SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
graham nash
'Today Is a Great Day': After 7 Years, Chelsea Manning Takes First Steps of Freedom
Army whistleblower's release celebrated as "a victory for human rights and the future of freedom of expression"
May 17, 2017
"Today is a great day!"
That's the message from supporters of U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who on Wednesday, after seven years in military prison, is a free woman.
"After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived," Manning said in a statement upon her release: "I am looking forward to so much! Whatever is ahead of me is far more important than the past. I'm figuring things out right now--which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me," she said.
She also posted a photo to social media marking her "First steps of freedom!! :
\u201cFirst steps of freedom!! \ud83d\ude04\n\nhttps://t.co/kPPWV5epwa\n\n#ChelseaIsFree\u201d— Chelsea E. Manning (@Chelsea E. Manning) 1495029059
The 29-year-old U.S. Army whistleblower's 35-year sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama just days before he left office, and after years of grassroots campaigns to secure her freedom.
Indeed, her release is not only "a victory for human rights and the future of freedom of expression," but "a testament to the power of grassroots organizing. If not for the hundreds of thousands of people from across the political spectrum who spoke up, rose up, and fought for Chelsea's freedom, I firmly believe that she would not be with us today," declared Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future.
Among those who'd worked for her freedom is Manning's attorney at the ACLU, Chase Strangio. Drawing attention to the cruelty she faced during her imprisonment, Strangio wrote this week that
Chelsea Manning almost died on our watch. She suffered at the hands of our government, and the toll of her incarceration nearly killed her. But she survived. Through long stretches of solitary confinement, the systemic denial of healthcare, relentless abuse, and a lifetime of consequences, she will have a chance to live.
That cruelty is despite the fact that she merely helped "to expose some of the U.S. government's worst abuses by making public thousands of military documents," wrote Greer, whose organization spearheaded many of the campaigns to free Manning. (As another observer put it, Manning committed "the crime of revealing crimes no one's ever going to prison for.")
Glenn Greenwald points out at The Intercept:
It is genuinely hard to overstate the significance of those revelations: aside from some of the most visceral footage of indiscriminate slaughter by the U.S. military seen in decades, even harsh WikiLeaks skeptics such as New York Times' Executive Editor Bill Keller credited the leaks with helping to spark the Arab Spring. Even more significantly, revelations about how the U.S. military executed Iraqi civilians, then called in a bombing raid on the home to cover-up what they did, prevented the Iraqi Government from granting the Obama administration the troop immunity it was seeking in order to extend the war in Iraq.
"But as courageous as that original whistle-blowing was," Greenwald continues,
Manning's heroism has only multiplied since then, become more multi-faceted and consequential. As a result, she has inspired countless people around the world. At this point, one could almost say that her 2010 leaking to WikiLeaks has faded in the background when assessing her true impact as a human being. Her bravery and sense of conviction wasn't a one-time outburst: it was the sustained basis for her last seven years of imprisonment that she somehow filled with purpose, dignity, and inspiration.
As such, "Chelsea's treatment is especially galling given that nobody has been held accountable for the alleged crimes that she brought to light," states Margaret Huang, executive director of Amnesty International USA.
Given Manning's contribution to the public good, Greer, who is also a singer/songwriter, organized a benefit digital album--Hugs for Chelsea--to support the whistleblower's transition to life out of prison. The compilation includes songs from over 30 artists including Graham Nash, Thurston Moore, Tom Morello, and Against Me!. One hundred percent of the proceeds will go to Manning.
\u201cWe've already raised $3,000 for Chelsea Manning with this benefit comp. 100% of the proceeds go directly to her. https://t.co/OHJdeL3uib\u201d— Evan Greer is on Mastodon (@Evan Greer is on Mastodon) 1495032718
Greer and Strangio also teamed up to create a GoFundMe page called "Chelsea Manning Welcome Home Fund" so that people "have a chance to show our appreciation for all that she has given us."
"For the first time in her life, Chelsea will have the opportunity to live freely as her authentic self, to grow her hair, engage with her friends, and build her own networks of love and support. We want her to have the tools to do that and to overcome the years of abuse she has experience in custody," the page states. As of this writing, it has raised over $154,000, surpassing its $150k goal.
While Manning's supporters celebrated her release and inspiring message "that people power can triumph over injustice," many also drew attention to the ongoing dangers whistleblowers face and widespread mistreatment of those held by the incarceration system.
According to Max Anderson, coordinator at Human Rights Watch's general counsel's office, "Manning's story should serve as a wakeup call for governments to reform whistleblower protections and fulfill their human rights obligations toward incarcerated transgendered people.
Added Amnesty's Huang: "While we celebrate her freedom, we will continue to call for an independent investigation into the potential human rights violations she exposed, and for protections to be put in place to ensure whistleblowers like Chelsea are never again subjected to such appalling treatment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'United Against The Black Snake': Water Protectors Respond To Army Corps' Eviction Notice
A coalition of grassroots groups at the Oceti Sakowin camp at Standing Rock indicated it would reject an Army Corps of Engineers eviction notice, "stand united in defiance of the black snake," and continue to protect water in their ongoing struggle against the Dakota Access pipeline.
Nov 28, 2016
A coalition of grassroots groups at the Oceti Sakowin camp at Standing Rock indicated it would reject an Army Corps of Engineers eviction notice, "stand united in defiance of the black snake," and continue to protect water in their ongoing struggle against the Dakota Access pipeline.
On November 25, district commander Colonel John W. Henderson informed Standing Rock Sioux Tribe chairman David Archambault II that the Army Corps planned to close part of the land "north of the Cannonball River" to public use on December 5. He suggested it was necessary to "protect the general public from the violent confrontations between protestors and law enforcement officials that have occurred in this area and to prevent, death, illness, or serious injury to inhabitants of encampments due to the harsh North Dakota winter conditions."
If this decision is enforced, it will directly impact the indigenous people and allies occupying the Oceti Sakowin camp.
The coalition of groups, including the Camp of Sacred Stones, International Indigenous Youth Council, Indigenous Environmental Network, and Honor the Earth reacted, "It is no coincidence that the Army Corps of Engineers has chosen December 5, General George Armstrong Custer's birthday, as the date it plans to evict people from the Oceti Sakowin Camp. Custer broke the treaty to dig for gold, the Army Corps is breaking the treaty over oil."
"The Army Corps has no authority to evict us from these lands. The Oceti Sakowin encampment is located on the ancestral homeland of the Lakota, Mandan, Arikara, and Northern Cheyenne - on territory never ceded to the U.S. government, and affirmed in the 1851 Treaty of Ft. Laramie as sovereign land belonging to the Great Sioux Nation," the coalition added.
"The encampment is, in many respects, a reclamation of this stolen territory and the right to self-determination guaranteed in the treaties. Our water protectors are not trespassers and can never be trespassers. The Army Corps also has no authority to diminish our right to free speech. Where in the Constitution does it establish zones for the right to free speech? Do corporations now decide whether the Constitution applies? We are not moving, and we will not be silenced."
The coalition continued, "The Army Corps's eviction notice is an aggressive threat to indigenous peoples. It further empowers and emboldens a militarized police force that has already injured hundreds of unarmed, peaceful water protectors, and continues to escalate its tactics of brutality against us. It adds fuel to the fire of an ongoing human rights crisis."
For those wondering what is meant by "black snake," as Kristin Moe described for Yes! Magazine, "There is an old Lakota prophecy of a black snake, a creature that would rise from the deep, bringing with it great sorrow and great destruction. For many years, the Lakota people have wondered what the prophecy meant and when it would come to pass." They view oil pipelines as this feared creature.
As noted by the coalition, the Army Corps has a history of violating indigenous land that is supposed to be protected by treaties. "The best of these lands were flooded by the Army Corps in the 1950s and 1960s - countless sacred sites were desecrated, the vast majority of the timber resources and wildlife destroyed, and thousands of people displaced."
The Washington Post's Steven Mufson published an overview on U.S. government incursions on tribal lands. Over 150 years, it has taken land from the Lakota and Dakota tribes. The seizures, according to tribal leaders, include "land in the Black Hills of South Dakota after the discovery of gold in the 1870s." It also includes the construction of dams in the Missouri River, which brought destruction.
"Through the ages, the warring tribes of the Northern Plains lived, hunted and fought across a sprawling expanse of land. Many were migratory, moving with the seasons. Each treaty with the U.S. government, most notably the 1851 and 1868 treaties of Fort Laramie, restricted their movement further, although they left them large areas west of the Missouri River and recognized them as sovereign nations," Mufson summarized.
The Morton County Sheriff's Department, Morton County Commission, and North Dakota state government have pressured the federal government to take some kind of action against the water protectors, especially since the police conducted an assault against hundreds of people on November 20 that resulted in more than 300 injuries.
But days after issuing the eviction notice, it is unclear what the Army Corps plans to do to enforce the decision to close off access to the land that the Army Corps apparently has no right to shut down. The Army Corps released a statement that it has no plans for a "forcible removal" of water protectors. It claims the Army Corps seeks a "peaceful and orderly transition to a safer location."
The Army Corps is currently assessing whether to deny an easement to Energy Transfer Partners , the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline. Even as it frustrates construction plans for the pipeline, it fuels a mendacious narrative, along with officials at all levels of government, that the encampment is not safe. It also fuels the idea that tribal governors may be encouraging or allowing widespread illegal activity.
In the eviction notice, Henderson called attention to "unauthorized structures, fires, improper disposal of water, and camping," currently taking place, and stated, "Any tribal government that sponsors such illegal activity is assuming the risk for those persons who remain on these lands." And so, to control people, the Army Corps plans to establish a "free speech zone" so it can have more control.
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal chairman Harold Frazier wrote to Henderson, "I no more control the acts and behaviors of Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal members or non-member water protectors at the Cannonball site than you do, Col. Henderson."
"As set forth, even if I could control the water protectors, I recognize and respect their rights under the Constitution of the United States to peaceably assemble in prayerful protest against the cultural and environmental atrocity that is the Dakota access pipeline. I would not use my authority, which is based on the consent of my citizens, to curtail their human and constitutional rights."
While pressure from authorities against water protectors intensifies, about 1,000 military veterans plan to travel to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation on December 4-7 and "defend the water protectors from assault and intimidation at the hands of the militarized police force and [Dakota Access] security." Over $450,000 was raised to support this initiative.
There are also solidarity actions planned throughout December, and on November 27, a massive demonstration in support of the water protectors at Standing Rock took place at the Washington monument. Hours later, a sold-out benefit concert featuring Dave Matthews, Tim Reynolds, Neko Case, Graham Nash, Ledisi, and Lakota Thunder was held at DAR Constitution Hall.
During his presidency, President Barack Obama made overtures to Native Americans that he would be on their side. He has mostly avoided taking any meaningful stance on the issue of the Dakota Access pipeline, even as indigenous people plead with him to stand up for them.
"The extreme escalation of violence by law enforcement in recent weeks demands immediate action from the Obama administration to de-escalate and demilitarize the law enforcement response, not to further criminalize us. As the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe pointed out in its response to the Army Corps, the only way to protect people is to deny the last outstanding easement required for the pipeline to cross the Missouri River. "
The water protectors demand the White House deny the easement, revoke permits, and remove pipeline construction workers. They also demand a "full environmental impact statement in formal consultation with impacted tribal governments" be ordered.
"In the meantime," the coalition declared, "we will stand our ground for the water and the unborn generations. Our fight is not just about a pipeline project. It is about 500 years of colonization and oppression. This is our moment, a chance to demand a future for our people and all people. We ask you to join us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
If It Hadn't Been for Those Meddling Climate Kids
We can thank our children—and their lawsuits—for insisting that public trust and hard science be part of climate decision-making.
Aug 14, 2016
In 1962, Diane Arbus took a photo of a lanky young boy in Central Park holding a hand grenade. He stands before the camera, a deranged look on his face, his free hand contorted into a menacing claw. It's an iconic image that captured the generational tension around the Vietnam War and, according to songwriter of that time Graham Nash, one that questions the lessons we teach our children.
Nash has referenced that photograph when recalling his song "Teach Your Children." In it, he acknowledges that beneath the fears instilled by aging, beneath the photographed child's lunatic visage, there is blissful idealism with hope still intact. That's why, with a sudden turn of phrase in his second chorus, Nash sings that those of tender years must teach their parents well.
A half-century later, there is a new movement of young people seeking to inform the world. A group of high-minded activists concerned with their environmental inheritance argues that current operating procedures threaten coming generations' access to clean air, water, and a stable climate. State by state they're suing to force governments to protect their birthright.
Suing because asking hasn't worked.
In Washington state, a group of 12- to 16-year-olds supported by environmental nonprofit Our Children's Trust has repeatedly asked the Department of Ecology to more strictly regulate carbon emissions. But the state has repeatedly refused, saying it lacks the authority and buying more time. Washington's latest rendition of the Clean Air Rule--proposed legislation that would limit carbon pollution--fails to go far enough.
The kids are asking for something that, surprisingly, does not exist: a rule that caps emissions and requires reductions based on the best available science. The Department of Ecology, which is charged by statute and state and federal constitutions to manage and protect the environment, has not challenged the validity of the science the kids have presented in court--numbers on graphs and charts based on recent research, all thoroughly cross-checked by some of the nation's leading climate scientists.
The state's current plan is based on outdated science.Yet the state's current plan is based on outdated science. It calls for a reduction of statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This would require an annual reduction in emissions of 1.7 percent. Today's experts say we'll need to slash our emissions by about four times more than that. In addition, the state's plan includes allowances for some businesses to drag their feet meeting the goals and credits given for out-of-state and past sustainable investments. There's even a dubious mechanism that allows some carbon credits to be counted twice.
The state has not only denied pleas for a rule that would require quicker action but challenged recent court direction to do so. Finding that the state had a "constitutional obligation to protect the public's interest in natural resources held in trust for the common benefit of the people," the King County Superior Court ordered the department to create such a rule by the end of 2016.
But Gov. Jay Inslee's administration appealed the order. Although he's considered a "climate hero," said Andrea Rodgers, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center who represents the kids in court, "he missed a tremendous opportunity."
It is an election year, after all. Facing tight races in November, state Democrats may be wary that strong climate action will appear anti-business. And so, two quintessential American ideals have again butted heads: private enterprise versus the public good.
Ultimately, that's what this case is about--the public trust.
It's logical that we apply the public trust to climate.The public trust doctrine is a legal concept in which governments protect resources--including air, water, and land--for the benefit of citizens as a whole. It's an ancient idea with roots in indigenous cultures and Roman law's res communes, addressing things owned by no one and available to all.
It's also the backbone of modern environmental law. Embedded in statutes back in 1892 when the U.S. Supreme Court found that the public, not a private railroad company, owned the submerged tidelands along Lake Michigan, this idea of public trust has since been invoked over water, oil, beaches, fish stocks, shellfish beds, and so on.
As understanding of ecological interconnectivity grows, it's logical that we apply the public trust to climate. And that's the basis of the climate kids' lawsuit.
When I first learned of the climate kids, I was skeptical. Probably put up to it by their fleece-wearing parents, I thought. Indeed, the group in Washington is part of a broader, international effort backed by the grown-ups at Our Children's Trust and attorneys like Rodgers. But another case OCT is pursuing, from Oregon, has risen to a federal court and presents perhaps the brightest chance yet of forcing national emissions regulation worthy of the task at hand.
That's serious movement, and not to be taken lightly. So, what can we learn from them?
"The kids believe they can solve this crisis," Rodgers told me. "They are not jaded by years of political failure."
That youthful idealism, in this case, may be what our situation requires. After all, as Nash sings, it will be their hell that slowly goes by.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular