Thursday, June 27, 2024

Breaking with labor, Teamster Leader O’Brien Accepts Trump’s Invitation to Speak at Republican Convention


SUNDAY 23 JUNE 2024, BY DAN LA BOTZ
In a shocking development, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Sean O’Brien, has accepted an invitation from presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to speak at the Republican National Convention (RNC) July 15-18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

His decision to speak at the convention constitutes a tacit endorsement of the far-right Republican billionaire candidate whose attitudes and policies are racist, xenophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic and whose party is anti-union. It represents a break with the rest of the U.S. labor movement as most unions have historically supported the Democratic Party and have endorsed President Joe Biden.

“Our GREAT convention will unify Americans and demonstrate to the nation’s working families they come first,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, announcing O’Brien’s acceptance. “When I am back in the White House, the hardworking Teamsters, and all working Americans, will once again have a country they can afford to live in and be respected around the world.”

O’Brien has given a big boost to Trump. The Teamster leader said he would also like to spear at the Democratic Party convention in August, but having attended the Republican’s he may not be welcome.

The Teamsters, with 1.5 million members, is the country’s fourth largest union and the biggest private sector union. O’Brien had just announced that the small Amazon Labor Union would affiliate with the Teamsters, and he promised that the Teamster would organize the company’s 1,525,000 workers. A development that raised workers’ hope.

O’Brien’s agreement to speak was a political shock, it was not a surprise. In early January O’Brien went to have dinner with Trump at the former president’s mansion at Mar-a-Lago, Florida. At that time, John Palmer, the Teamsters international vice president at-large denounced Trump as “a known union buster, scab, and insurrectionist.” Later that month the Teamsters broke with decades of loyalty to the Democrats and gave a $45,000 donation to the RNC and also has given money to Republican candidates.

Trump’s announcement that O’Brien would speak at the Republican Convention coincided with announcements that Timothy Mellon, heir of the $1.4 billion Mellon family fortune, had given $50 million to a political action committee supporting Trump. And at the same time Trump, in an appeal to his Evangelical and white Christian nationalist supporters, came out in favor of a new Louisiana state law that requires the Ten Commandments be posted in every classroom. And most important in terms of timing, the announcement comes on the eve of the U.S. presidential debates and will be a talking point for Trump who will use O’Brien’s support as proof that he is the candidate of working people. O’Brien’s implicit endorsement of Trump is a betrayal of the labor movement’s value of democracy, equality, and justice.

No doubt O’Brien’s alignment with Trump will be most disappointing to the young leftist labor activists who supported him. Teamsters for a Democratic Union (TDU) invited O’Brien to speak at its convention and endorsed him for president of the Teamsters while the progressive labor education center Labor Notes also touted him. TDU and Labor Notes brought young union activists from the Democratic Socialist of America into both O’Brien’s campaign for Teamster president and into the Teamsters UPS contract campaign.

TDU’s leaders believed that after 45 years of organizing—all but five spent in the opposition— by allying with O’Brien, they were finally on the inside and could be more successful organizing the ranks. Maybe so. But at what cost?

23 June 2024

P.S.

If you like this article or have found it useful, please consider donating towards the work of International Viewpoint. Simply follow this link: Donate then enter an amount of your choice. One-off donations are very welcome. But regular donations by standing order are also vital to our continuing functioning. See the last paragraph of this article for our bank account details and take out a standing order. Thanks.

UK
Mick Lynch Has Put Working-Class Politics Back on the Agenda
  JACOBIN
06.21.2024

British railworkers’ leader Mick Lynch came to prominence as part of the 2022 strike wave. Lynch’s popularity shows the appetite for unapologetic class politics, although trade unions still face major obstacles to converting that mood into power.


Mick Lynch at the SSE Arena, Belfast, June 15, 2024.
 (Brian Lawless / PA Images via Getty Images)

Review of Gregor Gall, Mick Lynch: The Making of a Working-Class Hero (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2024).


“I’m a working-class bloke leading a trade union dispute about jobs, pay and conditions of service.” These were the words that Mick Lynch, the general secretary of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT), used to rebuke Good Morning Britain television show presenter Richard Madeley in June 2022.

It was one of several high-profile interviews that marked the beginning of Britain’s first national rail strike since 1989. Lynch’s calm and collected style when responding to Madeley’s accusation that he was a dangerous “Marxist,” along with his refusal to suffer fools gladly, made him an instant celebrity who seemed to accord with the sentiment of the moment.

He led a workforce that was at the apex of Britain’s growing strike wave. Lynch was the poster child for a year marked by the highest number of days lost to industrial action since the 1980s — a time when Margaret Thatcher was in power, many industries (including rail) were still nationalized, and levels of union membership and density were both significantly higher.

In contrast with the 1980s, this time around, Britain’s trade unions enjoyed a high level of popularity in public opinion polling. In the context of mounting inflation, they succeeded in popularizing the perspective that workers were not to blame for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or the spiraling energy prices that followed. Lynch’s sentiments appeared crucially moderate and reasonable in an era when old-school hysteria about trade union power seemed difficult to justify.

Another memorable moment from the early days of the national rail dispute took place during an interview with Sky News journalist Kay Burley. The veteran broadcaster insisted that she had memories of the bitter picket lines from the 1984–85 miners’ strike that had engulfed Britain’s coalfields in a defining, yearlong industrial conflict.

Burley meant to suggest that scenes of violent clashes between RMT members, strikebreaking workers, passengers attempting to enter stations, and the police might be about to unfold in towns and cities across the country. Lynch had only to point to the scene behind him to pour cold water on this sentiment: a small group of entirely peaceful picketers at a London station were out leafleting to passersby. He then exclaimed: “does it look like the miners’ strike?”

The National Rail Dispute

Lynch’s celebrity and the spectacle of the public rallying behind his members had both long faded by the time the RMT’s dual disputes with the network operator National Rail and the privatized train operating companies (TOCs) came to an end in the summer of 2023. There had been a long-running series of protracted days of strike action but only limited progress.Mick Lynch was the poster child for a year marked by the highest number of days lost to industrial action since the 1980s.

Lynch himself candidly told a BBC documentary that the agreement was “not a great deal” but insisted nevertheless that it was the best his members could hope for in the circumstances. Both rail disputes ended with below-inflation pay raises along with relatively limited no-redundancy clauses that only seemed to have postponed the worst effects of rail “modernization” for a few years.

The power of RMT members had been displayed during the strike, primarily through major disruptions to passenger services. However, the limits of that power — or more precisely, its limited ability to sway either the government or the privatized train operators — were also clearly displayed in the dispute’s outcome.

By mid-March 2023, around half of all train services in Britain were running during days of action against the TOCs. Unlike the RMT’s striking members, who were losing a day’s pay for each day of strike action, the TOCs were being compensated under the terms of their contracts to run the services.

As the strike wore on, Lynch and his union attempted to maintain public support and obtain a resolution by underlining the fact that Britain’s privatized rail system — or in practice England’s, due to public ownership of rail transport in Scotland and Wales — created a perverse incentive for employer hostility.

The government was subsidizing the TOCs for losses incurred during industrial action. It was keen to use RMT members as pawns in a political game of selectively awarding higher pay raises. Some workers, such as National Health Service staff, were rewarded with higher pay raises than others, like the supposedly undeserving and “greedy” militant rail workers.

Labor Movement Biographer

Gregor Gall’s new book, Mick Lynch: The Making of a Working-Class Hero, begins from the seemingly jarring gap between the bang of summer 2022 and the whimper with which the rail dispute ended. The biography attempts to account for these circumstances and Lynch’s central role in them. It demonstrates an attentiveness to the detail of trade union structures and the relationships between government, private business, and organized workers that determine industrial relations on Britain’s railways.Gregor Gall’s new book begins from the seemingly jarring gap between the bang of summer 2022 and the whimper with which the rail dispute ended.

Gall is a visiting professor at the University of Glasgow and the University of Leeds. He was formerly professor of industrial relations at the University of Bradford. Gall is a highly experienced commentator on British trade unionism and labor movement politics. He regularly writes newspaper and magazine columns and has published academic research on topics including factory occupations, financial services staff, and postal workers.

In addition, Gall is also a serial biographer. His second-to-last book was a biography of Joe Strummer, the Clash’s frontman and an influential purveyor of left-wing cultural politics in Britain during the 1970s and ’80s. More directly anticipating his Lynch book, Gall has also published biographies of contemporary socialists and trade unionists.

The latter works include a study of Tommy Sheridan, the Scottish Socialist Party leader. Sheridan briefly led a party that obtained significant electoral success on the back of opposing the Iraq War before succumbing to internal divisions, with Sheridan’s own actions and personality playing a central role.

Gall also wrote a biography of Bob Crow, who served as the RMT’s general secretary from 2001 until his untimely death in 2014. This work serves as an important background and foil for Gall’s assessment of Lynch.

Crow was Britain’s best-known trade unionist in his time as leader of the RMT. He headed a union that defied the trend in terms of recruiting members and securing agreements that improved pay and conditions under the leadership of an unabashed socialist.

The Making of Mick Lynch

One of the valuable contributions the book makes is an explanation of where Mick Lynch comes from, in terms of his upbringing, sociological background, and political perspectives. Gall has had to work around the fact that Lynch himself and the RMT did not cooperate with his research. This has primarily left Gall reliant on published material as well as comments from some of Lynch’s comrades who were willing to speak to him.One of the valuable contributions the book makes is an explanation of where Mick Lynch comes from, in terms of his upbringing, sociological background, and political perspectives.

Gall has nevertheless assembled a helpful picture of Lynch’s background, in no small part relying on the trade union leader’s own description of his family circumstances. Lynch was born to two Irish parents in 1962 and grew up in Paddington in West London.

His father was an engineering worker and a committed trade unionist who served as a shop steward. His mother worked as a domestic servant, a shopworker, and a cleaner. Lynch has described growing up in slum housing around coal fires, tin baths, and an outside toilet before the family moved to the much-improved conditions provided by council housing at the Warwick Estate.

As a second-generation Irish immigrant, Lynch was surrounded by other people from similar backgrounds, but there was also a distinctively cosmopolitan tone to his London Catholic environment that included others with Italian, Polish, and Caribbean heritage. Lynch’s father died shortly before he began work after completing his mandatory period of schooling and started an electrician apprenticeship.

Lynch’s parents made a lasting impression on him. They were strongly in support of trade unionism, the Labour Party, and what Lynch calls the “small ‘s’ socialism” that came from a world shaped by hard manual jobs, going to the pub on a Saturday, and attending Catholic mass on a Sunday.

Lynch joined the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union (EETPU) as a teenage apprentice in the late 1970s. By this time, the union was solidly under the control of a virulently anti-communist right-wing faction. He nevertheless had positive memories of union power, including systems of card inspection being organized by union activists and officials at building sites.

Around a decade later, Lynch was involved in leading a breakaway union, the Electrical and Plumbing Industries Union (EIPU), in 1988. The EIPU was formed after the EETPU was expelled from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) for signing single-union deals at companies where it had few members.

After several years of stagnation and failure, the EIPU was eventually absorbed into the larger Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU). Lynch concluded “it was probably a mistake” to try and form a breakaway union. This was an important lesson for Lynch, who has since prioritized pursuing politics through official labor-movement channels.
Trade Union Leader

After finding himself blacklisted by employers for his union activities, Lynch pursued a history degree that consolidated his commitment to reading and learning. One memorable moment during Lynch’s period of television celebrity involved him explaining the virtues of his hero, the Irish socialist and revolutionary James Connolly, to the British public.After finding himself blacklisted by employers for his union activities, Lynch pursued a history degree that consolidated his commitment to reading and learning.

Lynch profiled Connolly primarily as a trade union organizer who had succeeded in organizing often bitterly divided Protestant and Catholic workers in Belfast around their shared economic interests. This is another indicator of the variety of class politics that shapes his worldview.

The path to Lynch’s rise in the RMT goes via the Channel Tunnel that runs between the south coast of England and northern France. After Lynch began working for Eurostar, the company that runs Britain’s continental rail services, he once again became embroiled in union activism.

In 2004, Lynch organized a successful strike ballot that served as leverage in pay negotiations. He also helped to organize Eurostar’s international currency exchange staff and supported Chubb Security staff in their battle for recognition.

It was through his role as a Eurostar branch official that Lynch found himself elected as a delegate to national annual general meetings and then standing for election for the RMT’s National Executive Committee. Members of the committee serve three-year terms as paid officials of the union but are not allowed to run for consecutive terms. Lynch failed when he stood in 2005 but was successful in 2008.

Detailed discussions about Lynch’s orientations within the union sustain Gall’s analysis of his industrial politics. Gall profiles Lynch as a pragmatist who prioritizes improving the pay and conditions of RMT members. Lynch was aligned with Mick Cash, his immediate predecessor as general secretary, and opposed the “far-left” activists associated with the Campaign for a Fighting Democratic Union.

Lynch stood for the position of general secretary in 2021 and won overwhelmingly on the slogan of “experience you can trust.” He has also consistently opposed the political strategy of backing small far-left electoral vehicles that Bob Crow favored.

Lynch backed a proposal for the RMT to reaffiliate to the Labour Party in 2018, under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, but lost the internal vote. He has since personally advocated a vote for Labour under Keir Starmer, but also expressed discontent over Labour’s failure to support strike action by his members or offer a more radical program for economic change.

A Laborist Working-Class Hero?

Gall deploys the conceptualization of the working-class hero to assess Lynch, especially in relation to his performance as a union leader in 2022 and 2023.

The subtitle of Gall’s book, “The Making of a Working-Class Hero,” is no mere afterthought. Gall deploys the conceptualization of the working-class hero to assess Lynch, especially in relation to his performance as a union leader in 2022 and 2023.

This is a problematic approach to a biography that at times seems to take on an unhelpfully esoteric quality. For instance, when citing Lynch’s hobbies and interests, Gall makes the following remark:


While Lynch is a devout football fan, which is still a mass working-class pastime and pursuit, he is also well read and an avid film buff, marking him out as different from the average working-class person.

I’m not convinced that enjoying cinema is so unusual for a man of Lynch’s class and age. Moreover, trade union leaders have often been men from working-class backgrounds who have sought and obtained the benefits of education, even in circumstances when that has gone against the grain of most of the people around them.

A perhaps greater and less incidental problem, however, is the fact that Lynch himself has never sought to be assessed on whether or not he was a working-class hero. Gall cites press and social-media usage of the term to support his own assessment, which certainly does have some value in understanding why Lynch was so popular in the summer of 2022 amid the rising public support for trade unionism.

However, there is a central contradiction that Gall is trying to explore. Why has this broadly favorable shift in public opinion toward unions coexisted with declining union density and power, with the overall number of union members in Britain falling by two hundred thousand in the year of strikes over 2022 and 2023?

There is a subtext in Gall’s book suggesting that Lynch might have pursued different strategic options, resulting in different and more successful outcomes, if he had possessed a different political and industrial outlook.

Gall notes, for instance, that Lynch distanced himself from a “general strike” policy that the RMT had endorsed in 2022, sidestepping the question as a matter for the TUC. Despite Lynch’s prominent support for the Enough Is Enough campaign, which for a time organized large rallies across British cities in the second half of 2022, the political energy generated by industrial action petered out even before the disputes themselves.

