Help Needed Feb 3 / Legal update / Articles by Mumia

Dear Mumia Supporters:

You are invited and urged to help build the historic tour of Lynne Stewart
and Michael Ratner (regarding Mumia and Lynne's cases) by participating in
our Major Mailing Party, this Saturday, February 3, from 10:30 am on at the
Mobilization office: 298 Valencia St., in San Francisco at 14th St., near
the 16th St. Bart Station (415-255-1085). This important mailing will be
going out to thousands of people, providing details of this important
Northern California tour by Lynne and Michael and Jeff Mackler starting on
Friday, February 23 in San Francisco, and bring them up-to-date on the
latest developments in Mumia's case. Check our website for details of the
tour! Please join us in putting out the mailing -- light refreshments will
be served.

Please see the legal update below from Mumia's attorney, Robert Bryan and
recent articles by Mumia.


FREE MUMIA! END THE RACIST, CLASSIST DEATH PENALTY!

In solidarity,

Laura Herrera and Jeff Mackler
Co-Coordinators
The Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
415-255-1085
http://freemumia.org

--------------------------------------------------------------

1/30/07
Mumia Abu-Jamal - Legal Update, reply of Paris Mayor [Please Circulate]

Dear Friends: Since last spring we have been engaged on behalf of Mumia
Abu-Jamal in briefing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, Philadelphia. It is the most extensive I have seen in three
decades of specializing in capital litigation. The pending issues concern
the death penalty, racism that has permeated the proceedings for a quarter
of the century, and prosecutorial and judicial abuse. They are of great
constitutional significance. Last fall I was notified by the court that
oral arguments would be scheduled for January, but that was later
rescinded. At this time we have no indication as to when we will be
permitted to orally argue the merits of the issues. In November Mumia and
I together sent letters to the Mayor of Paris and its Council. It was in
response to an appalling letter sent to Paris by a few misguided
politicians from the Philadelphia area. I wrote: "Their demand that the
honorary citizenship of Mr. Abu-Jamal be revoked is an affront not only to
the citizens of Paris, but is insulting to people around the globe who are
opposed to the death penalty and human-rights abuses." Mumia's letter
eloquently pointed out that "these people are merchants of death who wish
to trick you into their campaign" to not only kill my client, but also "to
wipe [his] name from the face of the earth." Their deal "is but another
lie, a devil's bargain that they are powerless to grant under any stretch
of American or international law." I am pleased to advise that the
Mayor's office has responded in a most positive manner. In the great French
tradition of championing human rights, the December 5 response to me said:

---------------------

The Mayor of Paris has received your letter concerning the situation of
your client, Mumia ABU-JAMAL and thank you.

As mentioned in your mail, some representatives of the city of Philadelphia
have recently wished to express their disapproval toward the decision of
the Paris City Council to have selected in December 2001, Mumia
ABU-JAMAL as honorary citizen of the City of Paris.

Though the denunciation by these representatives is concentrated on the
Cities of Paris and of Saint Denis, nobody ignores that many other Cities
in France, in the United states and in the world, have shown their
support to Mumia ABU-JAMAL.

We have established that the arrival of this Delegation in France,
announced for end of November, has simply never taken place.

It is clear that the city of Paris stays mobilized in this fight and wish
to affirm with force its (engagement) commitment in order that the capital
punishment shall one day disappear of the planet.

I will be grateful for you to transmit this information to your client and
assure him of the support of the City of Paris of which he is honorary
citizen.

---------------------


The original letter from Paris is attached.

We will keep you informed as there are further developments in the case.

With best wishes,

Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


================
[Col. Writ. 1/10/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal


I did not wait with baited breath for the President's long-anticipated
speech on a "new strategy" for Iraq.

For I knew, with chilling certainty, that no matter the 'strategy', it
would hardly be 'new.' I knew that more didn't mean new -- just more. And
I knew that this president was incapable of little more, than more of the
same.

More troops -- more war -- more death -- more disaster.

There may be a new phrase -- but after "Bring 'em on!", "We're winnin'!",
or "War Against Terror", what can a new phrase mean, but more
b.s.?

Wars aren't fought with phrases; they're used to sell wars; to stir the
blood; to quicken the pulse; and to enliven the bloodlust in men.

This is no different.

I fought my journalistic urge to watch the President's press conference.
It's a lot like watching Elmer Fudd stuttering something about catching
that 'wascally wabbit' (Bugs Bunny). I can actually hear Bugs laughing at
Elmer's latest antic, saying, between guffaws, "What a maroon!"

Madness!

