Yesterday, 12 Americans were put into jail cells as punishment for their role in a protest against Barack Obama’s continued operation of the unconstitutional prisons at Guantanamo Bay. The prisons were the site of torture conducted under the orders President George W. Bush – torture that continues to go unpunished under Barack Obama.

orange jumpsuitsThe protest, organized by Witness Against Torture, wasn’t in favor of the Guantanamo prisoners in particular. Rather, it was in favor of the legal principle that, in every place under the jurisdiction of the United States government, people charged with crimes must be given due process, including a fair and speedy trial. The people held prisoner at Guantanamo are being kept behind bars without any reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. Some of them haven’t even been formally accused of any crime.

In the United States of America, no one – not even people accused of terrible crimes – is supposed to be held prisoner on the mere presumption of guilt. When our government continues to engage in such indefinite, unconstitutional imprisonment, it becomes an honorable thing for protesters to be placed behind bars themselves in protest against the corrosion of our nation’s constitution.

The Washington Post prides itself as a chronicler of national politics and a thorough journal of activities around the nation’s capital city. So when I learned of a January 11 protest against the Guantanamo detention center on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and of a January 12 protest against the illegal use of drones to kill innocent people at CIA headquarters, I thought the Washington Post would at least mention the occurrence of the events in their very own city.

I was wrong; they didn’t cover either protest. Instead, the Washington Post gave space to the birthday of the world’s oldest gorilla. The gorilla lives in Ohio.

Supreme Court Guantanamo Protest in Washington DC January 11 2013

To see pictures of the Guantanamo protest at the Supreme Court this past Friday, visit War is a Crime. To learn about the drone protest, which apparently shut down an entrance to the CIA for a time, visit DC Direct Action News.

Amnesty International has issued its annual report about the condition of human rights in all the nations of the world. The organization has this to say about human rights in the United States: “Forty-three men were executed during the year, and concerns about cruel prison conditions continued. Scores of detainees remained in indefinite military detention at Guantanamo. The administration announced its intention to pursue the death penalty against six of these detainees in trials by military commission. Some 3,000 people were held in the US detention facility on the Bagram air base in Afghanistan by the end of the year. Use of lethal force in the counter-terrorism context raised serious concerns, as did continuing reports of the use of excessive force in the domestic law enforcement context.”

Barack Obama has been President for more than three years now. Human rights conditions now existing cannot be attributed merely to leftover problems from the terms of George W. Bush.

Obama supporters: How do you react to Amnesty International’s description of human rights under President Obama?

Last weekend, when an Air Force captain assigned the task of defending a man accused in taking part in the planning of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 started talking about the torture of his client by the United States government in Guantanamo, a government security officer cut off the audio feed so that journalists listening to the trial in a separate room could not hear what was being said. The captain had just started to say, “the torture that my client was subjected to by the men and women wearing the big boy pants down at the CIA makes it impossible…”, but then all that could be heard was white noise.

This censorship of information took place at a special kind of military trial, rather than the normal kind of criminal trial that American law before September 11, 2001 would suggest that an accused terrorist should be subjected to. The kind of military trial going on now was created after the crime, with new, lax rules explicitly crafted with the specific purpose of leading to the conviction of the accused in spite of problems with evidence. The rules were changed after the fact to deprive defendants accused of involvement in this particular crime of legal rights typically given during trials in the United States.

kangaroo in a formal judge costumeGiven the loose new rules of justice at this military trial, it was part of the plan all along in these military trials to have journalists shoved aside into a separate space, and fed an audio feed of the trial, with a military security officer given a special button to cut the audio feed when a top secret piece of government information might be revealed. So, it sounds as if there was some sort of government secret about torture at the Guantanamo prisons that the military was afraid was about to be revealed by the Air Force captain serving as lawyer for the defendants.

But, yesterday, days after the event, the military released what it says is a transcript of what was said during the period of court censorship, when journalists could not hear the audio. The military asserts that the Air Force captain didn’t talk about torture at all during the censored part of the trial. The military claims that the Air Force captain was merely discussing court procedures with the judge.

Maybe that’s true. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it has no relevance on the defense of the accused. Maybe it does.

We can never know whether what the military says about this trial, and its censored moments, are true. There are reasonable grounds for doubt.

We have one organization, the U.S. military, running both the prosecution and the defense, as well as controlling the courtroom environment. That same organization, the U.S. military has been accused of torturing the defendants. It was that organization, the U.S. military, that chose to censor what appears to be discussion in the court about that torture. Now, that same organization, the U.S. military, is telling us that no discussion of torture took place in the censored period of the military trial.

They military, in this circumstance, is asking the American people to trust them that what it says about the trial is true. They’re asking us to accept it on faith.

That’s insane.

Then again, the United States of America has gone a little bit insane since the attacks of September 11, 2001. The kind of justice that Americans would have considered unreasonable before the attacks now seems reasonable to many.

True reason, of course, does not change when confronted by fearful events. The standard for criminal justice in America is that conviction needs to take place only when it has stood against the test of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt isn’t dictated by the fears of the moment, or by political expediency. It is doubt that is examined through reason.

For hundreds of years, reasoning minds in the United States agreed that a trial, long delayed, with testimony obtained through coercion and torture, in which the defense and the prosecution were part of the same team, and court records withheld from outside scrutiny, could not produce a trustworthy result. Now, we’re being expected to accept these methods as reliable and trustworthy, because of the fear that the crime of terrorism has provoked.

Many Americans have become so detached from an ordinary understanding of the reason of law that they are declaring that the accused deserve to be subjected to the military tribunals’ sloppy kangaroo court standards, because of the crimes that they have committed. They have a circular understanding of justice, in which the accused are punished for being guilty before they have been reasonably found, through trial, to be guilty.

It’s because the crimes of September 11, 2001 were so horrible that the trials of anyone accused of involvement in those crimes must meet the highest standards of justice. Instead, as this week’s mysterious courtroom censorship illustrates, the American justice system has been pursuing the lowest standards, seeking out vengeance rather than a reasonable outcome.

There is no nationwide Liberal Party in the United States. So, when we think about what a liberal is, and what a liberal is not, in the USA, we should think about ideology, rather than that party loyalty.

A liberal is someone who supports liberal ideals: Peace, human rights, constitutional freedoms, eradication of the corrupt influence of corporations in American politics. That definition sounds obvious.

The problem is that many liberals aren’t liberals any more.

These days, many people who call themselves “liberal” support downright anti-liberal policies. In fact, a large number of people who describe themselves as “liberal” now support some of the most radically right wing policies of George W. Bush.

This sad new political reality is reflected in a new poll by the Washington Post. The poll finds that 53 percent of people who call themselves “liberal Democrats” support keeping the unconstitutional, extralegal prison at Guantanamo Bay open. 55 percent of these self-described “liberal Democrats” support allowing the President to perform long-distance executions of American citizens without criminal trial.

making excuses for barack obamaGlenn Greenwald calls this turn of “liberal Democrat” opinion to embrace the policies begun by George W. Bush “repulsive” – and he’s right. Greenwald is also correct in identifying the reason for the great liberal flip flop: Barack Obama has embraced these Bush policies, and many people who like to call themselves “liberal” really don’t have any ideology. They just love Barack Obama, and so they figure that if Barack Obama does something, it must be okay.

These people aren’t liberals. They’re blind partisans. They’re followers. They’re fans. They treat politics as if it’s a football game. They’ve decided that they support the Democratic team, and whatever the leaders of the Democratic team tell them is right, they will believe is right.

This lazy attitude is so low that it isn’t even immoral. It’s absolutely amoral.

Now, before I go too far, I want to make it clear that I do not believe that there is no difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. There is a significant difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The biggest difference, however, seems to be that Democrats think whatever Democratic Party leaders tell them to think, while Republicans think whatever Republican Party leaders tell them to think.

Liberals are supposed to be against the corrupt influence of corporate power in elections. Now, though, Barack Obama has openly invited corporate-run Super PACs to make independent expenditures of money that comes from nobody-knows-where on his behalf. So, many liberals are praising Obama’s move, saying that it shows that he’s strong.

Liberals are supposed to be against Presidents ignoring congressional authority and declaring war whenever they want to. Once Barack Obama did it, though, too many liberals rushed to defend Obama’s action, saying that anyone who thins that Presidents couldn’t take the nation off to war on a whim is an idiot.

Liberals are supposed to be environmentalists. But, when Barack Obama announced that he wouldn’t even try to pass legislation to deal with climate change, many liberals clapped loudly, saying, “President Obama sure is good at that long game!” When Barack Obama declared that he would expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, even though there are no new regulations from Congress to protect us against the kind of massive disaster that took place when the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig exploded, large numbers of Democrats willingly pretended that they had no idea that the largest environmental disaster in U.S. history had taken place less than two years ago.

What about the rest of us? What about the minority of “liberals” who actually are liberal? We’re frustrated. We’re depressed. A lot of the time, we don’t know what to do. Sometimes, we feel like we just want to throw in the towel, and give up, because there’s no hope, and nobody that we can believe in, and nothing we can do.

But deep in our hearts, we know that’s BULLSHIT.

Here’s What We DO:

We replace our despair with anger, and we grow a backbone.

We rip that Barack Obama bumper sticker off the car. We toss that Barack Obama campaign button in the garbage. We throw that Barack Obama tshirt on a campfire and piss on it while it burns.

Then, we pick someone better. There are two good, really good, liberal choices this year: Their names are Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson. Both are running for President. Pick one to support. Support both, if you like.

Then, the next time you meet one of your “liberal” friends who starts talking about how wonderful Barack Obama is, you do not turn your head away sheepishly and change the subject of the conversation. You say to your friend, “I thought you were liberal, but I don’t understand how any liberal can support the terrible right wing policies that Barack Obama has been promoting. Many of them are the same policies that you told me you were against when George W. Bush promoted them. Why have you changed your values?

Then, you pull a Rocky Anderson for President button or a Jill Stein for President button out of your pocket and you pin it on your chest.

You put a bumper sticker on your car for Stein or Anderson, too. You wear a tshirt to the protests that the Democrats don’t support anymore.

You hold a house party for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson, and you invite your liberal friends. You’ll find out which ones are liberal and which ones are “liberal”.

What you do is get active and stay active, because the fact is that being sad and silent about Barack Obama’s terrible embrace of right wing politics is just as bad as being an unthinking Obama loyalist.

For our country and for our world, we need better leadership than what Barack Obama is willing to offer. There’s only one way for us to get better leadership: We have to be better citizens.

Candidate Barack Obama, February 27 2008, Columbus Ohio:

We will lead by having the highest standards, by setting an example of human rights and civil rights, due process and rule of law, which is why I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. And we will end torture and rendition because you will have elected a president who has taught the Constitution and believes in the Constitution and will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

All these things are possible if you are ready for change. But you can’t just sit back and wait for it. You’ve got to want it. You’ve got to work for it. You’ve got to go out and vote for it. There are people who are now saying, “Well, Obama may talk a good game, but he hasn’t been in Washington long enough.” That’s what they’ll tell you. And I’ve got to remind them, to remind them that I know they want to season and stew me a little while longer, boil all the hope out of me, but the American people understand we don’t need the same old folks doing the same old things, playing the same old games over and over again. We need something different.

President Barack Obama, Updated for 2012:

We will lead by having the highest standards, by setting an example of human rights and civil rights, due process and rule of law, which is why I will close Guantanamo I will not close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus I will not restore habeas corpus. And we will end torture put the power-drill interrogator in charge of procedural compliance and rendition while rendition will continue because you will have elected a president who has taught the Constitution and believes in the Constitution and will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

All these things are possible if you are ready for change. But you can’t just sit back and wait for it. You’ve got to want it. You’ve got to work for it. You’ve got to go out and vote for it. There are people who are now saying, “Well, Obama may talk a good game, but he hasn’t been in Washington long enough.” That’s what they’ll tell you. And I’ve got to remind them, to remind them that I know they want to season and stew me a little while longer, boil all the hope out of me, but the American people understand we don’t need the same old folks doing the same old things, playing the same old games over and over again. We need something different.

All these things are not going to happen. Never mind.

Yesterday, more than one thousand people marched in Washington D.C. in protest against U.S. government policies, begun under George W. Bush and continued under Barack Obama, that enable torture and authorize the lengthy imprisonment of people without criminal trial.

protest against imprisonment without trial

171 of the protesters were dressed in orange jumpsuits and black hoods, as the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been made to dress. 171 prisoners are thought to remain at Guantanamo Bay to this day.

The protesters in DC didn’t know what the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay might be guilty of, but that’s the point. In the system of law that the United States of America has known, there is a presumption of innocence. Guilt can only be constitutionally determined through due process of law, including protection from self-incrimination and a fair trial.

Those standards have been thrown away at Guantanamo Bay, and now, thanks to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act last month, and Barack Obama’s signature on the legislation, the low standards of justice that have been enforced at Guantanamo Bay are now in effect all across the USA. In this sense, the thousand protesters in DC yesterday were not just protesting for the prisoners at Guantanamo. They were protesting for the rights of us all.

After the social movement boom of the Occupy movement in the fall of 2011, followed by a police crackdown with thousands of arrests, there is motion afoot to pump new energy into the progressive movement by gathering activists together in January. If this Re-Occupy move is afoot, then you might say it has five toes:

  1. 1/11/12: A day of action in Washington DC against indefinite detention at Guantanamo
  2. 1/14/12: A jobs-not-jails march against mass imprisonment in Washington DC
  3. 1/16/12: Occupy the Dream demonstrations at Federal Reserve Banks around the country
  4. 1/17/12: Occupy Congress convergence on Capitol Hill
  5. 1/20/12: Occupy the Courts demonstration against corporate personhood at the Supreme Court and local federal courthouses

Each of these events (one today and all within the next two weeks) has some connection to the occupations. For Occupy the Dream, Occupy Congress and Occupy the Courts, the connection is as clear as a matter of titling. Both the Jobs not Jails march and today’s DC march against indefinite detention have been strongly promoted with fliers and word of mouth since the Washington DC occupations got their start in October 2011. But who’s supporting these different demonstrations now? Are all the actions similarly supported, or are a few the runaway favorites? Are these actions being promoted by a common set of players making up a single collective entity we could call “The Movement,” or does the existence of so many protests indicate that behind the label of “Occupy” there are different factions competing for protesters?

To answer this question I took a quick look yesterday at who was active online yesterday in promotion of the events, tracking the events by name (and by any associated hashtag) in January 10 2012 posts on Twitter. The number of such posts is one indication of their popularity. Each graph below shows a single Twitter post about an action as a dot; the more dots, the more posts. In addition, we can look for central players in the organizational promotion of protests by looking for patterns in who’s being mentioned or whose Twitter posts are retweeted by others. Mentions and retweets are shown as lines connecting one Twitter post to another.

Tweets about the DC day of Action protesting 10 years of indefinite detention by the United States at Guantanamo Bay (January 11):

Close Gitmo action tweets on January 10 2012 for the January 11 2012 event in Washington DC

962 Twitter accounts were involved in making posts about the Guantanamo Bay detention day of action. The 10 most central players in #CloseGitmo’s network of Twitter posts: amnesty, aclu, garrisondoreck, adnanrsiddiqui0, amnestyonline, lsarsour, witnesstorture, aclu_nc, savebradley, and aclunv.

Tweets about the Jobs not Jails march in Washington DC (January 14):

Twitter posts mentioning Jobs not Jails on January 10 2012 (arrows show retweets and mentions)

10 Twitter accounts were actively promoting the Jobs not Jails march on January 10. Those ten (also the top ten) are lovelyab8, dctroydavis, rknjl, occupydcaction, copperflowers, rebellove_, occupypdx, cory1776radio, the_blackness48, and juicyjasdatass.

Tweets about Occupy The Dream day of action (January 16):

Twitter Posts mentioning the January 16 day of action on Martin Luther King Jr Day called Occupy the Dream

258 Twitter accounts were involved in making posts about the January 16 (not coincidentally Martin Luther King Jr. Day) day of action. The 10 most central players in Occupy the Dream’s network of Twitter posts: occupywallstnyc, occupiechicago, occupydreamows, occupychicago, mlkstudios, j15global, jamalhbryant, lancewatson, naacp_cfssb, and gailgriffin63.

Tweets about Occupy Congress protest (January 17):

Tweets mentioning the Occupy Congress protests scheduled for January 17 2012 in Washington DC

720 Twitter accounts were involved in making posts about January 17′s Occupy Congress protest. The 10 most central players in Occupy Congress’ network of Twitter posts: re_occupy, j17bot, occupywallstnyc, revolutionjedi, trutherton, occupycolleges, thenation, youranonnews, jan17bot, and korgasm_.

Tweets about Occupy The Courts protest (January 20):

Twitter Posts Mentioning "Occupy the Courts" protest of January 20 2012

129 Twitter accounts were involved in making posts about the upcoming Occupy the Courts event. The 10 most central players in Occupy The Courts’ network of Twitter posts: gottalaff, occupysydmedia, canativeobt, oaktownpirate, road2congress, occupysanjose, occupybend, occupy_usa, rcooley123, and anoncommander.

These five “Occupy” actions show a great deal of variability, not only in size but also in the set of people and organizations most actively supporting them. The protests’ most avid promoters are largely different sets of accounts, indicating that these actions are not highly coordinated from some kind of conspiratorial control room. The Twitter promotion of these protests is being spearheaded by different sets of individual and organizational leaders — with the notable exception of the Twitter account occupywallstnyc, the main Occupy Wall Street Twitter account and only Twitter account I notice making the top 10 list for tweeting about more than one of these five actions.

Beneath the level of the social media leaders of these protests, are the other people who connect the protests by sharing news about more than one of them? Yes, to varying degrees. The following graph draws a tie between two protests if at least one person posted to Twitter about both of them. The number printed along with that tie indicates how many people posted about both protests on January 10 2012.

Graph: Number of Twitter Accounts Posting About Two Protest Actions on the same day: January 10, 2012

There’s only one pair of protests — Jobs Not Jails and Close Gitmo — that didn’t share a single poster in common that day, and some protests shared quite a few. More than 50 people jointly posted to Twitter about the Occupy Congress protest on January 17 and the Occupy the Dream protest on January 16, for instance. Among people talking online, there is a fair amount of shared interest in the multiple protests despite the fact that they’re being led from multiple centers. That’s a fair indication that this movement is not manufactured but rather a genuine grassroots phenomenon.