Yet it’s hard to find much reason for surprise in Lynch’s orientation. Lynch pursued industrial disputes as actions mounted by and for railworkers. The fact that he succeeded in popularizing a political case behind workers’ interests in explicit class terms — announcing that “the working class is back” — is far more remarkable than the fact these strikes didn’t lead to a larger political resurgence.

A Broader Base

Lynch’s appeal demonstrates that there remains an audience for an economically defined form of working-class politics with roots in workplace organization. But the experience of the last few years also shows that any such politics will have to build from a larger base than one particular union that is overwhelmingly tied to a strategically placed but still relatively small section of Britain’s workforce.

To paraphrase Karl Marx, Mick Lynch has made history, but he hasn’t done so in circumstances of his own choosing. The evidence presented by Gall demonstrates that the traditions of laborism — particularly when it comes to the separation between “industrial” and “political” realms — remain alive and well in Britain’s union movement.

Trade union leaders broadly operate within the industrial sphere and orientate toward bargaining with employers to achieve the best conditions that they can. The political sphere is usually a second-order concern for them. This is especially true for unions like the RMT that are so tied to a particular sector or occupational grouping.

Gall claims that a major distinction between Crow and Lynch concerns the fact the latter has shown “no room for revolution” whereas the former did. But this seems to be a relatively trivial distinction, since both leaders have been primarily defined by their role as industrially minded union leaders who have sought to improve the pay and conditions of their members through stronger union organization and collective bargaining.

CONTRIBUTOR
Ewan Gibbs teaches history at the University of Glasgow.
Boeing Has Allies in the Biden Justice Department

Boeing is facing scrutiny from the Justice Department that could lead to criminal charges. But a department official involved in the case formerly consulted on behalf of the company — just one among many such officials with close corporate connections.



Families of victims of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, a Boeing 737 Max 8 that crashed in 2019, display photos of their loved ones as Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun testifies before a subcommittee of the Senate Energy and National Resources Committee, Washington, DC, June 18, 2024. (Allison Bailey / Middle East Images / AFP via Getty Images)

JACOBIN
06.25.2024

Aformer Boeing consultant is among the Justice Department officials who will soon determine whether the aviation behemoth will face criminal charges in the wake of two fatal plane crashes and ongoing safety problems, according to federal disclosures.

Additionally, Boeing’s top lobbyist — Ziad Ojakli, a former aide to President George W. Bush — has been at events with President Joe Biden at the White House at least five times since 2021, according to White House visitor log disclosures reviewed by us. Boeing’s CEO, David Calhoun, has attended events with Biden three times since 2022.

Though federal prosecutors have reportedly recommended criminal charges against the company, it is unclear whether those recommendations will be followed by the Biden administration, which has allowed corporate prosecutions to remain near record lows. Biden officials have handed out more than sixty deferred- or non-prosecution agreements in corporate cases, and the amount of money recovered in such cases has dramatically plummeted.

On Monday, Reuters reported that lower-level Justice Department prosecutors overseeing a 2021 criminal case against Boeing had recommended criminal charges against the company to top agency officials. The case was revived last month in the wake of recent high-profile safety scandals at the company.

But many of the top officials who are now deliberating on whether to charge Boeing come from some of the nation’s largest corporate law and consulting firms — and one previously worked on the company’s behalf.

Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general and second-in-command at the agency, had Boeing as a client during her time at WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm cofounded by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. In January 2021 as she was being appointed to her current position, Monaco reported owning between $1,001 and $15,000 of Boeing stock, according to financial disclosure forms; she reported the same in 2022. Monaco did not report Boeing stock holdings in her 2023 disclosure forms.

Other key players at the center of the Boeing deal are Nicole Argentieri, the acting chief of the Justice Department’s criminal division, and Glenn Leon, chief of the Justice Department’s criminal fraud section. Both have done time in the corporate world — and have a record of handing down agreements that are favorable to companies accused of misconduct like Boeing.

In the year since Argentieri took charge, the agency has offered industry-friendly deferred prosecution agreements and nonprosecution agreements — the same kind of deal that has allowed Boeing to avoid a trial on fraud charges — in nearly all major corporate fraud cases.

In five out of seven major fraud cases resolved over the last year, and in all cases that involved companies based in the United States, deferred prosecution agreements were offered, according to records of enforcement actions.

In recent years, the Department of Justice has prosecuted fewer corporations than ever, reaching a twenty-five-year low of cases against companies in 2021 and only moderately increasing since.In recent years, the Department of Justice has prosecuted fewer corporations than ever.

Instead, the department has encouraged companies to self-police by expanding their own corporate compliance programs, through which companies ensure they are abiding by applicable laws and regulations. If corporations have this self-policing system in place, they’re offered leniency in potential enforcement actions, Monaco and a former assistant attorney general said in two separate speeches on the matter.

Some advocates blame the revolving door between the high-paying corporate world and enforcement jobs at the Justice Department for the reluctance to go after companies like Boeing.

“As long as these top people at these enforcement agencies are then able to go into the private sector and get a salary that is three or five or ten times their government salary, there’s going to be a revolving door,” said Peter Reilly, a professor at Texas A&M University School of Law who is part of the legal team representing families of victims of the 2018 and 2019 Boeing crashes.

As a result, he said, decisions in major corporate cases will inevitably “be influenced by people looking out for what they want to do after their government job.”

Monaco is a prime example of this. She currently oversees national security matters and criminal prosecutions by the Justice Department, among other key roles. Monaco previously represented companies including Apple, ExxonMobil, and Kia Motors at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, which is reportedly one of the country’s highest-paying law firms.

Dozens of former O’Melveny & Myers employees have gone on to serve in high-level roles — such as secretaries of state and transportation, national security advisor, White House counsel, and other positions — in Democratic and Republican administrations, the law firm brags on its website.

While Argentieri has prosecutorial bona fides — spending a decade as a mob prosecutor in New York’s federal courts — she, too, has done stints in the lucrative world of white-collar defense. From 2018 to 2022, she was a partner at O’Melveny & Myers, during which time she was said to have “amassed a growing list of high-powered clients,” including billionaire private equity investor and Trump ally Tom Barrack.

“There are all of these people coming from Big Law, and at Big Law, they were defending these giant corporations,” said Andrea Beaty, research director at the Revolving Door Project, an organization that scrutinizes executive branch appointees. “And now they’re expected to be on the other side of the table.”The revolving door also works the other way around — many attorneys depart for private sector jobs after a stint in government.

Monaco’s relationship with Boeing, Beaty said, “speaks to the nonadversarial relationship” between these companies and the country’s top law enforcement officials.

And, as Beaty noted, the revolving door also works the other way around — many attorneys depart for private sector jobs after a stint in government. One lead prosecutor on the Boeing case in 2021 has since departed her work as US attorney for a job with Kirkland & Ellis, a white-collar defense firm that Boeing is now relying on for advice on its legal troubles. Boeing’s current chief legal officer, Brett Gerry, is also a Justice Department alum — and raked in $6.2 million from the company in 2022.

The Department of Justice did not return our request for comment.
Boeing Under Fire

Boeing’s controversial deferred prosecution agreement in 2021 came after two Boeing 737 Max planes crashed in 2018 and 2019, killing 346 passengers. The deal between the aerospace company and the Justice Department, which allowed Boeing and its senior executives to avoid criminal prosecution on fraud charges, was shrouded in secrecy and came in the Trump administration’s final days as the former president was grabbing headlines for his role in the Capitol insurrection.

At the time, victims’ family members alleged that the prosecutors working under Trump broke the law when they failed to consult with family members before the deal was finalized.

After a Boeing plane suffered a midflight blowout at ten thousand feet over Portland this January, exposing ongoing issues with Boeing’s planes, pressure to hold the company accountable for its shoddy manufacturing intensified. Experts told us that the 2021 immunity deal, which expired just days after the near catastrophe, could come under question as reports of fraud at Boeing and its subcontractors surfaced in the wake of the incident.

Specifically, whistleblowers at Spirit AeroSystems, a Boeing subcontractor, allegedly told company officials about an “excessive amount of defects” in the manufacturing process in the months leading up to the midflight blowout, according to federal documents revealed by us.


In May, federal prosecutors notified Boeing that they believed the company had violated the terms of the immunity deal — the first step to reviving the criminal fraud case from 2021. Now, the Justice Department has until July 7 to actually bring those charges, as some prosecutors have reportedly recommended.

The families of victims are demanding that the Justice Department take action.

In an April letter sent to criminal fraud section chief Leon, a lawyer representing victims’ families said federal prosecutors laid out five key areas where they believed Boeing violated the deferred prosecution agreement. The letter also highlighted how the families have been kept in the dark regarding false statements by the Trump-run Justice Department, how the prosecution agreement was reached, and why the case was filed in a Texas court known to issue corporate-friendly rulings, among other issues.The families of victims are demanding that the Justice Department take action.

“Many observers have wondered why the Justice Department strangely chose to file its conspiracy charge against Boeing in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas,” the letter states. “Seattle, Chicago, and [Washington] D.C. all seem much more obvious choices — not to mention more potentially convenient locations for the victims’ families.”

Last week, families sent another letter addressed to Leon and Argentieri demanding that the agency pursue criminal charges against Boeing. They also are seeking a $24.8 billion fine against the company over the 2018 and 2019 crashes.

“These are some of the strongest people I’ve ever met in my life, and all they want is justice for their loved ones and safety for the flying public,” said Reilly, the professor and advocate for the victims’ families. “And they will continue to work at this until they get it.”

Yet it’s unclear where the Justice Department will ultimately land.

Monday’s report from Reuters, which suggested that some prosecutors on the case had asked for charges, was preceded by a New York Times report that the Justice Department is, instead, leaning toward an independent monitor.

“If the prosecutors want to prosecute, who are the high officials within [the Justice Department] serving as a block to that happening?” Reilly said of the rumors circling around the deliberations.

Though he said he did not know the answer to that question, he guessed that the Justice Department’s political appointees — the same ones who previously consulted for Boeing and worked for major corporate law firms — were the most likely roadblock.
“Without Fear of Retaliation”

The Boeing deferred prosecution agreement was signed in January 2021 under the Trump administration — around the time when the use of these immunity deals was particularly popular in cases of corporate misdeeds.

Deferred prosecution agreements originated as a tool for prosecutors to grant a reprieve to low-level offenders for petty crimes. But over the last two decades, they have become a tool for big corporations to avoid facing a trial — or a guilty plea — in some of the country’s biggest corporate misconduct cases.Over the last two decades, deferred prosecution agreements have become a tool for big corporations to avoid facing a trial — or a guilty plea — in some of the country’s biggest corporate misconduct cases.

The use of such agreements reached a high in 2015 and 2016, and has fallen slightly in recent years. But Biden’s Justice Department continues to deploy them, despite criticism that they are essentially a free pass for companies. Unlike plea deals, judges don’t review deferred prosecution agreements, which allow the agreements to be far more lenient.

Aside from the Justice Department’s robust antitrust division, which has been revitalized under the Biden administration, corporate prosecutions under the leadership of Monaco and Attorney General Merrick Garland have been sluggish.

In the fall, Argentieri defended the criminal division’s use of deferred prosecution agreements, telling lawmakers at a Senate hearing that the agreements “are not a pass,” under bipartisan pressure to ramp up enforcement.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome in the Boeing case, the fact that the Justice Department challenged the immunity deal at all was a sign of how much pressure the case had brought on prosecutors, said Beaty, the researcher at the Revolving Door Project.

“If the DOJ [Department of Justice] were to hold Boeing accountable, obviously that would be extremely encouraging,” said Beaty. “But this would be unusual in the overall trend of how they handle these types of cases.”

In March 2023, the Justice Department’s Criminal Division issued a memo on corporate compliance programs, stating that prosecutors should consider “the adequacy and effectiveness of the corporation’s compliance program at the time of the offense, as well as at the time of a charging decision.”

“Prosecutors should assess whether the company’s complaint-handling process includes proactive measures to create a workplace atmosphere without fear of retaliation, appropriate processes for the submission of complaints, and processes to protect whistleblowers,” the memo states. “The company’s top leaders — the board of directors and executives — set the tone for the rest of the company.”

This type of workplace atmosphere has clearly not been set at Boeing: during a Senate hearing on June 18, Boeing CEO David Calhoun admitted that whistleblowers were retaliated against.

“We have taken action on people who have retaliated,” Calhoun told senators during the hearing.

Despite her previous clientele, Monaco has claimed in the past that she has “no tolerance” for corporate misconduct as a prosecutor. “We will hold those that break the law accountable,” she said in one 2021 speech.

In the case of Boeing, Monaco and her colleagues have a matter of days left to make their decision.

You can subscribe to David Sirota’s investigative journalism project, the Lever, here.

CONTRIBUTORS

Katya Schwenk is a journalist based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Freddy Brewster is a freelance reporter and has been published in the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, CalMatters, the Lost Coast Outpost, and other outlets across California.

Helen Santoro is a journalist based in Colorado.
India’s Farmers’ Movement Helped Thwart Narendra Modi

AN INTERVIEW WITH AMRA RAM

Narendra Modi’s plan to win an electoral supermajority ended in failure this month. A communist leader of India’s farmers’ movement explains how their struggle contributed to Modi’s biggest setback since taking power.


Farmers shout slogans against Indian prime minister Narendra Modi during a protest to demand minimum crop prices on the outskirts of Gurdaspur, India, on May 24, 2024.
(Narinder Nanu / AFP via Getty Images)

INTERVIEW BYSHINZANI JAIN
JACOBIN
06.25.2024

The results of India’s national elections, declared on June 4, were humbling for the ruling National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Narendra Modi. The BJP, which had been boasting that it could win four hundred or more seats, instead saw its seat share drop from 303 in 2019 to 240 this year and was obliged to form a coalition to remain in power.

The election outcome was significantly influenced by the farmers’ movement, which forced the BJP-led government to suspend its proposed farm laws in 2021. That movement resumed its activity on the eve of the election. The BJP vote declined in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, where the farmers’ movement has been active.

Amra Ram is a leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (the CPI[M]) who was elected to the Indian parliament this year for the Sikar constituency in Rajasthan as part of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) bloc. He is also a leader of the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS, or All India Farmers’ Union), the peasant wing of the CPI(M). He spoke to us about the ongoing impact of the farmers’ movement on Indian politics.
SHINZANI JAIN

Please tell us about your life and political journey in Rajasthan.

AMRA RAM

As a student at Shri Kalyan Government College in Sikar, I worked with the students’ organizations mobilizing on student issues. The Shri Kalyan Government College was the biggest university in Rajasthan, and I was the president of the students’ union there. Then, I was twice elected as the sarpanch (president) of the gram panchayat (village council) in Mundwara in Rajasthan.

After this, I served as a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) four times. In 1993, 1998, and 2003, I was elected from the Dhod constituency of the Rajasthan Assembly. In 2008, I was elected as an MLA for the fourth time from the Danta Ramgarh constituency of the Rajasthan Assembly.The political impact of the farmers’ movement has been felt strongly in Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab, the regions where we saw massive participation and support.

As an MLA, I consistently raised the issues of the farmers, students, farm laborers, workers, and the common people of Rajasthan in the state legislative assembly. When the government ignored our demands, we raised the same issues through movements on the streets. Whether it was the issue of electricity bills, the agitation to demand water supply for irrigation during 2004–05 in which eight farmers were martyred, or the farmers’ agitation during 2017–18, when the government was forced to implement a waiver of the farmers’ loans, we raised these issues in the state legislative assembly as well as on the streets.

I was also involved with the farmers’ movement during 2020–21 against the three farm laws in which the farmers struggled for more than a year. Finally, the Modi government was forced to withdraw the three farm laws. On December 9, 2021, the government assured us that it would enact a law to make minimum support price (MSP) a legal guarantee. However, even to this day, this has not been done.

This farmers’ movement during 2020–21 was historic. The political impact of the movement has been felt strongly in Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Punjab, the regions where we saw massive participation and support.

During the 2014 and 2019 general assembly elections in Rajasthan, all twenty-five seats were won by the NDA coalition led by the BJP. Out of these seats, the opposition won eleven this time. The Sikar constituency, from which I have been elected, is one of these eleven seats.

In Haryana, the opposition has won five out of ten seats. In Uttar Pradesh, the Samajwadi Party (SP), which was part of the INDIA coalition, has won thirty-seven seats. This has been a massive setback for the BJP. After they made lofty claims of winning over four hundred seats, they have just managed to win 240.
SHINZANI JAIN

Could you give us the background of the farmers’ movement during 2020–21?
AMRA RAM

There have been many instances in different parts of the country where the farmers have faced a government backlash for protesting. However, the farmers’ movement started becoming big after farmers were shot in the Mandsaur district in Madhya Pradesh in 2018.The farmers’ movement started becoming big after farmers were shot in the Mandsaur district in Madhya Pradesh in 2018.

In this agitation, the farmers were raising the issue of low prices for their garlic crops. While the cost of cultivation for the crop was Rs. 100 per kg and the labor employed to cultivate the crop was extraneous, no one was ready to even buy the crops for Rs. 5 per kg. When the farmers demanded fair and remunerative prices for their crops, the BJP government led by Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan responded to them with bullets, and six farmers were martyred.

Following this attack, farmers from across the ideological divide from across the country were mobilized by the AIKS to come together in their struggle. A combined movement was built around the issues of prices, land acquisition, and opposition to the government’s three farm laws.

The Indian government attempted to break the movement in different ways. It tried to present the movement as communal, and even labeled the agitating farmers as “Naxalites,” “Maoists,” “hired goons,” or accused them of being “supported by China and Pakistan.” But the farmers persevered and continued to follow the calls of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) [a collective front of farmers’ unions] throughout the country.

The AIKS, which was a national organization, mobilized farmers on the national scale. Finally, the farmers defeated the dictatorial government, and it was forced to withdraw the black laws. However, the written guarantee that the government gave us in December 2021 has still not been implemented.

When the NDA government came to power in 2014, it declared at more than four hundred farmers’ meetings that the farmers would receive MSP, that two crore [twenty million] jobs would be created for young people, and that within one hundred days, all Indians would get lakhs [hundreds of thousands] of rupees in their bank accounts as money from foreign accounts would be brought back to India. Instead of fulfilling these promises, it did the exact opposite. Through these elections, the youth and the farmers have given a response to the government.
SHINZANI JAIN

Could you please explain to us the nature and extent of the agricultural crisis in the country?
AMRA RAM

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, India adopted the policies of liberalization and privatization inspired by US imperialism. Following this turn toward liberalization and opening up of markets, all the production and procurement of agricultural inputs used by the farmers — seeds, manure, pesticides, insecticides, diesel — was allotted to agribusinesses and multinational corporations. This has been done not only in India but across the world.The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund wanted the agricultural sector to be dominated by large agri-corporations.

As a result of these policies, the farmers continued to become indebted. Drowning in debt, they started committing suicide in huge numbers. The youth of the country became unemployed, and businesses were destroyed. The liberalization model also promoted agricultural imports and the prices offered to the farmers declined. Large corporations and agribusinesses prospered, and the farmers fell into a cycle of indebtedness.

The increasing prices of agricultural produce affected farmers across the country, whether they were cultivating food grains, vegetables, fruits, or cash crops like cashews and raisins. The cost of cultivating all kinds of crops increased sharply, and the farmers were not even earning enough to cover the costs they incurred. The farmers had no option but to protest.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund wanted farmers to be ousted from agriculture. They wanted the agricultural sector to be dominated by large agri-corporations, with farmers becoming wage laborers for these corporations. As a result of these policies of liberalization and privatization, farmers are agitating across the world, not only in India, but in European countries as well.
SHINZANI JAIN

How did the farmers’ movement appeal to the people from other sectors and the urban population?
AMRA RAM

The farm laws were not only detrimental to the agricultural sector and the people employed within it. The idea behind these laws was to allow the hoarding of agricultural produce so as to rob not only the farmers but also the people as a whole. The movement was also against the plunder of big corporations like Adani and Ambani and against the toll mafia run by giants such as the Reliance Group. For a whole year, tolls were waived, and the common man benefitted from this struggle.Even before the enactment of the farm laws, the situation of the farmers was desperate, as they were not getting remunerative prices.

Even before the enactment of the farm laws, the situation of the farmers was desperate, as they were not getting remunerative prices. Imagine the situation of the people after the implementation of laws allowing for the hoarding of food grains and other essential crops even at the time of an emergency. Naturally, this would impact not only the farmers but also the workers of the country.

This movement was fought not only by the farmers but also by Indian workers. Ultimately, the movement took shape as a “people’s movement,” and the result was that the dictator heading the government, who never listened to anybody before, had to bow his head before the unity of this movement.
SHINZANI JAIN

What have we learned about the impact of people’s movements on electoral outcomes from this movement?
AMRA RAM

We saw that all the farmers’ groups with different flags, ideologies, and leaders came together to fight. In addition, the communist and secular forces that fought the elections separately in 2014 and 2019 fought together this time and brought the BJP down to 240 seats from 303 seats last time.

In India, even to this day, the majority of voters are within the agricultural sector, whether as farmers or as rural wage laborers. The majority of voters have now understood that behind their troubles is the government led by the BJP. Wherever there is a mass movement, we see that electoral outcomes are affected by it.From now on, any government will hesitate before messing with the farmers of the country.

This time, we have seen that those who were claiming they would win 370 or even more than four hundred seats have not even managed to win 270. I believe that this blow to the BJP, despite all of its undemocratic efforts at meddling with free and fair elections, is a people’s mandate against its laws.

We understand that the opposition has still not been able to form a government. But the number of opposition-held seats has doubled. The Indian National Congress has increased its number of seats to one hundred, nearly twice as many as before, while the SP from Uttar Pradesh, which is the biggest state with the largest number of constituencies, has gone from five to thirty-seven seats. From now on, any government will hesitate before messing with the farmers of the country.
SHINZANI JAIN

What are the long-term goals of the farmers’ movement? What issues will you raise in the parliament and beyond?
AMRA RAM

Before the general elections were declared, farmers from Punjab started marching toward Delhi. However, stringent measures were taken to stop them from proceeding beyond the Haryana border. Despite the barriers, the farmers did not retreat. They were back again to fight for their demands.

The government did not fulfil the promises made to the farmers in December 2021. The 2020 Electricity Bill, which was one of the contentious issues during the farmers’ protests, has been passed in the form of this year’s Electricity (Amendment) Act. Under the new law, the contract for electricity generation and distribution will be granted to large corporations. This means that electricity will now be available only to the rich and not the poor of this country.

The future course for this movement is not only for the farmers to raise their issues in the parliament, but to continue their struggle on the streets. Even in December 2021, the movement was merely paused on account of the promises made by the government. In February 2024, the farmers resumed the movement, and a big rally was held at the Ramlila Maidan in Delhi.

The farmers from Punjab are still protesting at the Punjab-Haryana border. Over the last year, the government tried its best to break this coalition of farmers’ groups. However, it failed miserably. As long as the farmers and peasants of the country are in crisis, the movement will not end. They will try to break us, and perhaps they will be successful in winning over one or two farm leaders, but they will not be able to break the unity of the farmers.

This is the first time in my life that I have witnessed such unity among the farmers and the workers of the country. Previously, the farmers asked us why they should be concerned about workers’ issues and vice versa. This is the first time that farmers and workers have understood that these policies will only be overturned if they fight together.

Not only the farmers and workers but even the youth of the country are fighting together now. We will continue to struggle and strengthen the movement, not only in India but also across the world, until we succeed in bringing about structural change.

CONTRIBUTORS

Amra Ram is a leader of the All India Kisan Sabha who was elected to India’s parliament for the Sikar constituency in Rajasthan as a candidate of the Communist Party of India (Marxist).

Shinzani Jain is a researcher and author. She is currently pursuing a PhD in regional and urban planning studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
UPDATED
You Saved Julian Assange

After 14 years of persecution, Julian Assange will go free. We must honor the hundreds of thousands of people across the globe who made this happen.



June 26, 2024
Source: Scheerpost





The dark machinery of empire, whose mendacity and savagery Julian Assange exposed to the world, spent 14 years trying to destroy him. They cut him off from his funding, canceling his bank accounts and credit cards. They invented bogus allegations of sexual assault to get him extradited to Sweden, where he would then be shipped to the U.S.

They trapped him in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for seven years after he was given political asylum and Ecuadorian citizenship by refusing him safe passage to Heathrow Airport. They orchestrated a change of government in Ecuador that saw him stripped of his asylum, harassed and humiliated by a pliant embassy staff. They contracted the Spanish security firm UC global in the embassy to record all his conversations, including those with his attorneys.

The CIA discussed kidnapping or assassinating him. They arranged for London’s Metropolitan Police to raid the embassy – sovereign territory of Ecuador – and seize him. They held him for five years in the high security HM Prison Belmarsh, often in solitary confinement.

And all the while they carried out a judicial farce in the British courts where due process was ignored so an Australian citizen, whose publication was not based in the U.S. and who, like all journalists, received documents from whistleblowers, could be charged under the Espionage Act.

They tried over and over and over to destroy him. They failed. But Julian was not released because the courts defended the rule of law and exonerated a man who had not committed a crime. He was not released because the Biden White House and the intelligence community have a conscience. He was not released because the news organizations that published his revelations and then threw him under the bus, carrying out a vicious smear campaign, pressured the U.S. government.

He was released — granted a plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department, according to court documents — in spite of these institutions. He was released because day after day, week after week, year after year, hundreds of thousands of people around the globe mobilized to decry the imprisonment of the most important journalist of our generation. Without this mobilization, Julian would not be free.

Mass protests do not always work. The genocide in Gaza continues to exact its gruesome toll on Palestinians. Mumia Abu-Jamal is still locked up in a Pennsylvania prison. The fossil fuel industry ravages the planet. But it is the most potent weapon we have to defend ourselves from tyranny.

This sustained pressure — during a London hearing in 2020, to my delight, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser of the Old Bailey court overseeing Julian’s case, complained about the noise protestors were making in the street outside — shines a continuous light on injustice and exposes the amorality of the ruling class. This is why spaces in the British courts were so limited and blurry eyed activists lined up outside as early as 4 a.m. to secure a seat for journalists they respected, my spot secured by Franco Manzi, a retired policeman.

These people are unsung and often unknown. But they are heroes. They move mountains. They surrounded parliament. They stood in the pouring rain outside the courts. They were dogged and steadfast. They made their collective voices heard. They saved Julian. And as this dreadful saga ends, and Julian and his family I hope, find peace and healing in Australia, we must honor them. They shamed the politicians in Australia to stand up for Julian, an Australian citizen, and finally Britain and the U.S. had to give up. I do not say to do the right thing. This was a surrender. We should be proud of it.

I met Julian when I accompanied his attorney, Michael Ratner, to meetings in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Michael, one of the great civil rights attorneys of our era, stressed that popular protest was a vital component in every case he brought against the state. Without it, the state could carry out its persecution of dissidents, disregard for the law and crimes in darkness.

People like Michael, along with Jennifer Robinson, Stella Assange, WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson, Nils Melzer, Craig Murray, Roger Waters, Ai WeiWei, John Pilger and Julian’s father John Shipton and brother Gabriel, were instrumental in the fight. But they could not have done it alone.

We desperately need mass movements. The climate crisis is accelerating. The world, with the exception of Yemen, stands passive watching a live streamed genocide. The senseless greed of limitless capitalist expansion has turned everything from human beings to the natural world into commodities that are exploited until exhaustion or collapse. The decimation of civil liberties has shackled us, as Julian warned, to an interconnected security and surveillance apparatus that stretches across the globe.

The ruling global class has shown its hand. It intends, in the global north, to build climate fortresses and in the global south to use its industrial weapons to lock out and slaughter the desperate the way it is slaughtering the Palestinians.

State surveillance is far more intrusive than that employed by past totalitarian regimes. Critics and dissidents are easily marginalized or silenced on digital platforms. This totalitarian structure — the political philosopher Sheldon Wolin called it “inverted totalitarianism” — is being imposed by degrees. Julian warned us. As the power structure feels threatened by a restive population that repudiates its corruption, amassing of obscene levels of wealth, endless wars, ineptitude and mounting repression, the fangs it exposed to Julian will be exposed to us.

The goal of wholesale surveillance, as Hannah Arendt writes in “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” is not, in the end, to discover crimes, “but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.” And because our emails, phone conversations, web searches and geographical movements are recorded and stored in perpetuity in government databases, because we are the most photographed and followed population in human history, there will be more than enough “evidence” to seize us should the state deem it necessary. This constant surveillance and personal data waits like a deadly virus inside government vaults to be turned against us. It does not matter how trivial or innocent that information is. In totalitarian states, justice, like truth, is irrelevant.

The object of all totalitarian systems is to inculcate a climate of fear to paralyze a captive population. Citizens seek security in the structures that oppress them. Imprisonment, torture and murder are saved for unmanageable renegades such as Julian. The totalitarian state achieves this control, Arendt wrote, by crushing human spontaneity, and by extension human freedom. The population is immobilized by trauma. The courts, along with legislative bodies, legalize state crimes. We saw all this in the persecution of Julian. It is an ominous harbinger of the future.

The corporate state must be destroyed if we are to restore our open society and save our planet. Its security apparatus must be dismantled. The mandarins who manage corporate totalitarianism, including the leaders of the two major political parties, fatuous academics, pundits and a bankrupt media, must be driven from the temples of power.

Mass street protests and prolonged civil disobedience are our only hope. A failure to rise up — which is what the corporate state is counting on — will see us enslaved and the earth’s ecosystem become inhospitable to human habitation. Let us take a lesson from the courageous men and women who took to the streets for 14 years to save Julian. They showed us how it is done.



Chris Hedges who graduated from seminary at Harvard Divinity School, worked for nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, National Public Radio and other news organizations in Latin America, the Middle East and the Balkans. He was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times who won a Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of global terrorism. Hedges is a fellow at the Nation Institute and the author of numerous books, including War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning.


Press Freedom Advocates Celebrate Julian Assange’s Release, But Warn of Impact of Plea Deal

June 26, 2024Z
Source: Democracy Now!



We discuss the plea deal and release of Julian Assange with press freedom advocate Trevor Timm. “Thankfully, Julian Assange is finally going free today, but the press freedom implications remain to be seen,” says Timm, who explains the U.S. espionage case against Assange, which was opened under the Trump administration and continued under Biden. Timm expresses disappointment that Biden chose to continue prosecuting Assange rather than demonstrating his stated support of press freedom. If convicted, Assange could have been sentenced to 175 years in U.S. prison, which Timm calls a “ticking time bomb for press freedom rights.”

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

“Julian Assange is free.” That’s what his wife tweeted after he left the Belmarsh Prison in London Monday, having reached a plea deal with U.S. prosecutors that will allow him to soon head home to Australia, ending a more than decadelong legal ordeal. Julian is now flying to the U.S. territory island of Saipan in the North Marianas, where he will appear before a U.S. district judge. He will plead guilty to one felony. He faced 175 years in a United States prison.