And yet, as is often the case, the journalistic urge wins out, so as a
compromise, I turned on the local NPR affiliate, and listened to the
speech. And despite advance billing by party and PR flacks about the
contents, Bush managed to do it again.

Within moments of his latest offering came appeals to the events of Sept.
11th, which he blamed on "extremists." Like Iraq had a damned thing to do
with 9/11! Once again, he sprinkled his speech with calls to supporting
'liberty', and essentially said the problem was 'too few U.S. and Iraqi
troops, and too many restrictions.'

And the solution? 21,000 more troops.

With each twist and turn of administration policy, I've scoffed. This 'new
strategy' evoked the same old emotion.

This too is destined for failure. Why?

Because the U.S. Army hasn't an ounce worth of trust in the Iraqi forces.
Because Iraqi "insurgents" (or dead-enders" -- or "extremists", or whatever
we're calling them now) have seeded themselves within the Ministry of the
Interior -- the Army, the police -- you name it. If the U.S. delivers new
arms to the Army, it will be in the hands of the so-called 'insurgents' by
dawn.

And what is this American antipathy against 'extremists' or 'insurgents',
anyhow? The U.S. was formed by armed groups of insurgents -- and yes,
'extremists.' Those who stood against the British King in 1776 were
opposing the biggest, baddest superpower of the era. The Crown was the
seat of legality, order, and power. To dare to challenge them -- to fight
the mighty British Empire, was -- well, extreme.

The U.S. did it, and at least one 'founding father' -- Thomas Paine, had to
flee Britain, or face time in the Tower awaiting the national noose. (It
was just his bad luck that he fled to France, where the Robespierre-led
National Assembly tried to feed his head to the guillotine -- but that's
another story.)

The point? A war against extremities, or terrorism, is misleading and
stupid. It's a war against an idea.

It's now approaching 4 years of this madcap and illegal war -- now is
hardly time for a 'new strategy.' Failure leads to failure. Disaster
leads to disaster. This 'new strategy' is kinda like putting lipstick on a
pig.

Its other flaw is its obvious tilt towards the Shia, with Sunnis targeted
by the U.S.-Iraqi forces for a kind of 'super-occupation.' What will this
lead to?

*Every*thing that the administration has done -- from Day One -- has made
*more* enemies, not less. It has made the threats facing the U.S. *more*
dangerous -- not less.

Good work, Elmer ( or should I say, Daffy -- as in 'Lame' -- Duck?).


THE OTHER ARMY

[Col. Writ. 1/7/07]

While media pundits and politicians bum rush the mike about President
George W. Bush's plans to "surge" U.S. troop forces in Iraq, little is
being said about another army there. By this I refer not to the British,
who, as the junior partners in this nefarious occupation, have contributed
a significant number of troops to this operation, nor to the other
so-called 'coalition of the willing', most of whom have only sent token
numbers. I mean the private armies, known best by the term "contractors" --
men (mostly) who work for private corporations, who are often heavily
armed, and who number some 100,000. They often wear camouflage fatigues --
and many are paid six-figure salaries! Remember the notorious scandal of
Abu Ghraib prison? While the fate of 7 low-level soldiers (and one female
general) is generally well-known, there is rarely discussion (and rare
still, legal action) on the actions of contractors. Such people played a
key role in Abu Ghraib -- and play vital roles everyday in Iraq, separate
and apart from the U.S. military, or any governmental structure. In Abu
Ghraib, around the exact time of the events that are now infamous and
historic, *all* of the interpreters at the prison worked for one U.S.
company -- Titan Corp. At the same time (as of Jan. '04), over 1/2 of all
interrogators and analysts worked for a Virginia-based company -- CAGI
International. As novelist-essayist Joan Didion noted in a recent edition
of *The New York Review of Books*: "There are now, split among more than
150 private firms, thousands of such contracts outstanding. Halliburton
alone had by July 2004 contracts worth $11,431,000,000. "Private firms in
Iraq has done more than build bases and bridges and prisons. They have done
more than handle meals and laundry and transportation. They train Iraqi
forces. They manage security. Contract interrogators from two firms, CAGI
International (according to its web site 'a world leader in providing
timely solutions to the intelligence community') and Titan ('a leading
provider of comprehensive information and communications products,
solutions, and services for National Security'), were accused of abuses at
Abu Ghraib, where almost half of all interrogators and analysts were CAGI
employees. They operate free of oversight. They distance the process of
interrogation from the citizens in whose name, or in whose "defense," or to
ensure whose "security," the interrogation is being conducted. They offer
'timely solutions.'" [Fr.: Didion, Joan, "Cheney: The Fatal Touch," *The
New York Review of Books*, October 5, 2006, p. 56.] More than any other
war in U.S. history, big companies are making big bucks by privatization of
almost everything. Indeed, in a very real sense, it can be said that even
torture was privatized -- as shown by the allegation that Abu Hamid, a
Titan employee, hired to do interpreting at Abu Ghraib, reportedly raped a
15-year old boy there. Titan held contracts worth an estimated $657
million. CAGI had contracts in the tens of millions, at least. Speaking
of Halliburton (where Vice President Dick Cheney was CEO), it proceeded to
run up so many bills that it overcharged the U.S. government by more than
$1 billion! *One Billion!* Halliburton, by the way, provided U.S. service
members with contaminated drinking water -- and charged Army folks $99 to
wash their laundry -- and didn't get it clean! No matter what Bush
ultimately decides, a private army continues to roam Iraq, answerable only
to their bosses. Armed to the teeth, they are a private army for business.
Who says war is bad for business?


THE PLANET'S DEATH ROW

[Col. Writ. 1/7/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal

When I went into the yard several days ago, (OK--cage) I couldn't help but
be shocked. It was still dark, as the sun hadn't yet risen, not quite 7
a.m. It was nearly 60 degrees. When I felt how warm it was, I was
absolutely stunned. The grass was still green, and it felt like a moist,
spring morning. I couldn't help but think of global warming -- the dumping
of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which traps heat near the
earth's surface, like a blanket on a bed. It has been clearer than I've
ever seen it in over 50 years of life. I then thought that it was a mixed
blessing that Al Gore wasn't elected in 2000, for if he had been it's
doubtful that he would've been so outspoken about the causes of global
warming, and the consequences for the powerful oil companies. The theft of
the election freed him to spend his time and attention on a matter close to
his heart, and his resultant filmed lecture (and book), *An Inconvenient
Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About
It* (Melcher Media/Rodale) has reached more people, at a deeper level, than
any presidential press conference could've. Although long derided by
corporate-paid pundits and conservatives (why are people called
'conservatives' who don't care about conservation of the planet?) as
tree-huggers and many environmentalists who want to destroy U.S. business,
there are few thinking people who dare to challenge the obvious signs of
global warming. In December and January, cherry blossoms bloom in
Washington, D.C. Flowers and bugs react to the warmth like it's an early
spring. In the frigid polar region, polar bears are drowning -- drowning!
-- because of the growing distance between ice floes. Human habitation (at
least in cities) is endangered in this new world formed by human hands.
How serious is global warming? Jim Hanson, Director of NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, wrote recently in *The New York Review of
Books* (7/13/06) in the article, "The Threat to the Planet", what the
difference of 5 degrees warmth means to global sea levels: "Here too, our
best information comes from the Earth's history. The last time that the
Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago, when sea level
was about eighty feet higher. "Eighty feet! In that case, the United
States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Washington, and Miami; indeed, practically the entire state of Florida
would be under water. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea
level. Other places would fare worse. China would have 250 million
displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees,
practically the entire nation. India would lose the land of 150 million
people." [p. 13] That means the land and living areas for over 570 million
people, all around the world would go underwater: *5 degrees!* Never in
human history have people caused so much vast devastation on such a scale.
*This* is civilization? This is one of the costs of 'the American way of
life.' The catastrophe threatened by such an ecological crisis kinda puts
terrorism on another plane of worry, doesn't it? There have been wars and
rumors of wars for fuels that are contributing to the destruction of the
earth, and the flooding of its cities. Politicians haven't moved a muscle
to solve this very real crisis. That's because they are, by their very
nature, but henchmen for corporations, which are concerned only about
profit. This system ain't the solution. Indeed, it is the problem. Only
the people, repudiating the system, can begin to change this emergent
tragedy, by working together to build a new world.

HOW THE FORCES OF CAPITAL GOT US WHERE WE ARE
(OR 'GLOBAL WARMING II')
================================================
[Col. Writ. 1/14/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal


Quite recently, I offered some thoughts on the startling warm winter
weather we're having.

While I talked about the probable impact of global warming (greenhouse
gases), I didn't directly address the sources of much of it.

Let's be clear. Much of it, perhaps most, is cars. Some folks may be
thinking -- 'uh oh -- here he goes again with that back-to-nature, John
Africa talk again. He actually wants us to give up our cars!'

But how many of us know that in the good old days -- say, in the
19-teens, and the '20s, cars were electric cars -- run on batteries?

In the early third of the 20th century, most American mass transit was
an electrical affair -- relatively quiet, with far fewer pollutants
being belched into the air.

What happened? Greed happened. Corporate crime happened. Then mass
pollution happened.

Writer and researcher Mark Zepezauer, in his brilliant 2004 book, *Take
the Rich Off Welfare* (Cambridge, Ma.: South End Press) tells the story
with brevity and clarity, as he writes:

"The extent to which automobiles dominate our lives didn't just happen
by accident -- at least part of it was the result of a criminal
conspiracy. Back in the early 1930s, most people living in cities got
around on electric streetcars. Concerned that this wasn't the kind of
environment in which they could sell a lot of buses, General Motors
(GM), using a series of front companies, began buying up streetcar
systems, tearing out the tracks, buying buses from itself, and then
selling the new, polluting bus systems back to the cities -- usually
with contracts that prohibited the purchase of 'any equipment using
fuel or means of propulsion other than gas.' Sometimes the contracts
required that the new owners buy all their replacement buses from GM.

"GM was soon joined by Greyhound, Firestone Tire and Rubber, Standard
Oil of California (also called Chevron), and Mack Trucks. In 1949 --
after these companies had destroyed more than 100 streetcar systems in
over 40 cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San
Francisco, Oakland, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Salt Lake City -- GM,
Chevron, and Firestone were convicted of a criminal conspiracy to
restrain trade. They were fined $5,000 each, and the executives who
organized the scheme were fined $1.00 each." [p. 139]

Boy -- what does that tell you about 'equal justice under law?'

(Speaking of John Africa, I'm reminded of the opening words of his *The
Judges Letter*, which reads, "The courts are the tools of industrial
plague, granting big business privilege to poison our earth.")

There are some 520 million cars in the world today; 200 million (38.5%!)
are driven in the U.S. The U.S. has only 5% of the world's population,
and drives nearly 40% of the cars.

When we are faced with the chilling spectacle of global warming, with
the rising of the oceans along with temperatures, and with the very real
threat to coastal cities and populations all around the world, there's a
reason for it.

And some big U.S. businesses made plenty of money off it. The pollution
in our lungs, the warming air currents melting the arctic snow and
creating rising sea levels, the very same man-made temperature changes
that have spawned stronger, more destructive hurricanes was translated
into billions of dollars in U.S. corporate coffers, amassed over
decades. It is the very essence of capitalism.

It didn't have to be this way. It could've been very different.

Only people, awake and aware -- and determined to build a new world, can
begin to change it.

Time is running out for over 1/2 a billion people, whose living space is
seriously threatened with flooding.

It's not too late to reverse this monstrous trend. But, it can't be
kept for later.


Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal MARTIN'S SECOND MARTYRDOM

[Col. Writ. 1/7/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal

Soon, every TV station and network, and many of the nation's radio
stations, will air stock film footage (or tape) of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
his handsome dark face shining in a sea of dark faces, captured in his
moment of triumph: the "I Have a Dream" speech in Washington. They will
gladly air this 'safe' Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who spoke loftily
and eloquently of dreams. Few will dare air his remarks made at Riverside
Church in New York City, where an older, wiser Martin spoke, not of dreams
but of realities -- of social, and especially economic injustice -- of
rampant American militarism, and yes -- the nightmare of white racism. One
of those with him, who, too, would become a Rev. Dr., was Vincent Harding,
a man who loved Martin, and who knew him as a brother, rather than an icon.
Rev. Dr. Harding, a leading theologian and historian, wanted others to
know the Martin he'd known; so he wrote a book: *Martin Luther King: The
Inconvenient Hero* (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1996 [8th printing]). As
Harding teaches us, King fell into the pit of betrayal, when he took on the
war in Vietnam: ".... King was bitterly rebuked for taking on the issue of
the war. Some called it a diversion from the issue of black rights. Others
feared the terrible rage of [President] Lyndon Johnson who brooked no
opposition (certainly not from black Martin Luther King!) to his
destructive policies. "Some members of King's own Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (SCLC) board of directors opposed his role in the
antiwar movement, partly because they had seen the way in which the liberal
white allies of the movement had withdrawn financial support from the
radicalized young people of SNCC (Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee), who dared stand in solidarity with the Vietnamese opponents of
America's intervention ... "In the face of all this, partly because of all
this, King persisted, and the Riverside speech - delivered exactly one year
before his assassination, was the most notable result of his decision.
Immediately the drumbeat of harsh criticism was heightened. It came from
many ... including such black stalwarts as Jackie Robinson, Roy Wilkins,
Whitney Young, and Carl Rowan." [pp. 70-71] Rev. Dr. Harding also recounts
how the allegedly 'liberal' *Washington Post* assailed Rev. Dr. King for
daring to oppose the war. The newspaper editorial called his words "Bitter
and damaging allegations and inferences that he did not and could not
document." In the view of the *Post's* editors, "many who have listened to
him with respect will never again accord him the same confidence. *He has
diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country, and to his
people.*" [Harding, p. 71] To his credit, Harding explains, King did not
heed such criticisms, for he knew that they were on the side of war and
death. Harding writes that King became increasingly radicalized, and
emboldened to speak out against injustice; Riverside was a turning point:
"(Who knew that night, April 4, that he had precisely one more year to
live, that the bullet was closing in?) For King saw the larger context. He
had already declared in other places that his "beloved country" was
"engaged in a war that seeks to turn the clock of history back and
perpetuate white colonialism." Underlying this backwardness, he said, was
America's refusal to recognize that "the evils of capitalism are as real as
the evils of militarism and evils of racism." [p. 101] This ain't the
Martin Luther King we see on commercials, nor the ones we see in newspaper
ads around the days of his birth or death. *That* Martin Luther King,
anti-war critic, economic justice activist, advocate for the poor, fellow
sufferer of the bombed and oppressed in Vietnam, a budding socialist (or at
least anti-capitalist), had become, in Harding's words, 'the inconvenient
hero.' May we remember who he *really* was. That King has almost vanished
from our popular media, white-washed culture and history. Were it not for
folks like Vincent Harding, he might have. IN PRAISE OF PRINCES AND
PRESIDENTS -- FORD

[Col. Writ. 1/3/07] Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal

I have struggled to not write about the passing of U.S. President Gerald
Ford. I sought to not do so for days. Yet, the imperial fashion adopted by
most of the American press, which praised his administration almost
unanimously as "his salvation of the republic," forced me to put pen to
paper. Much of the reporting that we have seen has simply been dishonest,
historically inaccurate, and a national amnesiac. What I found
particularly perturbing was the virtually unanimous official opinion that
former President Ford's pardon of Richard M. Nixon was an act of "courage."
Why? Because he opposed the will of the majority of the American people?
There is something unseemly about issuing a pardon to a man *before* he
was criminally charged with anything, and further, *one who built much of
his political career on law and order.** Ford, to hear the corporate press
tell it, simply made a deep, inner decision to save the nation the trauma
of a trial against Nixon, by issuing a preemptive pardon. The problem with
this official reading is that there's plenty of evidence that it just ain't
true. Acclaimed historian, Howard Zinn, in his phenomenal "A People's
History of the United States - 1492-Present" (New York: Harper Collins
Perennial, 2003) tells us that *months* before the Nixon resignation, "....
top Democratic and Republican leaders in the House of Representatives had
given secret assurance to Nixon that if he resigned they would not support
criminal proceedings against him." (p. 546] The *New York Times* reported
that what Wall Street wanted in case Nixon resigned was, "the same play
with different players." It took a French journalist to voice what no
mainstream American paper would -- that U.S. political leaders wanted a
change of face, but not a change of politics. Zinn writes: "No respectable
American newspaper said what was said by Claude Julien, editor of 'Le Monde
Diplomatique' in September 1974. 'The elimination of Mr. Richard Nixon
leaves intact all the mechanisms and all the false values which permitted
the Watergate scandal.' Julien noted that Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry
Kissinger, would remain at his post -- in other words, that Nixon's foreign
policy would continue. 'That is to say,' Julien wrote, 'that Washington
will continue to support General Pinochet in Chile, General Geisel in
Brazil, General Stroessner in Paraguay, etc....'" [p. 545] Clearly, for
millions of people in the U.S., and in Latin America, 'the long national
nightmare' was far from over. Nixon's regime was criminal to the core,
despite his rhetoric about 'law and order.' It was a government that broke
laws frequently and flagrantly, *and got away with it*. Slush funds,
burglaries, illegal corporate campaign contributions, illegal wiretaps,
corruption -- you name it. A deal. A pardon. A swift goodbye, and the
imperial press applauds. 'Law and order' was a program for Blacks,
Hispanics, poor people, political opponents, and radicals. For the wealthy
and well-to-do, it was business as usual. Ford was part of that program.
And because he played his part, the media played their part: 'the king is
dead, long live the king.' From Shakespeare's "Richard II," the immortal
lines are writ: "For God's sake, let us sit upon the ground And tell sad
stories of the death of kings:...." The stories, we see, are still being
told. Copyright 2007 Mumia Abu-Jamal