Saturday, December 4, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Black August in DC 2010
sponsored by the Black August Planning Organization (BAPO) For More INFO: 202-271-7763, Facebook, or black.august07@gmail.com
8/7 African Heritage Festival From noon to dusk at Roots Public Charter School, 15 Kennedy St NW
The African Heritage Festival will be an all day event featuring performances, food, vendors, info booths, and community services. Free admission; bring the whole family. For more info or vending opportunities, contact 202-256-2518
8/8 Discussion with Standish Willis, Esq. regarding the report that he submitted to the United Nations citing Human Rights violations as they relate to political prisoners in the United States
from 5-8 at Sankofa Video & Books, 2714 Georgia Ave NW, WDC
Read the report at www.ushrnetwork.org/sites/default/files/US_Political_Prisoners_Joint_Report_USA.pdf
This discussion will be a part of the film showing of “Can’t Jail the Revolution/Break Down the Walls”. For more info on the films, see below.
8/12 Performance and Discussion with Bilal Sunni Ali from 7-10pm at Roots Activity Learning Center, 6222 North Capitol St NW, WDC
This program will feature Republic of New Afrika citizen and world-class saxophonist, Bilal Sunni Ali. In the 1970s he was a member of Gil Scott-Heron’s Midnight Band. In 1981, Bilal was charged in the “Brinks Conspiracy” case along with Mutulu Shakur and his wife Fulani Ali. Defended by Chokwe Lumumba, Bilal and Fulani were able to beat the government’s trumped up case. He will speak from his perspective as a life-long freedom fighter and musician. Tickets are $15; for more info contact Baye Services at 202-256-2518.
8/14 Book Showcase and Discussion [2-4p]
from 2-4pm at Sankofa Video & Books, 2714 Georgia Ave NW, WDC
The Greatest Threat by political prisoner Marshall Eddie Conway.
The Greatest Threat puts the government’s war on the Panthers into historical context. Marshall “Eddie” Conway, a veteran of the Black Panther Party (and former Minister of Defense for the Baltimore chapter) who has been held as a political prisoner for four decades, has compiled the available documentation and research on COINTELPRO, and traced its dirty history, from the active repression of the black revolutionary movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s, to the conditions of Black America today and the dozens of political prisoners who remain in U.S. prisons on charges stemming from their involvement in the Black liberation movement.
The Discussion will be led by Baltimore BPP veteran Rev. Ann Chambers
8/21 Black Women and the Prison Industrial Complex
from 3-6pm at Sisterspace & Books, 3717 Georgia Ave NW, WDC
Co-sponsored by Sisterspace and D.A.D.A Sister’s Circle, BAPO will host Theresa Shoatz [daughter of Russell ‘Maroon’ Shoatz and Crystal Hayes [daughter of Robert Seth Hayes] as they discuss the cases and conditions of their fathers, as well as, how this relates to their own experiences. Also, as part of the discussion, Monica X, an activist with ONE DC, will speak from her personal experience as an ex-offender on the issue of the alarmingly high rise of incarcerated Black women who now represent the fastest growing demographic within the prison system.
8/26 “Let Your Motto Be Resistance”, Lecture by Dr. CR Gibbs
from 2-4pm at Sankofa Video & Books, 2714 Georgia Ave NW, WDC
Dr. Gibbs will give a historical account of slave rebellions and other forms of resistance to slavery in the Western hemisphere.
8/28 Happily Natural Day and 4th Annual Pilgrimage to Richmond, VA in honor of Gabriel’s Rebellion.
All Day (8a-8p) bus trip to RVA. $35. For ticket info contact 202-470-7780
This year our annual pilgrimage will coincide with Happily Natural Day. Participants will be exposed to the history and landmarks of Gabriel Prosser’s attempted revolt in 1800. We will also learn of the history of slavery as it relates to the area and visit the major slave port of the James River. Catered lunch and a DVD featuring a panel discussion on political prisoners will be included and before coming back to DC we will stop at Happily Natural Day.
Sankofa Sunday Sunday Film Series for Black August
Sankofa Video & Books, 2714 Georgia Ave, WDC
8/1 Finally Got the News
FINALLY GOT THE NEWS is a forceful, unique documentary that reveals the activities of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers inside and outside the auto factories of Detroit. Through interviews with the members of the movement, footage shot in the auto plants, and footage of leafleting and picketing actions, the film documents their efforts to build an independent black labor organization that, unlike the UAW, will respond to worker's problems, such as the assembly line speed-up and inadequate wages faced by both black and white workers in the industry. Beginning with a historical montage, from the early days of slavery through the subsequent growth and organization of the working class, FINALLY GOT THE NEWS focuses on the crucial role played by the black worker in the American economy.
8/8 Can’t Jail the Revolution/Break Down the Walls
These two 30 minute videos use footage compiled from over 40 social justice media productions to chronicle the perspectives of political prisoners and of war within the United States. Historical footage is combined with interviews of activists from revolutionary movements waged by African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans and Whites against oppression. The prisoners, victims of government sponsored attacks on liberation movements in the United States and its colonies, discuss how they and their companions have been murdered, forced underground, driven into exile and unjustly imprisoned since the late 60s.
8/15 Chicago 10
At the 1968 Democratic National Convention, anti-Vietnam War protestors who were denied permits for demonstrations repeatedly clashed with the Chicago Police Department. Tensions mounted, and an already fraught week culminated in riots broadcast live to a television audience of more than 50 million, further polarizing the nation. Seeking a scapegoat for the riots, the U.S. government held eight of the most vocal activists accountable for the violence and brought them to trial a year later. A parable of hope, courage and ultimate victory, CHICAGO 10’s unique and unconventional style uses motion-capture animation to portray actual events from the trial, recreating courtroom dramas based on transcripts and interviews. CHICAGO 10 moves from the streets of Chicago to the courtroom at an accelerated pace, giving the audience a ringside seat for one of the most controversial trials of the period.
8/22 Pete O’Neil: A Panther in Africa
The tumultuous period known as "the '60s" continues to cast a long shadow across the contemporary American experience. Few, if any, of the seminal conflicts that drove the era — civil rights, war and peace, racism, women's liberation — have been fully resolved today. Nor have all the key players in that national drama been tried, pardoned, punished, vindicated, or even allowed to come home. A Panther in Africa is the story of Pete O'Neal, one of the last exiles from the time of Black Power, when young rebels advocated black pride, unity, community service and sometimes, violence. Facing gun charges in Kansas City in 1970, O'Neal fled to Algeria, where he joined other Panther exiles. Unlike the others, however, O'Neal never found his way back to America. He moved on to Tanzania, where for over 30 years he has struggled to continue his life of social activism — and to hold on to his identity as an African-American.
8/29 Bastards of the Party
BASTARDS OF THE PARTY draws its title from this passage in “City of Quartz”: “The Crips and the Bloods are the bastard offspring of the political parties of the ’60s. Most of the gangs were born out of the demise of those parties. Out of the ashes of the Black Panther Party came the Crips and the Bloods and the other gangs.” BASTARDS OF THE PARTY traces the timeline from that “great migration” to the rise and demise of both the Black Panther Party and the US Organization in the mid- 1960s, to the formation of what is currently the culture of gangs in Los Angeles and around the world. The documentary also chronicles the role of the Los Angeles Police Department and the FBI in the evolution of gang culture. During his tenure from 1950 to 1966, Chief Robert Parker bolstered the ranks of the LAPD with white recruits from the south, who brought their racist attitudes with them. Parker’s racist sympathies laid the groundwork for the volatile relationship between the black community and the LAPD that persists today.
THERE ARE POLITICAL PRISONERS IN THE UNITED STATES
By Naji Mujahid
Leonard Peltier, Sundiata Acoli, Marshall ‘Eddie’ Conway, Imam Jamil Al-Amin, Mutulu Shakur, Sekou Odinga, Ruchell Magee…….. Do any of these names ring a bell? Probably not; they are what many consider to be Political Prisoners/Prisoners of War (PPs/POWs). They are not in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, or any other sovereign State that the United States would have us believe is undemocratic, evil, or backward. In fact, these individuals can be found languishing in the prisons of Federated States such as Maryland, Colorado, California, and New York. However, the United States does not acknowledge the presence of any (PPs/POWs) within its borders.
What is a Political Prisoner? The Special International Tribunal on the Violation of Human Rights of Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War in United States Prisons and Jails which convened on December 7 - 10, 1990 at Hunter College in New York City defined political prisoner as “a person incarcerated for actions carried out in support of legitimate struggles for self-determination or for opposing the illegal policies of the [United States] government and/or its political sub-divisions”. Moreover, it described prisoners of war as “those combatants struggling against colonial and alien domination and racist regimes captured as prisoners” and posited that they are “to be accorded the status of prisoners of war and their treatment should be in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949. (General Assembly Resolution 3103 (XXVIII)).”
The aforementioned PPs and those like them have not only been denied acknowledgement as such, but they have been cast as common criminals and thereby the legitimacy of their struggle for self- determination has been denied. Self-determination is a human right codified in Article 1, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. It is the right of the people to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
Negros, Blacks, African-Americans, or whatever the proper nomenclature may be, have been systematically denied this right since their collective introduction to the Western Hemisphere by European slave traders. Since that time, as the United States has evolved the relationship of African descendents to the power structure has remained constant. Blacks in the US are an exploited class of people perpetually disadvantaged by their origins; truly an internal colony within the US. The extent of this is further manifested by the absence of any real restorative action, such as reparations, taken by the government.
Concomitantly, any actions taken by the people, to either force a redress of grievances or produce a self-interested solution to the inherited problems has been attacked and treated as a criminal matter. Just as the Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case determined that “Blacks had no rights that Whites were bound to respect” the Black Panther Party was labeled as “public enemy number one” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the nation’s federal police force, in 1968. This designation led to increased repression by the Bureau and other national, state, and local agencies; to date, there are scores of individuals (Black, White, Native American, Puerto Rican, and others) still in prison, many in horrendous conditions.
Illustrative of the aforementioned repression are the cases of Geronimo Pratt, Dhoruba Bin-Wahad, and Fred Hampton. Pratt was the leader of the BPP in Los Angeles and Hampton the leader in Chicago. In early December of 1969, within days of each other, police raided Hampton’s home and the LA Panther office where Pratt slept. In both cases, highly placed FBI informants within both chapters supplied the police with floor plans and other information about both locations. In the case of Hampton, the FBI agent drugged him and Defense Minister Mark Clark with a substance that induced sleep. When the raids occurred, it was done with guns blazing; the police shot through walls where the suspected Panther’s were, there was no warrant and no suspected crime, they were coming for blood. Their idea was to initiate a gun battle and use it for justification to arrest survivors. There were no casualties in LA, but in Chicago, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were both killed in their sleep and Hampton’s pregnant wife was arrested. In LA, there were no casualties and, in fact, the Panthers were able to engage the police in a 4 hour shootout. They surrendered after the public and press had gathered. Of course, they were arrested, but the only charge that the police could get to stick was a minor conspiracy to possess illegal weapons charge; the 13 that were arrested were all acquitted of conspiracy to assault or murder police officers.
Three years later, Pratt was framed by the FBI for an unsolved murder that occurred in 1968. Subsequently, he did 27 years until he was able to prove that the FBI had set him up and he was released. Similarly, Dhoruba Bin-Wahad, who was a prominent figure in the New York BPP chapter, was indicted for the attempted murder of two police officers in 1971. At this time the NYPD and FBI were involved in a joint operation called “Newkill”. Bin-Wahad was convicted and did 19 years before he was able to prove that the FBI set him up and he was acquitted of the charges.
History proves that US citizens who actively oppose government policy and institutionalized social and economic disparities become likely targets for disruption, destruction, and neutralization. Those who still languish in prison have not been as fortunate as Pratt and Bin-Wahad to be able to prove that they were set up, but in those two cases there is clear proof that set-ups occur. Moreover, in the FBI files of their Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) and the Senate Church Committee Reports (97-455) there is proof that it happens. Martin Luther King, Jr. the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and famous pacifist was arrested 16 times, possibly more, and later assassinated. If he was not dead, quite possibly, he would be in prison. It is a travesty that a country that so fervently promotes the ideals of freedom, has allowed for sincere freedom fighters to be locked away for decades and forgotten. Meanwhile, the election of a Black man as President is widely considered indicative of a change in American social values. Barak Obama, as intelligent and charismatic as he may be, does not represent change. The true representatives of change are in prison.
Submission to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review: Stakholder report on Political Prisoners/Political Repression
Submission to the United Nations Universal Periodic Review
Ninth Session of the Working Group on the UPR
Human Rights Council
22 November – 3 December 2010
POLITICAL REPRESSION – POLITICAL PRISONERS
Submitted by:
National Conference of Black Lawyers
Malcolm X Center for Self Determination
Endorsed by the following 34 organizations and 53 individuals:
Harold Rogers, Coalition of Black Trade Unionists; Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright; Association Americana de Jurists (American Association of Jurists); Bob Brown, All-African People’s Revolutionary Party (GC); Ramona Ortega, Cidadao Global; Jane Frankin, Author; National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression; Professor Robert Starks, Jacob Caruthers Center for Inner-City Studies; Rev. Paul Jakes, Christian Council on Urban Affairs; Sali Vickie Casanova, Black People Against Police Torture: Steve Saltzman, Civil Rights Attorney; Lawrence Kennon, Civil Rights Attorney; Black People Against Police Torture; Susan Gzesh, Human Rights Educator; Dr. Yvonne King, Educator; Atty. Efia Nwangaza; Alderman Lionel J. Baptiste, Attorney; Cliff Kelley, WVON Talk Show Host*;Calvin Cook, Black United Fund Illinois*; Family And friends of Dr. Mutulu Shakur: The Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee; AbdudDharr M.K. Abdullah, National Islamic Solidarity Front; Claude Marks, Director, Freedom Archives; People’s Law Office-Chicago, Illinois; Peter and Barbara Clark, Leonard Peltier Defense Committee-Support Group Coordinators; Jeffrey Segal, Attorney at Law, Louisville, Ky; Kamm Howard, Chicago Chapter, National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, N’COBRA; Judith Mirkinson, San Francisco Women In Black; Leah Pemberton: Yusufu Mosley, Campaign In Support of C# Prisoners; Hondo T’Chikwa, Spears & Shield Publications; Rasheda Weaver, Community Activitist; Standish E. Willis, Civil Rights Attorney, Chicago, Illinois; Alice and Edward “Buzz” Palmer, educators; Alice Kim, A Movement Re-Imagining Change (ARC); Anne Lamb, NYC Jericho Movement; Chicago Committee To Defend The Bill of Rights; Dorothy Burge, Educator, Chicago; Baba Jahahara Amen-RA Alkebulan-Ma’at, Past National Co-Chair of National Coalition of Blacks for Reparation in America (N’COBRA), Oakland, California; Patricia Hill, African-American Police League and Chicago Human Rights Council; Prof. Soffiyah Elijah, Harvard Law School, advisor to the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights; Henry English, Black United Fund of Illinois*; Prexy Nesbitt, Educator; Bill Ware; Randolph Stone, University of Chicago School of Law, Clinical Professor, Mandell Clinic; Josh Khaleed London, Shut-Up Prison Ministry; Emile Schepers, Ph.D., Great Falls Virginia; Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, Berkeley, CA; Jeffrey “Free” Luers, Earth First! Prisoner Support Project, Portland, Oregon; Prof. Raoul Contreras, Chair, Indiana Univ. NW, Minority Studies Dept*; Indiana U Social Justice Student Group*; Malcolm X Grassroots Movement for Self Determination; Larry Holmes, Activist NYC; Bonnie Kerness, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)*; Bruce A. Dixon, Journalist; Black Agenda Report; King Downing, Director, Human Rts-Racial Justice Center; Nahal Zamani and Annette Dickerson, Center for Constitutional Rights; Thandisizwe Chimurenga, Journalist; Dr. Kwame Kalamara, Educator; Hugh Esco, Georgia Green Party; Kevin Gray, author.
I. Executive Summary
Background and Framework for Testimony
1. A Congressional Sub-Committee known as The “Church Committee”, (1976) made factual findings which amounted to massive human rights violations against U.S. citizens based on race, political ideas, and political affiliations. In the final reports of the Committee, permanent means of congressional review were recommended. None of the recommendations addressed the human rights violations suffered by dozens of political prisoners who were victimized by the U.S. government’s political repression against African-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Native American communities. Such repression resulted in murders, injuries, false arrests, malicious prosecutions and lengthy imprisonments of scores of political activists. Many of these political prisoners and prisoners of war languish in prisons throughout the United States. U.S. political prisoners have languished in U.S. prisons for decades under cruel and inhumane conditions. Several have died in prison; others have endured years of solitary confinement, poor medical health care, various other forms of abuse, and perfunctory parole hearings resulting in routine denial of release.
2. The cluster group is comprised of NGOs, grassroots organizations, church groups, attorney organizations, elected officials, college professors, law professionals, students, concerned citizens, and others.
II. Scope of International Obligations
3. The United States is a member of the United Nations. The UN Charter commits all member States to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,”
4. The United States played an active role in the preparation and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UDHR lays down fundamental economic, social, cultural, political and civil rights which includes the right to life, liberty and security of person, right to recognition as a person before the law, freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
5. The United States has treaties as follows:
A. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) which includes Article 2, in part, that the U.S. “…undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation; (b) Each State Party undertakes not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations. Article 5 of the CERD provides that the States shall “…undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour; or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: (a) The right to equal treatment before the tribunals and all other bodies administering justice; (b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution; and Article 5(d)(vii) guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; (viii) the right to freedom of opinion and expression; (ix) the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
B. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
III. Constitutional and Legislative Framework
6. “The Church Committee.” Following the “Watergate Scandal,” the United States Senate conducted a thorough review of the function, operation, and administration of the U.S. intelligence community. A special committee, the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities was established to conduct the sweeping audit of national intelligence services. Known as the “Church Committee” after its chairman Frank Church, the committee investigated not only the actions and operations of the intelligence and security services, but also abuses of those services by the Office of the President. The main targets of its investigations were the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency (NSA), and Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Church Committee issued its final report in April 1976. The Committee concluded that the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence forces, had conducted “concerted campaigns of domestic espionage that threatened the Constitutional rights of ordinary citizens”.
IV. Introduction
7. Prior to September 11, 2001, there were nearly 100 political prisoners and prisoners of war incarcerated in the United States. Political prisoners are men and women who have been incarcerated for their political views and actions. They have consciously fought against social injustice, coloni-alism, and/or imperialism and have been incarcerated as a result of their political commitments. This definition of the term "political prisoner" is accepted throughout the international community. Political prisoners have always been an especially vulnerable and abused subset of the American prison population.
Political Prisoners in the United States: A Brief History of Political Repression
8. Many of today's political prisoners were victims of an FBI counter¬intelligence program called COINTELPRO. COINTELPRO consisted of a series of covert actions directed against domestic dissident groups, tar¬geting five perceived threats to "domestic tranquility." These included the Communist Party USA (1956-71), the Socialist Workers Party (1961-69), White Hate Groups (1964-71), Black Nationalist Hate Groups (1967-71) and the New Left (1968-71). People viewed as dissidents, Communists, or anti-establishment were at risk of prosecution, persecution or both:
9. In these programs, the Bureau went beyond the collection of intel¬ligence to secret action designed to "disrupt" and "neutralize" target groups and individuals. The techniques were adopted wholesale from wartime counterintelligence, and ranged from the trivial (mailing reprints of Reader's Digest articles to college ad¬ministrators) to the degrading (sending anonymous poison-pen letters intended to break up marriages) and the dangerous (en¬couraging gang warfare and falsely labeling members of a violent group as police informers).
10. In response to pressure from a broad spectrum of the American pub¬lic, a Congressional subcommittee, popularly known as the Church Com¬mittee, was formed to investigate and study the FBI's covert action pro¬grams. In its report, The Church Committee concluded that the FBI had "conducted a sophisticated vigilante operation aimed squarely at pre¬venting the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, on the theory that preventing the growth of dangerous groups and the propagation of dangerous ideas would protect the national security and deter violence." It went on to report that "many of the techniques used would be intolerable in a democratic society even if all of the targets had been involved in violent activity”.
11. In fact, before COINTELPRO was laid to rest, it was responsible for maiming, murdering, false prosecutions and frame-ups, destruction, and mayhem throughout the country. It had infiltrated every organization and association that aspired to bring about social change in America whether through peaceful or violent means. Hundreds of members of the Puerto Rican Independence movement, the Black Panther Party (BPP), the Young Lords, the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Soci¬ety (SDS), the Republic of New Africa (RNA), the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), members of the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Chicano Movement, the Black Liberation Army (BLA), Environmentalists, the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), Peace activists, and everyone in between were targeted by COINTELPRO for "neutralization."
12. In 1969, the FBI and local Chicago police agents were responsible for the pre-dawn assassination of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark as they lay asleep in their beds. Hampton and Clark were the leaders of the Chicago office of the Black Panther Party. Among Hoover's other targets were Leonard Peltier of AIM; the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); El-Hajj Malik Shabazz (Malcolm X); Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) of SNCC; Huey Newton (leader of the BPP); and Rev. Phillip Berrigan and his brother Rev. Daniel Berrigan, peace activists who challenged the Vietnam War and the U.S. military industrial complex.
13. Prosecutor's offices and the courts were complicit in the destruction meted out by the FBI. Prosecutors routinely withheld exculpatory evi¬dence as was evidenced in the cases of Geronimo ji-Jaga Pratt, Dhoruba Bin-Wahad, and Mumia Abu-Jamal. Although Pratt and Bin-Wahad were eventually exonerated after serving twenty-seven and nineteen years respectively for crimes they did not commit, requests by Peltier and Abu-Jamal for new trials have been frustrated at every turn by law en¬forcement and the prosecution.
14. Many of today's political prisoners were incarcerated as a direct result of COINTELPRO's activities They were targeted because of their political beliefs and/or actions. Unlike those convicted and sentenced for similar crimes, they were given much harsher sentences and routinely denied parole. Former BLA member, Sundiata Acoli (a.k.a. Clark Squire), the co¬defendant of Assata Shakur, was sentenced to life plus thirty years for the death of a New Jersey State trooper. He was eligible for parole after twenty years. After serving twenty-two years, however, the New Jersey parole board denied him parole and gave him an unprecedented twenty-year set off. Susan Rosenberg was sentenced to fifty-eight years for pos¬session of explosives and denied parole despite her exemplary prison re¬cord. Geronimo ji-Jaga Pratt was denied parole at least seven times al¬though he was innocent of the charges for which he was serving time.
V. The Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the Ground through the Implementation of International Human Rights Obligations
United States Government Targets Civil Rights Movement
15. The Civil Rights Movement was a primary target of such misconduct. In an official memorandum dated March, 1968, the following long-range goals of the COINTELPRO against Blacks were outlined:
(1) to prevent the “coalition of militant black nationalist groups,” which might be the first step toward a real “Mau Mau” in America;
(2) to prevent the rise of a “messiah” who could “unify and electrify” the movement, naming specially Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael, and Elijah Muhammad;
(3) to prevent violence on the part of black nationalist groups, by pinpointing “potential troublemakers” and neutralizing them ‘before they exercise their potential for violence”;
(4) to prevent groups and leaders from gaining “respectability: by discrediting them to the “responsible” Negro community, to the white community and the “liberals” (the distinction is the Bureau’s), and to “Negro radicals”; and
(5) to prevent the long range growth of these organizations, especially among youth, by developing specific tactics to “prevent” these groups from recruiting young people.”
16. The politically punitive nature of their lengthy sentences becomes even more apparent when compared to sentences given to right wing offenders, as a few recent examples demonstrate. In 1997, a white supremacist received a three year sentence for a plot to bomb fifteen cities. In 198l, an anti-abortion proponent responsible for torching seven family planning clinics throughout the western states over the course of five years, causing over $1 million in damages, received “almost seven years in prison”. In 1997, a former member of the Klan was sentenced to 12 years in prison for bombing the car of a white woman who was dating a Black man. The bomb killed a 23 month old child and injured her father. And in 1997, a militia leader charged with a plot to blow up the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services, who provided resources, sold blueprints of the building to an undercover FBI agent, and recruited others to supply explosives, was to receive a sentence of less than 25 years.
Denial of Parole
17. Germany, France and Spain Release Political Prisoners: U.S. Should Follow Example and Release Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War. In February 2007, news of the release of political prisoners splashed the front pages of Europe’s newspapers. Political prisoners with sentences far lengthier than most US Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War were to leave prison after serving less time than most US PP/POWs. On February 12, a German court ordered the release of Brigitte Mohnhaupt, a leader of the Red Army Faction [RAF], after serving 24 years in prison. Mohnhaupt was serving a term of five life sentences plus 15 years, having been convicted of politically motivated kidnappings and murders in the 1970s. On February 14, Philippe Bidart, a leader of the Basque armed independence organization Iparretarrak, was released from a French prison after serving nine years of two life sentences plus 20 years for the deaths and injuries of various police. On February 12, the Spanish Supreme Court reduced the sentence of ETA hunger striker Iñaki de Juana Chaos, who, after serving 18 years of his 3,000 year sentence for causing 25 deaths, was serving a sentence of 12 years and 7 months for making terrorist threats in two newspaper articles. As word of the release or sentence reductions of these European men and women reached Puerto Rico, Carlos Alberto Torres and Oscar Lopez Rivera were contemplating the 27th and 26th anniversaries of their imprisonment, while their supporters hoped President Bush would follow the example of his European counterparts.
18. In his report on his first year as president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa asked Congress to grant amnesty to political prisoners who participated in strikes, as well as to former government officials who are considered victims of political persecution. He also asked Congress to pardon hundreds of “mules,” or people who transport small quantities of drugs.
19. The Chilean Supreme Court reduced the sentences of two officials, reversed the conviction of one, and ordered their release. The three had been convicted of kidnapping and then assassinating 22 political prisoners in 1973, whose bodies were found burned. The officials had originally been sentenced to 17, 10, and 7 years in prison
20. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez granted amnesty to opposition leaders connected to the April 2002 military coup against his government. The amnesty also covers those charged with detaining the Interior Minister, invading the home of a National Assembly Deputy, taking over the Governorships of Merida and Tachira and the Court of Justice in Tachira, closing the state owned television station, taking over oil tankers during the oil industry shutdown, and inciting civil rebellion through 2007. Chávez said the amnesty was intended to “send a message to the country that we can live together despite our differences.” In another amnesty which he said was a humanitarian gesture, Chávez pardoned 36 prisoners convicted of various crimes, including some diagnosed with AIDS.
21. In February 2008, The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC] announced it would free three politicians in its custody for the past six years, as part of a process of seeking a solution to Colombia’s lengthy conflict. The FARC’s hope is to win the release of hundreds of its imprisoned compatriots in exchange for releasing some 40 people in its custody. Both releases have been stalled by the Colombian president’s refusal to accede to FARC demands that its representatives be allowed to carry arms to talks to be held in a proposed demilitarized zone.
22. United States PP/POWs receive excessive sentences and are routinely denied parole. For example, in 1973 Sundiata Acoli was sentenced to life imprisonment; 37 years later, despite an exemplary prison record, he was again denied parole in March, 2010. Leonard Peltier was sentenced to life in 1975; another model prisoner, he was denied parole again in 2009. Acoli and Peltier are but recent examples of the U.S. rule regarding prison officials’ use of the parole process to exact political punishment. Parole officials often acknowledge the advancing age, deteriorating health, significant release plans and good prison records of these aging PP/POWs.
Prolonged Isolation: Violates Convention Against Torture
23. U.S. PP/POWs are confined in prolonged isolation or “control units” due to their status as political prisoners or prisoners of war, not because of disciplinary infractions, which is in direct violation of The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). The UN Human Rights Commission has specified prolonged solitary confinement” as prohibited as a form of torture under the CAT. Despite their excellent prison record, PP/POWs are placed in “control units.” The men’s federal prison in Marion, Illinois, which includes several political prisoners among its 400 inmates, has been condemned by Amnesty International for violating international standards on the minimum treatment of prisoners. The men in Marion are locked in their cells 23 hours per day and are sometimes chained spread-eagle to their beds for days at a time.
24. The “control unit” for women at Lexington, Kentucky, was an experimental underground political prison that practiced isolation and sensory deprivation. It was finally closed by a federal judge after years of protest by religious and human rights groups.
Human Rights Violations with Impunity
25. The United States has ignored claims of Human Rights violations against PP/POWs. On December 11, 1978 the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression and the United Church of Christ’s Commission on Racial Justice filed a Petition to the United Nations Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities – raising the plight of political prisoners and victims of racist repression.
26. In 1981, Amnesty International issued a “Proposal for a Commission of Inquiry into the Effect of Domestic Intelligence Activities on Criminal Trials in the United States of America.” Amnesty urged an investigation into the plight of political prisoners.
27. Independent examiners, such as Yale Law Professor Thomas I. Emerson, could not avoid the “inescapable message of [such material] that is: the FBI jeopardizes the whole system of free expression which is the cornerstone of our society…at worst it raises the specter of a police state…In essence, the FBI conceives of itself as an instrument to prevent radical social change in America…The Bureau’s view of its function leads it beyond data collection and into political warfare.” Yet not only were the FBI personnel involved in the activities which so concerned Dr. Emerson rewarded rather than punished, the bureau itself was left essentially unchanged in the wake of public revelations concerning COINTELPRO. The most that can be said is that, in 1979, it was subjected to a “rechartering”, the terms of which it itself had taken a most prominent role in formulating.
Facing Continued Abuse: The Post-September 11 Treatment of Political Prisoners
28. In concluding its review of COINTELPRO, the Church Committee wrote: “The American People need to be assured that never again will an agency of the government be permitted to conduct a secret war against those citizens it considers threats to the established order”. Just over twenty-five years later, the American people are again in need of such assurance. In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 the use of the nation’s jails and prisons for political repression was renewed. Within hours of the attacks, several of the political prisoners were rounded up and put in administrative segregation, generically known as ‘the hole’. No charges or allegations were levied against them. Some of them were told that they were being placed in the hole for their own safety. They were held in solitary confinement and restricted to their cells twenty-three or twenty-four hours a day.
29. Some, like Marilyn Buck, Sundiata Acoli, and Richard Williams were held incommunicado for weeks without access to legal counsel. Other prisoners were told that they were to have no contact of any kind with Marilyn Buck once she was thrown in administrative segregation “for her own safety.” Numerous requests to arrange for legal visits and phone calls with these prisoners were flatly refused by administrators of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). All legal mail was suspended; no letters were allowed out of the prison and legal mail that was mailed in was neither given to the prisoners nor returned to the attorneys. From September 11 to October 24, 2001, Sundiata Acoli was not allowed any access to his lawyers. Social visiting, mail, and phone calls were suspended for many of these prisoners. The actions of the Bureau of Prisons were so unusual that initially the BOP General Counsel denied that any prisoners were being refused access to their lawyers. The Bureau continues to put forward this position as recently as February of this year (2010). Yet on September 26, 2001, the Warden of USP Allenwood, where Mr. Acoli was being held, wrote to his attorney to inform her that he was “denying her request to allow Inmate Squire (Acoli’s former name) a legal telephone call.
30. Between September 11 and 17, 2001, the restrictions placed on the prisoners were in flux, and it seemed clear that the individual prison authorities were trying to determine exactly what the directions from Washington dictated. But on or about September 17, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a memorandum to the Bureau of Prisons directing them to terminate all communications, both social and legal, for certain prisoners. Some have posited that the memo left the discretion to the prison wardens. Others believe that Ashcroft determined who should be held incommunicado. No matter who had the final discretion, the result was the same for the political prisoners; they were in the hole and some had no access to the outside world.
31. Other present day violations, in the 2006 report “Out of the Shadows: Getting Ahead of Prisoner Radicalization” by George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute, it is stated that the “potential for radicalization of prison inmates poses a threat of unknown magnitude to the national security of the United States.” On November 7, in that same year, USA Today reported that the FBI and Homeland Security were “urging prison administrators to set up more intelligence units in state prisons…” In the case of Ojore Lutalo, former United States political prisoner, there is Department of Corrections paperwork acknowledging that “he was kept in isolation for twenty-two years due to his radical views and ability to influence others.” On January 26, 2010 he was “disappeared” off an Amtrak train in La Junta, Colorado and charged with “endangering public transportation.” Although a judge dismissed all charges one week later, we now know that the past history of abuse can become current.
