[CUADPUpdate] Moussaoui - Soon to be forgotten

[Abraham J. Bonowitz]

Sent *ONLY* to the recipients of CUADPUpdate
Feel Free to Forward

Greetings All,

Once again, a message not planned, but important 
to send along.  By now you have certainly heard 
that 9/11 co-conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui will 
be sentenced to life without parole.  I'm sure 
we'll soon hear the reasoning of the various 
members of the jury.  In my book, Moussaoui got 
the worst of the two possible punishments, and I 
suspect that may have been the motivation of at 
least some of the "hold-out" jurors.  More 
important, unlike terrorists like Timothy McVeigh 
or Paul Hill, after his sentencing tomorrow 
Moussaoui will be effectively silenced, and he'll 
lose the soap box that he would have if he were 
sent to death row.  He also loses the power to 
sustain the pain of victims families - a fact 
seemingly lost on the pro-deathies of the world.

In any case, Murder Victims Families for 
Reconciliation today was ready.  Here is their 
statement.  Below that is an item on Lethal 
Injection by Clive Stafford Smith.  And below 
that is an excellent piece on movement strategy 
forwarded to me by our friend Bill Dobbs.  It's 
speaking to the anti-war movement, but almost all 
of the principles apply to the abolition 
movement.  New Jersey is just one example of where #10 is wrong....  Take note!

Yours in the Struggle,

--abe

****************


May 3

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE----9/11 Family Members Express Relief Over Verdict

Family members of those killed in the attacks of September 11, 2001
expressed relief at the jury's decision to sentence Zacarias Moussaoui to
life today. "More than anyone, we understand why the jury chose the
sentence they did," said Terry Rockefeller, whose sister Laura Rockefeller
was in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
"As a long-time opponent of the death penalty, a belief even this
devastating personal tragedy has not altered, I am relieved by the jury's
decision not to sentence Zacarias Moussaoui to death."

Rockefeller, a member of the Board of Directors of Murder Victims'
Families for Reconciliation, was among the dozen 9/11 family members to
testify for the defense in the punishment phase of the trial of Zacarias
Moussaoui. The federal rules regarding victim statements significantly
restricted what Terry and others could say on the stand, and the attorneys
for the defense asked Terry and others not to speak to the press until
after the jury returned their verdict.

This is the first time victim family members who oppose capital punishment
have ever testified in a federal death penalty trial. Such testimony is
becoming more common at the state level where increasing numbers of murder
victim family members who oppose the death penalty are making their
feelings known.

"Mr. Moussaoui's trial has been an expensive diversion in the struggle
against terrorism. His alleged crime of conspiracy could have been quickly
disposed if the option of execution were not possible," said Patricia
Perry, whose son John William Perry, was a member of the New York Police
Department who died at the World Trade Center. "Beyond the verdict in this
trial, I oppose using the death penalty to demonstrate to citizens that
murder is so wrong that we will kill to prove it wrong. State killing
teaches our children that we do not mean what we say and inures us as a
society to the horror of killing."

"My husband and I both opposed the death penalty in general. For me, now,
this particular case is no exception," said Andrea LeBlanc, whose husband
Robert was a passenger on United Flight 175, the 2nd plane that crashed
into the World Trade Center, hitting the South Tower.

"Violence takes many forms and killing another human being will never undo
the harm that has been done. Killing Zacarius Moussaoui would not have
helped us understand those things that lead to 9/11. Nor would it have
helped create the kind of compassionate world I want to live in."

For Loretta Filipov, whose husband Al was on American Flight 11 from
Boston, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, crashing into the
North Tower, said, "Killing Zacarius Moussaoui will not bring my husband
back. It will not change the life my family and I now have without my
husband and their father. But what killing will do is to continue the
cycle of violence, hate and revenge. This is not the face we want for our
future, for our children and grandchildren."

Family member Antonio Aversano, who testified for the defense and whose
father Louis Aversano, Jr., was a World Trade Center victim, believes
"that our best personal defense against terrorism is to not let the fear
and hatred of terror consume our lives but to take whatever steps are
necessary to reclaim our hearts, to honor each other and to live life
well."

"A number of us have tried to turn our anger and pain into solutions,"
said Rockefeller. "For many who lost loved ones that Tuesday morning the
answer is not more killing to attempt to solve the past, but rather steps
to a future in which all killing is condemned and terrorists cannot find
purchase."

