> WW News Service Digest #121 > > 1) Facts emerge to back up Al-Amin's charge of frame-up > by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 2) U.S. refuses Leonard Peltier parole > by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 3) When will U.S. troops leave Korea? > by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 4) Korea's 'Vieques': Thousands demand yankees go home > by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 5) Toronto unions back homeless fight against cutbacks > by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 6) Workers around the world: 6/29/2000 > by "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >------------------------- >Via Workers World News Service >Reprinted from the June 29, 2000 >issue of Workers World newspaper >------------------------- > >FACTS EMERGE TO BACK UP AL-AMIN'S CHARGE OF FRAME-UP > >By S. Tomlinson >Atlanta > >Prosecutors in the case against Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin, >formerly H. Rap Brown, have apparently made up their minds >as to his guilt--and nothing, not even evidence suggesting >another suspect altogether, can change their minds. > >Not only do the authorities know of other evidence and yet >continue to pursue Al-Amin, who they accuse of the shooting >death of one sheriff's deputy and the wounding of another. >They are actually continuing this pursuit to the maximum >extent allowed by the law: the death penalty. > >On May 31, a Superior Court judge held Fulton County >Sheriff Jackie Barrett in contempt of court for violating a >court order prohibiting the release of evidence in the >case. Barrett made public tapes of Sheriff's Department >radio traffic from the night Deputy Ricky Kinchen and his >partner Aldranon English were shot. The judge assigned no >penalty to Barrett, however, saying that the sheriff did >not willfully intend to violate the court order. > >Barrett maintained she only released the tapes in order to >comply with open records laws. