home / subscribe / donate / books / t-shirts / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Down to the Wire
We’ve been telling you for three weeks that either we meet our fundraising goal of $75,000 or we'll be forced to cut back the operation of our website. More than a thousand of you have rallied with donations. Your response has been tremendous. Now, with only a week to go, we’re nearly there. Almost but not quite. And now we have just FIVE days to make our target.
The generous CounterPuncher who stepped forward with his pledge to match every donation of $100 or more, to a combined total of $20,000, is giving us a huge and vital assist. His offer is still open. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more.
Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Step up to the plate, and reach for the phone, or your check book or hit the online donation button.
In the new political era that began on November 3, CounterPunch will be offering its daily reality check. Many websites on the progressive side of the spectrum are cut-and-paste affairs, a mix of columns culled from mainstream newspapers, weeklies, blogs, tweets and so forth. Every day our CounterPunch site offers you up to a dozen original articles, and often twenty across our three-day weekend site.
We’ve been asking some of our readers and writers for our website to say why they value CounterPunch. Here’s what Noam Chomsky just wrote us:
“It is, regrettably, no exaggeration to say that we are living in an era of irrationality, deception, confusion, anger, and unfocused fear -- an ominous combination, with few precedents. There has never been a time when it was so important to have a voice of sanity, insight, understanding of what is happening in the world. Counterpunch has performed that essential service with unusual success. It is a matter of paramount importance to ensure that it will continue to do so, with even greater resources than before.”
And here’s Ralph Nader:
“A roaring colosseum of commentary, columnists and tell-it-like-it-was,-is,-and-should be original reportage, complete with a bookstore whose readable volumes tear away the lies, evasions, cover-ups and myths of a censored world. Taste, digest and deepen your mind from this fresh cornucopia called CounterPunch.”
Enough said. Please, use our secure server (now accepting PayPal) to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription and a gift sub for someone or one of our award-winning books (or a crate of books!) as holiday presents. (We won't call you to shake you down or sell your name to any lists--even Karl Rove's.)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you, from Alex, Jeffrey, Becky, Alya, Deva, Kimberly and Marc.
Today's Stories November 10, 2010 Allan Nairn Dean Baker
November 9, 2010 Uri Avnery Mike Whitney Jordan Flaherty Afshin Rattansi Annie Gell Dean Baker Dave Lindorff Stewart J. Lawrence Walter Brasch Website of the Day November 8, 2010 Paul Craig Roberts Thomas Healy David Swanson David Smith-Ferri Ralph Nader Ray McGovern Torture Sans Regrets: Bush's Confessions John Feffer Christopher Ketcham Website of the Day November 5 - 7, 2010 Alexander Cockburn Vijay Prashad Patrick Cockburn Darwin Bond-Graham
Mike Whitney Linn Washington, Jr. Rannie Amiri Ramzy Baroud Larry Portis Gary Leupp William Loren Katz Brian Cloughley Mark Weisbrot Rubén M. Lo Vuolo, Daniel Raventós / Pablo Yanes Joseph Nevins Neve Gordon Alan Farago Stewart J. Lawrence James R. King Ron Jacobs Franklin Lamb James McEnteer Richard Phelps Saul Landau David Ker Thomson The Long Argument Evelyn Pringle Joseph G. Ramsey Until Pigs Fly: the Morning After With Michael Moore Stanley Heller Missy Beattie Harvey Wasserman Billy Wharton Shamus Cooke Linh Dinh Windy Cooler Charles R. Larson Phyllis Pollack David Yearsley Website of the Weekend November 4, 2010 Doug Peacock Andrew Cockburn Iain Boal Paul Craig Roberts Chase Madar Dave Lindorff Russell Mokhiber Laura Flanders Website of the Day November 3, 2010 Alexander Cockburn Franklin C. Spinney Chris Floyd Dissatisfied Mind: Flickers of Hope in a Deadly Political Cycle William Blum Sheldon Richman Stephen Soldz Mark Weisbrot Stewart J. Lawrence Manuel Garcia, Jr. Election Night in Oakland Norman Solomon Website of the Day November 2, 2010 Vincent Navarro Ishmael Reed Uri Avnery Mark Driscoll Mike Whitney Linh Dinh David Macaray Randall Amster Wikilessons: War is a Joke, But It Isn't Funny Betsy Ross Yves Engler Website of the Day
November 1, 2010 Ted Honderich Steven Higgs John Ross Dean Baker Ralph Nader Justin E. H. Smith Marjorie Cohn Scott Boehm Brian Tierney Trish Kahle Martha Rosenberg Bathrobe Erectus: Feting Hugh Hefner Website of the Day
October 29 - 31, 2010 Alexander Cockburn Joe Bageant Peter Lee David Rosen Mike Whitney David Smith-Ferri Afghanistan: "Is This Normal?" David Macaray Chamber of Horrors: Turbo-Lobbyists for the Ruling Class Rannie Amiri Jonathan Cook Ramzy Baroud Ellen Brown Dr. Nina Pierpont Dave Lindorff Brian Horejsi Daniel Raventós Worldwide Concentration of Wealth: What the Figures Say Richard Anderson-Connolly David Thomson Christopher Brauchli Bob Fitrakis / Harvey Wasserman Charging Rove With Racketeering Roberto Rodriguez Arizona Blues: a Time and Decade of Betrayal Ron Jacobs Farzana Versey Michael Donnelly Gerald E. Scorse John Grant Mickey Z. Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini Peter Stone Brown David Yearsley Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
October 28, 2010 Paul Craig Roberts Joseph Grosso Kirkpatrick Sale Michael Winship Sherwood Ross Mark Weisbrot Sam Smith Washington: Where Smart People Go to Do Stupid Things Nicholas Arguimbau Sheldon Richman Franklin Lamb Website of the Day October 27, 2010 Conn Hallinan Michael Schwalbe Dave Lindorff Gareth Porter Dean Baker Clancy Sigal Ram Etwareea Stewart J. Lawrence Alan Farago Binoy Kampmark Offshoring Middle Earth: Prostituting the Hobbit Website of the Day
October 26, 2010 Pam Martens Joann Wypijewski Clarence Lusane Sold Brothers: the Bizarro World of Juan Williams and Clarence Thomas Gareth Porter Stephen Soldz Lawrence Davidson Alan Farago Dean Baker Jerica Arents Gerald E. Scorse Messing with Mankiw: Whining About Taxes and Work Website of the Day
October 25, 2010 Nancy Scheper-Hughes Patrick Cockburn Kathy Kelly Mike Whitney Bill Quigley Winslow T. Wheeler David Macaray Stewart J. Lawrence Ray McGovern Missy Beattie Website of the Day
October 22 - 24, 2010 Alexander Cockburn Lee Ballinger Franklin C. Spinney Rannie Amiri Ralph Nader Laura Carlsen Avi Shlaim Mike Whitney Josh Stieber Kathy Kelly Sasan Fayazmanesh Conn Hallinan Linn Washington, Jr. Christopher Brauchli Mark Weisbrot Stan Cox Ramzy Baroud Dave Lindorff Benjamin Dangl Peter Stone Brown Julie Hilden David Ker Thomson Missy Beattie Suzy Dean Charles M. Young M. Shahid Alam Charles R. Larson David Yearsley Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend October 21, 2010 Diana Johnstone Joanne Mariner Mike Whitney Lawrence Davidson Bill Quigley / Alan Farago David Smith-Ferri Tolu Olorunda Educational Heroes and Myths Website of the Day October 20, 2010 Philippe Marlière Tariq Ali Anthony Pahnke / Mark N. Hoffman David Smith-Ferri Patrick Madden Ishmael Reed Dean Baker Mike Roselle Dave Marsh Pete Redington Website of the Day October 19, 2010 Pam Martens Uri Avnery Ralph Nader Clarence Lusane Sherwood Ross Trudy Bond Sherry Wolf Yves Engler Camilla Fox / Erin McManus Website of Day October 18, 2010 Mike Whitney Jonathan Cook Martha Rosenberg Stewart J. Lawrence P. Sainath James Zogby Ken Cole, Ralph Maughan / Brian Ertz Patrick Brennan Jack Heyman John Grant Website of the Day October 15 - 17, 2010 Alexander Cockburn Slavoj Žižek Paul Craig Roberts Adrienne Pine / Peter Lee Jonathan Cook Bitta Mostofi Franklin Lamb Rannie Amiri Robert Alvarez Joe Paff David Rosen David Correia Sam Hitchmough Ramzy Baroud Dave Lindorff Graham Usher Gary Leupp David Macaray Ron Jacobs Peter Cervantes-Gautschi Lawrence Swaim Linn Washington David Ker Thomson Norman Solomon Michael Dawson John Stanton Jayne Lyn Stahl Paul Buchheit Ziad Abbas Anthony Papa Hardy Jones Missy Beattie Charles R. Larson Peter Stone Brown David Yearsley Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend October 14, 2010 Mike Whitney Jonathan Cook Dean Baker Marjorie Cohn Stewart J. Lawrence Carl Finamore Dave Lindorff Raúl Zibechi Willie L. Pelote Website of the Day October 13, 2010 Vijay Prashad Uri Avnery Dean Baker Winslow T. Wheeler Patrick Bond Michael Winship Myles B. Hoenig Tom Turnipseed Website of the Day October 12, 2010 Ralph Nader Franklin C. Spinney Mike Whitney Robert Alvarez Deepak Tripathi Chris Genovali / Camilla Fox Harvey Wasserman Robert Jensen Mark Weisbrot Charles R. Larson Website of the Day
October 11, 2010 Michael Hudson Bill Quigley Linn Washington Paul Krassner Jonathan Cook Cal Winslow Sherry Wolf Peter Stone Brown David Michael Green Jayne Lyn Stahl Website of the Day October 8 - 10, 2010 Alexander Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Alain Gresh Patrick Cockburn Rannie Amiri Conn Hallinan Ramzy Baroud Saul Landau Sam Smith Yvonne Ridley Ellen Brown Santwana Dasgupta David Macaray Labor Secretaries: Frances and Elaine Gerald E. Scorse Tony Newman David Ker Thomson Christopher Brauchli Jon Mitchell Kevin Zeese Steven Best Missy Beattie Binoy Kampmark Charles R. Larson Kim Nicolini Dave Marsh David Yearsley Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
|
November 10, 2010 3rd Circuit Court Rehears Abu Jamal's Death Penalty Case on Orders of Supreme CourtMumia: New Lawyer, New RoundBy DAVE LINDORFF The three-decades-long murder case of Philadelphia journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has sat in solitary in a cramped cell on Pennsylvania’s death row for 28 years fighting his conviction and a concerted campaign by the national police union, the Fraternal Order of Police, to execute him, was back in court Tuesday, with a three-judge federal Appeals Court panel reconsidering its 2008 decision backing the vacating of his death sentence, on orders of the US Supreme Court. The three judges, Reagan-nominated Anthony Sirica, Bush Sr.-nominated Robert Cowen, and Clinton-nominee Thomas Ambro, two years ago agreed with a lower court judge, Federal District Judge William Yohn, that the jury in Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial had been provided with a poorly-worded and confusing jury ballot form and flawed instructions from the trial judge during the penalty phase. The confusion, they decided, could have misled jurors into thinking, incorrectly, that in order to consider a mitigating factor against voting for the death penalty, all 12 of the jurors would have had to agree to it. In fact, under the law, any individual juror can decide that there is a mitigating factor against a death sentence. Only aggravating factors that would argue for a death sentence have to be found by all members of the jury to be applicable. The 2008 ruling was widely seen as a big victory for Abu-Jamal and his attorney Robert R. Bryan, as it meant either that he would avoid execution, instead serving a life sentence without possibility of parole, or that the Philadelphia district attorney would have to request a new penalty phase trial, with a new jury hearing arguments for and against imposition of a new death sentence. Last January, however, the US Supreme Court threw a wrench into the case, ruling in an Ohio murder case involving Frank Spizak, a neo-Nazi once sentenced to death for random killings of jews and blacks who had attended his trial wearing a Hitler mustache, that a lower court order vacating his death sentence had been in error. That case had also focussed on the confusing language of a jury ballot form, and of the judge’s instructions to the jury. The high court, which also had pending before it at the time an appeal by the Philadelphia DA of the Third Circuit decision in Abu-Jamal’s case, sent that case back down to the Third Circuit, asking Judges Sirica, Cowen and Ambro to review their decision in light of its decision in the Spizak case. At Tuesday’s hour-long hearing, Assistant DA Huge Burns tried to make the case that the issues in the Abu-Jamal jury instructions and ballot form were “almost identical” to those in the Spizak case. Abu-Jamal’s attorney, Widener University law professor Judith Ritter, who had argued the same issue successfully before the same judges as an assistant counsel in the 2008 hearing, made the counter argument that the problems with the judge’s instructions and the jury form in the Abu-Jamal case were “fundamentally different” from those in the Spizak case. The three judges seemed, in their initial remarks and in their questions, to be leaning towards the defense view. As Judge Cowen asked, following DA Burns’ argument, “Doesn’t the jury form in Spizak significantly differ from our form? I found six differences.” At another point in the hearing, he said, “Aren’t the cases different in more than degree, but in kind?” Judge Ambro noted that in the Abu-Jamal case, Judge Albert Sabo had told the jurors, “Remember again, your verdict must be unanimous.” Ambro observed, “That’s sort of a general over-arching instruction.” He and Cowen both noted that the Spizak jury had never been told their decision had to be unanimous, while the word “unanimous” was used repeatedly in the Abu-Jamal case, both in the judge’s verbal instructions and on the jury form. Burns tried to counter that while “unanimous” may not have been used in the Spizak case, the jury was addressed as a single entity, at least implying unanimity might be required for the finding of a mitigating factor. Attorney Ritter honed in on the differences between the Spizak and Abu-Jamal cases, saying, “In Spizak, you had an absence of instructions regarding mitigation that could have confused the jury. Here (in the Abu-Jamal case), it’s not silent. Look at number 2 (in the jury ballot form). It starts, “We the jury have found unanimously...” Ritter argued for Abu-Jamal alone at this hearing following the surprise departure of Abu-Jamal’s lead attorney Robert R. Bryan only days before the hearing. Abu-Jamal reportedly asked Bryan last week to simply attend the hearing, but to not address the court, leaving that job to Ritter. Bryan says Abu-Jamal apparently felt that since Ritter had won the argument in 2008, she was a better choice than Bryan himself, who many Abu-Jamal supporters felt was somewhat disorganized and less than incisive at the 2008 hearing. Bryan says his proposal that he make introductory remarks and respond to any questions from the judges at the conclusion of the hearing was rejected by Ritter and Abu-Jamal, so he submitted a brief to the court asking to be removed from the case. The judges agreed to his request last Friday. It is the second time Abu-Jamal has dumped his lead attorney on the eve of a critical hearing. In 1999, just as Judge Yohn was discussing dates for a hearing on his habeas appeal, Abu-Jamal fired lead attorney Leonard Weinglass and assisting attorney Dan Williams, angry over a book on the case that Williams had just published. He replaced them with two attorneys, Eliot Grossman and Marlene Kamish, who had little or no death penalty law experience, dropping them later in favor of Bryan. In the end, while Presiding Judge Sirica was harder to read, Judges Cowen and Ambro, at least, didn’t seem to have been convinced by Burns. “You haven’t met Miss Ritter’s argument,” Cowen said. “She pointed out some differences between the (Spizak and Abu-Jamal) forms that are significant.” After which Judge Ambro said, “For example, the word ‘unanimous’ was not used in Spizak.” Judge Cowen added, “In our case, ‘unanimity’ was used time and time again, and in quite close proximity to where you find things about mitigating circumstances.” Of course, even if the three judge panel decides to reaffirm it’s 2008 decision, the DA’s office will almost certainly appeal again to the Supreme Court, where the same five judges who ruled against Spizak and referred the Abu-Jamal case back to the Third Circuit panel could vote to reverse the Third Circuit. In that event Abu-Jamal would have his death penalty reinstated. If the high court agreed with the Third Circuit, or if it chose not to take the case and let the ruling stand, then the DA would have to decide whether to leave Abu-Jamal with a life sentence, or to ask for a new penalty phase trial, which would take place back in state court. The defense is hoping for a retrial of the penalty, since that would at least offer Abu-Jamal the chance to introduce new evidence regarding the shooting of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner. For example, the prosecution made a big point of highlighting the testimony of two witnesses, prostitute Cynthia White and taxi driver Robert Chobert, who both described the shooting of Faulkner by Abu-Jamal as an “execution,” with Abu-Jamal standing astride the fallen cop and firing repeatedly at him at nearly point-blank range. The problem with that story is that only one bullet--the one that struck Faulkner in the middle of his forehead--hit the officer, yet there no bullet impacts can be seen in crime scene photos of the area on the sidewalk where Faulkner lay, and police investigators reported finding no such marks either. A test of a gun similar to Abu-Jamal’s, firing similar metal-clad, high-velocity Plus-P ammunition at a section of old sidewalk concrete, proves that such impact marks should have been clearly visible. While a rehearing of the penalty phase of the trial would not be able to directly raise the issue of guilt, in a penalty phase re-hearing, the defense could be expected to present evidence that the “execution” scenario presented to the jury by the prosecution simply couldn’t have happened, and witnesses would likely be called to challenge the story. That in turn would raise the risk, for the prosecution, that evidence -- or a witness recantation -- could open the door to a new challenge to Abu-Jamal’s conviction. Even if the Third Circuit or the US Supreme Court rules against Abu-Jamal, and his original death sentence is reinstated, it is not the end of the road in this long-running case, however. Back on December 18, 2001, when Federal District Judge Yohn tossed out Abu-Jamal’s death penalty, he noted in his ruling that he had “mooted” four other defense claims of unconstitutional flaws in his death penalty hearing, on the grounds that there was no need to examine these, since he had already decided to vacate the penalty. As Abu-Jamal defense team attorney Christina Swarns notes, “We have an absolute right to have those claims considered.” In other words, if the death penalty is reaffirmed, Abu-Jamal will be back before Judge Yohn again, where other powerful and compelling objections to the way his initial trial was conducted will have to be reviewed. Among the complaints: Prosecutor Joseph McGill’s use of a statement made by Abu-Jamal when he was only 15, quoting Chinese Chairman Mao Tse-tung that “Power flows from the barrel of a gun,” in an effort to sway jurors towards imposing a death penalty. The rushing of the case and the inadequacy of Abu-Jamal’s legal counsel, attorney Anthony Jackson, with Judge Sabo ordering the penalty phase hearing to begin the day following the jury’s guilty verdict, and Jackson not requesting a delay to allow him to prepare. As a result, Jackson called not one character witness to allow Abu-Jamal to develop a case for mitigating factors. Prosecutor McGill improperly advised jurors, with the approval of the judge, that they were “not asked to kill anybody,” because there would be “appeal after appeal after appeal.” The Supreme Court and the Third Circuit, as well as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, have all repeatedly overturned death sentences because of prosecutors making similar statements to juries, on the grounds that it tends to remove from jurors any sense of the moral consequences of their profound decision. Finally the defense made the claim that the prosecution withheld form the defense information it had that local police and the FBI had called off years of surveillance of Abu-Jamal after concluding that, as the FBI put it in a note calling off monitoring of Abu-Jamal, “”In March 1973, per bureau instructions, captioned subject (Abu-Jamal) was deleted from ADEX and no additional investigation conducted concerning his activities. Sources, however, have continued to report periodically on COOK (Abu-Jamal’s family name) and, although he has not displayed a propensity for violence, he has continued to associate himself with individuals and organizations engaged in Extremist activities.” As Asst. DA Burns has said, “This case will go on for years.”
CounterPunch Print Edition Exclusive! CLASS WAR IN THE U.K. AND FRANCE Susan Watkins, editor of New Left Review, reports on Britain’s Tri-partisan Electoral Monolith and how the Slash-and-Burn Tory Coalition is picking up from where New Labour left off. Larry Portis reports from France on the mass protests and the shrivelling of Sarkozy. Peter Lee gives us an rivetting piece on the awful tragedy of China’s Yellow River.
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! By Andrea Peacock
Yellowstone Drift:
Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz Click Here to Buy! RED STATE REBELS: Edited by Buy End Times Now! of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD! The Inside Story of the Shannon Five's Smashing Victory Over the
Grand Theft Pentagon Spell Albuquerque:
"Powerful and shocking ..
Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed |