our stories of American political courage, we would do well to recall an act of courage which preceded the founding of this nation, and which set a standard for all to follow.  On the night of March 5, 1770, when an abusive and disorderly mob on State Street in Boston was rashly fired upon by British sentries, John Adams of Massachusetts was already a leader in the protests against British indifference to colonist grievances.  He was, moreover, a lawyer of standing in the community and a candidate for the General Court at the next election. Thus, even had he not joined in the sense of shocked outrage with which all of Boston greeted the "Boston Massacre," he would nevertheless have profited by remaining silent.

continued

But this militant foe of the Crown was asked to serve as counsel for the accused soldiers, and did not even hesitate to accept.  The case, he later noted in his autobiography, was one of the "most exhausting and fatiguing causes I ever tried, hazarding a popularity very hardly earned, and incurring popular suspicions and prejudices which are not yet worn out." Yet the man who would later be a bold President--not only remained as counsel, but acquited his clients of the murder charge, demonstrating to a packed courtroom that no evidence was at hand to show that the firing was malicious and without provocation:

quoting Adams

"Whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. The law will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imagination and wanton tempers of men...Gentlemen of the Jury--I am for the prisoners at the bar; and shall apologize for it only in the words of the Marquis Becaria: "If I can but be the instrument of preserving one life, his blessings and tears shall be sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of mankind!"

 20th Century "John Adams" William Kunstler and Stanley Cohen

Wikipedia on William Kuntsler

From 1983 until Kunstler's death in 1995, he employed future radio personality Ron Kuby as a junior partner. The two took on controversial civil rights and criminal cases, including cases where they represented Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, head of the Egyptian-based terrorist group Gama'a al-Islamiyah, responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (emphasis added)

for more on Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman see Mary Weaver's A Portrait of Egypt William Kuntsler is discussed on pages 78 and 224-225 and discussion of the Sheik takes up a large portion of the book, including Chapter 4

William Kuntsler from Daily News

If "Disturbing the Universe" makes only one larger point with which his critics might reluctantly agree, it's the idea the American system cannot function as the Founding Fathers intended without a William Kunstler. (emphasis mine)

Kuntsler defended among others

El Sayyid Nosair, who was accused of assassinating the militant Jewish leader Rabbi Meir Kahane, and the drug dealer Larry Davis. (Nosair and Davis, who was charged with shooting six cops, were both acquitted.) In 1993, while defending a terror suspect charged in the first bombing of the World Trade Center, Kunstler boasted to the Times, “I’m more loved and more hated than I ever was.”

In fact, page 290 of Unequal Justice points out that

Kuntsler was berated in the American Bar Association Journal for declaring that he was "not a lawyer for hire" but would "only defend those I love."

continued

The ABA, suddenly discovering the virtue of competent counsel for all observed: "We know from long collective experience that many will go without legal defense or representation if they must depend on finding a lawyer who 'loves' them." Still, that experience had never much impressed the ABA until Kuntsler and other activist lawyers engaged in their own form of amorous selectivity. 

Today, William's daughter Sarah Kuntsler is now a defense lawyer as well, recently representing Jeremy Hammond. Here is her statement in that trial link and Jeremy Hammond's own statement link as well as Alexa O'Brien's statement to the court link


Finally there is Stanley Cohen, currently representing Osama bin Laden's son-in-law in court in New York, charged with inciting violence against Americans after 9/11 by acting as Al Qaeda spokesman and propogandist.

Other cases

Kuntsler said he would only take defendants he "loves," but Cohen was chosen by Ghaith this time link


The Trial of Suleiman Abu Ghaith

Abu Ghaith is charged with conspiring to kill Americans and providing material support and resources to terrorists. He faces life in prison if convicted. link

continued

Abu Ghaith’s lawyer, Stanley Cohen, warned jurors that the government would try to overwhelm them with videos and questionable witnesses and said there was no evidence against his client.

continued

Specifically, the government contends Abu Ghaith spent time in Afghanistan with bin Laden soon after the attacks and recorded several statements threatening further attacks against Americans, including one that said "the storm of airplanes will not stop."  

 the GOP attacks again

Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Republican, spoke for many in his party when he criticised the Obama administration's decision to try Abu Ghaith in New York. "A foreign member of al-Qaeda should never be treated like a common criminal and should never hear the words, 'You have the right to remain silent,'" Graham said. link

 Cohen says the government's case is weak, saying

What you’re going to hear at the end of this is after 13 years, it comes down to words and association, and words and association,” Mr. Cohen said.

 This is America, could you imagine if we indicted Osama bin Laden himself and wanted to try him in New York after he had already attacked it? Oh wait....hypocrisy rises again folks.

1998 Osama bin Laden indictment in New York

As noted in recent months with Obama's escalation of drone strikes, including considering targeting another US citizen for death without due process or trial as shown above, many journalists have brought up the indictment of Osama bin Laden.

On Point

The White House debates a drone attack against a U.S. citizen and terror suspect in Pakistan. We’ll look at Washington’s kill list and American drone policy.

Jeremy Scahill says

Obama has declared the world a battlefield and reserves the right to drone bomb countries in pursuit of people against whom we have no direct evidence or who we’re not seeking any indictment against.”  (emphasis mine)

Comments

Some comments I wanted to share about recent stories

FAIR Media Watch Counterspin http://fair.org/     

http://fair.org/counterspin-radio/


A Domestic terrorism case in upstate NY gets little national attention when the victims are Muslims.

The Jan 17th show discussed Ariel Sharon's REAL legacy, and NPR's dissappointing move to accept ad money from the Natural Gas industry, but not from groups opposed to gas fracking.  NPR's factual errors in reporting about gas drilling hazards, and highlighting the "economic benefits" of fracking while not covering the downsides including EPA killing a report about environmental effects in Pennsylvania drinking water. 

From the Jan 31st  show

The host, Steve Rendall in discussing "Mitt"--the documentary about Mitt Romney, tells us what the role of news media should be versus what most Mainstream Media is today

Journalism is meant to be an effort to interrogate politicians' constructed images, not celebrate them.  The public needs reporters to explain what candidates propose to do in office, whether their record suggests that they are likely to do those things, and what will happen if they did.

In examining Obama's State of The Union speech, Steve lists a few instances where Obama has paid lip service to a cause, while also asking for adverse policies, and I add a few as well.

Steve mentions that Obama:

• warns about climate change but calls for more drilling
• wants to end "cycle of wars" but was just stopped from starting a new war in Syria
• calls for equality, raise minimum wage but calls for more free trade pacts 

I would add 

• calls for ending war in Afghanistan, but not really since he wants to keep drone bases in the country for 10 more years in order to attack Pakistan NY Times
• said he ended the Iraq War, when he tried to keep troops there but couldnt get legal immunity for them, and the AUMF is still active 2 years later Senator Wyden
• calls on Congress to pass immigration reform, while deporting nearly 2 million people, ignoring his own administration's Morgan Memos calling for an end to deporting those whose only crime was coming here illegally. This American Life American Prospect Mother Jones Think Progress
• and of course there are whistleblowers and dissenters who he praises as keeping government honest, but prosecutes them as spies and jails them, while "welcoming debates" they bring to the public. Change.gov

http://change.gov/agenda/ethics_agenda/

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. 

John Schmitt, the guest on the show, said that

we have to make sure that he does what we want him to do, and to bring political pressure to make that happen

instead of waiting for what Obama wants to do and not pushing him further to the left or keeping him to his own words or what policies actually work.

Journalism is NOT Terrorism

JOURNALISM IS NOT TERRORISM

DEFINITION OF JOURNALISM--link here

1

a :  the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media

b :  the public press

c :  an academic study concerned with the collection and editing of news or the management of a news medium

2

a :  writing designed for publication in a newspaper or magazine

b :  writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation

c :  writing designed to appeal to current popular taste or public interest

JOURNALISM Concise Encyclopedia 

Collection, preparation, and distribution of news and related commentary and feature materials through media such as pamphlets, newsletters, newspapers, magazines, radio, film, television, and books. The term was originally applied to the reportage of current events in printed form, specifically newspapers, but in the late 20th century it came to include electronic media as well. It is sometimes used to refer to writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation. Colleges and universities confer degrees in journalism and sponsor research in related fields such as media studies and journalism ethics.

Principles of Journalism 


DEFINITION OF TERRORISM--  link here
the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

What is the definition of terrorism?  link here

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. There are many reasons for this (not the least of which is the cliche “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”). Even different agencies of the US government have different working definitions. Most definitions usually have common elements, though, oriented around terrorism as the systematic use of physical violence–actual or threatened–against non-combatants but with an audience broader than the immediate victims in mind, to create a general climate of fear in a target population, in order to effect some kind of political and/or social change.

Terrorism by nature is difficult to define. Acts of terrorism conjure emotional responses in the victims (those hurt by the violence and those affected by the fear) as well as in the practioners. Even the U.S. government cannot agree on one single definition. The old adage, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is still alive and well. Listed below are several definitions of terrorism. For the purposes of the Terrorism Research Center, we have adopted the definition used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

FBI Definition

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Definitions of Terrorism differ by different US Govt Agencies

Louise Richardson Author of What Terrorists Want
PDF Summary of the Book: Terrorism---Who What and Why

Journalism IS NOT Terrorism

Roll Call   link here
When the Justice Department admitted to gathering months of records from more than 20 Associated Press telephone lines, it startled average Americans and the established media alike. It was a dangerous overreach by the DOJ, whose powers are strictly limited under its own guidelines for issuing subpoenas to the news media for testimony and evidence.

Congress responded to this gross executive overreach by seeking to codify legal protections for journalists and their sources, but despite the best of intentions, they’re missing the mark in their attempt to create a tight definition of a “journalist.”

The Founding Fathers explicitly protected the press in the First Amendment because it is such a critical service to a free society, but they were smart enough not to define what “the press” was. Journalism is society’s greatest safeguard against government abuse, and Congress should seek to protect it in all its forms, and not define it to fit their own devices.


Rachel Maddow---Journalism is not terrorism   VIDEO here

The Guardian----Is Glenn Greenwald's journalism now viewed as a 'terrorist' occupation?
David Miranda's detention shows that being the partner of the man who interviewed the NSA whistleblower is enough to see you treated like a terrorist.  His "offense" under the 2000 Terrorism Act was apparently to be the partner of a journalist, Glenn Greenwald, who had reported for the Guardian on material released by the American whistleblower, Edward Snowden.  link here

Freedom of the Press Foundation   link here

United Nations  link here
4 September 2013 – Two United Nations independent experts today called on the United Kingdom to ensure journalists can perform investigative work without fear of intimidation, and stressed that national security concerns do not justify curtailing press freedom.

“The protection of national security secrets must never be used as an excuse to intimidate the press into silence and backing off from its crucial work in the clarification of human rights violations,” the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, said. “The press plays a central role in the clarification of human rights abuses.”

Committee to Protect Journalists link here

CPJ research has tracked a significant rise in journalist imprisonments since 2000, a year before the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States fueled the expansion of anti-terrorism and national security laws worldwide. The number of journalists jailed worldwide hit 232 in 2012, 132 of whom were held on anti-terror or other national security charges.

Anderson Cooper with Glenn Greenwald and David Miranda VIDEO here

The Journalist and The Terrorist   JM Berger vs Jihadis

JM Berger Biography

Journalist: JM Berger, Terrorist: Omar Hammami

NPR interview with JM Berger
counterterrorism expert J.M. Berger, author of Jihad Joe: Americans Who Go to War in the Name of Islam

Article by JM Berger
""I don't know exactly when I began to worry I had become friends with a terrorist.  Believe it or not, this kind of thing happens to people relatively often.

JM Berger---""So you want to go hunting for jihadis on Twitter. You see an intriguing account. So you click follow and sit back to watch. Easy right? Think twice.""
http://news.intelwire.com/2013/09/ive-got-little-list.html



The Case of Barrett Brown 
Journalist and Activist being prosecuted by US Government

Democracy Now! report from July 11, 2013 link here
Journalist Barrett Brown spent his 300th day behind bars this week on a range of charges filed after he used information obtained by the hacker group Anonymous to report on the operations of private intelligence firms. Brown faces 17 charges ranging from threatening an FBI agent to credit card fraud for posting a link online to a document that contained stolen credit card data.

On The Media interview about Barrett Brown

FAIR blog post

NYT article by David Carr on Barrett Brown Case

VICE interview with Barrett Brown from Prison


What in the Age of Wikileaks is Journalism??
https://www.eff.org/mention/who-wiki-age-journalist

Michael Hastings under investigation by FBI
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/9/fbi-releases-redacteddocumentonmichaelhastings.html

Denny Argall, the FBI'S public liaison officer, wrote that after the agency searched for responsive records it located one "cross reference" file pertaining to a pending criminal investigation. The FBI would not comment further about the nature of the probe.

One of the excerpts in the FBI document is completely redacted and marked "S" (for "secret") and "Per Army," under an exemption aimed at protecting national security. Additional redactions were used to protect techniques and procedures for law-enforcement investigations and prosecutions.

The documents revealed that on June 11, 2012, the FBI's Washington field office opened a file and submitted "unclassified media articles" to it in order "to memorialize controversial reporting by Rolling Stone magazine on June 7, 2012."

Jeff Light, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who filed the FOIA lawsuit, suggested opening such files on reporters was not common. "It's interesting [that] the FBI memorializes controversial reporting," he said.

The FBI documents also stated that in addition to Hastings' report, the agency also submitted one copy of a "blog entry relative to the aforementioned articles" and "one copy of Emails Express Discontent," which is an article about Bergdahl published on June 7, 2012 by the Associated Press that was based on Hastings' Rolling Stone report.

The "blog entry," however, appeared to be lifted from the comments section of the Idaho Statesman newspaper. The comment was apparently written by Gary Farwell, the father of Matthew Farwell, who contributed reporting to the Rolling Stone story and is identified at the bottom of the story as "a former soldier who deployed to Afghanistan."

FBI FOIA DOCUMENT -----Thanks to Jason Leopold

FULL FBI FOIA RELEASE  -----its missing the declaration, Jason Leopold has told me.

FBI FOIA DECLARATION


FBI uses informants, invents acts of terrorism arresting wrong people link here
The guy who convinced the plotters to blow up a big bridge, led them to the arms merchant, and drove the team to the bomb site was an FBI informant. The merchant was an FBI agent. The bomb, of course, was a dud.

PAID INFORMANTS are not whistleblowers   NYPD and Muslims    ACLU
Radio show on informants



Whistleblower
Thomas Drake NSA Whistleblower and American Hero C-SPAN



Peter Jouvenal (photographer, on the right) Peter Bergen (2nd from right) Peter Arnett (1st on left) of CNN interview Al Qaeda founder and leader Osama bin Laden in 1997 (video interview here)

Peter Bergen has reported on al-Qaeda, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and counterterrorism and homeland security for a variety of American newspapers and magazines  Wikipedia

No one knows more about Osama bin Laden than Peter Bergen. In 1997, well before the West suddenly became aware of the world’s most sought-after terrorist, Bergen met with him and has followed his activities ever since.  link here

Peter Bergen Photo Gallery

Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees have their phones wiretapped for ""talking to terrorists""  link

from the radio program This American Life, episode This Week (June 13, 2013) the week Edward Snowden's NSA leaks came out. Transcript, Act One

FBI listens to phone calls of Journalist Lawrence Wright
my blog post here

I [Wright] talk about two members of the Joint Terrorism Task Force who came to my office to ask about phone calls that I made to a number in London. It belonged to a solicitor who represented some of the jihadis I had been interviewing. During the course of the conversation, they asked who “Caroline Wright” was. That’s my daughter. She was a university student at the time, not living at home. None of our phones were registered in her name. The only way I could imagine that they got her name was by listening to my phone calls.
Before this episode, I had been told by a source at the Counter-Terrorism Center that my source had seen a summary of a telephone interview I had with Zawahiri’s cousin in Cairo. At the time, I figured that the Egyptians had covered the conversation and supplied it to the CIA. On December 16, 2005, when the New York Times revealed that the NSA was illegally wiretapping Americans, I thought otherwise.
I’m glad the JTTF came to my house to clear this matter up, but it’s an example of the danger of awarding government such extraordinary powers. A simple misunderstanding such as this could easily have led to having Caroline’s name placed on an FBI link chart, only two steps away from Al Qaeda.
One day, Al Qaeda will fade away, but we will still be left with the swollen security state that we’ve created to fight it. That’s another challenge we haven’t begun to face.

2005 Bush Illegal Wiretapping 
link here

FIGHTING TO STOP THE 2012 NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) and Section 1021

NDAA Court Document link here

FBI Occupy Wall St Documents link here

NDAA 2nd Court Ruling link here

Letter about NDAA  by Alexa O'Brien (select portions are copied here, this is most but not all of the letter)

""US Government was threatening to detain me indefinitely without charge for my work as a journalist and citizen.

Since January 2011, I have covered the WikiLeaks release of US State Department Cables, JTF memoranda known as the 'GTMO files', and revolutions across Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, and Yemen, as well as the legal proceedings against Manning and the US investigation into WikiLeaks. I have interviewed a preeminent US foreign policy expert on the Cambodia cables, and published hours of interviews with former GTMO guards, detainees, defense lawyers, and human rights activists, as well as WikiLeaks media partners: Andy Worthington, a GTMO historian and author, and Atanas Tchobanov, the Balkanleaks' spokesman and co-editor of Bivol.bg.

Why do I do this work? Because it moves me deeply. Because I am compelled to learn and to understand. The positive results of some of my work also grants me a sense of common purpose in service to my fellow man/woman.

When the US Government said in Federal Court that they would not guarantee that I would not be indefinitely detained without charge under Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act FY2012 for articles I had written on the 'War on Terror', you set aside partisanship. You realized that what is as stake is more than an election. What was at stake is the safety of your friend, your daughter, a fellow citizen or journalist, as well as this nation and people across the globe. The NDAA, after all, was passed with bi-partisan support, and signed into law by President Obama.

Court: These people have real things they are saying. These are not speculative or hypotheticals. These are people who have actually written articles that we have here. [The Court then held up the articles written by O'Brien and marked as Court Ex. 3.] We are trying to figure out, are these articles going to subject Ms. O'Brien to risk under § 1021? . . . .

Government: Again, I'm not authorized to make specific representations regarding specific people. I'm saying that 'associated forces' cannot extend to groups that are not armed groups at all.

Court: So we don't know about the articles, it depends?

Government: Maybe they are an armed group.

Judge Forrest wrote:

"O'Brien has written a series of articles already--some of which relate to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces" no matter how defined. The Government was unwilling to state at the hearing that O'Brien would not be detained under § 1021 for her expressive conduct in regard to those articles. Moreover, O'Brien testified that she has withheld at least two articles from publication because of her concerns regarding the potential for her expressive conduct in those articles to render her a "covered person" under §1021 and thereby subject her to military detention."
Section 1021 of the NDAA FY2012 allows for the indefinite detention without charges or trial of anyone, including American citizens, who are deemed by the US Government to be terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. The institutions of civil society - the press and civic square - are now what our military terms an information environment in a global theater of war. The 'War on Terror', our military says, is fought with intelligence and information. And, the US Government has already detained journalists at Guantanamo Bay under the AUMF seeking to gain intelligence on media organizations. The President has already played a personal role in the imprisonment of a journalistcovering the US 'War on Terror' in Yemen.

Government contractors falsely linked a group, which I helped found - whose only purpose is to support campaign finance reform in the United States - to Al Qaeda.

I was sent messages by a Government contractor saying that I was now associated with Al Qaeda and so called 'cyber-terrorists'

Citizenship is a public office, but who among us can risk engaging in the body politic authentically, when we have families to provide for? Who can risk publishing about the workings of Government, our alliances, and wars when you might end up in my position?

No matter what your party affiliation, Section 1021 of the NDAA FY 2012 violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the US constitution, the principles that safeguard the independence of our republic and any real freedom or lasting security for our citizens and all peoples.

From https://www.stopndaa.org/aboutndaa/

“For the first time in American history, we have a law authorizing the worldwide and indefinite military detention of people captured far from any battlefield. The NDAA has no temporal or geographic limitations. It is completely at odds with our values, violates the Constitution, and corrodes our Nation’s commitment to the rule of law.” – The ACLU

Section 1021 defines a “covered person” – one subject to detention – as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or “associated forces” that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The law, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.” As it stands, the law violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments of the US Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights.

The Lawsuit against NDAA https://www.stopndaa.org/aboutlawsuit/

The Plaintiffs fighting NDAA https://www.stopndaa.org/aboutus/

We are a group of individuals from a wide range of backgrounds who filed suit because we our First Amendment activities have been impinged under the NDAA. Each plaintiff has engaged in expressive activities in defense of civil liberties and human rights that, despite our clear and abiding commitment to these allegedly guaranteed liberties in the US, fall into a gray area under the vague and new sweeping powers granted by the 2012 NDAA.

Chris Hedges is an American journalist, author, and war correspondent, specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies. Hedges is the bestselling author of nine books and is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. Hedges spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times. In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism. He also received in 2002 the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University and The University of Toronto.

Alexa O’Brien has designed digital content strategy solutions for international governmental organizations and Fortune 500 companies. She founded usdayofrage.org, which endorsed and helped organize the September 17 action to Occupy Wall Street. She has covered WikiLeaks releases and revolutions across Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, and Yemen, as well as Bradley Manning. DHS memos sent to law enforcement across the country stated organizers of US Day of Rage were likely high level cyber terrorists. The media followed suit, publishing those allegations and others, including the groups alleged association with Al Qaeda, jeopardizing Ms. O’Brien’s career, her standing in her community, and her liberty under the 2012 NDAA.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former United States military analyst who, while employed by the RAND Corporation, precipitated a national political controversy in 1971 when he released the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of U.S. government decision-making in relation to the Vietnam War, to The New York Times and other newspapers. Mr. Ellsberg is publicly supporting PFC Bradley Manning, and has been subjected to arrest at protests. He is 81 years old. Mr. Ellsberg was awarded the Right Livelihood Award in 2006. He is one of the most highly lauded government whistle-blowers in US history.

Noam Chomsky is an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, and activist. He us currently a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Linguistics & Philosophy at MIT, where he has taught for fifty years. Dr. Chomsky has gained a worldwide following as a political dissident for his analyses of the pernicious influence of economic elites on U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy. He claims double standards in a foreign policy preaching democracy and freedom for all while allying itself with non-democratic and repressive organizations. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992.

AND MANY OTHERS!!!!

Representative Justin Amash on NDAA 
Facebook
Amash NDAA Fact Check Sheet 

Stop the NDAA, USA PATRIOT ACT, NSA spying, and any other threat to liberty, democracy and freedom of the press.  Treat Journalism as Journalism and Terrorism as Terrorism---They are two very different issues with two very different goals.

Obama CAN close GITMO!!!

OBAMA CAN CLOSE GITMO!!!          here  here  here

In January, the State Department reassigned the special envoy who had been in charge of trying to persuade countries to take Guantanamo inmates approved for release, Daniel Fried, and did not replace him. That was widely seen as a signal that Obama was giving up on closing the prison any time soon. 

Obama has blamed Congress for interfering with his plan to close Guantanamo. Starting in 2011, Congress began restricting transfers out, saying the Defense Department first had to certify a number of things, including that the destination country was not a state sponsor of terrorism and would take action to make sure the individual would not threaten the United States.

Starting last year, Congress let some restrictions be waived if it was in the "national security interests" of the United States. Obama has not used the waiver or certification provisions.

Two years ago, Obama signed an executive order establishing extra review procedures for Guantanamo detainees to determine if continued detention were warranted, but the Periodic Review Boards have not been used.

This option looks fairly simple, since it involves carrying out the president's own executive order. But there may have been no rush to establish more reviews boards since prisoners cleared by earlier review boards are still being held.

Wells Dixon, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, suggested the administration could use court rulings to help get prisoners released. Two members of China's Muslim Uighur minority were resettled in El Salvador in April 2012, four years after a U.S. District Court in Washington ruled there were no grounds to hold them.

When prisoners challenge their detention in federal court, the government could decide not to contest the case, paving the way for a court order effecting the prisoner's release, said Dixon. He said that could happen in any of the more than 100 detainee "habeus corpus" cases filed in federal court.

Obama could instruct the Justice Department to stop contesting those cases.


here
The impromptu comments were a little surprising for their rhetoric, sounding more like a 2007 campaign speech than the words of someone who has been U.S. president for four-plus years. As the New Yorker's Amy Davidson put it, "He spoke as if he had happened upon the place, like a bystander."

My Letter To President Obama

I, like many Americans fist heard you speak in 2004 in Boston. It was a moving speech about the need to move beyond partisanship and showed poignant examples of how we are more alike then different. We are all Americans, we all want to be healthy, happy, safe and free, with enough money to support our families and have the next generation do better than the previous one-----that is the American Dream, and I appreciate your efforts to restore the American Dream for the Middle Class.

I appreciate your fight for Obamacare, Immigration Reform, smart tough gun laws to prevent mass murders and reduce gun violence, and your efforts to repair the economy and regulate Wall Street after the Great Recession.

As a liberal I feel you could have fought harder for better policies in some areas, but I also acknowledge Republicans’ opposition to almost any idea you brought up----even when they hadn’t heard it yet, and even when your ideas were originally GOP ideas.

I do not see scandals in gun laws, Fast and Furious, Obamacare, Benghazi or the IRS, not even bringing up claims that you are a Kenyan Muslim Socialist. There are of course examples of problems with Benghazi, IRS, Obamacare, ways these issues could have been handled better, and I mourn the unnecessary loss of any American who hasn’t died a natural death of old age.

And now to the complaints---no public option in Obamacare, no fight for Medicare for all,  leniency towards Wall St, banks, not holding Bush administration accountable, DRONES, NDAA, NSA spying, prosecuting Whistleblowers, treating journalism as terrorism,

Mr. President it is a shame when your comments on Egypt can be applied to you and your failures to adhere to your campaign promises of transparency and a reevaluation of our policies in response to terrorism---I am disappointed by your intentional dismissal of those who voice concerns about American policies both at home and abroad.  We elected you twice now seeking a change from the Bush years of military bravado, selective adherence to the Constitution, and ignoring dissident’s voices seeking to appeal to our higher ideals instead of a faster complacency and feeling of security when all we achieved was security theater and fanning the flames of extremism both abroad and at home.

I have read “”Dreams from my Father”” and “”The Audacity of Hope”” and admired and respected your understanding of the complexities of American and international issues and history, and I felt that you sought to bring about a new understanding of foreign and domestic policy. I am not upset that you are trying to change America for the better with a more progressive agenda to move America forward, restore the Middle class, etc.  I feel betrayed when I see that you are pursuing policies that even Bush avoided or pursued to a lesser extent than you have---prosecuting whistleblowers, increasing drone strikes in undeclared war zones, even killing 4 American citizens, NDAA authorization to indefinitely detain Americans without due process, NSA spying that collects American’s data by default.  We the American people, progressives with real complaints and ways to address them, are asking for you to hear us and make us proud once again----you still have time before you leave office in 2016.

Your speech on the recent violence in Egypt  from August 15^th

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning, everybody.

I just finished a discussion with my national security team about the situation in Egypt, and I wanted to provide an update about our response to the events of the last several days.

Let me begin by stepping back for a moment. The relationship between the United States and Egypt goes back decades. It's rooted in our respect of Egypt as a nation, an ancient center of civilization and a cornerstone for peace in the Middle East. It's also rooted in our ties to the Egyptian people, forged through a long-standing partnership.

Just over two years ago, America was inspired by the Egyptians' -- people desire for change as millions of Egyptians took to the streets to defend their dignity and

demand a government that was responsive to their aspirations for political freedom and economic opportunity. (and what can I ask was your response to OCCUPY WALL STREET and our demands??).

And we said at the time that change would not come quickly or easily, but we did align ourselves with a set of principles: nonviolence, a respect for universal rights, and a process for political and economic reform. In doing so, we were guided by values but also by interests, because we believe nations are more stable and more successful when they're guided by those principles as well.

We know that many Egyptians, millions of Egyptians, perhaps even a majority of Egyptians were calling for a change in course. And while we do not believe that force is the way to resolve political differences, after the military's intervention several weeks ago, there remained a chance for reconciliation and an opportunity to pursue a democratic path. Instead, we've seen a more dangerous path taken, through arbitrary arrests, a broad crackdown on Mr. Morsi's associations and supporters and now, tragically, violence that's taken the lives of hundreds of people and wounded thousands more.

The United States strongly condemns the steps that have been taken by Egypt's interim government and security forces. We deplore violence against civilians. We support universal rights essential to human dignity, including the right to peaceful protest. We oppose the pursuit of martial law, which denies those rights to citizens under the principle that security trumps individual freedom or that might makes right. And today the United States extends its condolences to the families or those who were killed and those who were wounded.

Given the depths of our partnership with Egypt, our national security interest in this pivotal part of the world and our belief that engagement can support a transition back to a democratically elected civilian government, we've sustained our commitment to Egypt and its people. But while we want to sustain our relationship with Egypt, our traditional cooperation cannot continue as usual when civilians are being killed in the streets and rights are being rolled back.

Let me say that the Egyptian people deserve better than what we've seen over the last several days. And to the Egyptian people, let me say the cycle of violence and escalation needs to stop. We call on the Egyptian authorities to respect the universal rights of the people. We call on those who are protesting to do so peacefully and condemn the attacks that we've seen by protesters, including on churches.

We believe that the state of emergency should be lifted, (SO DO WE!!! Its time to end the NDAA, PATRIOT ACT, and Section 215 and 702 abuse of American’s data surveillance)

that a process of national reconciliation should begin, that all parties need to have a voice in Egypt's future, that the rights of women and religious minorities should be respected and that commitments must be kept to pursue transparent reforms to the constitution and democratic elections of a parliament and a president.

We've been blamed by supporters of Morsi; we've been blamed by the other side as if we are supporters of Morsi. That kind of approach will do nothing to help Egyptians achieve the future that they deserve. We want Egypt to succeed. We want a peaceful, democratic, prosperous Egypt. That's our interest. But to achieve that, the Egyptians are going to have to do the work.

So America will work with all those in Egypt and around the world who support a future of stability that rests on a foundation of justice and peace and dignity. Thank you very much.

Selections from your Foreign Policy speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center August 1 2007 as a candidate for president, a reflection of the man I voted for and supported.

Obama's Speech at Woodrow Wilson Center

Illinois Senator Barack Obama, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, gave this August 2007 speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center.

Thank you Lee, for hosting me here at the Wilson Center, and for your leadership of both the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group. You have been a steady voice of reason in an unsteady time.

Let me also say that my thoughts and prayers are with your colleague, Haleh Esfandiari, and her family. I have made my position known to the Iranian government. It is time for Haleh to be released. It is time for Haleh to come home. 

(unfortunately your record is no better with Abdulelah Haider Shaye, whom President Barack Obama once personally lobbied to have remain in jail
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/24/197554/yemeni-president-pardons-reporter.html) 

Thanks to the 9/11 Commission, we know that six years ago this week President Bush received a briefing with the headline: “Bin Ladin determined to strike in U.S.”

It came during what the Commission called the “summer of threat,” when the “system was blinking red” about an impending attack. But despite the briefing, many felt the danger was overseas, a threat to embassies and military installations. The extremism, the resentment, the terrorist training camps, and the killers were in the dark corners of the world, far away from the American homeland.

Then, one bright and beautiful Tuesday morning, they were here.

And what we saw that morning was a challenge to a new generation.

The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph. And so a war over secession became an opportunity to set the captives free. An attack on Pearl Harbor led to a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific. An Iron Curtain was punctured by democratic values, new institutions at home, and strong international partnerships abroad.

After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20^th century ideology that insisted that the 21^st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

And so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support “a dumb war, a rash war” in Iraq. I worried about a “U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences” in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we “finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda.”

The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.

Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.

According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from al Qaeda is “persistent and evolving.” Iraq is a training ground for terror, torn apart by civil war. Afghanistan is more violent than it has been since 2001. Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan. Israel is besieged by emboldened enemies, talking openly of its destruction. Iran is now presenting the broadest strategic challenge to the United States in the Middle East in a generation. Groups affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda operate worldwide. Six years after 9/11, we are again in the midst of a “summer of threat,” with bin Ladin and many more terrorists determined to strike in the United States.

What’s more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.

It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.

And worse – he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Beyond Pakistan, there is a core of terrorists – probably in the tens of thousands – who have made their choice to attack America. So the second step in my strategy will be to build our capacity and our partnerships to track down, capture or kill terrorists around the world, and to deny them the world’s most dangerous weapons. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. This requires a broader set of capabilities, as outlined in the Army and Marine Corps’s new counter-insurgency manual. I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists. We need to recruit, train, and equip our armed forces to better target terrorists, and to help foreign militaries to do the same. This must include a program to bolster our ability to speak different languages, understand different cultures, and coordinate complex missions with our civilian agencies.

To succeed, we must improve our civilian capacity. The finest military in the world is adapting to the challenges of the 21^st century. But it cannot counter insurgent and terrorist threats without civilian counterparts who can carry out economic and political reconstruction missions – sometimes in dangerous places. As President, I will strengthen these civilian capacities, recruiting our best and brightest to take on this challenge. I will increase both the numbers and capabilities of our diplomats, development experts, and other civilians who can work alongside our military. We can’t just say there is no military solution to these problems. We need to integrate all aspects of American might.

I will also strengthen our intelligence. This is about more than an organizational chart. We need leadership that forces our agencies to share information, and leadership that never – ever – twists the facts to support bad policies. But we must also build our capacity to better collect and analyze information, and to carry out operations to disrupt terrorist plots and break up terrorist networks.

And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.

When you travel to the world’s trouble spots as a United States Senator, much of what you see is from a helicopter. So you look out, with the buzz of the rotor in your ear, maybe a door gunner nearby, and you see the refugee camp in Darfur, the flood near Djibouti, the bombed out block in Baghdad. You see thousands of desperate faces.

Al Qaeda’s new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle Eastand Europe. Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?

Mr President THIS IS CRUCIAL

THIS IMAGE OF THE HELICOPTER AS A SIGN OF AID INSTEAD OF BOMBS I STILL REMEMBER TODAY----THIS SPEECH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I VOTED FOR YOU---THE OTHERS WAS 2004 DNC AND THE RESPONSE TO REVEREND WRIGHT---YOUR MOVING SPEECH ON RACE---NOW MY QUESTION IS “”DO DRONES NOT COUNT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT SEEN UNTIL THE BOMB DROPS KILLING INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND “”ARAB OR MUSLIM MEN OF AGE TO BE CONSIDERED MILITANTS””

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim– nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. (is this your 1% doctrine??) The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.

And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame – blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun. (well at least you know they don’t hate us for our freedoms)

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show – through deeds as well as words – that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope. (your words move me to tears of hope, but unfortunately your actions move me to tears of feeling betrayed)

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say – as Secretary Rumsfeld did – “Freedom is untidy.” (lets hope The Daily Show doesn’t find the tape of you saying similar statements) I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy.

This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the days of compromising our values are over. (oops)

Major General Paul Eaton had a long and distinguished career serving this country. It included training the Iraqi Army. After Abu Ghraib, his senior Iraqi advisor came into his office and said: “You have no idea how this will play out on the streets of Baghdad and the rest of the Arab world. How can this be?” This was not the America he had looked up to.

As the counter-insurgency manual reminds us, we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side. But because the Administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies. Because the Administration cast aside international norms that reflect American values, we are less able to promote our values. When I am President, America will reject torture without exception. America is the country that stood against that kind of behavior, and we will do so again. (indefinite detention is un-American as well, and yes I am aware of FDR)

I also will reject a legal framework that does not work. There has been only one conviction at Guantanamo. It was for a guilty plea on material support for terrorism. The sentence was 9 months. There has not been one conviction of a terrorist act. I have faith in America’s courts, and I have faith in our JAGs. As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, (and replace it with NDAA) and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists. (“”I will also classify journalism as terrorism, because hey, you never know””)

This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. (“”or I’ll just claim that they don’t abuse 4^th Amendment, even though they do)

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. ----HA!!! Was that a prediction??

It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.

Information sharing with state and local governments must be a two-way street, because we never know where the two pieces of the puzzle are that might fit together – the tip from Afghanistan, and the cop who sees something suspicious on Michigan Avenue. I will increase funding to help train police to gather information and connect it to the intelligence they receive from the federal government. I will address the problem in our prisons, where the most disaffected and disconnected Americans are being explicitly targeted for conversion by al Qaeda and its ideological allies.

We are in the early stages of a long struggle. Yet since 9/11, we’ve heard a lot about what America can’t do or shouldn’t do or won’t even try. We can’t vote against a misguided war in Iraq because that would make us look weak, or talk to other countries because that would be a reward. We can’t reach out to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who reject terror because we worry they hate us. We can’t protect the homeland because there are too many targets, or secure our people while staying true to our values. We can’t get past the America of Red and Blue, the politics of who’s up and who’s down.

The America I know is the last, best hope for that child looking up at a helicopter. It’s the country that put a man on the moon; that defeated fascism and helped rebuild Europe. It’s a country whose strength abroad is measured not just by armies, but rather by the power of our ideals, and by our purpose to forge an ever more perfect union at home.

That’s the America I know. We just have to act like it again to write that next chapter in the American story. If we do, we can keep America safe while extending security and opportunity around the world. We can hold true to our values, and in doing so advance those values abroad. And we can be what that child looking up at a helicopter needs us to be: the relentless opponent of terror and tyranny, and the light of hope to the world.

To make this story reality, it’s going to take Americans coming together and changing the fundamental direction of this country. It’s going to take the service of a new generation of young people. (Mr President we are hear and we are speaking out---Occupy, Manning, Snowden, but you refuse to listen and address us seriously---you “”appreciate the debate”” but prosecute those who expose the info that leads to the honest debate necessary)

It’s going to take facing tragedy head-on and turning it into the next generation’s triumph. That is a challenge that I welcome. Because when we do make that change, we’ll do more than win a war – we’ll live up to that calling to make America, and the world, safer, freer, and more hopeful than we found it. (Mr President you still have time before you leave office in 2016 to make your promises reality and restore our hope in you)