India, as a nation, adores Valentine's Day. Indians embrace it as a holiday that goes beyond just being nice to your partner. Everyone – from the coffee guy to the gym receptionist who tried to hand me a red rose – was full of non-lecherous cheer. So I was shocked the next day to find the news awash with stories about far-right Hindu activists – from Shri Ram Sena to Bajrang Dal – who had beaten up unmarried couples and blackened their faces as a mark of shame for celebrating Valentine's Day. Their justification was that the day is a western practice, and promotes "lust not love".
This year, the same groups are out again in force. However, while the Indian government has been slow to act against these self-styled moral police, there's a keen sense that the winds of change are turning against these groups.
For a start, although it is a serious issue, it is hard not to laugh at the blustering of Pramod Mutalik, leader of Shri Ram Sena. Mutalik insists that his men will roam Bangalore armed with video cameras, capturing any unmarried couples found celebrating Valentine's Day and then force them to get married. In response, the brilliantly titled Consortium of Pub-going, Loose and Forward Women has started a campaign on Facebook – which now has a whopping 28,496 members and counting – that calls on people to send the Sri Ram Sena a pair of pink chaddis (meaning underwear in Hindi) on 14 February as a sign of protest.
But this is very clearly a story about violence and oppression of women, religion and freedom:
A group of reasonably outraged Indians has started a movement to send pink panties (known as chaddis) (and oh how I love that) to the fundie organization. They have a blog and a lovely Facebook group with panties images I'm destined to steal.
I also love that this horrible incident of violence against women can be met with direct action non-violence that gets lots of well-deserved attention. Fundies don't have a chance against activist women with a strong sense of self and humor.
Smart and funny women and men around the globe are coming together and the people who started this have garnered even more attention to this cause than the shocking and violent video ever would ever have.
As for myself? A great excuse to go out and raise a glass of beer (or tea, or fruit juice) is better than the simple reason that I will probably still go out and have that beer.
I am going to send a pink chaddi in to the addy they give at the movement's Blog(Don't expect me to wear them. lol). I figure I will be at Victoria Secrets tomorrow to get something "valentinish" for my wife anyways... A few bucks on panties and postage will be well worth it to show real support for freedom and against senseless violence for people everywhere around the world.
PS. Our good friend L says we should not colour-discriminate. So if you really, really can't send pink chaddis, send those in other colours.
PPS. Both Women and Men are invited to send in their chaddi's/ pictures of chaddi's.
Give the women of the world a very special Valentines gift this year. Give them freedom by lending your voice, and maybe a pair of panties or a picture, to this cause.
For over seven minutes last night, Jon Stewart grilled former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee on his oppositiontogay marriage. Huckabee is touring the country to promote his new book, “Do The Right Thing.” When Stewart compared gay marriage bans to interracial marriage bans, Huckabee restated his view that homosexuality is simply a behavior choice:
STEWART: Segregation used to be the law until the courts intervened.
HUCK: There’s a big difference between a person being black and a person practicing a lifestyle and engaging in a marital relationship.
STEWART: Okay, actually this is helpful because it gets to the crux of it. … And I’ll tell you this: Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality. And the protections that we have for religion — we protect religion. And talk about a lifestyle choice — that is absolutely a choice. Gay people don’t choose to be gay. At what age did you choose to not be gay?
Huckabee tried to insist that “60 percent of the American population” opposes gay marriage. Stewart interrupted him, calling it a “travesty” that gay Americans have to plead for their civil rights... (READ ON)
But they conveniently choose to skip the First Divine Institution in their bankrupt arguments.
Free Will - The one God supposedly gave everyone to choose their own destiny. Religion is quite simply and for certain nothing more than a lifestyle choice...
You aren't born that way. Even if you are a believer - God gave you the free will to choose to believe. In fact some of these religions make a big deal out of converting people into believers. Because. People. Were. Not. Born. That. Way.
They made a choice.
People choose their religions all the time. Often they change their choice of religion on a whim.
Today, the word miscegenation is avoided by many scholars, because the term suggests a distinct biological phenomenon, rather than a categorization imposed on certain relationships. The word is considered offensive by many and other terms such as "interracial," "interethnic" or "cross-cultural" are more common in contemporary usage. However, the term is still used by scholars when referring to past practices concerning multiraciality, such as anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriages.
Christians and their ever changing views on traditional marriage...
I am pretty sure most of them have given up the bigoted views against interracial marriages.
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Just remember that these are precisely the views and lessons that have formed people like Mike Huckabee's "family values and morals" in the religious lifestyle choice they have made.
History will not be kind to you and yours, Huckster...
Time and time again these family values types have had to be forced to re-define their idea of traditional marriage because of what societies morals have defined as abhorrent practices. This time is no different than any of the other times. It truly sickens me that in a nation where all men are supposedly created equal... That we constantly have to sink down to these morally corrupt and repugnant people's level to argue for the most basic civil rights of other men and women. Their right to choose.
Those of you on the other side of these arguments - and I assure you, they are all the same arguments repeated over and over again - will be viewed in the history books as the bigots and haters that you are. But let's be clear on this...
That was your choice.
Not mine. My choice and belief would be that other people have no right to stick their noses in to the love lives, bedrooms and marriages of other adults. And I never had to ask for Mike Huckabee's or any one else, Gay, Lesbian, heterosexual, religious, atheist or other, for permission to get married - other than my wife-to-be at the time. All of you on the wrong side of this argument have been left with the freedom to choose your religion, your morals, your values and even your spouse.
The LGBT community deserves the same rights, the same freedoms guaranteed to them under the Constitution, to make all of these same choices without your 5000 years of traditionally misguided, immoral and bigoted input.
Today, Connecticut joins Massachusetts as the only states to allow same-sex couples to marry. This comes one week after California voters banned gay marriage. WNPR's Lucy Nalpathanchil spoke to two couples who've been waiting a long time for this day to come.
This morning town halls across the state will begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Barb and Robin Levine Ritterman will be at the front of the line at New Haven city hall. Last week, I met with them in Barb's office on Chapel Street to hear about their plans. She smiles at Robin, her partner of seventeen years, as she talks about planning for the big day.
Love Makes a Family and GLAD will be coordinating festivities at two locations in Connecticut--New Haven and West Hartford. Bring your cameras, balloons, bubbles and flowers to New Haven City Hall (we'll gather on the sidewalk at 165 Church Street) at 10am on Wednesday, November 12th to celebrate with the first same-sex couples getting their marriage licenses!
Then, at 2:30pm at West Hartford Town Hall (gather outside at 50 South Main Street), the celebration continues as plaintiff couple Beth Kerrigan and Jody Mock get their marriage license there. We expect both of these locations to be major media events--be part of the crowd that witneses history! You won't want to miss it--plan on taking the day off!
The State Supreme court decision on same-sex marriage becomes official Tuesday with its publication in the Connecticut Law Journal, and that means same-sex couples could be tying the knot in about two weeks.
[snip]
"It could be the 13th, but it will happen the week of November 10th," Ben Klein, of Gay/Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, said.
Not much time for them to get their wedding plans together... Good luck to any of you that take advantage of actually having EQUAL RIGHTS when it comes to your own personal pursuit of happiness.
Love Makes a Family is looking for donations to help defend this newly minted equality. You know there are wingnuts out there that are already plotting to force their misguided opinions into other peoples' marriages and happiness. Instead of fighting this decision they might do better to invest their political war chest in marriage counseling to figure out just what, exactly, is so wrong that makes their marriages success so dependent on somebody else's personal lives?
I don't know about any of you but my marriage hasn't changed one little bit, nor has it been diminished in any way, since the Supreme Court decision. Figure the odds?
Today at 11:30 the CT Supreme Court will release their decision on same-sex marriage.
Or will they be relegated to the status of second class human beings and citizens deprived of their rights to pursue their life, their liberty and their happiness? Update [2008-10-10 11:47:4 by Connecticut Man1]: According to mattw at MLN, there is a party in Hartford tonight celebrating Equal Rights:
Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.
This is no different than the "free speech zones" that they are using to cage demonstrators in like animals. Are all of you journalists happy that you let the rights of citizens slip without speaking out?
Well? Here is your future headline if the media doesn't hit back hard on these things:
The incumbent kept the opposing candidates locked inside a challengers area to prevent them from saying "negative things."
Here is an opportunity for the media to take back the truth. And, even, to give some sense of freedom back to the people. Freedoms are being stolen from the people, the media...
Who will be next?And will there be anyone remaining to publicly stand up for their rights?
During the 2004 presidential election and after Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, I went on a 62-city tour of battleground states in the month leading up to the election. In city after city, we had basketball arenas and concert halls full of slackers who were registering and pledging to vote for the first time in their lives. On tour, we were joined by musicians, comedians, former Bush administration diplomats, military families and Iraq war veterans. We were met by Bush supporters, protesters, and rich Republicans trying to pay off schools and college student to disinvite me to speak.
Our mission was to deliver the highest youth turnout in history and get W out of the White House. We were successful with the first part, but not the second. And that’s why were here. Four years later, the only way we will win this election is if we get the highest turnout ever of voters 18-29. There’s no way around it. It’s up to America’s youth.
This brings me to what I wanted to talk about tonight. At midnight tonight (about an hour) the first feature-length film ever to debut online for free online (and legally!). My new film “Slacker Uprising,” is a look back at our Slacker Uprising Tour and a look ahead to what we need to do to win this election. And I’m giving to you guys for free online so that you can use this film to rally voters, raise money, hold house parties, register friends and neighbors to vote, and do whatever you want with it. I’m giving this film to the Daily Kos community and like-minded people who will take this film and run.
You have my permission to download it, burn it, screen it, hold house parties and fundraisers around it. It’s your movie. It’s free. Take it and run. Getting slackers off the couch and into the voting booth is our only chance…
"The response quotes and expands upon an existing legal opinion to help frame the response," he said. "It should not be interpreted as a blanket statement on our views towards privacy."
He added: "Google respects an individual's right to privacy. We have privacy protections built into all of our products.
Google's comments to the court irked the NLPC which it said came as the search giant asserted a robust defence of its privacy policies to Joel Anderson, a Republican member of California State Assembly.
Mr Anderson aired his worries about the effect a search advertising tie-up between Yahoo and Google would have on personal privacy in a letter to Jerry Brown, California's attorney general.
In an effort to turn the tables on Google the NLPC compiled a comprehensive amount of personal information on an unnamed Google executive in less than 30 minutes
It included the licence plates of cars outside the individual's home, the landscaping company the exec uses and even the name of the next door neighbour's security company.
What a useful tool to entrust to everyone on earth, eh?
But the government would never invade your Privacy like this right?
Google has been recruited by US intelligence agencies to help them better process and share information they gather about suspects.
Agencies such as the National Security Agency have bought servers on which Google-supplied search technology is used to process information gathered by networks of spies around the world.
Google is also providing the search features for a Wikipedia-style site, called Intellipedia, on which agents post information about their targets that can be accessed and appended by colleagues, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The contracts are just a number that have been entered into by Google's 'federal government sales team', that aims to expand the company's reach beyond its core consumer and enterprise operations.
And remember that this information will only be shared with a select few people:
Depending on their clearance, agents can log on to Intellipedia and gain access to three levels of info - top secret, secret and sensitive, and sensitive but unclassified. So far 37,000 users have established accounts on the service, and the database now extends to 35,000 articles, according to Sean Dennehy, chief of Intellipedia development for the CIA.
...snip...
Often, the contract is for something as simple as conducting earch within an organisation's own database, but in the case of the Coast Guard, Google also provides a more advanced version of its satellite mapping tool Google Earth, which ships use to navigate more safely.
While I am certain the Coast Guard wouldn't ever use their more advanced tools to, say, stare into your backyard to watch you , your family and friends skinny dipping in your pool, I wonder how many of those 37,000 articles in Intellipedia include tracking information on the millions of Americans on no fly lists:
The Liberal Journal said that "Yesterday, the USA Today reported that the terrorist watch list has grown to over 755,000 names. It has grown at about 200,000 a year since 2004. Now, the TSA is proposing that we get Big Brother's permission 3 days before we are to fly."
No word yet from the TSA about whether or not Blackwater mercenaries that have committed minor errors, like murder and massacre, will be on that list...
I know this story has grown quite a bit since this was originally posted... But today is the day that Ken Krayeske (and freedom of speech, political association, THE LIST, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, and other privacy issues) gets a day in court.
OK. He has worked on the Green party campaign for the Governor, the Lamont campaign for Senate, and does a lot of Blogging and work as an indie Journalist. Apparently he is perceived as a serious enough threat to our paranoid Governor Jodi Rell that he was arrested at her innaugural prade.
"HARTFORD, Conn. -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell's security detail only watched when a woman left the sidewalk and quickly walked toward Rell during the inaugural parade Wednesday. The woman shook Rell's hand and melted into the crowd.
But a slightly built man who jumped off a mountain bike and ran into the parade route ahead of Rell was intercepted by a state trooper and arrested by a Hartford police officer.
One difference in the way the two incursions were handled: A state police intelligence unit had previously identified the man, Ken Krayeske, as a political activist and potential threat.
A potential threat? What was so threatening about Krayeske that the Trooper had to step in and grab him? And why, and how, had they identified him?(MUCH more below)
Hartford Det. Jeff Antuna wrote in his report that Krayeske hp/2007/01/0drew his attention by rapidly riding up to the parade route near Bushnell Park, dumping his bike and running to a position in front of Rell.
"I immediately recognized the accused as Kenneth Krayeske from the photograph provided by the state police," Antuna wrote.
A state police detective intercepted Krayeske. When Antuna grabbed his arm, police said, Krayeske pulled away.
Photograph provided by State Police? Huh??? According to the Hartford police officers report the State had given the local Hartford police photographs of activists that might be considered threats to "Her Excellency" Governor Jodi Rell.
His lawyer says Krayeske apparently came to the attention of state police by heckling Rell during a campaign stop in Glastonbury last year over her refusal to debate his candidate, Clifford Thornton.
"Are there little circles of law-enforcement officers who have lists of who is naughty and who is nice?" asked Krayeske's lawyer, Norm Pattis. "What is the criteria for inclusion?"
Speaking on behalf of the state police, Lt. J. Paul Vance had nothing to say about how Kreyeske came to the State Police intelligence unit's OR the Connecticut Intelligence Centers attention. He did admit that these unit's do share information and intelligence. Speaking on behalf of Nutmeggers... I knew they shared information, but I had no clue so many agencies were watching all of us?
As for the list:
Nancy Mulroy, a Hartford police spokeswoman, played down the list, saying Krayeske was arrested for his actions.
Pay no attention to the McCarthy inspired list! Just move along to the dangerous actions of Krayeske... OK, Let's do that for the moment. Situation, according to the Hartford police:
"List or no list, if you rush off a bike and start charging toward the governor during a processional parade, you are going to be arrested," Mulroy said. "In this day and age, when security is a very serious matter, you cannot expect to act like that and not have to face the consequences. Our job was to protect the governor, and we took it seriously."
According to The Courant article there was a witness to back up the police version of the arrest. Eliot Streim:
Streim, a Hartford lawyer who was watching the parade with a colleague, said police did not intercept Krayeske as he ran into the parade route. On the contrary, Krayeske photographed the governor without incident and was detained by police only after Rell had passed by, Streim said.
Well? He did back them up against the wall. Straim's version seems to leave a lot of doubt about the police version of the arrest.
OK... Someone is lying, and the only one I can see with nothing to gain or lose here is the Lawyer/witness. Can Krayeske shed any light on what he was doing at the parade? Take a look:
He was taking pictures! That was a photo taken by Krayeske shortly before he was arrested. Does that look like a photo that someone charging at Granny Paranoia might be able to take? Half of my pictures come out blurry even when I am standing as still as I can. That is a damned good picture considering the subject. (FYI: Krayeske is having a caption contest for the photo to poke fun at inauguRellgate, and celebrate the glorious circumstances of his arrest and 13 hours in jail)
It is bad enough that this guy got arrested for taking pictures, but what is a really scary thought is that Connecticut now has a "LIST" of potential dangegerously threatening people that seems to include peaceful activists like Bloggers, Journalists, campaign volunteers, and obviously photographers.
So now we have a "List", an apparently ginned up arrest, spying on peaceful political activists... And yes he is your typical peaceful activist. Ctnewsjunkie fills in some of Kreyeske's info:
Krayeske was working as a freelance photojournalist at the time of the arrest Wednesday. He also runs a Web site The 40 Year Plan. He was previously arrested in 2003 for demonstrating against the war. In 2004 Krayeske worked on Ralph Nader's presidential campaign and in 2005 he traveled to Syria to report on the war. He has also contributed stories and photos to ctnewsjunkie.com
Atalbot at MLN can give you a little more background on Krayeske.
Now to the last little part in this story: What helped to get all of Connectucut's various secret and not so secret policing efforts and attention and put him on the "LIST". According to Maura at MLN:
Whose going to protest the inaugural ball Jan. 3 with me? No need to make nice after watching this documentary about CJTS
Paz hasn't yet connected this comment to the aspect of this whole outrage that I think is nearly as interesting as the revelation that CTIC has a list of political activists deemed troublesome to Rell -- the fact that the bond for Krayeske was set at the absurdly high level of $75,000.
Since Ken couldn't make this bond, he was kept in lockup all afternoon and night...and then mysteriously sprung without having to make bond at all, simply on promise to appear, at 1:00 AM.
Rell's inaugural ball, which Ken commented at CLP that he'd like to protest, ended at 1:00 AM.
Krayeske is a freelance writer and photographer and his only intention was to photograph "Her Excellency" Governor Jodi Rell. They arrested him on ginned up charges, and held him until after that Rell's ball ended. You have seen most of the the evidence. Do I raelly need to tell you what to make of this?
Pattis called the police department's version "ridiculous," accusing them of "lying and making it up as they go along."
Equally important, he said, is the question of the surveillance and whether Krayeske and other political activists and freelance journalists are being investigated and monitored.
The number of other people on the list and their identities were not available Friday.
"It's not a crime in this country to be a political activist, at least not yet," Pattis said. "It's not apparent that Mr. Krayeske broke any law, it's not apparent that he did anything that any of the rest of us are not allowed to do. This is sort of, police state run riot."
A spokesman for the governor's office declined to comment Friday.
CT police and not so secret police (not secret anymore) have stepped in it big time, and all for the benefit of our paranoid GOP Governor Jodi Rell. They have crossed way over the line of what their stated purposes are. Just check Colin McEnroe's site to see the proof of that:
I am trying to stay with this story as I do the show. I now have the police report on the arrest of Ken Krayeske. The information about him seems to have come, at least partly, from the Connecticut Intelligence Center, a creature of Homeland Security.
Here is its stated purpose. I fail to see how it includes monitoring members of the Green Party:
* Connecticut Intelligence Center
The DEMHS Statewide Anti-Terrorism Task Force is now co-located with the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, in an effort to streamline investigations and response to terrorism-related allegations and incidents. A key component of this investigative and law enforcement asset created in 2005 is the Connecticut Intelligence Center ("CTIC"), a multi-agency collaborative operation that includes representatives of the FBI, DEMHS, Connecticut State Police, municipal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Coast Guard.
CTIC collects, analyzes and disseminates both criminal and terrorism related intelligence to all law enforcement agencies in Connecticut. Serving as a statewide central resource to affect intelligence sharing, CTIC also acts to identify emerging threats and trends. CTIC produces a number of intelligence reports and bulletins, including the CTIC Weekly Briefing and has conducted three seminars for state and local law enforcement professionals. The seminars have helped increase the knowledge of local law enforcement professionals in dealing with terrorist prevention and incidents.
And like the typical GOP low-life she personifies Jodi Rell will likely do nothing and say nothing about this until everyone dogpiles on her. She would prefer to just try and sweep it under the rug. What she didn't count on was that not only has the Blogosphere latched on to this, BUT the MSM has grabbed this one early and has done a lot of digging as well.
Rep. Mike Lawlor (D-East Haven) and CO-Chair of the Judiciary Committee had this to say (Courtesy of Spazeboy.net) at a Capitol briefing: Part 1 (Length 09:00):
Lawlor is correct:
"This type of conduct, which I guess you could categorize as "bushist" for a want of a better expression in this day and age will not be tolerated in this state."
Part 2 (Length (09:54):
"That, to me, reeks of secret police..."
Part 3 (Length (08:50):
"This is clearly an attempt to intimidate a journalist"..."This is the result of the emergence Bloggers on the political scene"..."This not traditional journalism, its different, slightly more in your face, and appropriately so, because a lot of people can't get away with what they used to in the good old days, not the politicians, not the police, and a lot of other people, and I think this is healthy for the process."..."I think this motivated more by politics than law enforcement"
"It begs the question: "Who else is on that list?"" And also a reference to this snippet from a post as supposed reasoning for Krayeske's outrageous treatment:
I scoped the area because I hoped to snap some photos of Rell during the inaug. I want file shots so when I report on her governance, I can have fresh images for the loyal viewing audience. Unfortunately, according to Mr. Harris, I won't have much access:
Shocking! He was planning to take Photographs!
Part 4 (Length 09:12):
Q: "Are you going to ask for copies of thet list and are you going to make it public?"
A: "Absolutely. We will get to the bottom of this and we will do it publicly."
Also, there is a reference to The letter (Via ctblogger) from Jodi Rell that is about a dollar short and a few days too late for me to believe that she is doing anything but spinning:
Colin McEnroe just posted this on his blog. Seems like the events surrounding the arrest of Ken Krayeske is going to turn into a full-scale investigation. McEnroe just posted this letter Gov. Rell sent to
Department of Public Safety Commissioner Leonard Boyle.
January 8, 2007
Commissioner Leonard Boyle
Department of Public Safety
1111 Country Club Road Middletown, Connecticut 06457
Dear Commissioner Boyle:
I am writing with regard to the incident last week involving Kenneth Krayeske which led to his arrest by the Hartford Police Department.
I recognize that security assessments are by necessity comprehensive, and I understand that our State and local law enforcement agencies must work together and share information. Law enforcement agencies also have the difficult job of assessing the information they receive. Nonetheless, I was disturbed to read in media reports allegations regarding the existence of a “list� of individuals.
It is my expectation that all State Police information is maintained in strict compliance with federal law. In this environment of heightened security, the use of information must be balanced with the individual rights of our citizens. In providing security and protection, we cannot permit the rights of individuals to be trampled.
The parade was a public event, and moreover an event at which public participation was invited. People also have a right to protest â€" and that right is one of the fundamental freedoms of our state and nation.
Most importantly, security procedures must be uniform and consistent in order to safeguard both the people and places of Connecticut as well as our basic freedoms.
Accordingly, I am requesting that you review the circumstances of this incident. Specifically, I would like to know how this individual came to the attention of State Police and the circumstances under which his name and photo were provided to the Hartford Police Department.
In addition, I am requesting that you evaluate existing procedures to ensure that information gathered by the State Police is reliable and reported to other law enforcement agencies in a responsible manner.
Sincerely,
M Jodi Rell
GOVERNOR
The events surrounding freelance journalist Ken Krayeske's arrest is getting stranger by the second as the outrage mounts.
The letter came out shortly before the planned press conference by Lawlor. Can you get any more "spin reactionary" than that?
As you can see... Lawlor and the other members of the press conference are truly shocked about this and are taking this all very seriously as far as it being a serious abuse of Krayeske's rights and the rights of any other "innocent victims" of the list.
I'll close this out with a humoorous interview by Ct Bob (with Maura) of Krayeske at the Branford BRRRoadwater "polar bear swim": (length 05:18)
You don't know who I am BUT you are welcome! :) There are many people that will do what we can to support you.
There is an appeal for funds to help cover his legal costs if you want to help a fellow Blogger/Activist/Journalist/Photographer/Citizen!
There is an appeal for funds to help cover his legal costs if you want to help a fellow Blogger/Activist/Journalist/Photographer/Citizen!
Update II: This one's major. It turns out that Krayeske's application for a grant from the SPJ's Legal Defense Fund was published without his knowledge or consent. I feel like a rube for re-posting an excerpt, but I did so only because I know that many of us are interested in contributing toward the payment of his legal bills. All that's left of this post is the info below, which is the only legit way to contribute to Ken Krayeske's legal defense.
if you wish to promote liberty, protect freedom of speech and stop false arrests of journalists and/or political activists, please help me out. You can make out checks to "Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis," and in the memo line write "Ken Krayeske Legal Defense Fund." Send the checks to
Ken Krayeske Legal Defense Fund c/o Law Offices of Norman Pattis 649 Amity Road Bethany, CT 06524
I repeat that this is the one and only certified way to contribute to my legal defense at this point and time. Thank you all in advance for your assistance, and I am humbled by the amount of emotional support I have received to this point.
This morning brought good news for Ken Krayeske, reports Jon Lender at the Courant:
Prosecutors at first offered only to nolle the charges of breach of peace and interfering with police -- that is, to not prosecute them but reserve the right to reopen the case for about a year -- on the grounds that Hartford police were in a "no-win" situation because they would have been strongly criticized if something happened to Rell.
But Krayeske's lawyer, Norman Pattis, pushed for an outright dismissal, saying it was Krayeske who was in the "no-win" situation because he was a nonviolent citizen exercising his First Amendment right by taking pictures of Rell for his website, www.the40yearplan.com.
[...]
Prosecutors then agreed to the dismissal, which did not involve any waiving by Krayeske of his right to bring a wrongful arrest suit in federal court.
Norm Pattis did a tremendous job with this case. Congratulations, Ken!
We still don't know how many of us Nutmeggers are on the lists kept by the local police, FBI, Connecticut state Homeland Security representatives and numerous other agencies entrusted with the task of spying on Americans.
Why are there so many names on the U.S. government's terrorist list?
In September 2007, the Inspector General of the Justice Department reported that the Terrorist Screening Center (the FBI-administered organization that consolidates terrorist watch list information in the United States) had over 700,000 names in its database as of April 2007 - and that the list was growing by an average of over 20,000 records per month.1
At that rate, our list will have a million names on it by July. If there were really that many terrorists running around, we'd all be dead.
Now, figuring that there are 50 states and then the District of Columbia that makes for about 18,181 terrorists for every state. Perhaps, even, your next door neighbor? As for the District of Columbia?You will find all of the D.C. terrorists scurrying to and from the various GOP offices on The Hill and the White House.
Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says. The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities.
Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.
However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileak from its servers.
The following release has not been proofed due to time constraints.
Transparency group Wikileaks forcibly censored at ex-parte Californian hearing -- ordered to print blank pages -- 'wikileaks.org' name forcibly deleted from Californian domain registrar -- the best justice Cayman Islands money launderers can buy?
When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no-one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch. And when Wikileaks published the secret censorship lists of Thailand's military Junta, no-one was too surprised when people in that country had to go to extra lengths to read the site. But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown:
BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD, a Swiss entity; and JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO. LTD, a Cayman Island ORDER GRANTING entity, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
WIKILEAKS, an entity of unknown form; WIKILEAKS.ORG, an entity of unknown form; DYNADOT, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
[..]
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
[..]
Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.
The Cayman Islands is located between Cuba and Honduras. In July 2000, the United States Department of the Treasure Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an advisory states stating that there were "serious deficiencies in the counter-money laundering systems of the Cayman Islands", "Cayman Islands law makes it impossible for the supervisory and regulatory authority to obtain information held by financial institutions regarding their client's identity", "Failure of financial institutions in the Cayman Islands to report suspicious transactions is not subject to penalty" and that "These deficiencies, among others, have caused the Cayman Islands to be identified by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (The 'FATF') as non-cooperative in the fight against money laundering". As of 2006 the U.S. State Department listed the Cayman Islands in its money laundering "Countries of Primary Concern".
The Cayman's case is not the first time Wikileaks has tackled bad banks. In the second half of last year Wikileaks exposed over $4,500,000,000's worth of money laundering including by the former president of Kenya, Daniel Arap Moi (see http://wikileaks.be/wiki/The_looting_of_Kenya_under_President_moi which became the Guardian's front page story in September 2007 and swung the Kenyan vote by 10% leading into the December 2007 election and http://wikileaks.be/wiki/A_Charter_House_of_horrors reported in the Nairobi paper The Standard and now the subject of a High Court Case in Kenya).
To find an injunction similar to the Cayman's case, we need to go back to Monday June 15, 1971 when the New York Times published excepts of of Daniel Ellsberg's leaked "Pentagon Papers" and found itself enjoined the following day. The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing the Times' printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power. The supreme court found the Times censorship injunction unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.
The Wikileaks.org injunction is ex-parte, engages in prior restraint and is clearly unconstitutional. It was granted on Thursday afternoon by California district court judge White, Bush appointee and former prosecutor.
The order was written by Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer lawyers and was accepted by judge White without amendment, or representations by Wikileaks or amicus. The case is over several Wikileaks articles, public commentary and documents dating prior to 2003. The documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion. The bank alleges the documents were disclosed to Wikileaks by offshore banking whistleblower and former Vice President the Cayman Island's operation, Rudolf Elmer. Unable to lawfully attack Wikileaks servers which are based in several countries, the order was served on the intermediary Wikileaks purchased the 'Wikileaks.org' name through -- California registrar Dynadot, who then used its access to the internet website name registration system to delete the records for 'Wikileaks.org'. The order also enjoins every person who has heard about the order from from even linking to the documents.
In order to deal with Chinese censorship, Wikileaks has many backup sites such as wikileaks.be (Belgium) and wikileaks.de (Germany) which remain active. Wikileaks never expected to be using the alternative servers to deal with censorship attacks, from, of all places, the United States.
The order is clearly unconstitutional and exceeds its jurisdiction.
Wikileaks will keep on publishing, in-fact, given the level of suppression involved in this case, Wikileaks will step up publication of documents pertaining to illegal or unethical banking practices.
Wikileaks has six pro-bono attorney's in S.F on roster to deal with a legal assault, however Wikileaks was given only hours notice "by email" prior to the hearing. Wikileaks was NOT represented. Wikileaks pre-litigation California council Julie Turner attended the start of hearing in a personal capacity but was then asked to leave the court room.
White signed the order, drafted by the Cayman Islands bank's lawyers without a single amendment.
The injunction claims to be permanent, although the case is only preliminary.
As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. Today I received a message explaining that a California court has granted an injunction written and requested by lawyers for the Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer. It seems that the bank is trying to keep the public from accessing documents that may reveal shady dealings.
... could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act.
„
— Time Magazine
Important enough as a journalistic tool that some, with shady dealings, seem to see a need to shut it down. Welcome to the bush and GOP created and corporate owned America.
This is just another chapter in a bigger battle, IMHO:
One challenge in any reconstruction, though, would be balancing the interests of various constituencies. The first time around, researchers were able to toil away in their labs quietly. Industry is playing a bigger role this time, and law enforcement is bound to make its needs for wiretapping known.
There's no evidence they are meddling yet, but once any research looks promising, "a number of people [will] want to be in the drawing room," said Jonathan Zittrain, a law professor affiliated with Oxford and Harvard universities. "They'll be wearing coats and ties and spilling out of the venue."
The big telcoms have already shown a willingness to try and take control of the internet AND will sell out your right to privacy at the drop of an FBI letter.
Yeah... Ya gotta sleep with one effin' eye open at all times in this modern America. Freedom ain't Free, it'll cost ya a lot of sleep.
A little something you can do about this, as well as helping spread the word for Wikileaks, via Save the Internet:
You can help make the internet faster, more open and accessible to all. Tell Congress to preserve Net Neutrality and help ensure that the benefits and promise of the Internet are available to all Americans.
Congress on Tuesday struck back at the Bush administration's trend toward secrecy since the 2001 terrorist attacks, passing legislation to toughen the Freedom of Information Act and increasing penalties on agencies that don't comply.
The White House would not say whether President Bush will sign the legislation, which unanimously passed the House by voice vote Tuesday a few days after it sailed through the Senate. Without Bush's signature, the bill would become law during the congressional recess that begins next week.
It would be the first makeover of the FOIA in a decade, among other things bringing nonproprietary information held by government contractors under the law. The legislation also is aimed at reversing an order by former Attorney General John Ashcroft in the wake of the attacks, in which he instructed agencies to lean against releasing information when there was uncertainty about how doing so would affect national security.
Hopefully this will make it harder for the dirtbags in the White House to continue to obstruct the many investigations into Bush administration and GOP crimes and scandals. CREW ought to be exceptionally happy about this news. BUT...
Expect another pResidential signing statement with this one, if he bothers to sign it at all? Likely, he will sign it. Just so he can try to falsely claim his right to ignore it.
The Senate will soon consider legislation addressing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). I emailed you about this issue recently responding to inaccuracies in the press about Democratic efforts to improve protection of civil liberties. I am writing you today to update you on the current state of the bill and to ask for your help.
One critical question being considered in the Senate's FISA bill is whether to offer telecom companies retroactive immunity for any actions they undertook in the wireless surveillance program. The Bush Administration has claimed that this is necessary for national security reasons, but I am skeptical.
If the Administration was serious about arguing for this immunity, I suspect they would take steps to demonstrate to Congress the extent of this surveillance program and what role the phone companies played. Yet they have refused to share even this information with the House. Clearly, it is a bit much to ask for immunity from prosecution without explaining why it is necessary.
Because of these reservations, the House-passed FISA bill did not include the immunity the president sought. In the Senate, however, it is becoming clear that a tough battle will now ensue over this provision. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut has been a vocal opponent of telecom immunity and has promised to filibuster any FISA legislation that includes this provision.
Senator Dodd needs your help right now. Please visit his site and lend your support to the filibuster now. Your help can make a difference at this important juncture.
Thank you again for your continued support for a better democracy.
The metaphorical statue of L. Paul Bremer III has come crashing down. Today the Iraqi government formally revoked one of the Coalition Provisional Authority’s enduring vestiges — a decree of immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for U.S. security contractors.
“The cabinet held a meeting yesterday and decided to scrap the article pertaining to security companies operating in Iraq that was issued by the CPA (Coalition Provision Authority) in 2004,” government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement.
“It has decided to present a new law regarding this issue which will be taken in the next cabinet meeting.” Read more…
Has anyone contacted Blackwater to find out when they, err I mean, the insurgents will blow up the Iraqi cabinet responsible for these outrageous crimes against corporate entities?
The Liberal Journal said that "Yesterday, the USA Today reported that the terrorist watch list has grown to over 755,000 names. It has grown at about 200,000 a year since 2004. Now, the TSA is proposing that we get Big Brother's permission 3 days before we are to fly."
No word yet from the TSA about whether or not Blackwater mercenaries that have committed minor errors, like murder and massacre, will be on that list...
I also love that this horrible incident of violence against women can be met with direct action non-violence that gets lots of well-deserved attention. Fundies don't have a chance against activist women with a strong sense of self and humor.
