CThru.com Presents Tony Ward

Posted by John Grant

I was just reading an 1898 essay by Leo Tolstoy on the Spanish American War in which he satirizes the United States for defeating the “decrepit and doting old man”  that was the Spanish Empire and, as “a young man in full possession of his strengths,” taking over Spain’s imperial role in Cuba and, especially, in the Philippines. The US beats this “decrepit old man” (known for his cruelty) and “knocks out his teeth, breaks his ribs, and then ecstatically tells his exploits to a vast public of just such young men as he is, and this public rejoices and praises the hero who has maimed an old man.” This from a writer who saw real bloody combat in several places and wrote War And Peace. This is late Tolstoy, when, in the eyes of many, he had gone off the deep end to preach Christian pacifism. War to him at this stage is organized “murder.” He is disgusted with governments who tell their citizens their wars are undertaken to protect them. “What you (governments) say of the threatening danger and of your concern about protecting us against it is a deception.” Sounds familiar, given the past nine years, when our leaders launched two major wars, one of which we are escalating in spite of opposing popular opinion — a war our military commanders have begun assuring the occupied Afghans is about “protecting the Afghan people.”

Now we must absorb the idea of assassination orders for US citizens. Our leaders now openly declare the right to murder American citizens deemed “enemy combatants” — or some such label worked out by PR-savvy lawyers aware of the post-9/11 fear and the lynch mob state of mind in parts of America. First we were worried about warrant-less wiretapping of citizens. Then, it was the three-year “slow torture” of a US citizen in a brig in South Carolina. Now we have graduated to warrant-less assassinations. The President says it’s OK, so sit back on the couch and watch the rest of Hitman4. And the current Supreme Court is probably fine with assassination hits of anybody as long as they are in the pursuit of American Power & Wealth.

The target dejure is the US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemini Muslim cleric who had conversations with both the Fort Hood shooter and the underpants bomber. US intelligence has him pegged as Satan’s child, but, let’s be honest, US intelligence is not the most reliable arbiter of truth and they have been good at providing popular fodder for demonization campaigns. Al-Awlaki has told reliable Arab journalists he did not encourage either of the above to commit the acts they did, though, after the fact, he said what they did was honorable. Al-Awlaki is currently in hiding for his life, but he seems to argue he was a sympathetic ear to these disturbed men, not their instigator. Like the many people involved in some fashion with the loosely confederated global insurgency we are currently engaged with, al-Awlaki is clearly angry at our invasions and on-going occupations of Muslim lands, our support of Israel for its occupation of Palestine and a perceived general war against Islam. The argument for assassinating people like al-Awlaki is the exact same reasoning used in the Phoenix Program to assassinate nationalist Vietnamese leaders opposed to the US occupation of Viet Nam. The difference is the current war is being played out in a globalized context and our assassinations are done by the CIA or by the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the hunter-killer teams commanded so well by General Stanley McChrystal and now operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. They currently favor the use of drones directed by some operator in Arizona with a Diet Pepsi on the console next to him to assassinate people by taking out entire buildings. Of course, no one gets a trial; guilt is established in secret by … well, no one is sure.

It’s becoming easier to understand why Tolstoy ended up where he did relinquishing literary and commercial success to take on the war powers of his day. Think back to the 1980s and the outrage in the nation over “war off the books” by Oliver North and his patriotic warriors during the Reagan years. One’s head spins at the moral distance we have traveled since those innocent days. Thanks to rapid technological advances and stagnant human morality, the notion of war off the books is now beyond steroids as a metaphor and approaching some kind of secret robot dystopia in which the soma of the age is a popular culture where The Killer reigns supreme as an iconic figure of comedy and romance.

It’s been 112 years since Tolstoy wrote about how the US employed a campaign of “murder” to supplant the Spanish and create its own fledgling empire out of the spoils. That empire is now in full plumage and its leaders are ordering the assassination of people around the world based on their motivational influence. That our imperial wars are the prime motivational element in these speaker’s arguments is rarely mentioned. Given the distance we have come in the past 20 years, it’s interesting to imagine where things might go in the next 20 years.

John Grant

Posted by John Grant

Those of us who participated in the September 12th march on the Army Experience Center at the Franklin Mills Mall recall the arrest of Cheryl Biren, along with six others. I remember Biren there taking photos, it turns out, for OpEdNews.Com, a news and opinion blog site. Biren was doing her job covering the event when she was arrested by Philadelphia police.
The AEC is a tax-funded, $13 million experimental store selling the US Army as a brand to kids as young as thirteen. It employs violent computer games (“war porn”) and shooting simulators with human targets to entice mall-crawling kids into joining the military — at a time the economy is staggering from a lack of jobs. The Center is controversial and raises serious questions about how we educate our youth in today’s world and how well we equip them to analyze information in a critical fashion. 

Many of us “free-lance” or “independent” or, let’s go all the way, “radical” journalists regularly encounter the kind of difficulty Biren ran into covering the AEC march, since police departments are more and more taking it upon themselves to decide who is a legitimate journalist and who isn’t. 
When cops decide who and what constitutes a real journalist they end up permitting only those working for the mainstream, corporate media, people with corporate ID cards, pre-arranged police permits, backup staff at the office, expensive equipment, van drivers and someone to get them coffee. Anyone on a tight budget and sympathetic to the ideas expressed by demonstrators at marches like the one at the AEC are seen as loose cannons and, naturally, suspect in the eyes of the police. And since no one in the mainstream, corporate media has much interest in covering such demonstrations — well, you can see the problem.

In my case, I was there and I took some photos. I, then, chose not to challenge the cops and I left as they began pushing people out the doors. My timidity, of course, is precisely what the police approach is meant to encourage. Any reporter who stayed behind to assert their first amendment right to witness and report the arrests was subject to arrest. This is what Biren did.
We see this sort of thing a lot these days; it’s a variant on the Facts On The Ground strategy. Act first — deal with the repercussions later. The police make an arrest to eliminate a journalist, no matter how illegal the action might be, then they drop the charges and employ public relations later. During the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia, the city paid out millions in lawsuit settlements for illegal arrests. On January 13, the Philadelphia DA followed this pattern and dropped all charges against Biren – four months after her arrest and an uncertain amount of grief and legal expenses later.

The 1st Amendment outlaws “abridging” the “freedom of the press.” It does not say “freedom of the well-paid, corporate press with police permits.” When the 1st Amendment was written there were no press badges; all the bureaucratic hurdles and mazes came later. 
A.J. Leibling added this famous nugget to the mix: “If you really want freedom of the press you have to own one.” Leibling could not have foreseen the age we live in, but, now, with the advent of the internet and the capacity for virtually anyone to fashion a news blog and get out there and cover news, Leibling’s observation may be more than just a witty remark.
Maybe it’s time for those of us on the left to take a hint from James Bopp Jr., the right-wing conservative lawyer from Terre Haute, Indiana, behind the recent Supreme Court case that opened the flood gates to corporate money in campaign ads. He calculated the whole thing and designed the case to obtain the decision recently dropped on American democracy like a bomb. He is now about to launch a similar case aimed to eliminate any and all restrictions on corporate funding of political campaigns.

Maybe it’s time we tip our hats to the Bopps of this culture and do some original legal thinking of our own — pull off our own “Bopp coup” in the courts — to establish that the police cannot use prejudice or whim as a basis to decide who shall report on and document their actions and who shall not. As long as a reporter is cooperative, not violent or not actively participating in whatever the cops are focusing on, it should be made clear in law that sympathy for a cause or action being covered by a reporter is not a valid reason to lump that reporter in with those being arrested. 
It’s an important Constitutional question. Can a government police force quash, silence or prevent a reporter from doing his or her job by making a phony arrest? It happens so much these days it has become part of the fabric of our times, and it contributes to the distancing of citizens more and more from the decisions and actions of their government.

As the recent corporate funding case suggests, the current Supreme Court tends to come down on the side of money and power. But the Constitution clearly does not require a reporter be equipped with money or power, or more to the point, to be connected to a corporation. Current police practice in cases like Biren’s amounts to the harassment and silencing of reporters for failing to have the proper political “juice” behind them.
If the democratic vistas of the internet we hear so much about are real, then all a reporter needs to legitimately assert 1st Amendment rights is a pen & pad, a camera and a blogsite. 
To borrow the famous film line from The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre, “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges.”

Photos Copyright John Grant 

…..I first met Bob Shell at the Gramercy Park Hotel in New York city while attending a Photography Expo at the Jacob Javits Center back in 1995. At the time, Bob was the editor in chief of Shutterbug, one of the largest photography publications in America. We were introduced at the convention by a mutual friend, Reiko Ikeda a representative of MegaPress, a photography syndication group based in Tokyo. I was represented by Miss Ikeda as was Bob, so the three of us decided to meet back at Bob’s hotel after various convention activities to meet for drinks and dinner. I also asked Bob to review a portfolio of photographs that I brought along with hopes that Bob would review the pictures for an editorial he would later publish in Shutterbug magazine.

After that initial meeting in New York, Bob and I became friends. He lived and worked in Radford, Virginia, so we spent most of our time, over many years communicating by phone about photography and related matters. A regular part of our conversation centered around the use of various cameras and lighting techniques each of us employed when working with models.

There was a particular model that Bob mentioned quite often, her name was Marion Franklin. They developed a friendship and eventually became lovers. Ms. Franklin enjoyed being photographed by Bob and enjoyed modeling for him on numerous occasions. She apparently was a big fan of my book Obsessions, a result of Bob’s earlier recommendation to find a book publisher. We talked often about making a trip down to Radford to photograph Marion, as well as other models that Bob frequently worked with in the Radford area.

That trip was never meant to be. On June 3, 2003, Marion died during a photo shoot at Bob’s studio. He was later prosecuted, and convicted in September of 2007. He is presently serving a 32 year sentence for involuntary manslaughter and other charges.

Bob and I communicated numerous times after Marion’s death. He explained the tragic events of that fateful day and implored his innocence of the charges levied by his claims of an overzealous prosecutor who won conviction by jury trial on September 3, 2007.

After Bob’s conviction, I lost track of him for a while. I scoured the internet trying to figure out where he was sent to serve his sentence. A year passed and then a couple of things happened in the fall of 2008. I received an email from a friend of Bob’s, who also believes that he was wrongfully convicted. I was contacted because Bob had been asking about me and sought my help. I responded in kind, still believing in his innocence, I conferred with several of my attorney friends for advise and a course of action to have Bob’s case reopened.

At around the same time, I became friends with a renowned private investigator who has since offered support in having a closer look at Bob’s case. We have already uncovered various problems with the prosecutions case, especially in the area of mitigation and will keep readers informed of our course of action over the coming months. The habeas corpus clock is ticking for Bob. He has already exercised most of his standard appeals. Short of clemency from the governor of Virginia or a new trial, Bob is imprisoned for life unless someone that believes in his innocence takes action. To learn more about Bob’s case log on to www.bobshelltruth.com. TW

…..Guest blogger Yoko Grosshans brings us up to date on the continuing political hot potato involving “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”……..

“Gay men have had a very difficult time finding acceptance alongside their comrades in the military. It begs the question; if a man proclaims to be gay, why is he deemed incapable of defending our country? Is it the “effeminate” nature of some gay men that has been exhibited or forced to be proclaimed? If that is the case, why are women allowed to serve in the military?
This brings the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Act” into continual play. A law passed by Congress in 1993 and signed by President Bill Clinton. It is exactly what it states; don’t ask about one’s sexual orientation and don’t divulge information about one’s sexual orientation.
James Pietrangelo II knows all too well about this act and its effects. The former Army infantryman and lawyer was booted from the military after fighting in Iraq in 1991. He returned as a JAG officer in the second war in Iraq and was preparing to return for his third combat tour in 2004, when he openly declared that he was gay. After many appeals the Supreme court is declining to review his case.
President Barack Obama has stated numerous times that he would overturn the act, but thus far no changes have been made. In fact, the Obama administration in its brief last month supported a lower court ruling, stating they acted accordingly in upholding the gay ban! What’s even more suprising and somewhat baffling is that a recent Gallup poll found that most conservatives and churchgoers now support gay men and women to serve openly in uniform, yet still no action has been taken to change the law to date.
It doesn’t seem to make sense that because of a person’s sexual orientation, they should be denied their rights to defend our country. Just when one thinks we have made such great progress in this land of hope, a non-sensical issue such as this arises and makes one question how much progress we have actually made.”

…After seeing part of the Sonia Sotomayor senate hearings as she ascended to the Supreme Court recently, I rummaged through my hard drive in search for another George magazine assignment from my past. I was sent to Washington to photograph former circuit Judge Robert Bork. I knew the name instantly as I recalled that he was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1981 and was riveted to the television set like many Americans, who witnessed a phalanx of US Senators deny his entrance to the ultimate position of power. I didn’t know what to expect from him as I was introduced by his secretary, nor was I briefed much about his temperament or how he perceived representatives of the media in general. He was actually quite engaging and assertive as one would expect a judicial leader to be…..