• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Letter to john kiriakou

Letter to john kiriakou






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Letter to john kiriakou Letter to john kiriakou Document Transcript

    • David Pardo <dpardo@mspbwatch.net> Correspondence with John Kiriakou David Pardo <dpardo@mspbwatch.net> Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 5:00 PM To: jradack@whistleblower.org Cc: beae@whistleblower.org, lclark@whistleblower.org, Joe Carson <jpcarson@tds.net> Ms. Radack, You previously advised me not to contact one of your clients, Thomas Drake, on the belief that MRPC Rule 4.2 somehow bars me from doing so without your consent, notwithstanding the fact that I have never participated in any matter alongside or opposite you or any of your clients. See Comment [1] to Rule 4.2. Nevertheless, a number of days ago I sent some correspondence to one of your clients, John Kiriakou, which is attached herein. I invite you to file a complaint against me if you believe I am in violation of this rule. I am licensed in Massachusetts. David Pardo 2 attachments 03.02.2013_Letter to John Kiriakou.pdf 471K Outlook Print Message.pdf 259K
    • Re: OSC's disclosure jurisdiction questions​ From: Jesselyn Radack (jradack@whistleblower.org) You moved this message to its current location. Sent: Sat 1/05/13 12:16 PM To: David Pardo (dpardo@outlook.com) Cc: Thomas Drake (tadrake@earthlink.net) I didn't "admit" anything. You're the one with a prolix record of smears and attacks. My reputation is unassailabl. Rule 4.2 applies to respecting legal relationships even if you're not in court. This concludes my conversation with you. have a nice day. --Jess Sent from my iPhone On Jan 5, 2013, at 12:07 PM, "David Pardo" <dpardo@outlook.com> wrote: Ah so you admit to smearing critics when being criticized. Nice. Also, we're not in court, so "legal ethics" don't bar my contacting another private citizen. From: jradack@whistleblower.org Subject: Re: OSC's disclosure jurisdiction questions Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 11:56:08 -0500 To: dpardo@outlook.com CC: tadrake@earthlink.net When they're trashing me, my organization, or trying to convince my clients that I've illserved them. Btw, legal ethics rules preclude your contact with a represented person. You are on notice. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 5, 2013, at 11:22 AM, "David Pardo" <dpardo@outlook.com> wrote: Where does smearing critics fit into that busy schedule? -Sent from my Android phone
    • -----Original Message----From: Jesselyn Radack Sent: 5 Jan 2013 12:44:32 GMT To: David Pardo Cc: Drake, thomas,reem@hadsellstormer.com,bruceafran@aol.com,evy brown,Joe Carson Subject: Re: OSC's disclosure jurisdiction questions I have a number of cases currently before OSC and am confident in my whistleblower credentials. Sent from my iPhone On Jan 5, 2013, at 1:25 AM, "David Pardo" <dpardo220@gmail.com> wrote: Jess, Tom, I applaud your efforts to inform others about the abuses by this any any administration to the rule of law. But let's get one thing straight: I will not stand by while you present misinformation and mislead potential whistleblowers about their options, leading them to believe what they faced is what you faced (or believed you faced). Your past suffering does not give you license to dispense with the truth. You are expected to work towards improving whistleblowers' options, and that includes incorporating OSC is in your discussion as appropriate. Ignoring it out of convenience or to avoid scrutiny about your particular circumstances is inappropriate. You are on notice. From: jpcarson@tds.net To: dpardo220@gmail.com; tadrake@earthlink.net; evybrown@gmail.com; jesselynr@whistleblower.org Subject: FW: OSC's disclosure jurisdiction questions Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:39:00 -0500 fyi From: Joe Carson [mailto:jpcarson@tds.net] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11:37 PM To: 'Zuckerman, Jason'; 'Biggs, Tracy'; 'McMullen, Catherine' Cc: 'Beneze, Elisa'; kkurt@osc.gov
    • Subject: RE: OSC's disclosure jurisdiction questions Dear Mr. Zuckerman, I appreciate your responding to my questions. Based on your answer, I understand while OSC does not have disclosure jurisdiction for NSA contractor employees, it does for NSA employees, even for Top Secret disclosures. I understand that compartmented Top Secret disclosures to OSC from NSA employees will be handled on a case-by-case basis. I understand the law that gives OSC such disclosure jurisdiction for NSA employees is the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Regarding OSC's disclosure jurisdiction for employees of the Gov't Corporations listed at 31 U.S.C. section 9101(c), I disagree with OSC's position that it lacks such jurisdiction. If OSC's position were correct, then the CSRA and WPA would not have needed to explicitly exclude government corporations from OSC's PPP jurisdiction - they would have been excluded anyway, because their employees were not Title V employees. Section 2302 explicitly limits OSC's PPP jurisdiction to Title V employees who are also in "covered positions," see 5 U.S.C. section 2302(a)(2)(B). Employees of gov't corporations do not meet the criteria of being in a "covered position," which is why they are described as "employees" in the part of this sub-section added in 1994. The 1994 re-authorization of OSC gave OSC PPP jurisdiction for employees of gov't corporations, but only for the whistleblower reprisal type PPP. This is not possible unless employees of these gov't corporations are also Title V employees - and if they are Title V employees, OSC has disclosure jurisdiction for them, just as OSC has Hatch Act jurisdiction over them as "federal employees" per 5 U.S.C. section 1216(a)(1). That is how it appears to me. Respectfully, Joe Carson, PE
    • From: Zuckerman, Jason [mailto:jzuckerman@osc.gov] Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 1:25 PM To: Joe Carson; Biggs, Tracy; McMullen, Catherine Cc: Beneze, Elisa; kkurt@osc.gov Subject: RE: OSC's disclosure jurisdiction questions Mr. Carson, OSC can receive Top Secret information from whistleblowers. With respect to your question regarding compartmented information, OSC has established procedures for accepting classified information. As there are many types and levels of classification, whistleblowers are also instructed to contact OSC so that we may determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not OSC can receive the information in the possession of the whistleblower. If OSC is not able to receive the information, we will assist the whistleblower in determining an appropriate body to whom the whistleblower can disclose the information. Regarding OSC’s jurisdiction, there are some agencies whose employees do not meet the Title 5 definition of a federal employee and, thus OSC does not have jurisdiction over those employees. For example, OSC does not have jurisdiction over the employees of wholly-owned government corporations. The list of whollyowned government corporations is maintained at 31 U.S.C. sec. 9101(3) and updated as necessary. The information on the webpage is provided as general information that there may be additional employees over whom OSC does not have jurisdiction. Jason Zuckerman From: Joe Carson [mailto:jpcarson@tds.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 8:29 AM To: Biggs, Tracy; McMullen, Catherine Cc: Zuckerman, Jason; Beneze, Elisa; kkurt@osc.gov Subject: OSC's disclosure jurisdiction questions
    • January 1, 2013 Ms. Tracy Biggs Disclosure Unit OSC Re: Questions about OSC's disclosure jurisdiction Dear Ms.Biggs, I appreciate that OSC's website now provides guidance for classified disclosures. I understand OSC will now receive disclosures of "Top Secret" classification from federal employees in all agencies, including those exempt from its PPP jurisdiction (i.e. FBI and intelligence community agencies as NSA, CIA, etc). Is that correct? Can OSC also receive Top-Secret "compartmented" disclosures? Tom Drake, the NSA whistleblower, told me OSC had told him "no" recently. I noticed a disjoint in the info OSC provides about its disclosure jurisdiction between OSC's website and OSC-Form 12 that I hope you will resolve for me. Specifically, there is an inconsistency in the “jurisdictional” exemptions for making disclosures to OSC as stated at OSC’s webpage http://www.osc.gov/wbdiscjr.htm and those found on OSC Disclosure Form (OSC-12) http://www.osc.gov/RR_OSCFORMS.htm The disclosure form OSC-12 excludes the following from OSC’s disclosure jurisdiction:
    • employees of the U.S. Postal Service and the Postal Regulatory Commission; members of the armed forces of the United States (i.e., non-civilian military employees); state employees operating under federal grants; employees of federal contractors The webpage includes all the above but also includes: other employees or federal agencies that are exempt under federal law. If the webpage is correct in adding this additional restriction on OSC's disclosure jurisdiction, then who are these “other employees” and by what federal law are they exempted from OSC’s disclosure jurisdiction? Which are the “federal agencies” and by what federal law are they exempted from OSC’s disclosure jurisdiction? I hope you will provide answers to these straightforward questions about OSC's disclosure jurisdiction, consistent with OSC's duty to "act in the interests" of concerned feds. If you won't, then I'll make a FOIA request and notify my contacts in Congress. Respectfully, Joe Carson, PE Knoxville, TN
    • 4854 EISENHOWER AVENUE, UNIT 447 ♦ ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22304 (703) 829-7432 ♦ DPARDO@MSPBWATCH.NET March 2, 2013 Mr. John Kiriakou, 79637-083 Federal Correctional Institution Loretto, P.O. Box 1000 Loretto, PA 15940 Dear Mr. Kiriakou: I am sending you some online coverage of your case which neither shows hostility to your decisions nor buys the contrived talking points that you are an innocent and helpless victim of government tyranny. I know, because a) I read your court documents for myself (and have made them available to the public, at http://usavkiriakou.wordpress.com), and I compared them with your public statements, b) I am also a whistleblower, and therefore I know how much individual choice and initiative is involved, and c) the emperors at GAP ceased wearing clothes a while ago. Please read the attached. Then I urge you to think about two things during your time in Loretto: 1. What do I, John Kiriakou, want out of life? 2. Am I willing to act out of conscience for the next thirty months and beyond, even if it offends and perturbs my friend Jesselyn Radack and her companions? Respectfully, David Pardo Founder, MSPB Watch Enclosures
    • About us Advertise Contact Us Send Comments/Tips My FDL Firedoglake News TBogg La Figa Book Salon FDL Action The Dissenter Pam's House Blend Elections Just Say Now Bytegeist « More Hanford Pools Leaking Radiation; BP and Contractors Civil Trial Underway With Head Held High, John Kiriakou Entered Prison Yesterday By: wendydavis Friday March 1, 2013 10:03 am subm it Like T weet 6 1
    • From his website: John will enter the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Loretto, Pennsylvania on February 28, 2013. He can be reached at: John Kiriakou 79637-083, Federal Correctional Institution, Loretto, P.O. Box 1000, Loretto, PA 15940. He is permitted to receive mail from anyone, and soft cover books and magazines only from individuals. Hard cover books may be received directly from a publisher, a bookstore or Amazon.com. His letter to supporters follows: Dear Friends, I wanted to drop you a line to say farewell as I depart for the Federal Work Camp at Loretto, Pennsylvania. I go with head held high, with pride, and with no regrets. The battle is not over, and I will continue to fight for human rights, civil liberties, and an end to torture. Remember, we’re on the right side of history! My friend and attorney Jesselyn Radack will continue to run this email account, as well as the www.defendjohnk.com website. News will be posted there, and I’ll try to keep everybody updated. Please check out the video of the Orange Ball at the Hay Adams Hotel, hosted by Naomi Pitcairn, Fresh Juice Party, and Code Pink. In the meantime, the Government Accountability Project has generously set up a fund to help my children get through the next 30 months. All donations are tax deductible. There’s a link on the front page of the defendjohnk website. I wish I could thank you all individually for being there for me over the past year. I couldn’t have gotten through this without you. Fondly, John PS: My new mailing address will be: John Kiriakou 79637-083 FCI Loretto P.O. Box 1000 Loretto, PA 15940 Defense Kiriakou <kiriakoudefense@gmail.com>
    • From the ‘how to help’ page, which has photos of his three youngest children: The John Kiriakou Support Fund was created to help defray the legal defense costs that John has incurred by the charges brought against him. The Fund is managed by the Government Accountability Project and all donations are taxdeductible. Please be as generous as you can. Please click the “Network for Good” button below to make a confidential donation via credit card. All donor names and donation amounts will remain private unless the donor expressly states that he or she wishes to have the gift publicly acknowledged. In the designation box, please type “John Kiriakou.” PLEASE NOTE: With every donation of $100 or more, we will send you an autographed, first-edition copy of John’s best-selling hard cover book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror. Just click the “Network for Good” button above and follow the prompts. You will see a box entitled “Designation.” Just provide your name and address and we will send you an autographed book. More background from Kevin Gosztola is here and here. Firedoglake’s petition demanding that President Obomba pardon Kiriakou’s sentence is here. This is the RT video of the Orange Ball. I’m so very sorry that Barack Obomba’s administration has done this to you, John, as well as to so many other brave whistle-blowers and journalists, and by extension…all of us who value and champion transparency, honesty, and the rule of law. 47 Comments Recommend Tags: this administration prosecutes the good guys and not the bad guys, donate to the fund to help John Kiriakou's defense fund and family expenses, CIA torture whistl-blower John Kiriakou enters prison 47 Responses to With Head Held High, John Kiriakou Entered Prison Yesterday 1. Antipanglossian March 1st, 2013 at 11:04 am 1
    • Thanks for sharing this with us! Reply 2. hotdog March 1st, 2013 at 11:15 am 2 Thanks Wendy. Thanks John Kiriakou. Mirrors will be banned forthwith throughout the kingdom and anyone possessing one or discovered peering into a reflection will be severely punished. Closely controlled fabrication of self-image is of the utmost importance and reality is only hardened perception. We’re the good guys. Aren’t we pretty? No truth-tellers allowed – Walk Tall rec’d Reply 3. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 11:42 am 3 In response to Antipanglossian @ 1 Welcome, antipanglossian. Stay strong. Reply 4. MSPB Watch March 1st, 2013 at 11:46 am 4 No regrets? None? Then how does he explain this: “Mr. Kiriakou now realizes that he made a very serious mistake in passing any information to Journalist A, but he would not have done so had he known how Journalist A would make use of that information.” http://usavkiriakou.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/127edva126.pdf Look. The guy got a raw deal *in light of the fact that Scooter Libby and the torturers walked free*. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t blameworthy. Compared with Bradley Manning, this guy’s offense is less justifiable. He did it while trying to build a postgovernment career, while schmoozing with journalists. Not exactly noble and principled stuff. He’s no civil rights icon, is all I’m saying. We can condemn the government’s selectiveness and vindictiveness while keeping some perspective about the facts that led to his prosecution. There’s no need to get tribal about this. Reply 5. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 11:51 am 5 In response to hotdog @ 2 Oh, hotdog; you’re such a kindred soul. I thank you not only for the past-Orwellian characterization of this point in time via what other call our government, but for the John Mellencamp. Could there be a more fitting anthem for John and others who defend the Constitution and are jailed for it? One of should email the song to Jessica Raddick; would you, or should I?
