ONR

1 Billion Rising-Ending Violence Against Women

Jason — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 06:24:14 +0000

This year’s 1 Billion Rising event reached a tipping point after 15 years of organizing positive yet deeply honest worldwide gatherings to raise awareness of brutality against women.

The “risings” took place all over the planet on February 14th, Valentine’s Day, and were documented and networked to further the message that 1 in 3 women will experience some form of brutality against them in there lifetime. Speeches, music, spoken word, were just some of the activities that took place at these events, planned by organizers to give another perspective of what love really is on a day where love is so widely celebrated.

In San Diego, the Occupy Light Brigade lit up the event with hand made LED signs. “We came here to support and to dance, sing, and rise up with the world,” said one of the sign holders. ”We want to show our solidarity.”

You can hear programs recorded live from San Diego, with related music and talks from Eve Ensler, author of the Vagina Monologues, on the radio stream here at Occupy News Radio. Thanks for listening.

In a Major Privacy Victory, Seattle Mayor Orders Police to Dismantle Its Drone Program After Protests

Audra — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:01:22 +0000

Original Source:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
February 8, 2013

In a Major Privacy Victory, Seattle Mayor Orders Police to Dismantle Its Drone Program After Protests

In an amazing victory for privacy advocates and drone activists, yesterday, Seattle’s mayor ordered the city’s police agency to cease trying use surveillance drones and dismantle its drone program. The police will return the two drones they previously purchased with a Department of Homeland Security grant to the manufacturer.

EFF has been warning of the privacy dangers surveillance drones pose to US citizens for more than a year now. In May of last year, we urged concerned citizens to take their complaints to their local governments, given Congress has been slow to act on any privacy legislation. The events of Seattle proves this strategy can work and should serve as a blueprint for local activism across the country.

Back in early 2012, the Seattle city council was told that the Seattle police agency had obtained an authorization to fly drones from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). But they did not find out from the police; they found out from a reporter who called after the council after he saw Seattle’s name on the list obtained by EFF as part of our lawsuit against the FAA.

City council was understandably not happy, and the police agency was forced to appear before the council and apologize. It then vowed to work with the ACLU of Washington and the FAA to develop guidelines to make sure drones wouldn’t violate Seattle citizens’ privacy. But as long as the guidelines weren’t passed in a binding city ordinance, there’d be no way to enforce them.

After a townhall meeting held by police, in which citizens showed up in droves and angrily denounced the city’s plans, some reporters insinuated that city counsel members’ jobs could be on the line if they did not pass strict drone legislation protecting its citizens privacy.

Documents obtained by MuckRock and EFF in October as part of our 2012 drone census showed that the Seattle police were trying to buy two more drones despite the controversy. But that ended yesterday as the Mayor put a stop to the program completely.

Critics of the privacy protests said the participants were exaggerating the capabilities of the Seattle drones, given they would only fly for less than an hour at a time and are much smaller than the Predator drones the military flies overseas and Department of Homeland Security flies at home.

But while Seattle’s potential drones may not have been able to stay in the air for long, similar drones have already been developed and advertised by drone manufacturers with the capability to stay in the air for hours or days at a time. In fact, Lockheed Martin has been bragging about a drone that weights 13.2 pounds (well within the FAA’s weight limits) that can be recharged by a laser on the ground and stay in the air indefinitely.

Since the Seattle protests have heated up, similar complaints have been heard at local city counsels and state legislatures across the country. At least thirteen states are now considering legislation to restrict drone use to protect privacy, and there are also members of Congress on both sides of the aisle pushing the same thing.

Here in the Bay Area, we’ve experienced a similar situation. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office tried to sneak through drone funding without a public hearing and told the county board of supervisors it only wanted to use the drone for emergency purposes. Yet in internal documents obtained by EFF and MuckRock as part of our 2012 drone census, the Sheriff’s Office said it wanted to use the drone for “suspicious persons” and “large crowd control disurbances.”

When EFF and ACLU held a press conference pointing out this discrepancy, the county backtracked and is now attempting to write privacy guidelines that could potentially be turned into binding law. We will keep you updated on further developments.

But regardless, it’s important that privacy advocates take the lesson from Seattle and apply it all over the country. This is an important privacy victory, and like we said back in May, local governments will listen to our concerns, so let’s make our voice heard.

US Kill List Exposed, Secret Document from White House

Audra — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:05:05 +0000

Original News Source

The Obama administration’s internal legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens without charge has been revealed for the first time. In a secret Justice Department memo, the administration claims it has legal authority to assassinate U.S. citizens overseas even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the United States. We’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “If you look at the memo … there’s no geographic line,” says Jaffer. “The Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority [than President Bush]. They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit.” [includes rush transcript]

Transcript

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The Obama administration’s internal legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens without charge has been revealed for the first time. According to a secret Justice Department document obtained by NBC News, the Obama administration claims it has the legal authority to target citizens who are, quote, “senior operational leaders,” of al-Qaeda or “an associated force” — even if there’s no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

In September 2011, a U.S. drone strike in Yemen killed two American citizens: Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. The following month, another U.S. drone strike killed al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Denver.

AMY GOODMAN: The document obtained by NBC News is described as a “white memo” that was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees as a summary of a classified memo prepared by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Last month, a federal judge denied a request by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times for the Justice Department to disclose its legal justification for the targeted killing of Americans.

The Obama administration’s secrecy around the drone program is expected to be a top issue at this week’s confirmation hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be director of the CIA. Brennan has been dubbed by critics to be Obama’s “assassination czar.”

Joining us now is Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU and director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy.

You’ve looked at the white memo. This is something you’ve been asking for for quite some time, Jameel. Talk about its significance. Go through it with us point by point.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure. Well, it’s a very significant document, and it’s a remarkable document, and it’s something that everybody really ought to read, in the same way that everybody ought to read the torture memos from the last administration. It sets out, or professes to set out, the power that the government has to carry out the targeted killing of American citizens who are located far away from any battlefield, even when they have not been charged with a crime, even when they do not present any imminent threat in any ordinary meaning of that word. So it’s a pretty sweeping power that’s been set out. And the memo purports to provide a legal justification for that power and explain why the limits on that power can’t be enforced in any court.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The confidential Justice Department white paper that you’re talking about, Jameel Jaffer, introduces a more expansive definition of “self-defense” or “imminent attack” than any articulated by the U.S. government before. It reads, quote: “The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” Can you talk about the significance of that and how exactly “imminent” is defined in this document—

JAMEEL JAFFER: Sure.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: —or not defined?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, well, I mean, I think you—you know, you have to start with the acknowledgment that there are circumstances in which the government has the authority, and maybe even the responsibility, to use lethal force. Even if you think about it domestically—somebody is running down the street, waving a gun around, threatening civilians—the government doesn’t have to go to a judge beforehand to seek a warrant to carry out that use of lethal force. But that’s a situation in which the threat is imminent, in the ordinary meaning of the term: There’s not time to go to a judge; there’s not time for deliberation.

But the kind of imminence that the government is defining here, or the way that the government has defined the term here, is much, much broader. They’re talking about situations in which the person presents no immediate threat, there’s no known plot. These people are located far away from any actual battlefield, so you’re not talking about a situation in which there are battlefield exigencies that the government has to worry about. You’re really talking about something that looks a lot more like a law enforcement context. And in that context, the traditional rule is the government has the authority to use lethal force only in very narrow circumstances. And this memo really redefines those circumstances entirely.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s turn to Attorney General Eric Holder, a comment he made last March when he outlined what the White House billed as the legal rationale for its claimed right to kill U.S. citizens who belong to al-Qaeda or associated forces.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: It is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that some of the threats that we face come from a small number of United States citizens who have decided to commit violent attacks against their own country from abroad. Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during this current conflict, it’s clear that United States citizenship alone does not make—does not make such individuals immune from being targeted.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, respond to Attorney General Eric Holder.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, it’s not a question of immunity. This is kind of a straw man. Nobody is arguing that Americans are entirely immune from the government’s use of lethal force. The question is: Under what circumstances can the government use lethal force? And again, for a very good reason, those circumstances have traditionally been defined very narrowly. Now what the government is doing is creating an extremely broad category of people who can be targeted without judicial review before the fact, without judicial assessment of the evidence after the fact. It’s a very dangerous thing that the government is doing.

And I think that at some level, I think the people who have written this memo and the people who are exercising this authority in the Obama administration must be convinced of their own trustworthiness. But even if you accept that the people who are now in office are trustworthy in this sense, this power is going to be available to the next administration and the one after that, and it’s going to be available in every future conflict, not just the conflict against al-Qaeda. And according to the administration, the power is available all over the world, not just on geographically cabined battlefields. So it really is a sweeping proposition.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But what does it mean, though, that it’s not an official legal memo, it’s a white paper? Does that have any legal significance or implications?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, you know, some people have been saying that this is a kind of transparency that the administration, through these kinds of leaks, is giving the public the ability to assess the strength of the administration’s legal arguments. And the truth is that this is really just a briefing document, it’s not a legal memo. It does tell us a little bit about the authority that the government is claiming, but the actual legal memos are still secret. We’ve been litigating for those memos now for 18 months or two years. The administration has refused to release them. We have just appealed one case to the 2nd Circuit here in New York, to the appeals court here in New York.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you explain the case? What is the case that your organization, the ACLU, is—

JAMEEL JAFFER: So, there are two—there are two Freedom of Information Act cases that we’re litigating right now. One is—one is here in New York, and the other one is in D.C. One of them is an effort to get the legal memos. We’re litigating that case with The New York Times; they have a parallel request. The other case, which is in D.C., is about, principally, civilian casualties, the question of who has been killed in these—in these drone strikes, because the administration has not released numbers. And we’re reliant on the work of very good organizations outside the administration to do that kind of work. We think that the administration should release its own numbers. So—

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And “who has been killed,” you mean U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizen who have been killed.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right, absolutely. So, most of the people who are being killed in these drone strikes aren’t U.S. citizens, right? There have only been four U.S. citizens—three in 2011, one in 2002. The rest have been noncitizens killed, some of them in Pakistan, some of them in Yemen, some of them in Somalia. According to the figures of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in the U.K., we’re now talking about somewhere on the order of 4,000 people who have been killed with these drones.

And the administration still hasn’t released the legal memos that purport to justify that program. So, one of the cases that we’re litigating, the one here in New York, is the effort to get that justification. This memo, this briefing paper, provides us a little more information about that justification, but it’s not the justification itself. For the same reasons that the government was right in 2009 to release the torture memos, we think the government should release the targeted killing memo.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s get specific. I saw you in Sundance at one of the premieres of Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley’s film called Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. And it tells the story, among others, of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, 16-year-old kid born in Denver, killed in a drone strike two weeks after his father was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. Talk about his case and how this relates.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: When does the U.S. stop? What is the justification for killing this 16-year-old boy?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, so two things about that. First, I think one of the most chilling aspects of the power that the government is claiming here is that they’re claiming the authority to do all of this in secret, not just keep it secret from the courts or keep their justification secret from the courts, but keep the exercise of this power secret, so they can carry out these killings of American citizens, among many others, without even acknowledging to the public or to any court that they have exercised that authority. And that really is a chilling proposition. But that’s one thing, and that’s one of the things that they’ve done in the Abdulrahman case: They have failed to acknowledge that they actually carried out this killing, although everybody knows it to be true.

But we have other litigation which we’re doing with the Center for Constitutional Rights. It’s a constitutional case on behalf of the three U.S. citizens who were killed in 2011, including Abdulrahman, the 16-year-old. And that’s a case in which we are raising claims under the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment, the due process clause, arguing that the government does not have the right, again, except in these extremely narrow circumstances, to carry out targeted killings without judicial review. And the government’s response to that lawsuit has not been to defend their authority on the merits. They’re not actually saying, “We have the right to do this.” They haven’t actually filed any of those arguments in court. Instead what they’re arguing is: This question of whether the government acted lawfully or not is a political question committed to the political branches, and the judges have no role to play, no role whatsoever to play, in assessing whether the killing of an American citizen was lawful or not.

AMY GOODMAN: How does it stop? Where does it stop? You kill them in Yemen, American citizens and others—no trial, no charge. What about in the United States?

JAMEEL JAFFER: There’s no line. You know, if you look at the memo, the briefing paper that was released yesterday, there’s no geographic line. And you can remember how most of the country reacted when President Bush declared the authority to hold American citizens detained in the United States: Most of the country said, “You can’t be serious. You’re going to treat the United States as part of the battlefield. You’re going to detain American citizens inside the United States as enemy combatants.” And now, the Obama administration—you know, if you accept the memo on its face, you accept the briefing paper on its face, the Obama administration is making, in some ways, a greater claim of authority. They’re arguing that the authority to kill American citizens has no geographic limit.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn to comments made by John Brennan, John Brennan who is Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and now his pick for CIAdirector. He made these comments last May and publicly confirmed that the United States has used drones to conduct targeted killings overseas.

JOHN BRENNAN: President Obama believes that, done carefully, deliberately and responsibly, we can be more transparent and still ensure our nation’s security. So let me say it as simply as I can: Yes, in full accordance with the law, and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives, the United States government conducts targeted strikes against specific al-Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft often referred to publicly as “drones.” And I’m here today because President Obama has instructed us to be more open with the American people about these efforts.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Obama’s nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, speaking last May. Jameel Jaffer, your comments on what he said about drone attacks?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, this is—this is, I think, you know, in some ways, good timing for the release of this briefing paper, because, you know, as you mentioned, John Brennan has been nominated to head the CIA. There’s going to be a vote on his nomination later this week. And some senators have said that the nomination should not go forward unless the administration is more forthcoming with its legal analysis, unless they release the OLC memo. And I think that’s exactly right. The administration should release that memo. There are also open questions about the role that Brennan played in the torture program, and those questions, too, ought to be answered before the vote goes forward. So, you know, I think it’s good timing. There are some very serious questions that ought to be asked by—

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the Democrats will be asking these questions of a Democratic administration?

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, you know, there were a group of senators yesterday that wrote to the administration asking for the release of the legal memo and seeming to connect the release of the legal memo to—to these votes, to the Hagel vote and to the Brennan vote. And I think that that’s an important thing. And it was a group led by Senator Wyden. So I think that there—you know, there are definitely senators who think this is important. And if people can make it known to their senators that they think it’s important, I think that would be a very good thing.

AMY GOODMAN: And your thoughts on John Brennan being the CIA pick? Already, four years ago, when President Obama wanted to do it the first time around, he was forced to withdraw his name because there was such outcry.

JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, right. I mean, I definitely have reservations about it. I think that there are these questions, these important questions about his role in the torture program. And also, you know, people have said that John Brennan is an advocate for transparency about the drone program. If that’s true, now is the right time to release the OLC memo, the legal counsel memo. And I think that the debate about his nomination should be informed by whatever’s in that memo.

AMY GOODMAN: We had a report in headlines about Open Society Justice Initiative—and you’re a fellow at the Open Society right now, on leave from the ACLU—putting out a new report that’s revealed a detailed look at global involvement in the CIA’s secret program of prisons, rendition and torture since 9/11. The initiative says 54 countries aided the CIA until President Obama stopped the program in 2009. It’s called “Globalizing Torture,” also reveals at least 136 people were held by the CIA during those years—the largest tally to date. How significant is this?

JAMEEL JAFFER: I think it’s a hugely significant report. I think it’s the most comprehensive report thus far about the people who are held by the CIA and what happened to them, and also the complicity of other countries in the CIA’s program. Some of those other countries have begun to grapple with the question of accountability for their role in that program. As you know, the United States has not. The Obama administration has interfered with civil suits that seek to hold officials accountable for their role in that program, and it has failed to bring criminal charges against senior officials who supervised the program. But I think it’s a very important thing, what the Open Society Justice Initiative has done here, and I think that it will create pressure not just on other countries to begin to grapple with that question of accountability, but on the United States, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Final question on this issue of targeted killings: Is this President Obama’s answer to attempting to close Guantánamo? You don’t need prisons if you kill people before they go to prison.

JAMEEL JAFFER: I hope not. You know, without more information about who it is that the administration is killing and on what basis, it’s difficult to make—to draw a conclusion on that question. But I think when you see the kinds of authority that the government is claiming in briefing papers like this, it certainly raises the question about to what extent this program, the drone program, is in fact a substitute for detention.

AMY GOODMAN: And as you said, don’t they say—don’t the documents say that they will kill someone if it puts U.S. personnel at risk?

JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right. I mean, I think that one of the—you know, one of the really troubling things about the document is the way that it defines this phrase, “Capture is infeasible,” because once you see that phrase in the first paragraph, “Capture is infeasible,” it sounds like a real restriction on the government’s authority to use lethal force. But halfway through the memo, they redefine the phrase, “Capture is infeasible,” to mean something more like: “Capture is inconvenient.” And once you redefine the phrase in that way, then you’ve opened up the possibility of the use of lethal force much more broadly. And again, it does raise the question of whether they are using the use of lethal force as a substitute for detention, and even if they’re not, whether that possibility is open for another administration in the future.

AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, I want to thank you for being with us, deputy legal director of the ACLU, director of the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. Coming up later in the broadcast, we’ll speak with Dan Ellsberg, famous whistleblower for the Pentagon Papers. We’ll also speak with Jacob Appelbaum, who just lost a case. He does not have the right, says a federal court, to know when the government is taking his Twitter information or email information. But next up, the controversy in the Boy Scouts. Will the Boy Scouts of America allow gay leaders, gay members? Stay with us.

Justice for the PayPal WikiLeaks protesters: why DDoS is free speech

Audra — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:26:34 +0000

Jay Leiderman, The Guardian

Original Source

The US justice department is prosecuting Anonymous hacktivists as felons, but DDoS protest must get first amendment protection

Jay Leiderman
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 January 2013 15.46 EST
Jump to comments (86)

Prosecution of online activity has not been commensurate to comparable protests, like the various sit-ins of the Occupy movement. Nash/Demotix/Corbis

There is no weapon on the planet more powerful than speech.

In recent years, the digital revolution has led to new and unique ways for people to express themselves, and speech has flourished around the world, bringing it closer together. As a lawyer and as someone who promotes the advancement of individual liberties, I was fascinated by the advent of online speech, which was quickly followed by the advent of online protest.

While affixing your e-signature to an online petition is a new and somewhat direct way to “petition your government for a redress of grievances”, I am most concerned with advocating for more immediate and effective manners of protest. So naturally, I was interested when, in December 2010, the hacktivist collective Anonymous voiced their displeasure with PayPal, over that company’s part in the banking blockade of Wikileaks.

A reported 10,000 protesters around the world took to the internet with a protest method known as DDoS (distributed denial of service) – the functional equivalent of repeatedly hitting the refresh button on a computer. With enough people refreshing enough times, the site is flooded with traffic, slowed, or even temporarily knocked offline. No damage is done to the site or its backing computer system; and when the protest is over, the site resumes business as usual.

This is not “hacking“. It is protest, and it is speech.

True, customers of the site are temporarily inconvenienced, but democracy is often messy and inconvenient. Moreover, the voice of your fellow citizen should always be worth slowing down to hear for a moment. Exposure to new or differing views enriches us all. Such was the case with the 2010 PayPal DDoS protest.

Or it was … until the United States government decided to serve 42 warrants and indict 14 protesters. While protest charges have typically been seen as tantamount to nuisance crimes, like trespassing or loitering, these were different. The 14 PayPal defendants, some of whom were teenagers when the protest occurred, find themselves looking at 15 years in federal prison – for exercising their free speech rights; for redressing their grievances to PayPal, a major corporation; for standing up for what they believed was right.

Instead of being handed a $50 fine, as one would face for traditional protest crimes such as a sit-in, the PayPal defendants’ freedoms are in real jeopardy. To address this situation, there was some more traditional, yet still modern speech aimed at the White House. An online petition has been launched, asking that DDoS be treated as speech – a concept I wholeheartedly support. Being mindful that all protest must be reasonable in time, place, and manner, I believe that there is room in cyberspace, indeed in the world, for this type of protest activity.

The example of the PayPal protest provides a good analogy for why DDoS is speech. In the 1960s, civil rights protesters went to the Woolworth’s lunch counter in the segregated American south because they sought to make a point by asserting their right to buy a simple meal – much as protesters went to PayPal because they wanted to donate to WikiLeaks. In Woolworth’s, the protesters made plain their goal: “If you serve me a meal, I will eat it, pay for it, and then I will leave.” This concept was lost on the Jim Crow south, so protest became necessary.

Certainly, our contemporary situation is a long way from that struggle against deep, historic injustice – no one suggests otherwise – but the analogy is apt nonetheless. Thousands of PayPal protesters said, via their protest speech in DDoS form: “I want to make a donation to WikiLeaks; I’ll take up my bandwidth to do that, then I’ll leave. You’ll make money, I’ll feel fulfilled, everyone wins.”

Alas, PayPal and its parent company, eBay, were not in the win-win business. They were in the censorship business, which is not somethingAnonymous suffers lightly – especially as PayPal has a history of taking donations for questionable organizations, like the National Vanguard (a national socialist group) and Americans for the Truth About Homosexuality (an anti-LGBT group), yet won’t process donations for WikiLeaks.

So, it came to pass that thousands of displeased people, all around the globe, expressed their outrage via a DDoS protest. All the PayPal protesters did was take up some bandwidth. PayPal claimed – almost as a cry of victory – that their site never even went offline. In that example, DDoS was used as an almost pure form of protest expression – therefore it was speech and should be recognized and protected as such. The law should be changed.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is thus being used to stifle new and creative forms of online expression. This type of harmless creative protest should be encouraged: our nation was built upon the principles of free speech. If the founders of this great nation saw its laws abused, as when applied to these minor protests, I think they would be shocked and offended.

Our best and brightest should be encouraged to find new methods of expression; direct action in protest must not stifled. The dawning of the digital age should be seen as an opportunity to expand our knowledge, and to collectively enhance our communication. Government should have the greatest interest in promoting speech – especially unpopular speech. The government should never be used to suppress new and creative – not to mention, effective – methods of speech and expression.

Since the PayPal prosecution, there have been no DDoS protests on that scale. Speech has been chilled.

Supreme court Justice William O Douglas said:

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”

Toward that end, it’s time to begin a conversation about acknowledging DDoS as legitimate protest speech, deserving of first amendment protection.

ONR Media Submissions

Audra — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 20:54:10 +0000

To submit audio to ONR contact Media@OccupyNewsRadio.org or Audra@OccupyNewsRadio.org

We will need your submissions in the following format:

mp3 file

56 kbs

22050 Hz, Stereo Track

Please title files w/ date first (year, month, date) and then Show Name. So, for a January 3, 2013 for Occupy News Radio would be titled:

130103 OccupyNewsRadio .mp3

If you would like to have your own cover art, please follow the guidelines for photos and include a photo in your email.

Cover Art Requirements

Because our player applications will be linking directly to the cover art URLs specified on this form, images should meet the following requirements:

The URL must be a valid web address (e.g. start with http://);
Local image files (e.g. C:\My Pictures\…) must first be uploaded to a web server that can support simultaneous substantial web traffic (remember that every time your track plays, every one of your listeners will request its cover art image);
The preferred image format is 125×125 JPEG, although other sizes will work as well; try to find an image with a 1:1 aspect ratio or it will be stretched upon display;
*We recommend your twitter photo/icon

Widget URL for ONR:

http://widget.live365.com/widget/widget/showWidget.jsp?src=html&Widget_Server=widget.live365.com/widget/&p=john805&site=web&stationBroadcaster=john805&wId=13700914D21C7853FE1BC613&mainColor=0×990000&txtColor=0xffffff&startPage=3&autoPlay=1&style=1&hasPurchase=2&transparent=0&bgPic=http://&codeType=0&stationTitle=Occupy%20News%20Radio

Interoccupy Conference Calls for the Week

Audra — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:58:55 +0000

Get involved, join a conference call…

UPCOMING CALLS – Interoccupy.net

Training for using conference call, Maestro

JAN

14

Mon
1. 8:30 pm Oregon Occupy Foreclosures
JAN

15

Tue
JAN

16

Wed
1. 11:00 am Developing International Media Work Among Occupy Groups and Other Movements for Democracy (The Americas, Africa & Europe) 17:00 UCT
  
  Developing International Media W…
  
  11:00 am
  
  HOST: Occupy Oregon Media Group and The International Collaborative Media Alliance FOR WHOM: Open. Coverage: The Americas, Africa, and Europe. PURPOSE: ICMA promotes collaboration [...]
2. 2:00 pm California Homes Fraud-closure Campaign
JAN

17

Thu
10:00 pm Developing International Media Work Among Occupy Groups and other Movements for Democracy (Coverage: The Pacific, Australia, and Asia)

ABOUT INTEROCCUPY

We at InterOccupy seek to foster communication between individuals, Working Groups and local General Assemblies, across the movement. We do this in the spirit of the Occupy Movement and general assemblies which use direct democratic and horizontal decision-making processes in service to the interests of the 99%.

Evidence Shows U.S. Double-Taps Targets with Drone Strikes

Jason — Sun, 30 Dec 2012 21:42:31 +0000

Interview with Barry Ladendorf discusses double-tapping, a war crime. Drone strike evidence from a new twitter feed, @dronestream, confirms that the United States practices terrorist tactics against civilians and medics.

Mr. Ladendorf is a long time Veterans For Peace activist, serving as President of the San Diego Chapter for the past two years. Visit their website at http://www.sdvfp.org/

Listen/download interview here.

Police Infiltrators Deeply Involved with Gulf Port 7 Indictments

Jason — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:24:36 +0000

We spoke with Ronnie Garza, one of the Gulf Port 7, a group of protesters arrested in Houston last year during the Port Shutdown protests that took place across the country. He tells the story of how peaceful protesters were infiltrated by undercover officers, arrested, then released, then re-indicted, for actions that were mainly planned by agents of the state.

The story begins on December 12th 2011, when arrests were made under cover of a red tent that supposedly was erected to protect the grass from sparks caused by cutting protesters out of pvc pipe locks used in the civil disobedience action. The story gets interesting when we find out that months before the action took place, undercover agents helped plan it, purchase the supplies and build the pipe locks that were used. Questions about whether the DA’s office withheld information from the court arise, and the legality of the infiltration begins to blur. ”These guys infiltrated the meeting,” states Garza, ”then decided after a brainstorming session to promote an idea by providing schematics, and they then went out and bought the materials, and assembled the materials and dropped off the materials…and they kind of joke about it…back and forth in texts.” He continues, “They were heavily involved, they were the primary agents, from what I understand they committed the actual crime we are charged with.”

The Gulf Port 7 case is still in the courts with the next hearing scheduled for January 18, 2012. Eric Marquez, arrested during the action, is still being held in Dallas. Follow the hashtags #gulfport7 #GP7 #politicalprisoners and #onr for updates on this unfolding story.

Audio Interview (56k mp3 file, 12.6mb)

Call Deutsche Bank And Demand NO EVICTION!

John — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 23:12:10 +0000

Call Deutsche Bank 212-250-2500

The following video is from Richard Florence of OLA. Video footage is by Luis Rivas and Patti Beers.

CALL DEUTSCHE BANK AND DEMAND NO EVICTION! (212) 250-2500

The following text is from Richard’s YouTube description:

#FortLucero http://www.facebook.com/FortLucero
footage by Luis Rivas and Patti Beers

#FortLucero is a foreclosure resistance built to stop the fraudulent foreclosure of the Lucero family’s home. — #FortLucero es una fortaleza de resistencia en contra de la ejecución hipotecaría fraudulenta al hogar de la familia Lucero.

When the Lucero family sent in the first payment of their loan modification days after signing the loan, their loan was voided and the eviction process began. After translating their pile of paperwork, the Lucero’s discovered that the 1st loan payment was due THE DAY BEFORE they signed their loan paperwork. No exceptions.

Despite the judge ordering the Sheriffs not to evict the Lucero family from their home until after 10/26/12, the Lucero’s have already spent a month on the streets.

Please support the Lucero’s foreclosure resistance by sharing the Lucero’s story and #FortLucero events.

4748 Hammel Street, Los Angeles, CA 90022

—-
Cuando la familia Lucero mandó su primer pago para la modificación de su préstamo durante los días de modificaciones después de haber firmado el préstamo, su préstamo fue anulado y el proceso de ejecución hipotecaría comenzó. Después de traducir una pila de papeleo, los Lucero se dieron cuenta que el 1er pago del préstamo debía ser entregado el Día ANTES DE que llenaron el papeleo del préstamo. Sin excepciones.

A pesar de que el juéz ordenara a los alguaciles a que no desalojen a la familia Lucero de su hogar hasta después del 26 de octubre del 2012 – la familia Lucero ya ha pasado un mes en la calle.

Por favor, apoye a la resistencia de los Lucero en contra de la ejecución hipotecaría, compartiendo con los demás la historia de los Lucero y los eventos de #FortLucero.

Richard’s YouTube channel is can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Richseanb/

Staten Island Volunteers Fear City Will Hamper Their Hurricane Relief Efforts

Audra — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:56:22 +0000

Link to article

121202 sandy update and article <- to listen

I have been on the phone today with people I have done interviews with from NYC-SI. While my intention was to get some audio updates, I was moved to find these people connections with help. The last person I was referred to had not eaten in two days, so obviously my focus had to move. I haven’t had time to work on audio for the radio so I have included this article. We welcome your audio updates, can be sent to Audra@OccupyNewsRadio.org or a 3 minute update can be left on the google voice mail at 805-467-1776.

We have been working all of the country trying to help. This can shed light on why.

December 1, 2012, 8:26 pm3 Comments

Staten Island Volunteers Fear City Will Hamper Their Hurricane Relief Efforts

By COLIN MOYNIHAN and CHRISTOPHER MAAG

After the flood waters created by Hurricane Sandy began receding from the Midland Beach neighborhood of Staten Island, one of the first things that Aiman Youseff did was to set up a table on the sidewalk near what was left of his house, a one-story wood frame, at 489 Midland Avenue.

Over the next month that patch of pavement was used by hundreds of people who either lived on the island or traveled there to help those in need. The volunteers began referring to the spot outside Mr. Youseff’s house as a hub and it became part of a network of similar places — churches, community centers and street corners — that were used as assembly points and distribution centers.

The volunteers gave out hot food and warm clothes and, eventually, formed groups to tear sodden, moldy drywall from flooded homes and help residents to rebuild. Several organizations including Occupy Sandy, an offshoot of Occupy Wall Street, and another volunteer group called the Yellow Team also used the location. Mounds of donated supplies quickly took up the entire sidewalk for half a block in front of LaRocca’s Family Restaurant.

Now some are worried that the city may try to halt their organizing efforts. On Thursday and Friday, those people said, a city official told them that they would have to dismantle their operation.

According to Farid Kader, 29, a Staten Island resident and a volunteer, the official said that he worked for the mayor’s office.

“He told us, ‘we’re moving you out,’ ” Mr. Kader said. “He told us it was unsafe. That’s the word he used.”

After that, Mr. Kader said, the official ordered a Red Cross truck that was delivering supplies to the area to leave.

The City Hall press office did not immediately respond to a message from a reporter on Saturday.

Mr. Kader and others said that they had no desire to fight with the city. Still, they added, the volunteers had worked hard for weeks to help people in the immediate aftermath of the storm when official city aid was barely visible.

“If it wasn’t for the volunteer, nothing would be getting done out here,” he said. “If they wanted to start a site on Midland Avenue themselves we would clap hands and walk away.”

Several of the New York neighborhoods that suffered the worst storm damage are on Staten Island. Volunteer groups were the first to arrive in many areas where residents needed help and members of several groups said that the city should allow them to continue, even if official agencies assume more control over operations.

“We have been providing everything from hot food and tampons to bleach and crow bars,” said a volunteer, Hannah Scott. “The sense of having that taken away is creating panic.”

After the official’s visit, some volunteers said, police commanders arrived on Midland Avenue and said that the hub could use part of the sidewalk but not all of it.

On Saturday the volunteers moved the hub’s kitchen onto a driveway off the street. Using money donated from friends, they built a raised plywood platform for the kitchen and erected two white tarps overhead.

Along Midland Avenue a single line of folding tables remained, stacked with donated goods including cans of green beans, diapers, Red Cross blankets, jars of baby food and tubes of toothpaste.

Later, some of those volunteers reassembled at an Occupy Sandy hub at the Olympia Activity Center about five blocks from Mr. Youseff’s house, where a volunteer coordinator, Goldie Guerra, dispatched groups with sledgehammers and masks to help homeowners gut their houses.

How the NDAA Directly Threatens Average Americans, and How You Can Take Action Now by Amber Lyon

Audra — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:03:50 +0000

How the NDAA Directly Threatens Average Americans, and How You Can Take Action Now

Posted on October 10, 2012

The NDAA turns the U.S. government into a dictatorship, the U.S. military into ‘secret police’

Journalists rarely take a vocal stand against legislation in order to remain objective, but sometimes new laws are such an egregious assault on our basic rights to democracy and freedom that we have a duty to speak up.

This is the case with the National Defense Authorization Act, a relatively new law that gives the U.S. military the power to detain anyone without trial indefinitely, further criminalizing dissent and investigative journalism in the United States.

What does the NDAA do?

The NDAA Section 1021 gives the federal government the power to behave like dictators and arrest any American citizen, or anyone for that matter, without warrant and indefinitely detain them in offshore prisons without charge and keep them there until “the end of hostilities.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, calls the law a “catastrophic blow to civil liberties”.

Obama lied to the public and said he would veto the NDAA’s indefinite detention clauses. Instead, he surreptitiously signed the NDAA into law on Dec. 31, 2011 while most Americans were distracted celebrating New Years Eve. Both Romney and Obama have publicly stated their support for the new law.

“I’m not doing anything wrong, I don’t need to worry about the NDAA”

You do need to worry. The NDAA directly affects your everyday life because it is another violation of your rights to free speech, a fair trial. The NDAA also suffocates information that could expose the corruption that’s rapidly destroying this country and affecting you financially.

The NDAA will prevent some whistleblowers from coming forward with information and documents vital to the public good in fear the corrupt will pressure authorities to use the NDAA to detain the whistleblower indefinitely.

We need to reward, not instill fear in our whistleblowers. They are vital to the survival of this nation. If we don’t know what’s broke, how can we fix it? What if a government whistleblower had come forward before the start of the war to let the public know Saddam Hussein really didn’t have weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Investigative Journalists could start being ‘disappeared’ under the NDAA

The NDAA frightens journalists because it turns us into criminals. There are no provisions within the law to protect journalists. As journalists, we take a vow to never reveal our confidential sources. If the U.S. government, or corrupt corporations pressuring authorities, want information on our confidential sources, the NDAA gives them the power to indefinitely detain us by saying the refusal to reveal sources is an act that is “aiding terrorists” .

We are all ‘terrorists’

Another disturbing aspect of the NDAA is that it allows the government to imprison anyone suspected of or even associated with ‘terrorism’. This power is open to wide interpretation under the law and can and will be abused.

Who in the heck is a terrorist anymore? We’ve witnessed the U.S. government and Military-industrial complex mold the term ‘terrorist’ to their subjective and financial goals too many times to trust any use of that word. Even Nobel Peace Prize-winner Nelson Mandela was once considered a terrorist by governments worldwide and put on U.S. terrorist watch lists.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges told Democracy Now, the term ‘terrorist’ is too loose so what the NDAA is really doing is setting up a legal mechanism to criminalize dissent.

“We saw an attempt to link the U.S. Day of Rage with Al Qaeda. Once they link you with a terrorist group, then these draconian forms of control can be used against legitimate forms of protest, in particularly the Occupy Movement,” Hedges said. Corrupt corporations can use the NDAA to pressure the government to crush banking protests, environmental protests, strikes… it’s a slippery slope.

The NDAA will be used to crush protests

Possibly most disturbing is the NDAA’s power to crush all dissent and protests in the U.S., protests that are vital to free speech, change, the survival of democracy.

What will keep the government, possibly under pressure from banks, corporations and the Military-industrial complex, from starting to list various protesters and organizations as terrorists? What will happen when protesters stop voicing their concerns or hitting the streets because they fear they will ‘disappear’ under the NDAA?

The systematic crushing of dissent through NDAA-esque powers is already happening in this country. The family of U.S. Marine Veteran Brandon Raub, says he was kidnapped by law enforcement after posting anti-U.S. government statements on Facebook.

We must rise up and take action to stop the NDAA before it’s too late. Here’s more information on the law and ways you can get involved:

Stop the NDAA

Journalist Chris Hedges Sues the Obama Administration over the NDAA

Tell Congress to fix the NDAA

Occupy News Radio – Asks for your participation

Audra — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 06:44:38 +0000

Peoples Powered radio works better when people participate.

Some ways you can participate:

Leave your announcement or action details ready for adding to playlist by calling in to our voicemail at 805-467-1776.

Submit your audio from events, actions, teach-in’s, thoughts, thank you’s and even a shout out from your local area on the above voice mail or by submitting it in audio format to media@occupynewsradio.org

Journalists, we invite you to submit your work for ONR’s website by emailing it to media@occupynewsradio.org

Music! We love music. We can use it for bumpers, intro/outro’s and for our listeners pleasure! Send us your music and we can play it.

Keep us up to date, we need participation from you to keep this station “by the people, for the people” as we strive to do.

Thanks for your help,
John, Audra, Jason and Emery

Emergency Global Actions for #Gaza

Audra — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 06:08:00 +0000

Anonymous invites its supporters and all freedom fighters to protest for Gaza

We call to all Anonymous members and supporters, to all peace and freedom fighters, to all revolutionaries to go out on the streets to protest for the Emergency Global Action for Gaza. Wear your Anonymous mask and help the world to protest of the devastating actions brought upon on the Gaza. Pass out fliers, carry signs, and talk to those interested in social freedom.Help us to spread awareness and knowledge by trending #Protest4Gaza and #Gaza on Twitter.

Emergency Global Actions for Gaza

This original list is comprehensive. I have edited down the upcoming actions to include USA only. If you have requests for me to leave it with all countries, comment and I will. TY-AL

FRIDAY, 23rd November

Ann Arbor MI (USA) | Federal Building Plaza, 200 E. Liberty, 12:00 p.m.

Asheville (North Carolina, USA) | Vance Monument, 4:30 p.m.

Los Angeles (USA) | Israeli consulate, 6:00 p.m. [link]

Marin (CA, USA) | Larkspur, 10 a.m. – 5.30 p.m.

San Francisco (USA) | Boycott Soda Stream, Bed Bath & Beyond, Larkspur Landing, 10:00 a.m. [email]

San Francisco (USA) | Women in black vigil, Union Square, 12:00 p.m.

San Francisco (USA) | Boycott Soda Stream, Macy’s, Union Sq, 1:00 p.m. [email]

San Francisco (USA) | Civic Centre (meet at City Hall steps), 2:00 p.m. [email]

San Francisco (USA) | Israeli Consulate, 4:00 p.m. [link]

SATURDAY, 24th November

Atlanta (USA) | Woodruff Park, 91 Peachtree St., 12:00 p.m. [link]

Indianapolis (USA) | Monument Circle, 1:00 p.m.

New York (USA) | Palestine Action Union Union Square East, 2:00 p.m. [email]

Temple Terrace (FL, USA) | N 56th St & E Fowler Ave., 3:00pm [link]

MONDAY, 26th November

New York (USA) | NW corner of Lexington and 42nd St., 5:00 p.m. [link]

SUNDAY, 2 DEC

Orlando, FL (USA) | Lake Eola Park, 1:30 p.m. [link]

If you would like to donate to an organization which supports Palestine, these have been recommended by Anonymous:

http://www.map-uk.org/ (UK)

http://helpupa.org (USA)

http://www.justgiving.com/medicalaidforpalestinians/ (UK)

http://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/CurrentAppeals.aspx (UK)

http://www.muslimhands.org/fr/fr/ (France)

http://muslimhands.org/en/za/ (South Africa)

*resource found at http://anonrelations.net/everyone-protest-for-gaza-169/

Walmart Workers STRIKE Back and Occupy Helps Support Their Fight

Audra — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 02:07:47 +0000

Stand with Walmart workers in their fight for their rights. For decades, Walmart Stores, Inc have dragged down wages, forcing their workers to work irregular schedules, and intimidated and took retribution on any workers who fought back. It’s time for the retribution to end, so come to this local Walmart to show your solidarity and tell Walmart that they need to pay their fair share.

Find a Walmart near you to support on Black Friday by clicking here.

Give to the Walmart Worker Organizer Fundhttps://www.wepay.com/donations/walmart-worker-organizer-fund

Why should you support the workers?

There are many Walmart workers with the same complaints. Now that these workers are uniting in solidarity together they are getting fired for demonstrating. Back in October they organized a campaign to strike on Black Friday. They have been intimidated, threatened to loose there jobs and many have been flat out fired in retaliation. Yet they continue to raise their voices together.
Walmart workers decided in October 2012 to strike on Black Friday after they were targeted for retaliation for speaking out against substandard work conditions and treatment in the first ever walk out in the history of the company. Now we are looking at a world in which the bravest workers of Walmart are being fired so they may be silenced.

Occupy Solidarity Network says they will continue to assist the workers participating in organizing efforts and nonviolent demonstrations in support of the fight for economic civil rights of the Walmart worker effort. Money raised will go towards paying stipends and living expenses for workers fired for organizing and participating in acts of peaceful civil disobedience.

“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home…the factory, farm or office where he works…unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.” – Eleanor Roosevelt

Click here and s upport the Walmart organizers today!

Follow:

@ChangeWalmart #WalmartStrikes #BlackFriday #BoycottWalmart

Anonymous Message To Pro-Israeli Groups

Audra — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 01:35:14 +0000

Greetings from Anonymous,

It has come to our attention that conservative and pro-Israeli groups throughout the blogosphere have taken advantage of Operation Israel, attempting to solidify public opinion against Anonymous.

TheOtherMcCain.com posted an editorial this morning which stated the following: “If you ever doubted that Anonymous was a terrorist organization, they have now removed all reason for doubt.” The article only contained 55 words of original content by the site itself, the other 90 percent of the article was selected quotations by mainstream media sources.

Let us once again be perfectly clear: Anonymous does not in any way support the use of violence. Anonymous is a world wide collective of individuals whose means pursue human rights, justice, and universal equality for the citizens of every nation.

Pro-Israeli groups throughout the world have grown from a foundation of Israeli/US propaganda and lies. They arbitrarily dismiss the apartheid system of racial segregation and oppression imposed by the Israeli government on the Palestinian people. The fact of the matter is, in the eyes of the media, only the United States and it’s allies are capable of labeling another state or organization as a terrorists. Throughout our campaign, we’ve been inundated with one response in particular; references to Hamas hiding in school buildings or using women and children as human shields. Selective memory seems to have given pro-Israeli organizations the ability to forget that in 2005 Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz appeared in court to defend the practice of using Palestinians as human shields in combat after a supreme court outlawed the practice, noting it violated International Law.

The reasons for Anonymous intervention through #OpIsrael should be abundantly clear: What is happening in Palestine is oppression. They have no navy, no army, or air force. There is no war in Gaza. There is only the continuous application of military force by Israel in an attempt to push every last person out of the Palestinian state, despite international laws that make these efforts illegal. This illegal expansion of territory by Israel in to the Palestinian state has been ongoing since1948, making refugees of over 700,000 Palestinians. Today, Palestinians are not permitted to live in Israeli settlements, drive on Israeli roads or even travel is the “security” areas surrounding them. These Israeli only housing developments are being built on stolen land, even while being called illegal settlements by the International Court of Justice.

The violence inflicted upon the civilian residents of Gaza is well documented, despite the fact that Israel has adamantly opposed intervention by human rights organizations and the IDF constantly blocks and harasses international journalists.

Despite these facts, Anonymous has not used any anti-Semitic language during our campaign. Nor have we vocalized any support for Palestinian military operations or resistance groups. Our goal was to protect the rights of Palestinian people who are threatened with silence as Israel has made attempts to shut down cell phone and internet service throughout Gaza. We know what happens to victims of oppression when the lights go dark.

It is also worthy to note, that as of yesterday, members of Anonymous participating in #OpIsrael were making attempts to augment our Gaza Care Package for civilians in Tel Aviv by translating the same documents in to Hebrew in the event that they lose access to internet service as well. We do not racially or geographically differentiate between victims of violence or oppression anywhere in the world.

Both Palestinians and Israelis need to find common ground and end the violence that has already resulted in the deaths of innocent people, including children. Israel’s advancement on Palestinian Territories and the racist oppression of Palestinian people needs to end.

We are not terrorists. Governments that fund wars, practice deceit against their own citizens, condone corruption, and turn a blind eye to the deaths of innocent people are terrorists. The word terror does not belong to Israel or the United States. We will judge you by your actions.

Peace and Freedom to all,

#OpIsrael
#Anonymous

Original PR location