As we continue our coverage, we’re joined in Sydney, Australia, by Antony Loewenstein, independent journalist, longtime supporter of WikiLeaks. And we’re joined in Washington, D.C., by Trevor Timm, executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a group that’s long advocated for Julian’s release.

We welcome you both back to Democracy Now! We have spoken to you both about the issue of Julian for many years. Trevor, if you can talk about the significance of this moment, the fact that, I mean, in the last week, it looks like, this deal was negotiated?

TREVOR TIMM: Yeah. Thanks for having me, Amy.

You know, I think the first word that comes to mind is “relief.” This case was a ticking time bomb for press freedom rights in the United States. You know, the case wasn’t getting a ton of coverage in the mainstream media, so I think there was a misconception that Julian Assange, because he was charged under the Espionage Act, was charged with spying. But what the Espionage Act essentially says is that you can’t receive and obtain and publish government secrets. And, of course, that’s what journalists do in this country all the time when they’re covering national security, whenever they’re covering policy. And so, thankfully, we’ve avoided the worst-case scenario, which would have been a court precedent, in a conviction in court, which then would have bound other judges potentially in future cases against other journalists.

But I am still worried about this guilty plea, because the one charge that Julian Assange was — is, essentially, pleading guilty to is a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act. And so, while there won’t be a legal precedent, there might be a practical precedent in the sense of future federal prosecutors might feel emboldened, now that they know that they’ve secured a guilty plea against a publisher, to go after others. You know, it’s possible, even though judges won’t to be able to cite this case or won’t be bound by this case, that they will know that it has occurred. And so, you know, I still think that the press freedom implications are potentially worrying and that we’re going to need to keep an eye on them.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Trevor, why do you think the Biden administration didn’t just drop this case? Why did they continue to pursue it so persistently?

TREVOR TIMM: I mean, it’s really shameful that the Biden administration has kept up this case for so many years. You know, at Freedom of the Press Foundation, we organized a huge coalition of every major civil liberties organization, press freedom organization and human rights organization in the country. And, you know, in the first few weeks of the attorney general being in office, we denounced the case and implored them to drop it. And that coalition repeated its call pretty much every six months for the last three years.

You know, President Biden has gone out of his way to talk about how journalism is not a crime and that he respects press freedom, yet this case has essentially been hanging over journalists for the entire time they’ve been in office. They absolutely should have dropped it when they came into office. And you know what? They could have dropped it yesterday, and Julian Assange could have served the same amount of time in prison.

They seem to have wanted a symbolic victory, which, again, you know, could potentially hang over the heads of national security journalists for years. And, you know, don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame Julian Assange for taking this deal at all. He’s been through an incredibly harsh ordeal himself. But I do blame the Obama — or, sorry, the Biden administration. And, you know, I hope this doesn’t come back to haunt them and haunt us.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you talk some also about the conditions of Julian’s confinement in Belmarsh?

TREVOR TIMM: You know, I think I just know from media reports that Julian has suffered from, you know, a series of serious medical conditions and has been isolated for long periods of time when he’s been there.

You know, we have to remember that this case started during the Trump administration, and the Obama administration actually refused to prosecute Julian Assange, for the exact reason that we’re talking about now. Eric Holder in the Attorney General’s Office during the Obama administration, you know, was reported to talk about the fact that there was this, quote-unquote, ”New York Times problem,” that it would be impossible to prosecute Julian Assange without then affecting newspapers like The New York Times and Washington Post, who, of course, also have reporters who talk to sources within the government, who ask them for documents, who receive documents and then publish documents that the government considers classified. So the Obama administration actually rejected this case, despite not liking Julian Assange at all. The Trump administration revived it. And unfortunately, the Biden administration has continued it on for three years. And, you know, again, thankfully, Julian Assange is finally going free today. But the press freedom implications, I think, remain to be seen.

My Own Prison Ordeal Gave Me a Taste of What Assange May Be Feeling


une 25, 2024
Source: The Conversation


Image by Matt Hrkac, Creative Commons 2.0

Julian Assange is out of prison, after agreeing to plead guilty to violating the US Espionage Act. He is expected to be freed after appearing in a US courtroom on the Northern Mariana Islands this week.

It is worth pausing for a moment to consider all that Assange has been through, and to pop a bottle of champagne to celebrate his release.

He spent 1,901 days in a small cell in Britain’s notorious Belmarsh Prison and, according to WikiLeaks, was “isolated 23 hours a day”.

I know – from first-hand experience – what imprisonment feels like. Make no mistake. Assange might not have been beaten up or had his fingernails ripped out, but extended confinement with an uncertain future is its own particular kind of excruciating torture.
The crushing burden of incarceration

Belmarsh came after Assange had already spent almost seven years seeking asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

He went there to evade extradition to Sweden as part of a rape investigation he said was trumped up, and included the possibility of being sent on to the United States to face allegations of espionage.

When Ecuador eventually rescinded his asylum claim in 2019, he was dragged out of the embassy and arrested by UK police for absconding from bail.

The US wanted to extradite him for alleged conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, and then 17 counts of espionage. Those charges, his supporters said, included the possibility of life behind bars.

My own ordeal in Egypt, where I was imprisoned on terrorism charges in 2014–15, was nothing compared to Assange’s, but it was more than enough to understand the crushing mental and physical burden that incarceration imposes on inmates.

And I also understand the weird blend of elation, confusion and disorientation that sudden release brings. Assange’s journey home will be much longer than his flight back to Australia.
A serious chilling effect on public-interest journalism

But Assange’s release does not end the questions this whole saga raised in the first place.

It began when his company, WikiLeaks, published a series of documents exposing evidence of war crimes and abuses by the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan.

WikiLeaks was doing what the First Amendment to the US Constitution was designed to achieve.

It guarantees freedom of speech and press freedom, and in the process it grants people the right to speak out against abuses of government authority.

That is a vitally important check on the awesome power that governments wield, and WikiLeaks should be celebrated for what it exposed.

Like many others, I believe Julian Assange should never have been charged with espionage.

The Obama administration was among the most aggressive in US history in going after journalists’ sources who leaked embarrassing government information.

Yet in 2013, Obama’s justice department decided against prosecuting Assange. Justice officials realised they couldn’t do it without setting a precedent that would force them to also go after established news organisations like the New York Times and Washington Post.

This case has undeniably had a serious chilling effect on public-interest journalism, and sends a terrifying message to any sources sitting on evidence of abuses by the government and its agencies.

While it is impossible to quantify the number of stories not told, it is hard to imagine it hasn’t frightened off potential whistleblowers and reporters.

It also leaves open the question of precedent. It is still not clear whether future governments might be able to use Assange’s guilty plea as a way of using the Espionage Act to go after uncomfortable journalism.

As we have seen in the past, leaders with an authoritarian streak tend to use every lever available to control the flow of information, and that must surely worry anyone who believes in the corrective power of a free press.
Questions about journalism

Assange has been hailed by his supporters as a “Walkley Award-winning journalist”. His gong is certainly prestigious and worth celebrating, but it is also important to recognise the award was for his “Outstanding Contribution to Journalism”.

I got the same award in 2014. I am very proud of that. I got it not for my journalism, but for my stand on press freedom while I was imprisoned. Assange rightly got his for the role WikiLeaks played in supplying journalists with a steady stream of incredibly valuable documents.

The distinction is important because of the particular role journalism plays in our democracy, elevating it beyond freedom of speech. Journalism comes with the responsibility to process and present information in line with a set of ethical and professional standards.

I don’t believe WikiLeaks met that standard; in releasing raw, unredacted and unprocessed information online, it posed enormous risks for people in the field, including sources.

This is not to diminish the importance or value of what WikiLeaks exposed. Australia’s union for journalists, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, has rightly described this case as “one of the darkest periods in the history of media freedom”.

And it will undoubtedly cast a long shadow across public-interest journalism. But for now, we should all celebrate the release of a man who has suffered enormously for exposing the truth of abuses of power.

WikiLeaks and Assange

‘WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has pleaded and been found guilty in a US court to a single espionage charge. He is now free to return to his native Australia, having already served five years in a British prison.

Assange pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to obtain and disseminate national defence information at the United States District Court for The Northern Mariana Islands in Saipan on Wednesday morning. He was sentenced to the time he had already served in London’s Belmarsh Prison shortly afterwards, meaning he will not see the inside of a jail cell.’

The below is from the Socialist Standard January 2011

‘Once upon a time, if you wanted to keep a secret, you locked it in a drawer and held the only key. When states wanted to keep secrets, they used huge underground warehouses with security locks and armed guards to store the vast quantity of information compiled by their spies, spooks and secret police. Most of this information was useless, and most of it never saw the light of day. Then the information revolution happened.

A very large wired information network looks exactly like a sieve, and that's essentially what it is. Information leaks out of it in any number of ways, on purpose or by accident. When you can hold the personal details of 50,000 people on a pen-drive no larger than a cigarette lighter and when these can fall out of pockets on the tube train home, the potential for leakage is gigantic. Then there is email, which is not secure and which has become the preferred mode of communication for all businesses and public services. Just a few emails brought about 'Climategate' in 2009, in which a few careless phrases by researchers at the University of East Anglia fatally undermined the authority of the Independent Panel on Climate Change.

The recent WikiLeaks' exposure of the private lives and opinions of the world's movers and shakers has been so prodigiously covered in the press that the details are scarcely worth covering again, yet from a socialist standpoint the furore deserves to be set within a wider context than the conventional media never discusses. The capitalist class, as indeed all hitherto ruling classes, owes its power not only to its private ownership and control of wealth but also its private ownership and control of information, and inevitably socialists must ask themselves to what extent the overthrow of the latter is likely to lead to the overthrow of the former.

While controlled leaks have always been a tool of government, or internecine feuds within government, it was rare until recently for damaging information ever to escape and when it did, retribution was punitive. When in the 1970s Philip Agee, a CIA agent working in the UK, published an exposé of CIA operations including names of operatives, the US authorities reacted with fury, had him deported and mounted a smear campaign against him involving sex allegations and alcoholism that ran to 18,000 pages (Guardian, 19 December). In 1971 Richard Nixon was tape-recorded speaking thus of Daniel Ellsberg, another Pentagon mole gone public: "Let's get the son of a bitch into jail.... Don't worry about his trial. Try him in the press."

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has made no secret of his involvement in the leaks, so one would be astonished not to see governments trying to fling whatever mud they could at him. And sure enough, he is currently on bail in the UK and facing possible extradition to Sweden to answer sex crime allegations, followed by a possible further rendition to the US to face a lifetime wearing an orange jumpsuit in a certain Cuban seaside resort.

That these allegations are a frame-up is a conclusion that many people have leapt to with a conviction thus far unsupported by the known facts, however it is undeniable that the whole business looks damned fishy. If the UK or Swedish authorities go one step further and allow the Americans to get their hands on him, the affair may well blow up to become the Dreyfus case of the 21st century.

But how do you try a website? WikiLeaks is a game-changer for state security forces and radicals alike, challenging the whole notion of secrecy and calling into question what if anything can be kept secret. The universal state condemnation of WikiLeaks rings increasingly hollow and comical when one looks at the massive public support for it. The vast number of mirroring sites – sites that duplicate WikiLeaks – means that WikiLeaks could not realistically be shut down without shutting down the internet.

It isn't only source websites which pose a problem for state security, it's also destination sites. If you wanted to leak a confidential document in 1950, there would only be a few newspapers or small printing presses to leak it to, most of whom would not risk touching it. Conventional media tend to have a symbiotic, back-scratching relationship with government which ensures that newspapers are self-regulating so direct news bans – D notices – are rarely invoked. Media bosses are capitalists themselves and have no interest in rocking the boat. But the other side of the information equation is publication and distribution, and the internet has created unlimited scope for both.

Thus Wikileaks can sidestep conventional media and leak to anywhere, even to the Socialist Standard if it chose to, which means that the capitalist class has for all practical purposes lost control of the mass media. It cannot hope to strike mutually agreeable deals with every media outlet, especially not those avowedly hostile to it, and any attempt to coerce or threaten such outlets would be likely to blow up in its face and make matters worse.

Aside from the allegations against Julian Assange, Wikileaks itself is not however above criticism. Its foundation in 2006 is shrouded in some mystery. Founders allegedly include Chinese dissidents, mathematicians, technologists and journalists, yet none have been identified. There is supposedly an advisory board of 9 members, yet one 'board member' has said that his involvement is minimal and that the board is merely 'window dressing'. One volunteer told Wired Magazine that Assange considers himself "the heart and soul of this organisation, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organiser, financier, and all the rest". Indeed, WikiLeaks is not even a Wiki anymore because Assange has removed public editing access to it, and has moved away from being a mere whistleblowers' conduit to a full publisher in his own right. Whether or not he set out to do so, Assange does seem to be going for personal glory but in doing so is drawing down all the fire on himself. One-man-bands don't play well when they're playing against the state. One way or another, American and European state agencies are out to get WikiLeaks which is why the obvious move is to go for a decapitation strike against Assange himself.

Even if they succeed in bringing down Assange, there is no stopping what he started. This month a former Wikileaks advisor is set to found a new website called OpenLeaks, which aims to avoid the problems WikiLeaks has encountered, specifically by being governed democratically and by remaining as a conduit for anonymous information rather than empire-building into a publishing enterprise. At heart is the open source philosophy which holds that cooperative and transparent endeavour is more productive and progressive than the secretive and territorial ethos which underpins most capitalist activity: "Our long term goal is to build a strong, transparent platform to support whistleblowers – both in terms of technology and politics – while at the same time encouraging others to start similar projects" Wikipedia, OpenLeaks). There is a parallel here with file-sharing sites, which started as centrally controlled databases (Napster) that were easy to target and kill, before evolving into distributed peer-to-peer systems which had no centre and could never be nailed down and neutralised. There is a further parallel to be made here with democratic models in politics. Socialists oppose leaders and vanguardist leadership-based groups on the left, not only in fact but also in theory, because top-down hierarchy structures are too easy to neutralise. In fact, as a distributed, egalitarian and transparent organisation, we could lay claim to being the original political Open Source movement.


There is a momentum of workers' disgust at capitalism at the moment, at least in the western countries, starting with the sub-prime collapse which exposed nonsensical business logic, then massive bail-outs and bankers bonuses, together with squalid parliamentary expense fiddles, followed by the most savage cuts in living memory and attacks on the poor and those on benefits. Anyone who thought 'the yoof of today' could never be motivated by politics is having to eat their words as students pour onto the streets, camcorders in hand to record and upload police cavalry charges onto YouTube just as the police attempt to deny them. Meanwhile 'hacktivists' attack banks with massive Denial of Service offensives and the spontaneously organised UK-Uncut group occupy and picket the stores and offices of banks, mobile phone companies and high street stores accused of large scale tax avoidance. Though one could always quibble with these activists' grasp of the bigger picture over tax, or their tactics in singling out individual companies when, after all, they're all at it, you've got to admire how the digital native generation are mobilising their opposition in ways that the ruling class has not anticipated and is ill-prepared for.

The grubby game that is capitalism is being exposed as never before in its history, and more people are getting to know about it every day. The genie is out of the bottle, and there's no putting it back in. These are interesting times for socialists.’

Paddy Shannon

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2011/01/wikid-games.html