    • My heart to yours, dear one, but also, in the spirit of ‘no truth-tellers allowed’ and false images in mirrors, here’s Buffy...for you. I stand amazed, I see your greatest hits They blow back down the chimney into everyone’s eyes Creative thinking in the first degree You’re a three-way mirror of a one-way world It’s a perverse company you work for They build the past, it just can’t last It’s obsolete by design They send you out rerouting history To make the same old mistakes in a brand new way Reply 6. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 11:53 am 6 In response to MSPB Watch @ 4 I appreciate you weighing in, MsPB Watch, and I’ll take your opinion under advisement. Reply 7. MSPB Watch March 1st, 2013 at 11:56 am 7 In response to wendydavis @ 6 Sure. I have no ill will toward him, and I wish to see him emerge out of prison leading the charge against torture (who doesn’t deserve a second chance). I do take issue with the PR campaign being built around him by handlers with loose fidelity to the truth. Reply 8. MSPB Watch March 1st, 2013 at 12:02 pm 8 One more thing: prison may be a good time for Kiriakou to “self purify” if he wants to take on the characteristics of a civil rights icon: Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html Reply 9. elisemattu March 1st, 2013 at 12:54 pm 9 Thank you for this information. I run a small publishing company, so will be sending him some books. Periodically. A lump in the throat so often, too often, when I think of all the beautiful and decent people jailed, and the recent murder of America’s young cyber Einstein, Aaron. Once there was a nation, and if you did the right things and said the right things, you were admired and listened to as a hero. (In Revolutionary Days, Tom Paine sold 130,000 pamphlets of his book, in a nation with only two million people.) Reply 10. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 1:41 pm 10 In response to MSPB Watch @ 4 He says in the interview:
    • I made mistakes in my case. I would say, first, go through the chain of command, which I didn’t do, I should have done. I would say, if you get no satisfaction through your chain of command, go to the congressional oversight committees. But do not remain silent. If you see waste, fraud, abuse or illegality, shout it from the rooftops, whether it’s internally or to Congress. On his website: John told the court that a reporter doing a book on rendition asked if he could recommend a former colleague who might sit for an interview. John could not recommend anybody, but the reporter mentioned the first name of a former colleague. John responded with a last name and said he believed the former colleague was retired. It is for that conversation that John was prosecuted. Back to the DN interview: What that means is the prosecutors were able to meet with the judge, related to my case, without the defense, my attorneys, being present. So we have no idea what it was that the prosecution told the judge. We were not allowed to defend ourselves. Indeed, Judge Brinkema denied 75 motions that we made asking for declassification of information so that I could present a defense. In August of 2012, after our motions had been denied, my attorneys and I walked out of the courtroom, and my attorney said, “We have no defense. She won’t let us say anything. She won’t let us defend you.” And so, we were forced into plea negotiations. But again, I’m not sure why the judge changed her position between October and January; it was inexplicable to me. JOHN KIRIAKOU: Yeah, I had never heard of such a thing before. But in August, when we made our 75 motions, we thought that the judge would block off two days to hear the 75. In fact, there had been a conversation with the prosecution, and so she blocked off an hour to hear the 75 motions. So we knew we were in trouble. And then, at the very start of the hearing, the prosecutor got up and said that he was requesting a Rule 4 conversation. I didn’t know what this was. My attorneys objected and said, “If you don’t want the defendant to hear, at least allow us to hear so that we can represent his interests.” And the judge said, “No, this is a national security case. I’m allowed an ex parte communication with the prosecutors.” So the prosecutors went up to the bench. We could hear them whispering. They came back to their table, and the judge said, “All 75 motions are denied.” And that was the end of it. Yes, I’m of the tribe that says we should be able to defend ourselves in court, and have access to the putative evidence that is withheld because it’s been deemed ‘classified for national security purposes’. Reply 11. E. F. Beall March 1st, 2013 at 1:42 pm 11 I’m afraid I have to go with MSPB Watch on this one, wd. The CIA has been a criminal organization far too long for anyone to say he is still proud to have been associated with it, as Kiriakou has said. He is no martyr. Reply 12. MSPB Watch March 1st, 2013 at 1:46 pm 12 In response to wendydavis @ 10 Strawman. There’s a process in place to fight legal error. He chose to sign the plea. Is he arguing the plea agreement was coercive? That he didn’t do it? 30 months is below what the sentencing guidelines call for a violation of the IIPA. He should take his lumps, think hard about what he wants out of life, and emerge from prison dedicated to it. Not to be harsh, but whining about the situation won’t make him an icon. Reply 13. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 1:46 pm 13 In response to E. F. Beall @ 11
    • That’s fine, EF Beall. Thanks for weighing in. Reply 14. E. F. Beall March 1st, 2013 at 1:48 pm 14 In response to E. F. Beall @ 11 That was written before I saw your comment @ 10, and if he didn’t get a fair trial then that is deplorable. Still, I can’t feel any sympathy for him himself. Reply 15. MSPB Watch March 1st, 2013 at 1:49 pm 15 In response to E. F. Beall @ 11 The PR campaign is all wrong for him. He needs to show true remorse and contrition, not false pride in why he’s going to jail. Reply 16. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 2:00 pm 16 In response to MSPB Watch @ 12 Perhaps that’s exactly what he’ll do, MSPB Watch. Reply 17. Isaiah 88 March 1st, 2013 at 2:14 pm 17 I just want someone to give me a Jedi-Vulcan-Luke Skywalker mind meld or whatever it is, because I can’t keep track of all this stuff anymore. All I know is the wrong people are going to jail. Rec’d. Thank you wendydavis. Reply 18. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 2:16 pm 18 In response to MSPB Watch @ 15 I see your point that he should have acknowledged his remorse for his earlier failure to go public with the 2007 waterboarding of Aby Zabaydah; that sucks. He’d told Kevin Gosztola that his views had certainly evolved, especially when he discovered it didn’t even work. (low bar, yes) Emptywheel reminded us how it all started, and that in the end, ‘The Torturers Got Their Scalp’. Added: I’d forgotten this underlying reason for going after Kiriakou, per Glenn Greenwald: ‘In court papers, prosecutors said the investigation of Kiriakou began in 2009 when authorities became alarmed after discovering that detainees at Guantanamo Bay possessed photographs of CIA and FBI personnel who had interrogated them. The investigation eventually led back to Kiriakou, according to a government affidavit. Prosecutors said Kiriakou leaked the name of a covert operative to a journalist, who subsequently disclosed it to an investigator working for the lawyer of a Guantanamo detainee.’ Reply 19. MSPB Watch March 1st, 2013 at 2:22 pm 19 In response to wendydavis @ 18
    • You know, if you were to tell me that the best spokesperson against torture would be a spook who first defended it before leaving the agency to do a media tour, catching the press bug and then talking too much… But this is the best we can get, so what choice do we have? I don’t begrudge the CIA for getting their scalp, that’s what the mafia does to snitches. It is what it is. It’s not too late for him to be an effective opponent of torture, though. But he needs to earn that role, for better or worse. Nobody said this was going to be fair. Reply 20. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 2:25 pm 20 In response to Isaiah 88 @ 17 Thomas Drake, James Risen, Bradley Manning, Aaron Swarz, Jeremy Hammond, and others. Dunno, Isaiah, but this administration is more secretive than Bush’s, and clearly making a point of not exposing anything damaging to the MICC. And welcome. Reply 21. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 2:27 pm 21 In response to MSPB Watch @ 19 Noted. And if I had a spare tenner, I’d send it to him. Reply 22. hotdog March 1st, 2013 at 2:28 pm 22 I don’t begrudge the CIA for getting their scalp, that’s what the mafia does to snitches. Good comparison. The CIA, Pentagon, Executive Branch, and loyal Judicial executers of police state rule = Mafia. I’ll buy that. Reply 23. MSPB Watch March 1st, 2013 at 2:33 pm 23 In response to wendydavis @ 21 Not to be crass, but if he “pulls this off,” he can provide for his family. Doors will open. Reply 24. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 2:53 pm 24 In response to hotdog @ 22 Heh. I’ve been spinning around the sites I visit trying to find a piece someone wrote about why this administration is worse than the mafia. The author made a good case, more about what the mafia *doesn’t do* that this administration does, but I can’t remember the details or find it. Reply 25. bigchin March 1st, 2013 at 2:58 pm 25 OT Dear wendydavis (everyone else can ignore this… PLEASE!)
    • In a response to me on your last diary you referred to a very self indulgent comment I left about being a singer and asked if I might share some of that with you. My inclination is to resist, because I’ve never been much satisfied/comfortable with hearing/promoting myself but since you asked… I recently recorded a cycle of songs written in the 50′s by Carlisle Floyd, one of America’s greatest opera composers (he’s now approaching 90 and just started composing a new one!). Interestingly enough, the songs are written to biblical texts and as I wrote, I am not a man of faith (neither is Carlisle) but this music is inspired and inspiring. The link below is from the recording session, done at Carlisle’s home (that’s him in the background with his back turned to me). It’s the first song of the cycle. Now understand that when I record I need to inspire myself, because singing for a mic is not like singing for an audience. And I am so far away from the piano that effecting a good ensemble can be tough. So you’ll see me moving around a lot, conducting myself and doing things (like clearing my nose and adjusting my hard palate) that I’d never do on stage so don’t watch too closely. But I am satisfied with my sound and interpretation and will admit that this, vocally, is a pretty good version of me. I hope you’ll like it. Personally, I think the best part of the video is the cat! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yqvRYEcDDA Reply 26. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 3:19 pm 26 In response to bigchin @ 25 My stars, bigchin; how wonderful your voice is, and how well you’ve interpreted the piece. Small wonder that you’re satisfied! I tried not to watch you, but felt my mouth making similar moves, and my chest trying for diaphragm support, lol. Simply magical. Thank you. But yes, you blew the cat right outta room with your power, you rascal. Having no audience to feedback to you is harder, and can sometimes lessen the emotion of delivery, but you nailed it even without; my stars. Are there more videos, and how often do you perform? And tsk, tsk; did you reckon I’d abandoned that post already? It’s still almost live and sorta kicking. Maybe, maybe, you could import your comment and into that thread, too, and then I’ll remember more where to find your answers to my questions, and the video. If it’s not too much trouble, just a little copy/paste. And: it’s so nice to virtually meet you in another format, another passion. Just found ‘For I am persuaded’; silky, controlled warm baritone. Just wonderful. But no cat. :) Reply 27. bigchin March 1st, 2013 at 3:35 pm 27 In response to wendydavis @ 26 Thanks wendydavis for your kind and generous rsponse. I’ll try to muster the courage to leave my mark on the other diary as well. There are a few other videos if you search. Like I said, I’m disinclined to promote myself (none of the videos were posted my me) but for you I’d do almost anything. I’m one of your your biggest fans(!), even though I am more inclined to lurk and don’t comment much. Peace to you an yours. C.T.
    • Reply 28. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 3:44 pm 28 In response to bigchin @ 27 Oh, please do; I’m listening to ‘L’Albatros’ right now. I have a million questions. (Phone, daughter, might be a bit.) And I’m a fan of yours. wd Reply 29. nonquixote March 1st, 2013 at 3:59 pm 29 In response to bigchin @ 25 What an absolutely delightful surprise to an otherwise ordinary afternoon. Reply 30. AitchD March 1st, 2013 at 4:02 pm 30 In response to MSPB Watch @ 19 For one thing, John Kiriakou didn’t have a lawyer as good as Daniel Ellsberg had. Ellsberg was arguably way deeper in the spookery of assassination and turture than Kiriakou, probably had CIA guys answering to him. For another thing, when Ellsberg blew his whistle, the World Trade Center wasn’t even open for business yet. I might watch Three Days Of The Condor again tonight, see if Redford’s treatment of Faye Dunaway is a form of torture, which it would be if he was Walter Matthau. Reply 31. AitchD March 1st, 2013 at 4:11 pm 31 In response to wendydavis @ 20 Hmm. How would anyone know this administration is more secretive than Bush’s? Reply 32. bigchin March 1st, 2013 at 4:14 pm 32 In response to nonquixote @ 29 thank you nonquixote. And I want you to know that my father, Pedro, was a Cervantes scholar and I grew up with the Don. Indeed, in a big crossover move, I’m working on a contract to sing Man of La Mancha (really, a great broadway masterwork) for the Reno Opera. Not sure it’s gonna happen (the company is struggling to survive, economically) but it would be a real kick to do that role! Reply 33. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 4:19 pm 33 In response to AitchD @ 31 LOL. The number of classified documents for a start. The number of FOIA requests, grants, and refusals, maybe. And the opinion of many Constitutional scholars most importantly. Reply 34. bigchin March 1st, 2013 at 4:23 pm 34
    • In response to wendydavis @ 28 okay, I left a few links on the other thread, although I think by now you may have found them. I do appreciate your enthusiasm, more that you can know. I’ve always had a difficult time squaring my art – almost exclusive to a monied world – and my politics. After a great start to my career (and especially after losing my partner to AIDS in 1996) I pulled back and tried to limit myself to less recognized venues and organizations. Fame eluded me (thank the god I don’t believe in!) and I am the better man for having avoided all the pressures and expectations which, early on, made singing less than joyous. I am a “dark” kind of guy but underneath it all is a very lucky and fortunate fella. Reply 35. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 5:00 pm 35 In response to bigchin @ 34 Well, Kinda Dark Guy, you’ve definitely brightened my day, and apparently others’ as well. Peace. And I’m so very sorry your partner died of AIDS; I simply can’t imagine how painful that must have been. Reply 36. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 6:29 pm 36 In response to wendydavis @ 35 I left you a message over yonder. Reply 37. Crane-Station March 1st, 2013 at 6:41 pm 37 In response to bigchin @ 25 It was a pleasure, listening to that. Love the cat too. You are really really talented. Good post, wd. 30 months is a long time, no doubt, but as far as just the serving time part goes, at least he will be in a Federal Work Camp and not a county jail, so hopefully he will not experience the physical and mental decline associated with the jails. If he can get some work going and get the mail pipeline going, and get access to a decent library, he can organize and do this time. I admire him for holding his head up high, during this difficult part of his life’s journey. Reply 38. wendydavis March 1st, 2013 at 6:46 pm 38 In response to Crane-Station @ 37 I do, too, Crane-Station, and I suspect he’ll be receiving at least a small library through the mail. Good point on the work, though we don’t know how he’ll be treated. We’ll hope for the best for him. Reply 39. caleb36 March 2nd, 2013 at 1:07 am 39 In response to Crane-Station @ 37 I realize I could never be a federal judge, when I consider the pain prisoners go through, the punitive sentencing guidelines to which I would be bound, and the fact that so many convicts are low level non-violent drug offenders or individuals singled out for “designer” crimes in which the charges are tailored to achieve the desired result. I truly don’t understand how any half-way compassionate, thinking person could accept the position of federal judge.
    • Reply 40. wendydavis March 2nd, 2013 at 9:42 am 40 In response to AitchD @ 30 I don’t suppose you’d be willing to spoon-feed me a bit more about Ellsberg being deeper into all of it than Kiriakou? So little time to google today, but I’ll understand if you decline. Sod my crap memory and all. Reply 41. wendydavis March 2nd, 2013 at 9:46 am 41 In response to caleb36 @ 39 It’s hard now additionally, know how political federal judge and SCOTUS justice appointments have become, and what pressures must be brought to bear over rulings. Almost like high bars for jurisprudence don’t matter much any longer. Reply 42. AitchD March 2nd, 2013 at 10:09 am 42 In response to wendydavis @ 40 He had very high like ultimate top secret security clearance. From the wiki about him: “Ellsberg served in the Pentagon from August 1964[5] under Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (and, in fact, was on duty on the evening of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, reporting the incident to McNamara). He then served for two years in Vietnam working for General Edward Lansdale as a civilian in the State Department.” (‘Incident‘? What incident?) In his own (possibly scripted) unforgettable words, in the 1974 documentary Hearts and Minds. Reply 43. wendydavis March 2nd, 2013 at 10:44 am 43 In response to AitchD @ 42 So young back then. Thank you, AitchD. ‘What incident’ in a series of false flags or no flags at all. Lies for War. My dad wanted McNamara to be President. I wish he’d lived long enough to hear him recant, fat lot of good it did, but better late than…never mind. We fought bitterly over Viet Nam when I was as Kent State. I watched ‘Dominoes’ again last night, and was sucker-punched when the National Guard scene opened, and I recognized the buildings I’d walked among, and the hills above the Commons. Bad days. Reply 44. shootthatarrow March 2nd, 2013 at 11:00 am 44 In response to Isaiah 88 @ 17 …X2 Reply 45. AitchD March 2nd, 2013 at 11:23 am 45 In response to wendydavis @ 43 What a coincidence — last night Amazon notified me that the Criterion Collection is issuing Medium Cool in May (and I can pre-order it). It was rated X by the MPAA when it was released in 1969, thus ensuring no one would
    • see it. Reply 46. wendydavis March 2nd, 2013 at 11:59 am 46 In response to AitchD @ 45 X? Looks good. In ‘Dominoes’ the director went out of his way to show what blacks suffered under cops (gonna try to find the accompanying song, which was short on lyrics, long on ironic outrage). One of the big differences at the ’68 Chicago convention,etc. and now, was seeing the pre- and now postmilitarization of uniforms, tanks, multiple weapons hanging on the cops, shields, etc. Law and Order. Frightened of The People; bad development. Reply 47. AitchD March 2nd, 2013 at 12:22 pm 47 In response to wendydavis @ 46 The Thrill Is Gone, then iirc a segue into Gimme Shelter, increasing the irony volume. Next time you watch Medium Cool, note that Vera Bloom’s character has to work “at Motorola” doing unskilled, assembly-line work (as her clothes show us) b/c she isn’t credentialed to teach in Illinois, and the stuff she helps assemble lead to her death, as we see Gus the sound man speak into his Motorola device, which he claimed was only a pager when the two guys at the party correctly busted him for being an FBI flunky. Maybe the best work of art about conspiracy, itself being a conspiratorial tapestry comprising fact, fiction, truth, falsity, actors, non-actors as actors, actors as non-actors, and explaining through dialogue the film stock and exposure setting used in the hotel scene in Chicago for that impossible shot with the lamplight (years before Kubrick invented his fast lens for Barry Lyndon, although Stanley and Haskell often talked on the phone). Reply Leave a Reply You must be logged in to post a comment. « More Hanford Pools Leaking Radiation; BP and Contractors Civil Trial Underway
    • AFRICAN STUDIES CENTER - UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA "Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.]" 16 April 1963 My Dear Fellow Clergymen: While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms. I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here. But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds. You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative. In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced
    • grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation. Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change. Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer. You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue. One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring
    • the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all." Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just
    • law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
    • I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity. You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen
    • would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil." I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare. Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime-the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other,
    • Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists. I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago. But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen. When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows. In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed. I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, unBiblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular. I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires
    • pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?" Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists. There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust. Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two
    • centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands. Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department. It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason." I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers? If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.
    • I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty. Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr. Published in: King, Martin Luther Jr. Page Editor: Ali B. Ali-Dinar, Ph.D. Previous Menu Home Page What's New Search Country Specific
    • MSPB Watch 2 Comments A Few Questions for Filmmaker James Spione about SILENCED Posted by mspbwatch on February 27, 2013 in Blog, Fact Check, Select Posts SILENCED, a new film about whistleblowers by filmmaker James Spione, is currently in postproduction. The film features three GAP clients (Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, and Peter Van Buren) and one GAP employee (Jesselyn Radack). Here is the trailer (http://vimeo.com/59191925). The film’s promotional material (http://nakededgefilms.com/films/silenced/) states it will be “offering an analysis, along with a number of independent experts and thinkers, of what [the whistleblowers'] chilling ordeals mean for the future of our country.” There is no doubt the individuals involved had good intentions when they blew the whistle on various government wrongdoing. There are, however a few wrinkles in several of their stories that I hope will be explored by the independent expert and thinkers, if not Mr. Spione himself. For instance, concerning Ms. Radack’s account, will the film explore the fact that the emails she believed to have been purged and denied from the court were, in fact, submitted and denied to John Walker Lindh under the court’s protective order (https://radackvdoj.wordpress.com/)? Will the film explore the fact that Ms. Radack apparently did not make her disclosure concerning Lindh’s allegedly unconstitutional treatment to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which could have accepted her dislcosure confidentially, thus preventing any breach of the attorney/client privilege? Will the film explore the fact that Ms. Radack did not, for some reason, appeal her termination (http://www.scribd.com/doc/119200958/DOJ-WPA-twitter-exchange) with either the Office of Special Counsel or the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, as had been her right as a Department of Justice employee (over which both OSC and MSPB exercise jurisdiction), where no statute or executive order bars such jurisdiction? Will the film explore Ms. Radack’s stated interest (http://carsonvosc.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/331.pdf) in ensuring that the Office of Special Counsel “scrupulously and fully comply with its statutory obligations to protect federal employees from [prohibited personnel practices],” given OSC’s “immense importance to national security,” before apparently neglecting this interest upon taking a job with the Government Accountability Project?
    • Will the film explore the fact that Mr. Drake could have, at least under the law (http://mspbwatch.net/2012/12/19/fact-check-gap-legal-filing-falsely-claims-intelligence-workers-lackexternal-avenues-to-blow-the-whistle/), submitted his disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel for referral to Congress, but did not do so, choosing to go to the media with all of the attendant consequences that followed? Will the film explore the fact that even if the government’s prosecution of Mr. Kiriakou for his admitted violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 was motivated by his public interviews about the CIA’s torture techniques, the government had legally justified grounds to do so, given that whistleblowing is not a shield against misconduct? Let me clarify: there is no excuse for government torture, wiretapping, or denial of rights. This is, or is supposed to be, a nation of laws. And that applies equally so to whistleblowers who seek to bring misconduct to light. Good government activists, advocates, and filmmakers do the public no favors by presenting one-sided accounts that omit, distort, or mischaracterize the rights and responsibilities that face whistleblowers in the course of committing the truth. I hope this film does nothing of the sort. About these ads (http://en.wordpress.com/about-these-ads/) Tags: fact check, GAP, Government Accountability Project, James Spione, Jesselyn Radack, John Kiriakou, Peter Van Buren, SILENCED, Thomas Drake Permalink 2 comments on “A Few Questions for Filmmaker James Spione about SILENCED” mspbwatch February 27, 2013 at 1:03 pm Edit Reply One addition: if an activist chooses to engage in non-violent disobedience, more power to him/her. There is a rich and storied history of civil disobedience in America to raise awareness and bring about change. But the key word is “choose.” Civil disobedience is not something that can be elected after ignorantly violating the law and then paying for it. The latter is simply propaganda.
    • Douglas Kinan February 27, 2013 at 1:18 pm Edit Thanks for this message. � Reply ________________________________ Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Nuntius.