MIM(Prisons) is a cell of revolutionaries serving the oppressed masses inside U.$. prisons, guided by the communist ideology of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Under Lock & Key is a news service written by and for prisoners with a focus on what is going on behind bars throughout the United States. Under Lock & Key is available to U.S. prisoners for free through MIM(Prisons)'s Free Political Literature to Prisoners Program, by writing:
MIM(Prisons) PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140.
I have filed a
petition
in Los Angeles County Superior Court on the inadequacy of the grievance
procedure in California prisons. I’ve also written letters to the
California Attorney General’s Office, the LA County District Attorney
Office, the Governor’s office and various media outlets in order to seek
their assistance in forcing the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) staff to honor their own policies and regulations.
All of my above efforts were to no avail.
The LA County Superior Court ordered an informal response when I filed
my petition. The California Attorney General’s office assumed the
position of respondent to my petition and asked for an extension of time
to reply to my petition, and then they failed to meet even that
deadline. Before the Attorney General replied, the court denied my
petition stating that I was not in compliance with the grievance
procedure, despite being unable to cite a single grievance regulation
that I hadn’t complied with. This judicial abdication of CDCR staff
lawlessness is routine in California state-level courts.
I had tried addressing the inadequate grievance procedure in the federal
courts, by way of a federal civil suit that I filed against California
State Prison - Corcoran. The ruling on this was that the CDCR’s
violation of their grievance procedure does not create a federal
constitutional violation, basically saying that the due process clause
is meaningless. The case is now pending in the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals, case number 12-17419.
My “take-away” from my efforts so far is that in dealing with these
government types (da pigs, bureaucrats, politicians, government,
attorneys, etc.) in general, you’re up against brazenly
socioeconomically biased, unreasonable, spiteful, hypocritical,
out-of-touch, legitimized sociopaths. They work together to justify
clearly unlawful behavior, and are adverse to a system of legitimate
checks and balances. They see barely disguised partiality, in the
disposition of their duties, as reasonable and good. We see evidence of
this daily. I mean, the recently exposed
NSA
spy program is beyond any reasonable dispute a violation of the
Fourth Amendment, yet they go on unapologetically violating the same
constitution that they claim to cherish, absolutely Orwellian with the
“double-think.”
What irritates me even more is the public’s complacency in the face of
this brazen tyranny by this nation’s power elite. The Declaration of
Independence states that it is not only a right, but a duty for the
people to replace a lawless government. When will we honor that duty?
Thank you for your time, consideration, and your work performed on
behalf of the people.
MIM(Prisons) responds: We agree with this comrade’s conclusions,
and of course, we harbored no real expectations of action from the
bureaucrats’ offices and courts going into this campaign. This is why we
constantly stress the need to organize people around these demands. The
pigs are not usually going to do something just because it’s right. They
are more likely do something when they are pressured to do it. And
pressure can only be applied when prisoners are organized for their
common interests.
This is class struggle of the imprisoned lumpen against the bourgeois
classes. When this struggle does not exist, our so-called “rights” under
bourgeois democracy disappear, demonstrating that they never really
existed in their own right. That is why we don’t hesitate to report this
comrade’s failures, because they underline that important lesson. They
also allow us to highlight the real victory in the grievance campaign,
which is prisoners across many states acting in unison, sharing
information and strategizing. Our strategies around this campaign need
to keep the big picture of the balance of power in mind so that we do
not get lost in an endless cycle of give and take with the pigs.
“The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Constitution
of the United States only requires a state to provide its inmates with
access to a law library or access to persons trained
in the law. Bounds v.
Smith, 40 U.S. 817, 97, S. Ct. 1491, 52 L. Ed. 2d 72
(1977). The choice of which alternative to provide lies with
the state, not with the inmate. Connecticut has chosen to rely on access
to persons trained in the law in order to comply with the requirements
of Bounds.” - CT DOC
form letter
One of the services that the Connecticut Department of Corrections
offers to prisoners is the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services at Yale
University. In a letter dated 17 November 2012 that organization
responded to a comrade stating:
We received your letter requesting assistance. Unfortunately, this
office no longer has the resources to provide information or
representation to such requests.
This is similar to the situation in North Carolina where the state
contracts with the completely useless
North
Carolina Prisoner Legal Service, Inc. But, as we know, in other
states where law libraries are provided, the resources in those
libraries are also grossly inadequate. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton’s
Prisoners Litigation Reform Act seriously hampered the ability of
prisoners to get their grievances heard in U.$. courts. For those
interested in this law we recommend
Mumia
Abu Jamal’s book Jailhouse Lawyers.
