| Into the mind of an idealist | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stand up for your dignity and integrity! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Come forth with your political voice! I am an 18 year old from Missouri. The following sections will discuss my political ideologies, and creative works. It is my fervent wish that many young citizens who have strong political convictions will now come forward. Amongst us there lies a thread; a thread that can mend the world in which we live and overcome the oppressor's wrong. Let our liberation begin today. I hope that this page accelerates your political thought. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Help our brother Mumia Abu-Jamal! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Questioning American Justice: The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal By Paul Robeson Ford Note from the author: This edition has been compiled from a small number of resources, mostly documentary videos, and some written materials. The depth from which this piece seeks to analyze the case requires an ongoing pursuit of discovery. Accordingly, while this may provide some answers, it will also leave more questions. All who read this are encouraged to review the sources first-hand for themselves. There is no other way to begin to understand this case of injustice that begs for our attention. Much attention has been paid to the case of Wesley Cook, known by his supporters as Mumia Abu-Jamal, since his conviction and sentencing to death for the murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. The award winning journalist, former member of the Black Panther Party, husband, and father, has professed his innocence since his arrest. His claims that he was being held as a political prisoner have been met with embrace, skepticism, and outright rejection. Indeed, the truth about what happened on the night of December 9th, 1981 on the corner of Locust and 13th streets is unclear. What is clear is a trail of contradictions that lead one to begin to wonder whether justice has been done or whether the interests of the "powers that be" desperately trying to maintain control have been served. Following is an attempt to begin to piece together the puzzle. A little background on the legal history of the case is necessary to avoid confusion over when testimony was given and, in some cases, contradicted. The original trial of Jamal was concluded in 1982. This jury found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. In 1995, a court was reconvened (this time minus the jury) to hear arguments requesting a new trial based on new evidence and false testimony that had been delivered at the original trial. Both cases were presided over by Albert Sabo, a former member of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), former sheriff, and a judge notorious for favoring the prosecution in all of his rulings (and anything else within his control). No other judge has presided over more cases that have resulted in a death sentence. This 1995 hearing rejected Mumia's appeal for a new trial. In 1998, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the hearing in accordance with an appeal from the defense. This review affirmed all of the Judge Sabo's findings, effectively rejecting Mumia's appeal for a new trial once again. Efforts are currently being made to appeal his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the past, such attempts have failed. Perhaps the greatest debate in this case centers on the contrasting accounts of the incident by witnesses. One of the only certainties regarding the case is that Officer Faulkner stopped a small orange Volkswagen (popularly known as a "herbie" or "bug") because the car was sporting a broken taillight. Four witnesses including Veronica Jones and Dessie Hightower claim that after Officer Faulkner was shot (during which time both were protecting themselves from possible stray gunfire and thus, did not see who shot Faulkner), they saw two men fleeing the scene. (Footnote 1) One of the men was Mumia's brother, William Cook. He was arrested by police the night of the shooting for assault, but was never brought into court to testify about the shooting. (Footnote 2). It is also believed that he did not testify at the 1995 hearing because of threats made against him (presumably by Philadelphia police). (Footnote 3). The Prosecutor for the state Joseph McGill reports that William Cook claimed "that he didn't know anything" about the shooting, so the police decided his involvement was irrelevant. (Footnote 4). William Singletary is one of the only (to this author's knowledge) witnesses that provide a complete account of the shooting involving the occupants of the Volkswagen. According to Singletary, one occupant came out of the car and was placed against the wall by Officer Faulkner, presumably to be frisked and questioned. A second occupant rose from the car, was told to return to the vehicle by Faulkner (who turned his head to issue the command), and then proceeded to shoot the officer in the face. He placed the gun in the car and the two individuals fled the scene. Mumia arrived subsequent to the shooting, running across the street from a parking lot in which he had parked his taxi (Mumia's freelance work as a journalist was necessarily supplemented by an overnight shift as a cabdriver) and approached the officer to offer his aide. Faulkner's gun discharged, and Mumia fell against a nearby car. This statement seems to offer a pretty clear explanation for what happened that night, but inconsistencies with this story found in later accounts are troubling. In 1990, Singletary added to his story, suggesting that the shooter left a .22 caliber gun under the Volkswagen. He also claimed that Faulkner actually intentionally shot Mumia and that he spoke to him. Considering the state Faulkner was in after being shot, experts reject the latter suggestion as "impossible." There was never a .22 caliber gun recovered from the scene either, according to investigators. (Footnote 5). Singletary's story becomes more troubling as he recounts the harassment he suffered attempting to complete his original statement for the police. He was told to rewrite his story four to five times because it was "incorrect." According to Singletary, his parents and his business were threatened as an incentive for his cooperation with detectives. In fact, C. Clark Kissinger, a bonified scholar regarding the case, claims that the police did come to Singletary's gas station to threaten him. (Footnote 6). In any event, Singletary finally gave an account of the incident that satisfied detectives. Dessie Hightower's story was validated by a polygraph test in 1981, although this test was withheld from Mumia's defense lawyer. While Hightower claimed that he was told that he had passed the test, Lieutenant Craig Sterling testified in a 1995 hearing (convened to address Mumia's demand for a new trial in light of new evidence including the account given by the aforementioned Veronica Jones) that he had told Hightower he had not been "completely truthful" during the polygraph test. (Footnote 7). According to Veronica Jones, she originally told police she had seen two men running from the scene of the crime after Officer Faulkner was shot. She has maintained this claim several times, reassuring supporters, "I swear. That's the truth" in Case for Reasonable Doubt. Notes recorded by police in 1981 buttress her account. It appears that police manipulated her status as a prostitute to coerce her into testifying falsely in court. She recounts that police promised to alleviate her legal problems at the time stemming from charges relating to her prostitution and a robbery charge that carried up to ten years in prison if she identified Mumia as the shooter. A mother of three, Veronica found the idea of jailtime abhorrent. (Footnote 8). While she was talking to police, Jones was introduced to two detectives who she was told were her lawyers. As her story follows, she was taken to court one day, presumably to answer for the robbery charges, but was put on the stand at Mumia's trial instead. The officers who had threatened her with jailtime if she did not cooperate were standing in the back of the room. Sufficiently frightened, Jones chose to point the finger at Mumia. (Footnote 9). When cross-examined by the defense about the possible coercion of her testimony because of her own criminal record, she suggested that the detectives were "just conversating amongst each other." She assumed they wanted her to say something "in their behalf." (Footnote 10). The prosecution has consistently claimed that she was "half a nickel bag high" at the time when she witnessed the scene. The findings of the 1995 hearing (at which she recanted her previous testimony naming Mumia as the shooter and delivered the account given above) found Jones' new testimony to be "incredible" and concluded that the change in her story would not have altered the verdict of the original trial. In reviewing the report of the '95 hearings, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court referred to the record of the original trial which indicates that her lawyer Mr. Rosin did meet with Jones before bringing her to the courtroom to testify. At the '95 hearing, Jones said she did not remember whether or not she had met with her lawyer. (Footnote 11). Debra Kordansky witnessed the scene from the window of a hotel across the street. She is distinct in that she is white (unlike nearly all of the other witnesses), a fact which who would be able to dilute any concerns about witnesses supporting Mumia simply because he is black. Her original statement also made reference to two men fleeing the scene directly after shots had been fired. However, her statement was withheld from the defense until late in the trial. When they finally received her statement, any information that could have been used to contact her had been removed. Anthony Jackson's account of the discussion that was had between the Prosecution, Albert Sabo and himself in the Judge's chambers is disturbing. Anthony Jackson was Mumia's original lawyer from the Public Defender's office. According to Jackson, while in chambers, the prosecution suggested that the defense "might intimidate the witness." Judge Sabo indicated that the prosecution had led him to believe that Kordansky did not want to talk to the defense. After protest from Jackson, Sabo eventually had the prosecution call Kordansky while in chambers. When Ms. Kordansky picked up the phone, the prosecution opened the conversation such: "Hello, Ms. Kordansky, this is the prosecuting attorney, who you previously told you did not want to talk to the Defense. The Defense is here right now. Do you want to talk to them?" Kordansky indicated that she did not and Sabo shrugged his shoulders and said he could not force her to do so. (Footnote 12). A word should be said about Anthony Jackson and the Public Defender's office. Mumia requested self-representation early on in the trial (and was denied) because he did not have faith in Jackson's competence as a lawyer. Based on his failure to discover such evidence as the testimony of Kordansky until late in the trial (and other evidence that Mumia did not feel was dealt with properly) Jackson's competence was called into question as part of the 1995 appeal for a new trial. This concern was dismissed by the State Supreme Court along with everything else. As for the Public Defender's office, Jackson complains that public defense lawyers are generally allotted no more than $1,000 to prepare for a trial, even when the defendant is charged with a capital offense. This fact has been noted by others as well to point out the disparity in economic fairness that unbalances many trials from the beginning, including New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. Indeed, in referring to concerns of competence, the Supreme Court commented: "While an accused is constitutionally guaranteed the right to the assistance of counsel that right gives to a defendant only the right to choose, at his or her own cost, any attorney desired." (Footnote 13). A fellow cabdriver, Robert Chobert testified at the original trial that he had seen Mumia stand over Officer Faulkner and fire shots at him. Police Inspector Giordano claims that Chobert first identified the shooter as a member of the "radical" group MOVE because of the "funny hair," and then identified Mumia as the shooter when police pointed him out while he was lying in the police paddywagon. Chobert, however, was on probation at the time of the trial and his driver's license was suspended. Mumia's defense team points to additional evidence that indicates the cabdriver's original statement claimed "the shooter ran away." They also suggest that the prosecution promised to assist Chobert in recovering his license, a claim that the State Supreme Court rejects. (Footnote 14). An application for a duplicate driver's license belonging to Arnold Howard was discovered at the crime scene, in the pocket of Officer Faulkner. Howard had loaned this application to Kenneth Freeman, who was a partner of William Cook. At the 1995 hearing, Howard testified about his questioning by police the day of the shooting. This clearly suggests that Freeman may have been the first man who was being frisked and questioned by Officer Faulkner that appears in William Singletary's story. Howard's testimony to police and the application had been withheld from the defense for 13 years. (Footnote 15). The list goes on. In 1981, William Harmon, a Pennsylvania inmate, contacted the defense and claimed that he had witnessed the shooting. However, the account of the incident he delivered at the 1995 hearing was inconsistent with that of every other witness, including a suggestion that there were two shooters. Over the objections of the defense, Judge Sabo ordered Harmon to testify at trial. C. Clark Kissinger suggests this was simply a ploy to discredit all the defense witnesses. (Footnote 16). Little attention is paid to that fact that Mumia was near death when he was brought to the hospital, showing signs of much more abuse than what a gunshot wound could inflict. Indeed, at the original trial, Sharon Smith testified that she had witnessed police arrive at the scene and begin beating Mumia while yelling, "Kill the black motherfucker!" In fact, Mumia's head was shoved into a pole during this police beating. Photos of Mumia taken when he arrived at the hospital show his head and face thickly wrapped. (Footnote 17). A point of great contention has been a confession to the murder that the prosecution claims Mumia made while receiving treatment in the emergency room. According to the prosecution, Mumia exclaimed, "I killed the motherfucker and I hope he dies." A special on Mumia featured on the TV newsmagazine 20/20 reported that nearly a dozen people witnessed this confession including nurses, security guards, and police officers. However, Anthony Colleta, the doctor who treated both Officer Faulkner and Mumia, and who claims he was with Mumia from the time he entered the emergency room, maintains that he did not offer any confession to the crime. (Footnote 18). None of the police officers present in the emergency room reported the alleged confession until two and half months after the crime. Officer Gary Bell blames the emotional trauma he was suffering as the reason for his failure to recall Mumia's statement the night of the shooting. Yet, he now also recalls that he responded to Mumia's confession, "No, you should be the one to die." Officer Gary Waksul, who was also present in the emergency room, noted, "the Negro male made no comments." During the original trial, the defense was denied the opportunity to bring Waksul to the stand because he was on vacation. Judge Sabo refused to grant a continuance until Waksul returned from vacation. Gary Waksul now denies that he ever was a police officer, even though his family confirms that he was. When the producers of Date with Death attempted to reach him for comment in 1995, he was still "out of town." (Footnote 19). There is great dispute over the forensics work done the night of the shooting. The original report from the Medical Examiner noted that the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner was a .44 caliber. Mumia's licensed handgun was a .38 caliber. The prosecution claims Mumia shot Officer Faulkner at close range, yet there were no gunpowder traces on the officer's jacket. In Case for Reasonable Doubt, a forensics expert (who has testified many times for both the defense and the prosecution) clearly shows that there will be residue of powder unless an individual is shot from more than two feet away. Mumia was also not subjected to any examination such as a neutron activation test that would have indicated whether or not he fired a weapon. Finally, to be consistent with the autopsy, the prosecution's story requires that the fatal bullet ricocheted off one of Faulkner's ribs at an angle of almost thirty to forty degrees. The aforementioned forensics expert rejects this part of the story as nearly impossible. (Footnote 20). Mumia's membership in the Black Panther Party as a teenager was exploited during the sentencing phase of the trial. During this period of his life, Mumia had written an article criticizing the historical role of the European colonist in America as an oppressor of American Indians and blacks. In the article, he reflected, "political power grows out of the barrel of the gun." The prosecutor, Joseph Farill pointed to this remark as a clear indication of Mumia's proclivity for violence, claiming that Mumia was adopting the philosophy of Mao Tse-Tung. (It should be noted that research into FBI records uncovered an 800 page file that had been compiled on Mumia since the age of sixteen.) (Footnote 21). In Dawson v. Delaware, decided in 1992, the United States Supreme Court declared that a "defendant's exercise of his constitutionally protected rights of free speech and association could not be used as an argument for the imposition of the death penalty." The Delaware case involved a defendant whose prior membership in the Aryan Brotherhood was used in a similar fashion as Mumia's prior membership in the BPP. In fact, the Delaware Supreme Court had cited Commonwealth v. Mumia Abu-Jamal as a precedent for using political affiliations in an argument for imposing the death penalty. (Footnote 22). Mumia's legal team appealed to the United States Supreme Court again in 1998. The Court granted the team a filing extension in February of 1999 that will expire on April 24. Mumia's legal team expects to file shortly before that date. The state of Pennsylvania will have 30 days to respond and they too, will have the option of requesting an extension. (Footnote 23). -- | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Tne benefits of commuism | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Benefits of Communism | The Benefits of Communism "Communism", yes, I said the "C" word. "Socialism", yes I said the "S" word. Do you need some time to fathom the extent of what I just said? Communism and socialism are made an evil, sometimes even imposing term by students, teachers, and media. When will we, as a civilized society, stop such mud-rucking? When will we think for ourselves and not allow our society to condition us? When these things come to pass, communism and socialism just might work properly. Although Communism can be beneficial, many misconceptions exist about it's effectiveness, and yet society condemns it and all forms of government associated with it, not realizing that Communism came from democracy. Communism, as stated by Marx, is an extension of democracy. Communism as defined by Marx " is the positive abolition of private property, of human self alienation, and thus the real appropriation of human nature by and for man." (Ebstein,"Isms" 11) Karl Marx is credited as the founder of Communism. The early philosophies of Communism were called "Marxism". "Marx spent most of his life trying to explain communism in many books and articles." ("brians" 1) The communism that media introduces originates from the totalitarian views of Mao Tse Tung and Joseph Lenin. If someone says, "Communism" what names come to mind? If any of the following names come to mind: "Hitler", "Lenin", or "Mao Tse Tung" then you have a distorted perception of what communism truly is. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to the American media for continually maligning the name of "communism". Communism is not a conspiracy to subjugate the entire world, nor is it the opposite of democracy. Communism is a purer democracy in that all the wealth is dispensed evenly among the citizens. "From each according to his needs, to each according his abilities." This quote by Marx reveals the true quintessence of Marxist ideas. Man's abilities can meet his needs, when applied properly and when man does not become enveloped in the swamps of greed. Communism allows for all to have equal wealth and social status by regulating economic and social activity. Everyone has a role in society to fulfill and all get the fruits of there labor. Marx identifies two classes of people, the "bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat". The bourgeoisie's the middle class and the proletariat is the lower working class. Democracy can be viewed as an economic ladder. The bourgeoisie are repressive to the proletariat, as are the wealthy. Then on the lower end of the economic ladder would be the proletariat. The bourgeois's activities and economic management suppress the proletariat's job availability. The more experienced and affluent bourgeoisie would thus control the job market because of superior qualifications and wealth. What can communism accomplish? When applied properly communism lowers personal income tax, equates all people to the status of "middle class." Communism works small scale. That is, it works when man knowingly accepts his poverty and accepts the work that is bound upon him by authority. What prevents it from being effective is man's greed. Man has an innate need to display his wealth, also known as "conspicuous consumption." This need of man to be competitive stifles the goodness that communism could bring. When man competes against himself he becomes self-repressive. Man subdues himself by competing with others inveterately; this greed disallows man to work together with his competition in communism. As a result, dissension and tumult become prevalent, thus leading to possible anarchy. In The Essence of Religion author George Eliot states that great change can and will come about when man realizes that he is the supreme being. Eliot says, "History's turning point will be the moment when man realizes that his only God is man himself." (Chambre, "Marx" 19) "Marx echoed this idea when he declared that "man is the supreme being for mankind," and that it is man who "makes religion; it is not religion that makes man." (Chambre, "Marx" pg 19) Such a statement should be applied to modern day governments. "In God we trust" is labeled on all American currency. Such statements in governmental affairs are offensive. We supposedly grant religious freedom, just to violate it on currency? A coin that said "In Buddha we trust" would cause chaos and riots. Therefore, how can we super-impose a God that is not defined and universally accepted? This is a prime example of democratic idiocy. Such inconsistencies are the building blocks of democracy. Religious factors such as this one are used in governmental affairs, especially in democracy. Legislation is based upon a senator's or representative's ethics and morals, which are usually governed by religion. Religious beliefs should be set aside and the good of the people should come first; even if the "decision" violates his religious viewpoints. Such is the message of communism-a government without religious bias. That is, an atheistic form of government. Unlike democracy, communism is devoid of religious ideology. It is by man and for man. Current economic and social conditions are assessed and induced into the convictions of the governing body. "Marx never raised the problem of man's personal relations with God. (Chambre, "Marx" 16) Communism serves man, not God. Democracy often uses biased language such as "One nation under God." Communism prevents such things, and attempts to serve the needs of man rather than his God's. The older generation of America had a conception of what communism and socialism was, albeit it was distorted. Today's generation has no conception of what communism is. American education teaches McCarthyism, and the rise and fall of communism. However, they do not teach the ideology and basic premises of communism. In true socialism there are elections. In essence, communism is a super democracy. In democracy the benefits of wealth are concentrated on the bourgeoisie. Marxists seek to have the wealth controlled by the common workers. Yet, American media clich�s communism as malevolent or tyrannical. Where does their freedom of speech end? It ends where the rights of one's security and integrity begin. Communism has lost all integrity due solely to media and man's manipulation. Uneducated dolts inveterately deface the name of Marx and the name of communism without relevance. For example, the people of Russia had an opulent economy prior to the fall of communism, after the fall inflation came, and unemployment went up. Yet on news it is conveyed that Russians are rejoicing because of their new found freedom. Slanted reporting has sent many misconceptions of communism. If the surreal, concocted stories have some relevance to them, it can be found erroneous because it was created from a misconception. One cannot accurately report that which they don't understand. Communism is not for every country. It may only be for a scant few. Moreover, it has never operated with Marx's intention. Therefore, how can something be labeled "bad" that has never been operated under the methods of Marx? People must turn a deaf ear and a closed eye to the media and government once and for all. Man must start thinking for himself, even if it is to the point of defying authority. (Man is the hand puppet of his government; roles shall be reversed.) While time transpires communism and socialism are being held reprehensible for problems man's ignorance creates. The problems are not communism or anything pertinent to it. The problem is man's stupidity and limitations that he deems it necessary to hold external factors about him reprehensible. Greed and childishness are shown continually to be intrinsical to man-which is the exact reason communism doesn't work. The ill effects are man, not communism. The illustrious and the elite dominate governments. Communism proposes to stop this through equality. Once more the American media and feeble international community blame everything but themselves as the problem. The rich and elite blame the proletariat, and more times than not, the proletariat is the one who empowers. We, as a people, as voters, need to rise up unified in the belief that we can get something better, even if the status quo is good. When we strive for such perfection then communism and many other words will not be misplaced, and might even be re-examined in the conscious.
|
Favourite links
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has been visited
|