32. The United States government is increasingly violating the Constitution when it comes to Muslim, Arab and South Asian inmates. In 2006 and 2007, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP or “Bureau”) secretly created the Communications Management Unit (CMU), a prison unit designed to isolate and segregate certain prisoners in the federal prison system from the rest of the BOP population. The Bureau claims that CMUs are designed to hold dangerous terrorists and other high-risk inmates, requiring heightened monitoring of their external and internal communications. Many prisoners, however, are sent to these isolation units for their constitutionally protected religious beliefs, unpopular political views, or in retaliation for challenging poor treatment or other rights violations in the federal prison system. Over two-thirds of the CMU population is Muslim, even though Muslims represent only six percent of the general federal prison population.
Recommendations
33. All U.S. Political Prisoners/Prisoners of War (PP/POWs) imprisoned as a result of COINTELPRO must be immediately and unconditionally released from U.S. imprisonment.
34. The United States must institute an Executive review of all cases involving those imprisoned as a result of COINTELPRO.
35. The United States must initiate a criminal investigation into the conspiracy to commit the murder of Fred Hampton, Mark Clark and other political activists targeted by COINTELPRO.
36. The United States must adopt the necessary measures to ensure the right of PP/POWs to seek just and adequate reparation and satisfaction to redress acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and to design effective measures to prevent the repetition of such acts.
37. The United States must, at a minimum, afford Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier, new trials.
United States of America
Submission to the United Nations
Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
Ninth Session of the Working Group on the UPR
Human Rights Council
22 November + 3 December, 2010
Political Repression - Political Prisoners
APPENDIX I
Imam Jamil Al-Amin: Personal Statement: COINTELPRO LIVES!, A brochure about Iman Jamil Al-Amin's case, The FBI Conspiracy Against H. Rap Brown, FBI Murders Iman Luqman Ameen Abdullah (Currently held: USP Florence ADMAX, Florence, CO)
Veronza Bowers: Case Summary: Wrongful Conviction, Parole Denial, Excerpt of Trial transcript (Currently: USP Atlanta, Georgia)
Alvaro Luna Hernandez (Cuban 5): National Jericho Movement Amicus Brief to Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Currently: USP, Gatesville, Texas)
Jaan Laaman: Personal Statement; Status Report, (USP Tucson, AZ)
Mondo Langa (David Rice): Personal Statement, case review articles, (Currently: Nebraska State Prison, Lincoln, NE)
Ojore Lutalo: POST RELEASE HARASSMENT: Appellate Brief, newspapers articles (1992,2006) (Currently: Released, but surveilled, harrassed)
Eric McDavid, "Green Scare," case statement re targeting environmental activist a la COINTELPRO
(Currently:USP Victorville, CA)
Leonard Peltier: Counsel's Case Update
Dr. Mutulu Shakur: Proposal, Resolution for "Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Amnesty, Release of U.S. Politcal Prisoners" (Currently held: USP Florence ADMAX, Florence, CO)
Elliot Madison and Michael Wallschlaeger: How your Twitter Account Could Land you in Jail
SOURCES
The Reality of Political Prisoners in the United States: What September 11th Taught Us About Defending Them, J. Soffiyah Elijah;
http://upr.tns.campaignfoundations.com/appendix/Muslim_Alliance_of_North_America.pdfBonnie Kerness, AFSC Prison Watch Project
Communications Management Unites (CMU): Targeting Muslim, Arabs, South Asian Inmates, Nahal Zamani, Annette Dickerson, Center for Costitutional Rights
"Out of the Shadows: Getting Ahead of Prisoner Radicalization," George Washington University, University of Virginia, Critical Incident Group, U.S.Homeland Security
http://www.uprpp.tns.campaignfoundations.com/
APPENDIX-2
COINTELPRO Sources
Bibliography to www.cointel.org with links to online resources.
Government Documents
1U.S. Congress. Senate. Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. Hearings –The National Security Agency and Fourth Amendment Rights. Vol.6. 94th Cong., 1st sess, 1975.
Books
Central Intelligence Agency, Counterterrorist Program Primer (author and publication date unknown)
Hinds, Lennox S., Illusions Of Justice: Human Rights Violations in the United States, published by the School of Social Work, University of Iowa, 1978 (An adaptation of the Petition to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of discrimination and Protection of Minorities—submitted to the United Nations on December 11, 1978).
Meyer, Matt, editor. Let Freedom Ring: A Collection of Documents from the Movements to Free U.S. Political Prisoners, published by PM Press and Kersplebedeb, 2008. PM Press, Oakland, CA 94623. www.pmpress.org
Articles and Websites
Brandt, Daniel, The 1960s and COINTELPRO: In Defense of Paranoia (NameBase NewsLine, No. 10, July-September 1995)
Burghardt, Tom, Armies of Repression: The FBI, COINTELPRO, and Far Right Vigilantee Networks
Burghardt, Tom, The Public-Private Partnership
Centro para la Investgaci6n y Promoci6n de Derechos Civiles Las Carpetas (FBI files on Puerto Rican activists)
Chomsky, Noam, Domestic Terrorism: Notes on the State System of Oppression (A revised version of the introduction to Nelson Blackstock's COINTELPRO, 1999)
Churchill, Ward, The Covert War Against Native Americans
Churchill, Ward, Wages of COINTELPRO Still Evident in Omaha Black Panther Case (3/10/99)
FBI Watch, The FBI... Past, Present and Future
Glick, Brian, COINTELPRO Revisited - Spying & Disruption
Hanrahan, Noelle, America's Secret Police' FBI COINTELPRO in the 1990s
Hendricks Drew, Index to FBI Agents and Snitches
Ishgooda, COINTELPRO: The FBI War Against Leonard Peltier. Native News Online
Maoist International Movement, Black Panther Newspaper Collection (1967-1970)
Prison Activist Resource Center, Political Prisoners and POW's in the US
Rivero, Michael, What Really Happened? (COINTELPRO webpage)
Solomon, Norman, and Jeff Cohen, Nothing Vague About FBI Abuse: Here Are the Dossiers
Stec, Michael, Secret Documents (online document collection)
Waxman, Shelly, Some Call it Murder
Weinberg, Bill, Judi Bari Suit Reveals COINTELPRO Against Earth First! The Shadow, Issue #37.
Wolf, Paul et al, COINTELPRO: The Untold American Story CBC report to UNHCHR Mary Robinson at the World Conference Against Racism, Durban, South Africa (Sept. 1, 2001)
Zinn, Howard, The Federal Bureau of Intimidation (Covert Action Quarterly)
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Book Review: The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power in America (1865-1954) By William H. Watkins
In William Watkins work, The White Architects of Black Education: Ideology and Power in America (1865-1954), he does a superb job in giving a history of how numerous forces emrged during reconstruction to use the education of Blacks as a means to keep Blacks in their place. That is to say, after the civil war, emancipation and in the midst of the industrial revolution a very volatile situation had developed and the answer to the “negro question” was a big key to the success of the new society.
The South still remained an agrarian economy and the North was becoming an industrial one. Newly freed Blacks were still needed as labor force, but how they would be absorbed into the society and how the Northern and Southern economies would coeexist was a problem. Though they were free, they had to remain in their place, race relations had to stay the same and any changes would have to be incremental and gradual. Somewhat of a carrot on a stick.
The book has to parts, the first, Historical Context does just that and the second, Architects of Accomodation, is biographical in that it outlines the key players and families that made this accomodation possible. The ideologues, philanthropists, and businessmen.
In the introduction, Watkins begins by saying:
“education can be used to oppress and to Liberate... American's colonization of Blacks employed the textbook as often as the bullet.... Colonial education in America was designed to control, pacify, and socialize subject people. The education of Black Americans has always been inextricably connected to state politics and the labor market.”
Further more he says that:
“The establishment of Black Education was much more than teaching the ABCs to little children of color. It was a political proposition. Black education helped define and forge race relations that shaped the entire 20th century and beyond.”
From here he goes into part one and talks about two subpoints, 'Toward a political sociology of Black Eduaction and “scientific” racism'. The first subpoint elaborates on how the development of ideology, specifically an ideology that would facilitate the growth, preservation, and maintenance of the current socio-economic establishment. An ideology of accomodation, one that would be accepted by all (or at least most), the powerful and the poweless, but would perpetuate that relationship; that would be essential to the interests of the rich and oppressive few and inimical to the poor and oppressed masses (particularly Blacks). It was important that these ideas would appear “natural, ordained, and organic”.
Furthermore he discusses the 'Charity Movement', spearheaded by missionary societies, and showed that though the purveyors of this movement appeared to be benefactors they were actually a buffer between the rich and the poor. Slavery and other economic institutions of the time had accumulated so muc wealth and further created such a disparity of wealth that in order to keep the “new urgan indigents” from threatening the “fragile industrial democracy”, their basic needs would have to be met. However, as they fed the needs of the poor, they also fed them an ideology that would make them compliant and accepting of their poverty and the socio-economic system that created the disparity. Thus, neutralizing the “threat” of rebellion, insurrection, uprising, etc.
Part and parcel the the 'Charity Movement' was the rise of corporate philanthropy or, what the author calls, 'Race Philanthropy'. Lots of money was spent on developing institutions for Blacks that would assimilate them into society and anwer the “negro question”.
“Resolving the negro question meant Blacks could not be totally frozen out of social participation. They would have to be politically socialized, given hope, and given at least minimal acces to survival. A compradore or middle class, as advocated by Booker T. Washington, of Black entrepreneurs, clergy, clerks, and teachers was indispensable to the new formula.”
However, as this formula called for a small, compliant, and “successful” middle class to be another buffer,
“Simultaneously, capitalist labor economics required an abundance of semi-feudal sharecropper labor alongside cheap semi-skilled and skilled industrial labor. American industrialization would be built on the backs of Black labor”.
It is interesting to note that the many of the people and entities that capitalized off off the past and present social strification were and continue to be some of the main philanthropists.
“Scientific” racism was simply a series of theories and ideas (inluding eugenics) that, cloaked in science, legitimized racism and therefore the perceived natural order, a kind of 'Social Darwinism'. One key player in this was Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who the author refers to as the “undeniable founder” of Eugenics. The author further states that,
“It was felt that the naturally inferior Black must always occupy a socially subservient position... “scientific” racism provided a foundation for both institutional and attitudinal racism in America.”
Part two of the book, as mentioned, provides several biographical sketches of the key performers in this theater. Including, General Samual Chapman Armstrong, Professor Franklin H. Giddings, the Phelps-Stokes Family, Thomas Jesse Jones, the Rockefeller Family, Robert Curtis Ogden & William Henry Baldwin, and J.L.M. Curry. He clearly shows, how the above mentioned people influenced and were very much architects of Black education and by extension the emerging society. An influence that has perpetuated itself up to this very day. He also acknowledges the complicity of the State in this process and the significant role that the Federal government played, including the establishment of the Freedman's Bureau
Watkins conclusion is more of a reflection. He acknowledges that in the beginning he sought to tale the tale of “evil men” with equally evil intentions. In the end though, he admits that the players in this game, mentioned and unmentioned, while certainly racist, were nation-buiders. He says that coming out of the Civil War and into reconstruction America was up for grabs and they grabbed it. They grabbed it and shaped it.