Our response to all of this is two-pronged. The main lesson is that
legal battles cannot win prisoner rights under imperialism. As Mumia
exposes in his book, the belief that they can leads hard-working
jailhouse lawyers to literally go crazy. To win, we must organize
oppressed people to establish a joint dictatorship of the proletariat of
the oppressed nations over the former oppressors. Under proletarian
leadership, exploitation and oppression will become the biggest crimes,
and prisons will become places for education and re-socialization rather
than torture and isolation.
Our second prong is our Serve the People Prisoners’ Legal Clinic. This
is our short-term strategy. We know that legal information is difficult
to obtain in the current system, and that providing access to this
information in a useful way helps oppressed people in prison to survive
this system. Just be careful that our legal work does not help prop up
the very system that oppresses us, as Mumia warns. If you want to help
prepare and share legal guides for anti-imperialist jailhouse lawyers
write in and ask to work with the Prisoners’ Legal Clinic.
The bourgeoisie seems to be losing the battle for free enterprise
against the repressive U.$. government. There can no longer be any
commercial email service that does not provide direct access to all its
users’ information to the U.$. intelligence agencies. We discovered this
today when our email server, lavabit.com, was no longer accessible and
the owner posted a message stating,
I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in
crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of
hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I
have decided to suspend operations.
The clear implication is that the feds approached him to demand access
to the communications on his server. Existing communications were
advertised as not accessible to anyone but the user who owns the
account. In order to not release any future user info to the feds he
shut down the server; a decision surely not taken lightly when people
depend on their email for so much of their lives.
Just earlier this week it was revealed that a popular hosting service
for Tor hidden services was comprimised and sites on that server were
infected with malicious javascript to reveal users’ IP addresses
(usually hidden by the Tor network) to a server located in Virginia. The
obvious implication there was that this operation was related to U.$.
intelligence agencies which dominate the region. One of the more popular
sites affected by this attack was Tormail, another self-proclaimed
secure email service.
All of this comes on the heels of the release of information on the U.$.
National Security Agency’s (NSA) system of monitoring all electronic
communications in the world. Information released makes it clear that
all major commercial software companies have provided backdoors to their
software and online services to the U.$. government. With the
destruction of Lavabit and TorMail, it seems clear that the United
$tates has no intention of letting any exceptions to that rule continue.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden was known to use lavabit.com for his email,
leading many to conclude that Lavabit was a victim of the U.$. hunt for
Snowden himself. Others have speculated that the attack on Tor was an
attempt to scare people out of the so-called darknet and back into the
friendly arms of Google, Microsoft, et al.
While using allegedly secure online services can provide an extra layer
of protection, you cannot rely on an unknown party for your security
anyway. That is why services with built in PGP encryption, like
hushmail.com, are a joke from the get go. Hushmail.com openly works with
the Amerikan government already even though they are not a U.$. company.
Certainly other nations will attempt to seize the competitive advantage
they now have over a business that has long been dominated by U.$.
companies. And as we recently said, the positive of all this is a
surge
in demand and innovation in the realm of computer security.
For now, you cannot email MIM(Prisons); instead, see our
contact page. We
will be investigating alternative solutions and post them on our
announcements and contact page once they are available. If you’re still
using unencrypted email for political work, get with the times and start
studying our
security links
on our contact page. The last revolutionary generation underestimated
the role of COINTELPRO until it was too late. It would be a crime
against the people for us to make the same mistake with everything we
know today.
Recently Mayor Annise Parker of Houston, Texas enacted a City Ordinance
which makes it against the law to feed more than 5 hungry homeless
people at a time. Many may remember that mayor Parker made national
headlines by becoming the first openly gay/lesbian womyn to be elected
mayor to a major u.s. city. One would think that of all people Mayor
Parker would be sensitive to the needs of the oppressed and the poor. Of
course this mode of thinking is pathetically idealistic and goes against
our scientific method for analyzing and solving problems.
I did a concrete analysis of Mayor Parker’s actions since she has been
in office, and time and time again she has strategically proposed
ordinances which promote a “war” on the poor and homeless. Houston is an
international imperialist strong hold. The war profiteers Halliburton
and Kellog, Brown, and Root have offices in Houston. There are countless
oil companies based in Houston. These companies literally rob and
exploit the natural resources of many poor and under-developed Third
World countries. Mayor Parker is nothing more than an “agent” for these
money hungry imperialists. In Mayor Parker’s eyes, the poor hungry
masses in Houston are an “eyesore” and more importantly, bad for
bu$ine$$!
There are many activists who have balked at this new ordinance. They
include an incredibly diverse group of individuals. Socialists, Black
Panthers, Anarchists, Christians, Right wingers, and Left wingers, the
public at large simply does not like this new ordinance. The benevolent
“snake” Mayor Parker told the activists that if they could come up with
20,000 signatures of citizens who do not approve of the ordinance she
would consider rescinding it. The activists came up with 34,000
signatures to put the issue on the ballot. Mayor Parker and City Council
members conspired to sabotage the activist’s ability to be heard and
acknowledged at a recent city council meeting. A local judge, named Bill
Harris determined that the activists submitted their petition too late!
Police terrorism is alive and well in Houston. The homeless who reside
downtown are favorite targets of the abusive Houston Police Department
officers. The fine for feeding more than 5 homeless people at a time is
$2000 and/or jail! People who usually bring food to feed the homeless
are afraid.
More than ever we are in dire need of a revolution that overthrows this
wicked and corrupt imperialist system that exploits and takes advantage
of the “have nots” of society. It is going to take people who are
willing to fight and not negotiate with the enemy.
Notes: KPFT Radio 90.1 FM. S.O.S. Radio show with Brother Zinn, 12
September 2012. Facebook.com/KPFT Houston.
Greetings. The struggle is long and arduous, and sometimes we do etch
out significant victories, as in the case of our brotha in In re
Crawford, 206 Cal.App.4th 1259 (2012).
It’s important to emphasize that this victory is a significant step in
reaffirming that prisoners are entitled to a measure of First Amendment
protection that cannot be ignored simply because the state dislikes the
spiel. New Afrikan prisoners have a right to identify with their
birthright if they so choose, as does anyone else for that matter –
Black, White or Brown. …
[California prison officials] have gone so far as to boldly proclaim
that the term New Afrikan was created by the Black Guerilla Family (BGF)
and that those who identify as or use the term are declaring their
allegiance to the BGF, which has been declared a prison gang. They have
sought to suppress its usage by validating (i.e. designating as a gang
member or associate) anyone who uses the term or who dares mention the
name George Jackson. …
Our brotha’s case In Re Crawford was filed June 4, 2012, and
certified for publication June 13. In a brilliant piece of judicial
reasoning, a panel of justices in a 3-0 decision finally reaffirmed a
prisoner’s First Amendment right to free speech and expression, stating:
Freedom of speech is first among the rights which form the foundation of
our free society. “The First Amendment embodies our choice as a nation
that, when it comes to such speech, the guiding principle is freedom –
the unfettered interchange of ideas – not whatever the State may view as
fair.” (Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett (2011) 131
S.Ct. 2806). “The protection given speech and press was fashioned to
assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of
political and social changes desired by the people … All ideas having
even the slightest redeeming social importance – unorthodox ideas,
controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of
opinion – have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable
because they encroach upon the limited area of more important
interests.” (Roth v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 476, 484.”
The programs embodied in the New Afrikan Collective Think Tank, New
Afrikan Institute of Criminology 101, the George Jackson University and
the New Afrikan ideology itself are inclusive programs emphasizing a
solution-based approach to carnage in the poverty stricken slums from
where many of us come. The CDCR Prison Intelligence Units (PIU) have
sought to suppress these initiatives simply because they do not like the
message. They have marched into court after court with one standard
line: New Afrikan means BGF and these initiatives are promoting the BGF.
In re Crawford continues,
As recently noted by Chief Justice Roberts, “[t]he First Amendment
reflects ‘a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on
public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.’ [Citation.]
That is because ‘speech concerning public affairs is more than
self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.’ [Citation.] …
Speech on public issues occupies the highest rung of the hierarchy of
First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection.”
(Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 562 U.S. , [131 S.Ct. 1207,
1215].
In re Crawford is a very important ruling because the justices
said these protections apply to prisoners as well. …
George Jackson cannot be removed from the fabric of the people’s
struggles in this society any more than Malcolm X can or Medger Evers or
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Harriett Tubman or Sojourner Truth or Ida
B. Wells, Rosa Parks or Frederick Douglass, or the countless others
who’ve fought and struggled for a brighter future for generations to
come.
What CDCR and its PIU are trying to do is make a run around the First
Amendment by shielding its suppression activity under the guise of
preventing gang activity, just as it’s done historically, which gave
rise to Procunier v. Martinez (1974) 416 U.S. 396, 413.
In In re Crawford, CDCR argued for an exception to the Martinez
test for validated gang members. The court declined to make such an
exception, holding: “Gang related correspondence is not within the
exception to the First Amendment test for censorship of outgoing inmate
mail.”
The fact that they even argued for such an exception shows their
mindset. Their intentions are to suppress that which they believe to be
repugnant, offensive and that which they believe a prisoner ought not be
thinking! In their minds we have no right to think or possess ideas,
concepts or vision beyond that which they believe we should possess.
Until In Re Crawford, these highly educated judges were
sanctioning this nonsense with twisted, perverted rulings permitting a
newspaper article or magazine layout or book to be used against a
prisoner for validation purposes [to put them in torture cells -
editor]. They issued twisted rulings like those in Ellis v.
Cambra or Hawkins v. Russell and In Re Furnace,
where the petitioner was told he has no right to his thoughts and the
First Amendment only protects a prisoner’s right to file a 602
[grievance form].
These kinds of fallacious rulings ought to be publicized so as to show
the skillful manipulation of the law by those sworn to uphold it. In
Re Crawford reestablishes that First Amendment protections apply to
prisoners and that we too enjoy a measure of free speech and expression.
We ought not be punished with fabricated notions of gang activity for
merely a thought!
However, if we are to continue to meet with success, we need our
professors, historians and intellectuals to step up and provide
declarations that we can use in our litigation, defending our right to
read, write and study all aspects of a people’s history, like Professor
James T. Campbell did in In Re Crawford. This is the only way a
prisoner can challenge the opinion of a prison official. …
Much work remains to be done, like stopping the bogus validations based
on legitimate First Amendment material. We know that many individuals
are falsely validated simply for reading George’s books or a newspaper
article, for observing Black August or for simply trying to get in touch
with one’s cultural identity.
These legitimate expressions should carry no penalty at all. You’re not
doing anything wrong, and a lot of brothas who’ve been validated simply
shouldn’t be. Nor should folks be frightened away from reading or
studying any aspect of history simply because the state doesn’t like its
content. Judges who issue fallacious opinions permitting prisoners to be
punished for reading a George Jackson book or researching your history
should be exposed.
Literary content and cultural and historical materials are not the
activities of a gang; they are political and social activities that we
have a right to express, according to the unanimous decision in In
re Crawford.
The First Amendment campaign continues to forge ahead, although we still
don’t have a lawyer. The campaign still exists, and we anticipate even
greater successes in the future. … We’ve cracked one layer of a thick
wall. Now all prisoners should take advantage of this brilliant ruling
and reassert your rights to study your heritage, Black, White or Brown.
MIM(Prisons) adds: The issue in this case was one that we have
experienced first-hand as well. For example, in 2008 a letter from a
comrade in California was censored before it could reach us because it
discussed the New Afrikan Collective, which allegedly was a code word
for the Black Guerrilla Family.(1) But in reality, the New Afrikan
Collective was a new political organization in New York focused on
bettering the conditions of New Afrikans as a nation, with no
connections to any sort of criminal activity.
The first thing that strikes us about this case is a quote from the
proceedings cited by the author above, “Gang related correspondence is
not within the exception to the First Amendment test for censorship of
outgoing inmate mail.” Unfortunately this is not part of the final
opinion explaining the decision of the court, and it is specific to
outgoing mail from the prison. Nonetheless, it would logically follow
from this statement that anything that can be connected to a gang is not
automatically dangerous or illegal.
“Gang members” have long been the boogeyman of post-integration white
Amerika. The pigs use “gang member” as a codeword to excuse the abuse
and denial of constitutional rights to oppressed nation youth,
particularly New Afrikan men. And this has been institutionalized in
more recent years with “gang enhancements,” “gang injunctions” and
“security threat group” labels that punish people for belonging to
lumpen organizations. Often our mail is censored because it mentions the
name of a lumpen organization in the context of a peace initiative or
organizing for prisoners’ humyn rights. While criminal activity is
deemed deserving more punishment with the gang label, non-criminal
activity is deemed criminal as well.
As the author discusses, it becomes a question of controlling ideas to
the extreme, where certain words are not permitted to be spoken or
written and certain symbols and colors cannot be displayed. So the quote
from the court above is just a baby step in the direction of applying
the First Amendment rights of association and expression to oppressed
nation youth. Those who are legally inclined should consider how this
issue can be pushed further in future battles. Not only is such work
important in restoring rights to people, but we can create space for
these organizations to build in more positive directions.
Part of this criminalization of a specific sector of society is the use
of self-created and perpetuated so-called experts on gang intelligence.
Most of our readers are all too familiar with this farce of a profession
that is acutely exposed by the court’s opinion in this case. The final
court opinion calls out CO J. Silveira for claiming that the plaintiff’s
letter contained an intricate code when he could provide no evidence
that this was true. They also call him out for using his “training and
experience” as the basis for all his arguments.
The warden’s argument is flawed for two reasons. First, the argument is
based solely on the unsupported assertions and speculative conclusions
in Silveira’s declaration. The declaration is incompetent as evidence
because it contains no factual allegations supporting those assertions
and conclusions. Second, even if the declaration could properly be
considered, it does not establish that the letter posed a threat to
prison security.
As great as this is, as the author of the article above points out, they
usually get away with such baseless claims. More well thought out
lawsuits like this are needed, because more favorable case law is
needed. But neither alone represents any real victory in a system that
exists to maintain the existing social hierarchy. These are just pieces
of a long, patient struggle that has been ongoing for generations. The
people must exercise the rights won here to make them real. We must
popularize and contextualize the nature of this struggle.
On 3 October 2011 I was notified by prison authorities that I had
received the September/October 2011 No. 22 issue of Under Lock &
Key (ULK) in the mail. I was further notified that I could
not have ULK because it is banned throughout the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC). I grieved this unconstitutional
banning of ULK since IDOC cannot validate its claim that
ULK is a threat to security. On 27 July 2012 I filed a Section
1983 Civil Suit against the director of IDOC, S.A. Godinez.
This lawsuit is based on the grounds that IDOC cannot substantiate the
banning of ULK and that the banning of ULK violates my
Constitutional Rights to: 1) Receive and own reading material; 2)
Have freedom of speech; and 3) Have freedom of political expression.
In my Statement of Claim I gave a brief definition of what MIM(Prisons)
and ULK are. However, I was wondering if you would like to
prepare a statement about what exactly MIM(Prisons) and ULK are
and the purpose of their existence.
In further news, on 16 August 2012 another prisoner and I received a
notice saying that we had received the July/August 2012 No. 27 issue of
ULK in the mail and that we couldn’t have it because
ULK is banned. We are both currently in the second of three
stages of the grievance procedure and will be filing a Class Action
lawsuit within the next six months challenging the banning of
ULK. This suit will merge with my already existing one.
Any information that you can send me on this topic would be greatly
appreciated.
MIM(Prisons) responds: The comrade above has not received an
issue of Under Lock & Key since November 2011. Appealing
the censorship and going through the grievance procedure will often
successfully get you the mail that the authorities are attempting to
deny. If that doesn’t work, we need to be prepared to take the censors
to court when possible.
Unfortunately, due to our very limited resources, it is very difficult
for us to offer legal assistance directly on your case. Instead we run
the Prisoners’ Legal Clinic in an attempt to empower and encourage our
subscribers to do their best putting together and filing their case on
their own. Recently another comrade offered h legal services to help
fight censorship in Illinois, which is not just an ongoing problem for
the author of this Civil Suit. We are attempting to facilitate this
anti-censorship battle and push it to a head. Remember to send in your
censorship documentation and status updates on your anti-censorship
grievances and cases so we can publicize them on our website. If you are
a lawyer on the outside and want to work on this issue, please
get in touch.
by MIM(Prisons) July 2012 permalink
Click to download PDF of Nevada grievance petition
Mail the petition to your loved ones and comrades inside who are
experiencing issues with the grievance procedure. Send them extra copies
to share! For more info on this campaign, click
here.
Prisoners should send a copy of the signed petition to each of the
addresses below. Supporters should send letters of support on behalf of
prisoners.
U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division Special Litigation
Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, PHB Washington DC 20530
Office of Inspector General HOTLINE PO Box 9778 Arlington, VA
22219
And send MIM(Prisons) copies of any responses you receive!
MIM(Prisons), USW PO Box 40799 San Francisco, CA 94140
Below is a response to
“Validation
Leads to Longer Sentences for Oppressed Nations” from ULK
24. I would like to say first and foremost that I feel for these
brothers in the state of California. From what I can tell the gang
validation program in California is what the Department of Corruptions
(DOC) in Connecticut call Security Risk Group (SRG). Our system is also
corrupt but the process seems harder in this state. We also have a
Safety Threat Member (STM) designation, which is a more severe version
of an SRG. STM is for someone with a leadership role, or a repeat
offender.
I believe if the California comrades looked at the DOC’s model over here
it would help in presenting a more productive model for them to use in
reform. They used to be able to designate us at will with no evidence.
Now it goes by a point system. A tattoo is not enough to designate you
alone. And when you finish the program here, there’s no debrief. You
just have a piece of paper of renunciation; no information is needed.
They have found ways to corrupt this process, of course, but it is a
step up from what California is doing to our comrades.
Our mission is to put an end to these methods altogether, but I believe
there are steps in that process. Not only should we be giving a list of
demands, but also presenting a model for reform that honors our human
rights as well as our due process rights.
MIM(Prisons) responds: California Prison Focus, a reformist
organization focused on issues related to SHU prisoners, recently put
out an issue of their
newsletter almost entirely devoted to analysis and criticism of
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR’s)
proposal for a new gang validation system.(1) The CDCR’s proposal rests
on a point system similar to the one used in Connecticut. A point system
might make it more challenging for prison staff to frivolously send
someone to a control unit indefinitely, but only if the evidence used to
calculate the points is disclosed. Another key difference in the
Connecticut DOC’s system is that it lacks a debriefing process, and is
therefore not as self-perpetuating as the CDCR’s.
It may be a tactical advantage to model our reforms off of those which
have led to some improvements in other localities. This would depend on
the conditions in each location and time. A point system is slightly
more objective than the CDCR’s earlier protocol of identifying just
three pieces of evidence, which were often kept secret as
“confidential.” But as Ed Mead reports in Prison Focus,
The stated purpose [of CDCR’s proposal] is still to “prohibit inmates
from creating, promoting, or participating in any club, association, or
organization, except as permitted by written instructions.”(1)
MIM(Prisons) stands in strong opposition to this stated goal of the CDCR
in our efforts to support prisoners in organizing themselves for
democratic rights as a class and for self-determination of the oppressed
nations.
The U.$. government uses the domestic injustice system to justify the
denial of democratic and Constitutional rights to a growing segment of
its internal semi-colonies. The recent CDCR proposal refuses to
eliminate the use of secret evidence to put people in SHU, which is a
denial of due process. Meanwhile, not only is SHU used to punish people
for associating with others, but the recent proposal includes plans to
expand the range of Security Threat Groups targeted for repression. If
these policies were implemented for the overall population we would call
it fascism. Organizing strategies of our comrades behind bars should
reflect this reality.
What is so sinister about the
debriefing
process, why it has been a primary target of the anti-SHU struggle,
is because the statements given are used as secret evidence to put
others in SHU for indefinite sentences, translating to years if not
decades, in long-term isolation torture cells. As long as this
continues, and as long as prisoners are denied basic First Amendment
rights of association then we see no progress in the “new” proposal.
MIM(Prisons) calls for the abolition of long-term isolation, as it is a
form of torture that destroys humyn beings. In addition, the way it is
used attacks whole nations by targeting leaders of the oppressed and
isolating them from the masses. There are reforms that could weaken the
second effect, but people would still be tortured unless control units
are abolished completely. The proposed point system barely puts a dent
in either problem and can hardly even be considered a reform. Therefore
we stand with the broad consensus among prisoners opposing the proposal,
and call on supporters on the outside to do the same to remove all
legitimacy from the government’s attempts to keep the oppressed from
organizing for any purpose.
Attention oppressed nation citizens and anti-imperialists: the first
“Black” president of the United $nakes, Barack Obama, has signed into
law one of the most fascistic pieces of legislation ever in the history
of this country: the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The NDAA has many statutes within it, but here’s the gist of the act: It
allows the Pentagon/military of the U.$. to determine who is or could be
a “terrorist” or an “enemy combatant.” It allows those so deemed to be
detained in prison indefinitely without a trial and to be kept under its
complete jurisdiction. It makes no difference whether the said
persyn/group(s) are U.$. citizens or “firing” enemies, and the entire
U.$. is now considered a field of combat.
With the enactment of the NDAA, military law and courts supersede the
civilian judicial system over those persyns being held for violations
under NDAA. So by defining the entire country as a field of combat, all
the Pentagon has to do to exercise its organized force is to get the
standing President to give his okay.
The reality is that the so-called “Supreme Law” of the land, the U.$.
constitution, is null and void in these cases and all of its so-called
“protections,” i.e. to no cruel and unusual punishment (torture, etc),
due process, and so on, are denied. The implications of the NDAA are
far-reaching for anti-imperialists involved in struggles for national
liberation and independence of oppressed nations inside of U.$. borders
and beyond.
There are a few key facts revolutionary nationalists and communists must
keep in mind: 1) a united front against imperialism, led by the
international proletariat, will be necessary to defeat the imperialists;
2) bourgeois electoral politics are a political sham; 3) there is no
such thing in Amerika as “freedom of speech,” so watch what you say; 4)
independent institutions of the oppressed are a must if we are to meet
our needs; and 5) nothing short of a socialist revolution will solve the
problems facing poor and oppressed nations.
Reminder: there are no rights, only power struggles!
MIM(Prisons) adds: There is a reason why we don’t call the U.$. a
fascist country, even though fascism is enforced by U.$. imperialism in
parts of the Third World and even against some sectors of the internal
semi-colonies where the NDAA is nothing new or surprising. A key fact we
might add to the list above of things to keep in mind is that the
majority of Amerikans support the system that has awarded them so much
privilege compared to most people in the world. This popular support and
stability at home is why fascism has not yet been instituted inside U.$.
borders. What laws like the NDAA indicate is that the imperialists are
prepared to lead the way in a fascist direction.
Many throw the word “fascist” around thanks to Amerikan ahistorical
thinking that uses “fascist” as an insult for anything it disagrees
with. We uphold Dimitrov’s line that fascism is “the open terroristic
dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most
imperialist elements of finance capital.” It is not simply brutal
repression, which is carried out by political powers of many sorts. For
more on the scientific definition of fascism get MIM(Prisons)’s Fascism
Study Pack available for $2.
U.$. citizens are said to comprise a nation which embraces freedom.
Freedom is said to be such a fundamental element of our nation that we
insist on forcing our concepts of it upon other countries. The
government coined a military mission “Operation Enduring Freedom.” The
colonists declared war on the British in the interests of freedom;
freedom was a major element in the fuel for the civil war; and the U.S.
invaded Iraq to “secure” Iraqi freedom. Freedom seems to be the fuel to
the fire of many struggles over the centuries in U.S. related matters.
Justice is also something that’s supposedly held dear in this nation.
This Justice Department, along with its affiliates, is among the biggest
governmental agencies in the nation. Our courts supposedly produce
justice. People are murdered by the government, via capital punishment,
in the name of justice. People are killed on the battlefield in the name
of justice. Unarmed men are shot down in the streets by police, in the
name of justice. Justice, as we know it here in the U.S., seems to be a
grim reaper with a thirst for blood.
Sometimes what one says about their character is not always in harmony
with their actions; the same is applicable to a nation. As the old
saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words,” and I believe that the
actions carried out by a nation’s government are the true indicator of
what that nation’s principles and values are. Governmental action here
in the U.S comes in the form of legislation, policy, enforcement, and
rulings.
So despite what we say as a nation regarding how important freedom is,
the question becomes: Are our actions in line with what we say? I think
not and here’s why. We say that we cherish freedom. In fact our
Declaration of Independence says that man’s freedom is an unalienable
right, yet we have a larger number of people incarcerated than any other
nation in the world. People will have many rationalizations as to why
this is so, but from a purely objective analysis none hold up. Being the
number one wielder of human captivity, while supposedly holding man’s
freedom in the highest regard, are two totally irreconcilable positions.
Additionally, even as the Declaration was written and for years
afterward, slavery was an accepted institution in this country. So while
freedom was being formally recognized as a man’s inalienable right,
certain men were being denied that very right. How can those two
positions be reconciled?
Freedom, as defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary is: Quality or state
of being free; liberty; independence
And Free is defined as: Not in bondage to another; enjoying liberty;
independent.