(source: MVFR)

**********************************


A death worse than a dog's

For the last 12 years, I have delighted in the companionship of a golden
retriever, rescued from neglect as a puppy. He is the most amiable dog in
the world. He is getting on in years, and I know that in the not too
distant future a vet is going to encourage me to have him put down. I hope
it never comes to this, but at least when we put animals down the
injection administered by the vet will not contain the drug potassium
chloride, as it has been found to cause intense pain unless the animal is
deeply unconscious.

This is not a reassurance that I can offer to my clients on death row.

The lethal cocktail administered in 37 US states and by the federal
government to prisoners condemned to death typically does include
potassium chloride, despite years of criticism. This drug is preceded by
an anaesthetic and then a drug that paralyses the prisoner's muscles. I
suspect this is done more to make society feel better rather than the
prisoner. They used to cover the face of the electric chair's victim with
a leather mask and strap him in so tightly that he could not writhe - not
for the benefit of the prisoner, but for the witnesses. With lethal
injection, if the prisoner did not feel pain, there would be little point
paralysing him, which begs a very troubling question.

Surely the world's most "civilised" nation, which promotes its
"compassionate conservatism", would ensure that the anaesthetic was
sufficient? Well, actually, no, it doesn't. Death penalty lawyers have
been systematically challenging the use of lethal injection recently, as
the US has failed to come up with a "kinder, gentler" way to kill people.
Human Rights Watch reports that, in fact, prisons do not permit anyone to
monitor whether the anaesthetic has been effectively administered during
an execution. Anaesthesia is a complex science, affected by the condemned
prisoner's weight, his history of intravenous drug use, the blocking
ability of the paralysing agent, and many other factors. Once again, the
vets are doing a better job here, as guidelines require any veterinarian
to do a hands-on check of the depth of anaesthesia before any painful
procedure is commenced.

Lethal injection was invented 30 years ago, with no research (volunteer
for a drug trial, anyone?), and has not been adapted since. A massive dose
of barbiturates would be an alternative, and likely painless. However this
has been rejected in the US as the execution audience - typically
consisting of representatives of the state, a defence lawyer and the
victim's family - would have to wait 30 minutes to know the prisoner was
dead.

However, they might want to re-examine their position, since there have
been a series of botched and lengthy executions under the current regime.
Steven Morin's executioners took 45 minutes to find a vein. The needle
inserted in Raymond Landry's arm popped out a couple of minutes after the
drugs had started to flow and it took officials fourteen minutes to get it
back in, for a total execution time of 40 minutes. Ricky Ray Rector spent
50 minutes moaning behind a curtain while five execution team members
worked on both his arms to find a vein that would accept a needle. A total
of 36 botched executions have been reported, with prisoners weeping and
moaning, technicians eventually inserting needles in the prisoner's neck
or foot, drug flow stopping halfway through, or the prisoner convulsing
and writhing. There are reports of prisoners breathing long after
paralysis should have set in under the protocol.

These accounts do not surprise me. I have witnessed death by lethal
injection, and the prisoner's suffering is only one of the indignities. At
Leslie Martin's execution, the witnesses chattered through the process and
actually cheered when his death was ultimately announced.

Of course, the execution hour is just the culmination of years of mental
suffering. One of my clients had his execution stopped at the eleventh
hour on four occasions, once less than one minute before the schedule
time. And, if the actual execution process is cruel, where do you rank
saying goodbye to your children over and over again, comforting your
mother, listening to discussions on talk-back radio about the pain you
deserve to suffer, or simply living in a cell 23 1/2 hours a day, for 2
decades?

Another of my clients had his sentence commuted to life after 17 years on
death row. He later told me how odd it felt no longer knowing the form his
death would take. During many years on death row, he knew that he was
going to die by electrocution and then, when they changed the method, by
lethal injection. But now, with a life sentence, he no longer knew. Would
it be lung cancer from his chronic smoking habit? Would it be a shank in
his side from a fellow prisoner? Or would he die of old age in the prison
hospice, 30 years hence? He didn't know, and that felt strange, and also
liberating.

My dog doesn't know how he will die. Actually I don't think he knows much
at all. I hope he keels over mid-stride in pursuit of a tennis ball, but
if it comes down to it, I will hold him while the drugs sweep him away.
And, inevitably, at that moment I will also be also thinking of many
people I have met who will suffer far more in their final hour.

(source: Clive Stafford Smith, The Guardian (UK) )

*******************


Village Voice [New York, NY]
May 3 - 9, 2006

<http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0618,murphy,73078,5.html>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0618,murphy,73078,5.html

How to Kill a War in 10 Not-So-Easy Steps
Desperate times call for desperate measures­like talking to lobbyists


by Jarrett Murphy





[]

No rest for the teary: Carlos Arredondo mourned 
his soldier son at Foley Square during Saturday's anti-war protest.
photo: Charles Lavoie
Three days before Saturday's big anti-war march, 
members of the City Council were standing on the 
City Hall steps, calling for a resolution making 
New York City a "peace zone." The five 
councilmembers on hand read the proclamation 
aloud as a dozen fellow protesters stood behind 
them and a handful of reporters­none from the 
major media­looked on. They might as well have been reading silently.

The scene wasn't a make-or-break moment for the 
anti-war movement, but such a moment approaches. 
With polls showing rising opposition and with 
congressional races looming, peace activists have 
their best shot yet of ending the war­and they 
know it. Judith LeBlanc, national co-chair of the 
umbrella group United for Peace and Justice 
(UFPJ), tells the Voice, "We have to utilize the 
opportunity of the midterm elections as a 
referendum on this war and its impact on our communities."

The question is how to translate the growing 
opposition to the war into an actual change in 
U.S. policy. More than three years of 
demonstrations hasn't done it, and a City Council 
resolution won't get a single G.I. out of harm's 
way. "I wish," one frustrated anti-war activist 
joked last week, "that we had $50,000 to hire a 
lobbyist and say, ' You tell us what to do.' "

It turns out the bag of cash isn't necessary. 
Some of New York's veteran lobbyists and 
political consultants are willing­for no more 
than the price of a phone call­to map out the 
advice they'd give if the peace movement walked 
into their offices, plopped down its placard, and 
asked, "How do we stop the war?"


1. Keep it simple: At marches against the war, 
the message is not just "get out of Iraq." It's 
get out of Haiti, Palestine, Afghanistan; hands 
off Cuba and Hugo Chávez; single-payer health 
care now; repeal the Patriot Act; and 9-11 was an 
inside job. War opponents justifiably see Iraq as 
part of a network of detestable policies. But the 
official message has to be streamlined. "Part of 
winning over the blue-collar workers and the 
middle class is the language that you choose," 
says Evan Stavisky, a lobbyist with the Parkside 
Group, a powerful lobbying firm. There's a danger 
in having too many messages and an art in how you 
phrase them. The problem in the 2004 election, 
says Stavisky, was that "the [anti-Bush] message 
was geared at people who thought like them. 
You've got to stop preaching to the choir and start preaching to the public."

2. Cut off the money: At its heart, a war is just 
another government program with a funding stream 
that can be cut, as it was in Vietnam. Of the 535 
voting officials on Capitol Hill, only a very few 
wield real control over the budget. "I'd target 
the funding sources in the appropriations 
committees in Congress, their key members," and 
the armed-services committees too, says 
Queens-based political consultant Michael 
Niebauer. Every House seat is in play this year, 
and at least seven members of both the key Senate 
committees will face voters in November.

3. Connect the dots: "The traditional weakness of 
progressive activists is an inability to make an 
economic message that resonates with blue-collar 
voters," says Stavisky, recalling 1960s images of 
construction workers beating up peace 
demonstrators. Voters are naturally motivated by 
self-interest, and those who don't feel that the 
war is morally wrong need to be told why the war hurts them.

4. Pick the right target: In a string of recent 
Gallup polls, around 60 percent of respondents 
said they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is 
handling Iraq. The dislike of Bush, however, is 
stronger than support for troop withdrawal. So 
instead of using the war to taint Bush, the peace 
movement might use the growing revulsion toward 
Bush to kill the war. "You need to freeze your 
target, always," says Stavisky. "The goal of 
political communication­generally­is not to 
change minds. It's to ride the wave of public 
opinion to reach your goals. By focusing on Bush 
and his cronies in Washington, you're able to 
separate the discussion from 'supporting the troops.' "

5. Scare someone: Among the senators seeking 
re-election who sit on the key committees are 
Democratic hawks Hillary Clinton and Joe 
Lieberman. Both are being challenged by anti-war 
candidates, a tactic that has its pluses and 
minuses. "The big pro is you put your money where 
your mouth is," says Scott Levenson, a lobbyist 
with the Advantage Group. "The inherent problem 
is the lack of distinction between the major 
parties on their ultimate position. So the 
consequence is, you're left with third-party 
candidates." On the upside, the anti-war movement 
wouldn't have to defeat every pro-war incumbent 
to get results. Says Niebauer: "If you defeat one 
or two or a few of them, I think the message will be loud and clear."