“They didn't think in terms of permanent friends and permanent enemies, only permanent interests... Never straying from racial supremacy, they were attempting to structure a society that could function. These architects were men of expediency.... The wed democracy to plutocracy... constitutional freedom with social subservience.... America needed class peace and race peace to get beyond its national adolescence and allow corporate industrialization to expand.... Blacks needed to be convinced that their lot was improving.”
The Wolof Culture of Resistance to French Domination made Manifest through Amadou Bamba’s Muridiyya
November 9, 2009
(updated December 9, 2009)
Professor El-Khawas
Introduction to African History
The Wolof can be found all over West Africa, and indeed the world, but they are most prevalent in Senegal, Gambia, and Mauritania. The term “Wolof” refers to the people, as well as the language that comes from the Niger-Congo language family Atlantic branch. There is no certainty about their origin, but some believe that they are the result of westward migration by the Songhay, or perhaps that they are a mixture of surrounding ethnic groups. Their recorded history begins with their contact with Europeans over 500 years ago, particularly the Portuguese, and later the French. This paper will focus on their history and culture through the various stages of their political development and resistance to French Colonialism, up to the present day. Particular focus will be given to the Islamic aspect of the culture, including the lasting effects of the Muridiyyah Movement. Furthermore, it will briefly discuss the region of West Africa to give a more robust understanding of the Wolof people.
To speak of the history of any ethnic group in West Africa, it is important to mention the Empires of Mali and Songhay. These two great African kingdoms left an indelible mark on the region. As those empires rose and fell by the 17th century, the Wolof Empire lasted from 1360 to 1890. The Empire of Mali began in the year 1235 as the result of a coup led by Sundiata Keita to depose of the tyrant King Sumanguru. After that he unified the Malinka Kingdoms in the area. This story can be found in the traditional folk-tale “The Epic of Sundiata” (Niane 2006). Mali would give birth to one of the most notable figures in African history, Mansa Musa, who was the 10th ruler of the empire and the grandson of Sundiata’s half-brother. Mali was also responsible for the great center of learning in Timbuktu.
The Empire of Mali was somewhat tumultuous through the centuries, up until its demise in the 17th century. There were several fights for succession between rulers, and at these volatile junctures, subordinate states would break away. Such was the case of the Songhay State, which later grew into the Songhay Empire that lasted from 1340-1592 and eventually eclipsed the Mali Empire in size, riches, and influence.
That story began with the city of Gao that was occupied and inhabited by the Songhay people in the 8th or 9th Century. Since that time it was a major trading center in the region and it is, presumably, for this reason that Mansa Musa brought it under his control. This combination had the effect of Gao growing in influence and power and eventually they were able to successfully refuse paying taxes to the Mansa. Soon they became independent and then developed empirical aspirations. Led by Sunni Ali, this was the genesis of the Songhay Empire(Davidson 1992, pgs. 103-104).
Another state that was once controlled by the Empire of Mali, but broke away when it had the chance, was the state of Dyolof, which birthed the Wolof Empire. The Wolof Empire was never as big as the aforementioned empires. It consisted of the five provinces of Sine, Cayor, Walo, Baol, and Djolof, which were all concentrated side by side in what is now the northwestern part of Senegal. At times they were unified and at others they fought (Wolfe n.d.).
There was another dynasty that left a lasting impression on the western part of the continent and that was the Almoravid Dynasty. The Almoravids (Moors) were primarily on the northwestern part of the continent in what is now Morocco and Western Sahara. They also spread into Spain. They ventured as far south as Senegal in the 11th century and though the dynasty only lasted until 1147, the legacy of Islam that they left in the region lives on. In fact, Senegal is a 94% Muslim country (CIA World Factbook 2005).
The term ‘Wolof’ used to represent an ethnic group, comes from the language –Wolof- that they speak. Wolof comes from the West Atlantic sub-family of the Niger-Congo language branch (Wolfe n.d.). The Wolof are, historically, a people given to agriculture and trade. Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much we can glean from the history of the Wolof people before their contact with the European. This is true of many ancient African societies and peoples. The Wolof first encountered Portuguese explorers/merchants in the 15th century. This was a pivotal era in African history. Europeans, such as the English, Dutch, and French were popping up all over the coasts in search of trading partners for slaves, fabrics, gold, ivory, and animal hides. Two of the main things that they had to offer were horses and firearms. The Sene-Gambia region became a lucrative place for many of the things they sought --- especially slaves (Klein 1990, pgs. 243-244).
It was here, a few kilometers of off the coasts that the infamous fort on Goree Island was erected and where “the door of no return” is located. The legends of the island have taken on, somewhat of, a life of their own. The degree to which Goree Island operated as a major slave depot is a subject for debate (Encyclopaedia Brittanica 2009).
The slave trade developed as an economic enterprise facilitated by European exploration on the African continent and the colonization of the Western Hemisphere commonly referred to as “The New World”. The conquest of the Americas created a need for labor on the plantations to harvest a variety of crops. In the Caribbean, or West Indies, and South America the most notable crop was sugar. Slavery was not new to the peoples of West Africa, however, the scale and motivation was vastly different in the European context. For the Europeans, it had become an economic venture, for the Africans it was mainly political. People were enslaved as a result of military conquest and wars. Rather than kill or settle the captives (prisoners of war) they were sold. This culture was subsequently exploited by the Europeans and they eventually found willing trading partners with their African counterparts.
According to Sylviane Diouf in her book “Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas”, the initial incursion into Senegal by the Portuguese was by Dinis Dias in 1444. At that time he kidnapped four Africans and came back for more a year later. His second kidnapping didn’t go as smoothly and several of his sailors were killed and left behind. This led to the realization that simple raids would not be effective. In turn, they utilized diplomacy and developed trade relationships with the coastal kingdoms in 1448.
This phenomenon soon produced a revolution within the European framework of slavery. Europeans that once enslaved other Europeans began to capture, buy, or sell Africans exclusively. Slavery was now based on color. Initially, the Africans, who were predominantly Muslim, were first transported to the Iberian Peninsula for purposes of forced conversion. The Spanish and the Portuguese had just relieved themselves domination by the Moors, so they were very keen to avoid introducing Muslims to the New World for fear that it would, among other things, interfere with their missionary work and possibly create a recipe for rebellion (Diouf 1998, pg. 147).
They were right; and in 1522 the Wolof led the first recorded slave uprising in the “New World”. This precipitated a royal decree, on May 11, 1526 that “specifically forbade” the importation of Wolofs and several other groups, all of them Muslim. It would not be the first or last piece of legislation of its kind. The British and the French did not share the same historical link to the Muslims that the Portuguese and the Spanish did and, therefore, they did not have the same anxieties about the Muslims. They continued to import them, as did some Spanish and Portuguese merchants in disregard for the law (Diouf 1998, pgs. 145-146).
By the 17th century the British and French were fierce rivals in, what would become, the “scramble for Africa” and they both had developed an interest in the Sene-Gambia region. Eventually the British gained colonial control over Gambia and the French controlled Senegal from the late 19th century until their Independence in 1960. Centuries before colonization the Wolof had been in contact with Islam, as evident in the aforementioned slave rebellions in the West, however, as an ethnic group they did not become overwhelmingly Muslim until the late 19th Century, during the colonial period. Lucy Behrmen wrote of this and described the rapid conversion and adherence to the teachings of various “Muslim Brotherhoods” that developed during this period in opposition to the French and according to her, “The brotherhoods appeared as dynamic movements, symbolizing the social and political protest of the followers which they attracted” (Behrman 1968, pg. 60).
There were several brotherhoods that had developed and spread throughout the Maghreb and Sahel regions, such as the Qadiriyya and Tijanniya. These brotherhoods were founded by Holymen known as Marabouts or Sheikhs. Traditionally these Marabouts who are studied and learned (some are even believed to be magical) were not necessarily affiliated with any organization. It was the Almoravid and Almohad Movements that absorbed them and created the precedent that the Marabouts no longer acted independently (Behrmann 1968). However, this
would create a new dynamic that the Marabouts also became political leaders and as such, the colonial powers, in this case the French, were aware of the threat that they posed.
During the 1890s, a popular Marabout had gained a reputation and amassed
a large following, Sheikh Amadou Bamba of the Qadiriyya. Eventully, Bamba broke
from his ties with the Qadiriyya Brotherhood and founded his own, the Muridiyya.
Cheikh Anta Babou writes (Babou 2003, pgs. 310-311),
“the organization has experienced a continuing growth of its followers and an increasing cultural, political and economic influence in Senegal. The Murids have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to changing contexts and environments and to preserve their cohesion and continuity across space, time and significant social change. The Murid Muslim brotherhood is the most influential religious institution in Senegal”.
During this time period, civil wars had continued to flare as a result of the aftermath of the slave trade. Aristocratic families and Islamic reformers vied with each other for power, control, and influence. Also at this time, the French had begun cultivating
relationships with local chiefs. Amadou Bamba rejected all of the former’s claims to authority. In fact, when once summoned to appear before the French governor, Bamba uttered a phrase that became popular at the time and has lived on, “God alone is King” (Glover 2007, pg. 97).
The French immediately recognized Bamba’s potential for leadership and before he could start any further trouble they exiled him, twice, once in1895 and again 1897, he did not return until 1912. This determination was also “combined with French fear about controlling the critical peanut basin” (Robinson 1999, pg. 194). It is not known for sure whether or not Bamba even had any plans for political power, but sometimes history chooses our fates for us. The climate of the times and the needs of the people commandeered the Muridiyya and forced Amadou Bamba into his destiny. During his exile, Bamba wrote and corresponded with his family about the trials that he faced. The period of his exile, rather than force him into oblivion by his absence, had a contrary effect. In fact, Bamba became legendary; truly a mythical character. Upon his return, he was greeted by multitudes of followers. Through the work of his followers and family, his organization had grown exponentially (Robinson 1991, pgs. 163-164).
I would like to further elaborate on who the Marabouts, Islamic Saints, were in a religious sense. Amber Gemmeke defines the Marabouts as “experts in esoteric Islamic knowledge” (Gemmeke 2009, pg. 128), in other words, ‘Sufi’ masters. The ‘Muslim brotherhoods’, because of their religious orientation are sometimes referred to as ‘Sufi brotherhoods’. Sufism is also commonly referred to as Islamic mysticism. It is characterized by self-concentration and discipline; purification of the soul. Most Sufis believe that, once this process is cultivated to a high level, spiritual union with the divine (Allah) can take place. Another characteristic of Sufism is the necessary relationship between student and teacher, a discipleship of service, learning, and obedience. Certainly this latter characteristic precipitated the growth of Sufi orders in the Maghreb and Sahel regions. The role of the Muslim brotherhoods or Sufi Orders has maintained as central facet of life in Senegal to the present day.
Eventually, the relationship between the French and the Murides would develop from one of antagonism to one of cooperation and accommodation.
The accommodation permitted the marabouts and brotherhoods to develop considerable autonomy in the religious, economic and social spheres while surrendering the political and administrative domain to the French. Of all these 'paths to accommodation' between Muslim societies and French colonial authorities, the one followed by Amadu Bamba Mbacke and the Murid movement is ostensibly the longest, the hardest, the most complete, and the most enduring. (Robinson 1999, pg. 193)
At this time, in 1912, the Muridiyya had a membership of approximately 70,000 (Babou 2003, pg. 312). It continued to grow and became one of the most formidable economic, social, and political forces in Senegal. This growth was made possible by the Murides ability to make the most of their displacement by the French. They organized themselves to be able to settle in the Fulani area of the region and become agricultural workers in groundnut cultivation. Their control over this particular cash crop and the political power that their sheer numbers represented became a key for their survival and growth. Interesting in this, is the transformation of the Wolof social structure which was stratified on class lines to becoming much more homogenous (Gellner 1973, pg. 205).
…..all those who were considered outcasts in the Wolof society and the
new colonial system found shelter in the Mouride brotherhood,
notably, descendents of royal families, ex ceddos [royal slaves], and low cast
members of the society. Mouridism was a refuge for the “wretched
of the earth” and a hope for a society administered by a
foreign power whose project was to disintegrate all traditional
structures. Mouridism became the place where the community was
reconstructed and their cultural pride boosted (Thiam 2005)
The present day role of Islam in Senegal amongst the Wolof, is reflective of its historical role within their society. To this day, the vast majority of them belong to one of the three Sufi Muslim brotherhoods, most predominantly the Muridiyya or Tijaniyya. The Muride’s base is in Touba, Sengal, a city founded by Amadou Bamba and is where he is buried. The name of the city is an Arabic word literally meaning “felicity” and is also, according to Muslim tradition, the name of a special tree in paradise (Ross 1995, pg. 227). It is a Holy City and the site of a yearly ‘Muridic’ pilgrimage known as the ‘Grand Magal’. The city is somewhat of a phenomenon in that it maintains autonomy from the Senegalese government. It is responsible for all of the functions normally reserved for the government such as education, health, and public works. It is amazingly successful and provides a working model as an example of an alternative to the Western model of government and administration (Thiam 2005).
The Murides in Senegal while representing 1/3 of the population, account for 2/3 of the wealth. This is owed, no doubt, to the culture of hard work that developed in the wake of French Colonialism of the country (Thiam 2005). One of the prominent “lieutenants” of Amadou Bamba was Ibrahima Fall who promoted hard work and industriousness as a show of adoration for the Marabout and dedication to God. This labor movement was referred to by Neil Savishinsky as “the Baye Fall branch of Mouridism”(Savishinsky 1994, pg. 64). Charlotte Pezeril wrote in her submission to the European Conference on African Studies in 2007 , “His path is seen as complementary with the Murid one: “Cheikh Amadou Bamba is the spiritual, Cheikh Ibra Fall is the material”.
Today, while Senegal is experiencing tough economic depression, and an extraordinarily high rate of joblessness, Mouridism is spreading like wildfire. Anytime people’s existence is threatened, anytime their survival is in question, there are mass conversions to Mouridism. As it did at the end of the 19th century, Mouridism functions, today, as an answer to people’s existential questions and a refuge for all those whose survival is endangered by the existing social and economic system. Although during the beginning of the colonial system it was a reaction to an invading power, Mouridism functions as an alternative to the economic and social chaos unleashed by the structural adjustment policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the twin heirs of the former colonialists. It should be understood that Mouridism is not only a safe haven, it is also an example of a different socio-economic system that promises a new society. (Thiam2005)
The above quote encapsulates ‘Muridism’ as a socio-economic, cultural, and political force today. In the same article, Cheikh Thiam describes the Muride development of popular culture through literature and art. The literature is, known as Wolofal (Wolof language written with Arabic alphabet) and its necessity was derived from the need to resist French cultural domination and separate Arabism from Islam. The Muride visual art’s true value is its ability to interact with the people as an inspiration and promotion of self-determination; it “functions as a rejuvenation of hope in the heart of the ordinary citizen” (Thiam 2005).
Another feature of contemporary Muride-Wolof culture, Muridism, is the ideology of the Talibee. Presumably from the Arabic word Talib, meaning student, a talibee can be considered somewhat of a revolutionary and a proud proponent of Mouride-Wolof culture. They view Muridism as superior to the imposed French culture and recognize that while other opponents of French domination were killed or cowed, Sheikh Amadou Bamba returned and triumphed, not only by resisting the French, but also by being able to offer an alternative to the people. Therefore, the position of a Talibee is that “Muridism is a social revolution, an uprising against the French colonizer, and a cultural project that aimed at challenging the doctrine of French cultural supremacy imposed by the French colonial system through its policies of assimilation” (Thiam 2005).
All of this illustrates a culture among the Wolof people of Senegal that developed as a result of a history that is shared between many of the peoples that populate West Africa; a history of European incursion motivated by the pursuit of resources. There have been many resistance movements that mounted against these attacks and the results have varied. In Senegal, and as with any society, the contemporary culture cannot be separated or understood without the backdrop of the past and what the Muride culture offers to the observer, is an example of a successful defense against the social, political, economic, and cultural impositions of an outside force.
Works Cited
Babou, Cheikh Anta. "Educating the Murid: Theory and Practices of Education in Amadu Bamba's Thought." Journal of Religion in Africa, 2003: 310-327.
Behrman, Lucy. "The Political Significance of the Wolof Adherence to Muslim Brotherhoods in the Nineteenth." African Historical Studies, 1968: 60-78.
Davidson, Basil. Africa in History. London: Phoenix Press, 1992.
Diouf, Sylviane A. Servants of Allah: African Muslims Enslaved in the Americas. New York: New York University Press, 1998.
Encyclopaedia Brittanica. www.brittanica.com. 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/239194/Goree-Island (accessed November 9, 2009).
Gellner, Ernest. "Post-Traditional Forms in Islam: The Turf and Trade, and Votes and Peanuts." Daedalus, 1973: 191-206.
Gemmeke, Amber. "MARABOUT WOMEN IN DAKAR: CREATING AUTHORITY IN ISLAMIC KNOWLEDGE." Africa, 2009: 128-147.
Glover, John. Sufism And Jihad In Modern Senegal: The Murid Order . Rochester: University of Rochester Press , 2007.
Klein, Martin A. "The Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade on the Societies of the Western Sudan." Social Science History, 1990: 230-251.
Niane, D.T. Sundiata: An Epic of Old Mali. Longman, 2006.
Robinson, David. "The Murids: Surveillance and Collaboration." The Journal of African History, 1999: 193-213.
Robinson, David. "Beyond Resistance and Collaboration: Amadu Bamba and the Murids of Senegal." Journal of Religion in Africa, 1991: 149-171.
Ross, Eric. "Touba: A Spiritual metropolis in a Modern World." Canadien Journal of African Studies, 1995: 222-259.
Savishinsky, J.N. "The Baye Fall of Senegambia: Muslim Rastas in the Promised Land." Africa, 1994: 211-219.
Thiam, Cheikh. "MOURIDISM: A LOCAL RE-INVENTION OF THE MODERN SENEGALESE SOCIO-ECONOMIC ORDER." West Africa Review, no. 8 (2005).
Wolfe, Brooke. Helium. http://www.helium.com/items/1417463-senegal-wolof-country-africa-economy-climate-dakar-french-colony/print (accessed November 9, 2009).
Monday, April 12, 2010
The United States Disregard of Human Rights: Evident in the Treatment of African-Americans
While championing the cause of human rights abroad, the United States (US) has been a perpetual violator of human rights at home. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the case of Native Americans and African-Americans. This paper will focus on the US role in developing the precedent of International Human Rights and elaborate on the latter groups struggle for human rights in the form of equality, dignity, and self-determination against the United States.
To begin to talk about the codification of rights in the American tradition, one good place to start is with the issuance of the Magna Carta Liberatum (The Great Charter of Freedoms) in 1215 by King John of England, usually referred to simply as the Magna Carta. It was in this document that the rights of the people and the limits of the King were clearly delineated. The Magna Carta was precipitated by a revolt undertaken by English noblemen in response to abuses by the King. They demanded that such a document be produced and it subsequently established that no one, including the King, is above the law. One of the most poignant and preserved ideals contained in the charter was the right to habeas corpus[1] and due process.
It was the Magna Carta that provided significant influence and inspiration to the American Colonists who asserted their independence in 1776. This bold act was made clear within the text of another document that has been heralded in American history, the Declaration of Independence. The document begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…” The document went on to conclude that it was the responsibility of the government to protect those rights and that whenever the government became “destructive” towards those ends, it was the “duty” of the people to “alter” or to “abolish” it.
The result of the American Revolution was the establishment of a new country and the production of another highly revered document that remains the basis for American jurisprudence, the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution has been amended on few occasions since its ratification, but the first ten amendments, effective December 15, 1791, are known collectively as the ‘Bill of Rights’. Among these rights are the right to freedom of speech and religion, security against illegal search & seizure, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and due process. Furthermore, the ninth amendment makes clear that, the “enumeration” of certain rights explicitly noted in the document does not “deny or disparage others [rights] retained by the people”.
The history of “human rights” as a recognized legal term in a contemporary context could be said to begin with the United Nations (UN) ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (UDHR) in 1948. This was a tumultuous period of American, and indeed World, history. The Great Depression and the Second World War had recently reached its end and it was in front of this back drop that Eleanor Roosevelt[2] chaired the UN Human Rights Commission which had the responsibility of enumerating these rights into a concrete framework.
The UDHR would proclaim that, “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind” and further that, “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”. Many of the rights contained within this document are mirrored in the US Constitution, however, some are not, such as the right to work, including “just and favorable remuneration” and the right to form and join unions (Article 23), protection from slavery (Article 4), “economic, social, and cultural” rights, a right to social services and necessities including food, clothing, shelter, and medical care (Article 25), and also a right to leisure (Article 24).
The UDHR is not a legally binding document, even for those countries that signed on to it, but it is a standard of ideals that the State Parties agree to “strive” to adhere to. However, since its inception, other international treaties have developed that put the ideals contained within the UDHR into more elaborate and practical detail, they will be discussed later. It is a given that a law is only as good as the mechanism to protect and enforce it and it is towards that end that judiciaries with international jurisdiction have been formulated. Currently, that body is the International Criminal Court (ICC)[3].
Another event with implications for development of international law was the Nuremburg Trials which were designed to prosecute the Nazis after Germany’s loss in World War II. This was done with the creation of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) by the London Agreement of August 8, 1945. The purpose of the IMT was to prosecute certain identified Nazis for crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit the aforementioned crimes (Nurnburg Trials 2009). The result of the Nuremburg Trials laid the groundwork for and set the necessary precedent for not only the UDHR, but also the Geneva Convention[4], the Genocide Convention[5], the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity[6], and for permanent international courts, rather than ad-hoc tribunals.
As noted earlier, since the inception of the UDHR, several international conventions have been held and subsequent treaties produced. Collectively, some of them have been referred to as the ‘International Bill of Rights’. The United States has signed and ratified some of them (often with reservations) and they have refused to sign others. The refusals and the reservations are indicative of the United State’s true positions on the issues. In order to monitor compliance with the treaties, the United Nations established the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). That office subsequently established several committees to monitor each of what the OHCHR refers to as the “core international human rights treaties”.
Those treaties are as follows (in this paper, I will not elaborate on the status and implications of all of them):
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
- International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966
- United Nations Covenant to End Racism and All Forms of Discrimination (CERD), 1965
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW), 1979
- Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment (CAT), 1984
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989
- International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW), 1990
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 2006
The first treaty to be enacted was CERD in 1965. In the US, this was right in the middle of the turbulent 60s and just a year after the Freedom Summer in 1964 that featured the “Freedom Rides”[7]. During the 1960s, several prominent Black leaders were killed, such as Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr. respectively. Some leaders, like Marshall ‘Eddie’ Conway who was the Minister of Defense for the Baltimore chapter of the Black Panther Party, were targeted and remain in prison up to this day.
Many groups rose up to challenge the racism of the status quo, but they were targeted by the US government and destroyed. The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP) was labeled ‘public enemy #1’ by, then Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), J. Edgar Hoover. It was under Hoover’s leadership that the FBI initiated the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). The stated goal of COINTELPRO was to “disrupt, destroy, or neutralize” what they defined as “militant Black Nationalist groups”, as well as other groups, such as the American Indian Movement (AIM), the Puerto Rican independence movement, and the White Left. Interestingly enough, they even infiltrated White hate groups and incited them to commit racially motivated crimes; “During the 1960s, the FBI’s role was not to protect civil rights workers, but rather, through the use of informants, the Bureau actively assisted the Ku Klux Klan in their campaign of racist murder and terror”
CERD was ratified by the Unites States, but with several notable reservations, such as Article 2 which called for condemnation of racial discrimination and for immediate action to be taken against it; Article 3 which was explicit in its call against segregation and apartheid[8]; and Article 22 which called on states to refer their disputes in these matters to the International Court of Justice[9]. The practice of ratifying with reservations can be viewed as typical of the US. Moreover, the development of human rights ideals and the treaties that elaborate them were not considered by the US to be a process of guaranteeing human rights for its citizens. Rather, the US attempted to manipulate the process of the UN’s development from the very beginning.
“…the Chinese had proposed incorporating human rights, justice, and especially racial equality in the UN Charter. The Soviets immediately denounced the idea and refused to even consider it during the first phase of the conference. The British and the Americans were also vehemently opposed to the idea, but realized that they had to be more circumspect in their denunciation……although the United States would concede that human rights deserved some recognition, under no circumstances would America support an explicit reference to racial equality.”
Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights make up the “International Bill of Rights”. President Jimmy Carter signed both the ICESCR and the ICCPR on October 5, 1977. The US Senate has yet to ratify the ICESCR. However, the ICCPR was ratified 15 years after its signing in 1992, but with several reservations, understandings, and declarations. One of the declarations was “the United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 27 [the entire document] of the Covenant are not self-executing”. This means that the Covenant does not automatically become a part of domestic law. The reservations of the Senate upon ratification included reservations against Articles 7, 20, 10, and 14.
Article 7 was a prohibition against torture, cruel, and inhumane or degrading treatment. Furthermore, it stated explicitly that “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”. In Harriett Washington’s book, Medical Apartheid, she documents the long history of medical experiments on Black Americans, including some done since the 1992 ratification of the treaty. One in particular was a study conducted in New York between the Department of Probation and Columbia University. The idea was to experiment on the younger siblings of juvenile offenders to determine if there was a genetic predisposition to violent behavior. “A 2004 study revealed that the fenfluramine experiments may have damaged more than these children’s physical and legal rights. A relatively low single dose of the drug has been implicated in brain damage in humans as well as animals.”
Another phenomenon that has manifested itself relevant to Article 7 is the use of “Control Units” within some prisons; also known as, Special Housing Units (SHU), Management Control Units (MCU), High Security Units (HSU) segregation and solitary, these new ‘prisons within prisons’ are simultaneously cruel/unusual and medical (psychological) experiments. Evidence of that is found in the origins of the control units. In 1961 the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons convened a meeting with leading social scientists and prison wardens. The keynote speaker was Dr. Edward Schein who explained his theories on brainwashing and how certain techniques could be used to modify behavior in inmates[10]. In just a decade control units that utilized his suggestions could be found all over the country.
Two of the most notorious prisons for their use of Schein’s methods are Marion Penitentiary in Illinois for men and Lexington Penitentiary in Kentucky for women. Attorney Jill Soffiyah Elijah writes of them “They are only let out of their cells for one hour [a day] to shower and take recreation on the tier…. The drinking water is contaminated and many of the inmates have developed unexplained tumors and illnesses. The cells at Marion consist of a stone bed and a toilet/wash bowl. No contact visits are allowed….” On Lexington she wrote that “Bright lights stayed on 24 hours a day, all walls were painted off-white, and no interaction with other inmates was ever allowed. Strip and cavity searches by males was commonplace. The physical health of each of these women deteriorated significantly…..”
The reservation of Article 20, which prohibited war propaganda and stated that “Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”, was based upon protecting the free speech rights of American citizens. In the field of human rights, the protection of free speech became a paramount objective in the eyes of the US from the beginning. This was a reaction to the reality of hypocrisy between US ideals and reality. Indeed, the State Department wanted the US to have a central role in the formulation of human rights, but the reality of racial discrimination, Jim Crow, and other inequalities made this a difficult task.
“The department therefore tried to stabilize America’s human rights house of cards with the cornerstone of democracy, the First Amendment. The Department’s logic was simple. Without free speech, the oppressed would never be able to bring grievances before the public, and there would be no hope of ever improving the situation. Thus, it was free speech that separated tyrannies like the Soviet Union from democracies like America.”
The reservations of Articles 10 and 14 deal with the treatment of juveniles as adults within the criminal justice system. The United States is the only country in the world that legally allows for the sentencing of juveniles to life and prison as well as executing people for crimes committed as juveniles. Of particular note is the reservation against Article 10, paragraph 3 which states “the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders should be segregated from adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.” The question should be asked here, if the aim of imprisonment is not “reformation and rehabilitation” than what is it?
In the American tradition, the theory and history of “crime and punishment” is very unique. In fact, the development of the modern prison system during the 19th century reverberated around the world and changed the way prisoners are warehoused. According to Sasha Abramsky “prisons are such an integral part of state infrastructures around the world that it is hard to imagine what a revolutionary concept they originally were”
The last treaty that I want to elaborate on is the United Nations Covenant Against Torture other Cruel, Inhumane, or Degrading Treatment (CAT). The US Senate ratified it in 1994. In 2002 the UN General Assembly adopted an Optional Protocol to the treaty that would, as stated in Article 1 of the protocol, “The objective of the present Protocol is to establish a system of regular visits undertaken by independent international and national bodies to places where people are deprived of their liberty, in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” There were no explicit reservations to the CAT, but upon ratification the Senate did state that “... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."
The CAT defines torture in Article 1, paragraph 1 as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person”. By this definition, the United States would be in clear violation of the treaty for its use of the control units within prisons mentioned above. Other abominable prison conditions could also be cited as cruel and unusual. Article 10 demands that States Party to the treaty should ensure that law enforcement, military, medical personnel, and other public officials “involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment” are educated fully about the contents of the CAT as part of their training. This is not done.
Articles 14 and 15 are designed to ensure that victims of torture receive redress and compensation and that any statements obtained under that kind of duress are not used against them. There is a recent case of former Black Panthers, known collectively in this instance as the San Francisco 8 (SF8), which exposes US disregard for those articles. Several of the plaintiffs in the SF8 case were arrested and tortured in 1971 as law enforcement ostensibly sought answers and retribution to an unsolved killing of a police officer in San Francisco. Eventually, they were acquitted of the charges, though no one was prosecuted or punished for the torture they endured, based upon the inadmissibility of their torture induced confessions. In 2005, with the money and resources made available through the new Department of Homeland Security, a new case with old charges (murder and conspiracy to commit murder) was opened against them. One by one, each of the defendants have had the charges against them dropped for lack of evidence, only one defendant remains and, to date, he has beaten the conspiracy charge. None of the SF8 ever received compensation or rehabilitation (Article 14), nor was a “prompt and impartial” investigation conducted into the police department as called for in Article 12.
This writing is partially premised on the idea that a cursory glance and, verily, an in depth study into the treatment of African-Americans by the United States in the context of human rights would reveal what many refer to now as “American Exceptionalism”. Michael Ignatieff, in an anthology entitled American Exceptionalism and Human Rights defined it this way:
“American exceptionalism has at least three elements. First, the United States signs on to international human rights and humanitarian conventions and treaties and then exempts itself from their provisions by explicit reservation, non ratification, or non compliance. Second, the United States maintains double standards….. Third, the United States denies jurisdiction to international law within its own domestic law…”
Some African-American groups took the budding of international human rights law as an opportunity to bring their collective struggle to the world stage in search of redress based upon the nature of the discussions taking place. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) took the lead and went to the State Department and the world to address their concerns. However, the NAACP gave up that struggle in favor of the less meaningful struggle for civil and political rights. One of the reasons for that was the anti-communist climate of the times. Talk of the values of economic and social rights could easily be misrepresented as communist talk and the organization could then be put at the mercy of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)[11]. Another reason was government infiltration and arguably lack of fortitude to carry out such a controversial issue.
In the United States, many of the “rights” and protections enjoyed by minority groups were made possible as a result of struggles waged by African-Americans. On the world stage, America often, for better and for worse, sets the standard by way of example for international action, with respect to economics, politics, and military engagement. Just as America has been forced to adhere (ever so slowly) to the ideas memorialized in the Constitution, similarly, it must be forced to adhere to the human rights that Eleanor Roosevelt led the way in formulating.
However, in this instance, the US will not have as much latitude to hypocritically conform to International Law as it has had to domestic law. Not only because of the inherent outside accountability that the world stage creates, but also because of the narrowing of US power and influence globally. The US cannot keep up this schizophrenic relationship with the world and it’s “reluctant participation places it in a highly paradoxical relation to an emerging international legal order based on human rights principles…..America has promoted human rights norms around the world, while also resisting the idea that these norms apply to American citizens” (Ignatieff 2001). Surely, the plight of African-Americans for the protection, recognition, and respect of their human rights within the bowels of America will undoubtedly reverberate around the world and create a new climate of adherence to International Law and norms.
[1] (Latin, "you have the body") Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. (Habeas Corpus 2009)
[2] Eleanor Roosevelt was the First Lady of the United States from 1933-1945
[3] The International Criminal Court is a permanent international tribunal that will try individuals responsible for the most serious international crimes. One hundred and sixty countries attended a U.N.-sponsored conference in Rome in 1998 to draft a treaty for the establishment of the ICC. After five weeks of intense negotiations, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven countries voted against it (including China, Libya, Iraq, and the United States) and 21 abstained. Before the court can be set up, 60 countries need to ratify the treaty. 139 states signed the treaty by the 31 December 2000 deadline. The treaty entered into force on July 1, 2002. As of July 18, 2008, 108 states have ratified it. The ICC will prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, all defined in the court's treaty. The ICC will help ensure that these serious crimes, which have long been recognized by the international community, no longer go unpunished because of the unwillingness or inability of individual countries to prosecute them. (Questions and Answers about the ICC 2009)
[4] The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories. The International Conferences of the Red Cross of the 1920's took the first steps towards laying down supplementary rules for the protection of civilians in time of war. The 1929 Diplomatic Conference, which revised the Geneva Convention on wounded and sick and drew up the Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, limited itself to recommending that "studies should be made with a view to concluding a convention on the protection of
civilians in enemy territory and in enemy occupied territory." A draft convention containing forty articles prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross was approved by the International Conference of the Red Cross in Tokyo in 1934 and is generally referred to as the "Tokyo Draft". It was to be submitted to a diplomatic conference planned for 1940, but this was postponed on account of the war. The events of World War II showed the disastrous consequences of the absence of a convention for the protection of civilians in wartime. The Convention adopted in 1949 takes account of the experiences of World War II. It contains a rather short part concerning the general protection of populations against certain consequences of war (Part II), leaving aside the problem of the limitation of the use of weapons. The great bulk of the Convention (Part III - Articles 27-141) puts forth the regulations governing the status and treatment of protected persons; these provisions distinguish between the situation of foreigners on the territory of one of the parties to the conflict and that of civilians in occupied territory. The Convention does not invalidate the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 on the same subjects but is supplementary to them (see Article 154 of the Convention). (International Humanitarian Law - Treaties and Documents 2009)
[5] The Convention on Genocide was among the first United Nations conventions addressing humanitarian issues. It was adopted in 1948 in response to the atrocities committed during World War II and followed G.A. Res. 180(II) of 21 December 1947 in which the UN recognised that "genocide is an international crime, which entails the national and international responsibility of individual persons and states." The Convention has since then been widely accepted by the international community and ratified by the overwhelmingly majority of States. Furthermore, in Article 2, it describes Genocide thusly:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(International Humanitarian Law - Treaties and Documents 2009)
[6] The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by United Nations General Assembly resolution 2391 (XXIII) of 26 November 1968. Pursuant to the provisions of its Article VIII (90 days following the deposit of the tenth ratification), it came into force on 11 November 1970. The Convention provides that no signatory state may apply statutory limitations to war crimes as they are defined in the Charter of the Nürnberg International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 or to crimes against humanity, whether committed in time of war or in time of peace, as defined in the Charter of the Nürnberg International Military Tribunal, eviction by armed attack or occupation, inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As of July 2007, 51 UN member states were parties to the Convention. (Wikipedia 2009)
[7] The Freedom Rides were engineered by the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Council On Racial Equality (CORE), along with a less influential coalition of other groups including the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) which were represented under the banner of COFO, the Council of Federated Organizations. The objective of the Freedom Rides was to encourage voter registration and participation and to establish ‘Freedom Schools’. The targeted area for both prongs of the initiative was Mississippi. The organizers had identified the state as one that most other organizations had shied away from due to the intense overt racism and the threat of violent backlash by the White inhabitants of the area. (Rachal 1999)
[8] the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article 3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
[9] That with reference to article 22 of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.
[10] 1. Physically remove the prisoner to an area sufficiently isolated in order to break or seriously weaken close ties. 2. Segregate all natural leaders. 3. Prohibit group activities that do not fit brainwashing objectives. 4. Systematic withholding of mail. 5. Create a feeling amongst the isolated group of prisoners that they have been abandoned by and totally isolated from the community. 6. Undermine all emotional supports. 7. Preclude access to literature which does not aid in the brainwashing process.
[11] House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), a committee (1938–75) of the U.S. House of Representatives, created to investigate disloyalty and subversive organizations. Its first chairman, Martin Dies, set the pattern for its anti-Communist investigations. The committee's methods included pressure on witnesses to name former associates, vague and sweeping accusations against individuals, and the assumption of an individual's guilt because of association with a suspect organization. Witnesses who refused to answer were cited for contempt of Congress.
Works Cited
Abramsky, Sasha. American Furies: Crime, Punishment, and Vengeance in the Age of Mass Imprisonment. Boston: Beacon Press, 2007.
Anderson, Carol. Eyes Off the Prize: The United Nations and the African-American Struggle for Human Rights, 1944-1955. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Elijah, Jill Soffiya. "Conditions of Confinement: Cruel and Unusual Punishment for Black Political Prisoners." The NOBO [Network of Black Organizers] Journal of African-American Dialogue, 1995: 137-148.
"Habeas Corpus." Lectric Law Library. 2009. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm (accessed November 18, 2009).
Ignatieff, Michael. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Ignatieff, Michael. "Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human Rights." In American Exceptionalism and Human Rights, by Michael Ignatieff (editor), 1-26. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.
International Humanitarian Law - Treaties and Documents. 2009. http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380?OpenDocument (accessed November 18, 2009).
"International Humanitarian Law - Treaties and Documents." International Committee of the Red Cross. 2009. http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/INTRO/357?OpenDocument (accessed November 18, 2009).
"Nurnburg Trials." Encyclopedia Brittanica Online. 2009. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/422668/Nurnberg-trials (accessed November 16, 2009).
"Questions and Answers about the ICC." Human Rights Watch. 2009. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/icc/qna.htm (accessed November 18, 2009).
Rachal, John R. ""The Long, Hot Summer": The Mississippi Response to Freedom Summer." The Journal of Negro History, 1999: 315-339.
Washington, Harriett A. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Anchor Books, 2006.
Wikipedia. 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Non-Applicability_of_Statutory_Limitations_to_War_Crimes_and_Crimes_Against_Humanity (accessed November 18, 2009).
Wolf, Paul. "COINTELPRO: The Untold Story." Report to the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights at the World Conference Against Racism, 2001.
[1] (Latin, "you have the body") Prisoners often seek release by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another's detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. Habeas corpus petitions are usually filed by persons serving prison sentences. (Habeas Corpus 2009)
[2] Eleanor Roosevelt was the First Lady of the United States from 1933-1945
[3] The International Criminal Court is a permanent international tribunal that will try individuals responsible for the most serious international crimes. One hundred and sixty countries attended a U.N.-sponsored conference in Rome in 1998 to draft a treaty for the establishment of the ICC. After five weeks of intense negotiations, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven countries voted against it (including China, Libya, Iraq, and the United States) and 21 abstained. Before the court can be set up, 60 countries need to ratify the treaty. 139 states signed the treaty by the 31 December 2000 deadline. The treaty entered into force on July 1, 2002. As of July 18, 2008, 108 states have ratified it. The ICC will prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, all defined in the court's treaty. The ICC will help ensure that these serious crimes, which have long been recognized by the international community, no longer go unpunished because of the unwillingness or inability of individual countries to prosecute them. (Questions and Answers about the ICC 2009)
[4] The Geneva Conventions which were adopted before 1949 were concerned with combatants only, not with civilians. Some provisions concerning the protection of populations against the consequences of war and their protection in occupied territories are contained in the Regulations concerning the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. During World War I the Hague provisions proved to be insufficient in view of the dangers originating from air warfare and of the problems relating to the treatment of civilians in enemy territory and in occupied territories. The International Conferences of the Red Cross of the 1920's took the first steps towards laying down supplementary rules for the protection of civilians in time of war. The 1929 Diplomatic Conference, which revised the Geneva Convention on wounded and sick and drew up the Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war, limited itself to recommending that "studies should be made with a view to concluding a convention on the protection of
civilians in enemy territory and in enemy occupied territory." A draft convention containing forty articles prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross was approved by the International Conference of the Red Cross in Tokyo in 1934 and is generally referred to as the "Tokyo Draft". It was to be submitted to a diplomatic conference planned for 1940, but this was postponed on account of the war. The events of World War II showed the disastrous consequences of the absence of a convention for the protection of civilians in wartime. The Convention adopted in 1949 takes account of the experiences of World War II. It contains a rather short part concerning the general protection of populations against certain consequences of war (Part II), leaving aside the problem of the limitation of the use of weapons. The great bulk of the Convention (Part III - Articles 27-141) puts forth the regulations governing the status and treatment of protected persons; these provisions distinguish between the situation of foreigners on the territory of one of the parties to the conflict and that of civilians in occupied territory. The Convention does not invalidate the provisions of the Hague Regulations of 1907 on the same subjects but is supplementary to them (see Article 154 of the Convention). (International Humanitarian Law - Treaties and Documents 2009)
[5] The Convention on Genocide was among the first United Nations conventions addressing humanitarian issues. It was adopted in 1948 in response to the atrocities committed during World War II and followed G.A. Res. 180(II) of 21 December 1947 in which the UN recognised that "genocide is an international crime, which entails the national and international responsibility of individual persons and states." The Convention has since then been widely accepted by the international community and ratified by the overwhelmingly majority of States. Furthermore, in Article 2, it describes Genocide thusly:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
(International Humanitarian Law - Treaties and Documents 2009)
[6] The Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by United Nations General Assembly resolution 2391 (XXIII) of 26 November 1968. Pursuant to the provisions of its Article VIII (90 days following the deposit of the tenth ratification), it came into force on 11 November 1970. The Convention provides that no signatory state may apply statutory limitations to war crimes as they are defined in the Charter of the Nürnberg International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 or to crimes against humanity, whether committed in time of war or in time of peace, as defined in the Charter of the Nürnberg International Military Tribunal, eviction by armed attack or occupation, inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. As of July 2007, 51 UN member states were parties to the Convention. (Wikipedia 2009)
[7] The Freedom Rides were engineered by the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Council On Racial Equality (CORE), along with a less influential coalition of other groups including the Southern Christian Leadership Council (SCLC) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) which were represented under the banner of COFO, the Council of Federated Organizations. The objective of the Freedom Rides was to encourage voter registration and participation and to establish ‘Freedom Schools’. The targeted area for both prongs of the initiative was Mississippi. The organizers had identified the state as one that most other organizations had shied away from due to the intense overt racism and the threat of violent backlash by the White inhabitants of the area. (Rachal 1999)
[8] the United States does not accept any obligation under this Convention to enact legislation or take other measures under paragraph (1) of article 2, subparagraphs (1) (c) and (d) of article 2, article 3 and article 5 with respect to private conduct except as mandated by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
[9] That with reference to article 22 of the Convention, before any dispute to which the United States is a party may be submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under this article, the specific consent of the United States is required in each case.
[10] 1. Physically remove the prisoner to an area sufficiently isolated in order to break or seriously weaken close ties. 2. Segregate all natural leaders. 3. Prohibit group activities that do not fit brainwashing objectives. 4. Systematic withholding of mail. 5. Create a feeling amongst the isolated group of prisoners that they have been abandoned by and totally isolated from the community. 6. Undermine all emotional supports. 7. Preclude access to literature which does not aid in the brainwashing process.
[11] House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), a committee (1938–75) of the U.S. House of Representatives, created to investigate disloyalty and subversive organizations. Its first chairman, Martin Dies, set the pattern for its anti-Communist investigations. The committee's methods included pressure on witnesses to name former associates, vague and sweeping accusations against individuals, and the assumption of an individual's guilt because of association with a suspect organization. Witnesses who refused to answer were cited for contempt of Congress.