Prisoners, slavery, excessive laws, our government seems to be the
personification of the anti-freedom. Surprisingly many citizens seem
oblivious to this paradox.
And who defines justice, being that it’s such a fluid concept. I mean,
one person’s justice can be another’s injustice. In the interest of
having a formal gauge, I’ll refer to the “Webster’s” dictionary for
definition. Justice is defined: Uprightness; equitableness; fairness.
Now consider some of the actions committed by our government.
During the westward expansion of this nation, the government
continuously laid claim to lands that they had previously agreed to
leave to the First Nations. The First Nations were, for the most part,
patient as Buddhist monks when facing these recurring betrayals. But
even a priest can reach his boiling point, and when the First Nations
reached theirs, the government resorted to forcefully taking the land.
To take the property of another by means of force or fear is robbery.
Robbery is a crime punishable by imprisonment/fine. This is not very
much in line with justice is it?
Then think of the governmental approval of slavery in this nation. Not
in regard to the actual practice of slavery but the fact that our
government once deemed it acceptable and now denounces it. The key here
is that despite the reversal, the government has made no restitution for
this crime. No formal apology, no monetary compensation, or any “peace
offering” to the New Afrikan nation.
In contrast, the German government has formally apologized and committed
monetary compensation to the Jews for the Holocaust. And even in the
United Snakes of Amerika, the government has started providing
compensation to the First Nations. But I suppose that the decision
makers in the government feel that Amerika is above any measures to make
amends to mere “niggers.” (No offense to anyone in the New Afrikan
nation, to which I belong. I simply use the word that the imperialists
would in their reasoning). Yet they still boast Amerika as a justice
loving nation.
And moving right along into more modern times, a focal point relevant to
this subject is Amerika’s criminal justice system, which is contrary to
the meaning of justice. For starters, studies have shown that Black
nations and Latino nations receive harsher sentences and more severe
charges in comparison with their caucasian counterparts. This is in
regards to the very same or similar criminal acts.
A good example of this is the sentencing disparities between crack
cocaine (mostly found in inner city, oppressed nations, neighborhoods)
offenses and powder cocaine (generally associated with suburban,
caucasian, neighborhoods). Despite the fact that the powder form of the
drug has more of it than crack, five grams of crack will get one the
same amount of time as about one hundred grams of powder cocaine. How
absurd is that? There’s nothing just about a system that harbors racial
disparity.
In the interests of promoting a safe and healthy society, the government
has instituted the position of prosecutor. In their prosecutorial
duties, the prosecutor is supposed to be bound by moral, ethical, and
legal restraints. One of the main legal restraints supposedly binding
the actions of a prosecutor is the constitutional “guarantees” that
every defendant is supposed to have. In theory, a prosecutor must
respect a defendant’s constitutional rights.
In reality, Amerika’s Supreme Court has deemed a prosecutor’s violation
of certain constitutional “guarantees” acceptable. Therefore prosecutors
don’t feel very obligated to respect a defendant’s constitutional
rights. Add to this the fact that prosecutors have been granted immunity
from civil liability in relation to their on the job misconduct. This
basically give them license to disregard the law, having nothing
upright, fair, or equitable about it.
There are plenty of instances which can illustrate precisely how unjust
the so-called justice system is. Biased/racist judges and prosecutors,
intentionally ineffective defense attorneys, discriminatory laws, all of
these things help shatter the facade of legitimacy and justness of what
is called the justice system. And ironically New Afrikans, the same
people who were subjected to the inhumanity of slavery, are
disproportionately targeted by the criminal “justice” system. It appears
that the main facet of justice in Amerika is overt oppression. Amerika
is the enemy of both freedom and justice.
MIM(Prisons) adds: A recent
book
review further highlights the true injustice of the prison system
in Amerika. And overall this comrade makes a very important point about
the hypocrisy of the U.$. claim to support freedom and justice. We will,
however, point out that in order to achieve a society that truly affords
everyone freedom and justice, we must first dismantle capitalism. And
that will not happen overnight. For this reason, we support an
explicitly repressive society called the Dictatorship of the
Proletariat, which is a transition period between capitalism and
communism where the government is run by the people and actively
represses the freedom of the former bourgeoisie. We can not be idealists
and think that it is possible to just magically conjure up a society
where all are equal when those in power will fight to retain their
power, and our culture teaches people to work first for individualist
selfish goals. We will need years of retraining and re-education for
people to truly work in cooperation for the common good.