6. Go local:

The truism of lobbying is that there are votes 
that you'll always get, votes you'll never get, 
and votes that are up for grabs. The anti-war 
movement needs to identify who's who now that 
opinion about the war seems to be shifting. "It's 
no different if you're trying to win a 
legislative vote in the halls of Congress," says 
Stavisky. "The challenge for the anti-war 
movement is to get that middle group and put the 
right pressure on them, understand the dynamic of 
each member and their district." In some reps' 
districts, a faith-based appeal might work, while 
in others, letter-writing campaigns or strong rivals will do the trick.

7. Mine those data: Compared with defense 
contractors and neocon think tanks, the anti-war 
movement may not have a big campaign chest to 
draw upon. But it does have thousands of people 
showing up for marches and rallies. "More and 
more, people who have events and mass rallies are 
being disciplined enough to capture the data of 
the people who attend," says Levison. "That gives 
you a tremendous pool to identify activists. 
Filter through those names to find people who 
have the skill set, the inclination, and the time 
to actually own responsibility."

8. Make it emotional: Veteran consultant Hank 
Sheinkopf says the problem with the anti-war 
movement is that it hasn't found its "emotional 
core." People see the war on the TV news many 
nights, but the carnage­and the poll 
numbers­remain abstract until you hit people in 
the gut. "Organize, localize, and make it 
emotional. Thus far we haven't done any of the 
three," he says. Except for Cindy Sheehan's 
brilliant foray to Crawford, Texas, about which 
Sheinkopf says, "That's what I'm talking about."

9. Support the troops: George McAnanama is not a 
lobbyist or consultant; he's a Staten Islander 
who's active in Veterans for Peace. But he 
detects a key ingredient for ending the war: 
resistance inside the military. Soldiers who 
refused to fight were important players in 
stopping Vietnam. There have been acts of 
resistance to the current conflict, such as the 
reservists who refused a dangerous fuel-hauling 
mission last year. Groups like Iraq Veterans 
Against the War are raising money to provide 
legal help to conscientious objectors and aid for 
telling their stories. "My job is to support them 
and build a platform straight to the community, 
with no media filter," Mc-Ananama says.

10. Don't hire a lobbyist: In 1968, Sheinkopf 
recalls, "a mob of college students toppled the 
president and they didn't have a lobbyist or a 
political consultant. What they had was people in 
the streets, and they had people creating chaos 
and forcing the system to respond."


What's more, some high-priced national firms 
don't seem up to the job. "You'd have to dissect 
who all the players were," a top lobbyist at one 
D.C. operation said, sounding a tad puzzled. 
"There are a lot of moving parts." A spokesman 
from another leading Washington firm told the 
Voice, "We probably would not take on an anti-war 
client. That would be directly trying to change 
foreign policy." Besides, he added, "a lot of the 
largest firms might have conflicts. We're in 
front of Congress representing corporate 
interests, and I'll let you read between the lines there."


The war is its own worst enemy, what with the 
incessant violence and climbing casualties, but 
give the anti-war movement at least some credit. 
"There are many things that have added up," says 
UFPJ's LeBlanc, "but without the anti-war 
movement, those people would have thought that they were alone."

For many members of the movement, the lobbyists' 
prescriptions cited here aren't news. They know 
what they have to do and are trying. Meanwhile, 
fresh ideas are percolating. Voters can sign a 
peace pledge refusing to cast their ballot for 
anyone who backs the war. Generals are speaking 
out against their former boss Don Rumsfeld. 
Unions are mobilizing behind the peace effort. 
The NYCLU is suing Rumsfeld over a database used 
by recruiters to track high school kids. And the 
Peace Zone campaign wants to get city pension 
funds to drop their $118 million in Halliburton 
stock. (Why stop there? New York State's pension 
funds held almost $140 million in Halliburton 
stocks and bonds in 2005, not to mention shares 
of Boeing, British Aerospace, and Raytheon.)

Even the City Council resolution has its place, 
for the simple fact that it's no sure thing. 
Several similar local anti-war measures have 
died, and the only one that passed was watered 
down and still got 17 "no" votes on a council 
known for its unanimity. So if the movement gets 
this one through, it proves the movement can win 
a political fight at one level. That puts the 
next target on notice: You're either with them or against them.

**************


SENT BY:

Abraham J. Bonowitz
www.CUADP.org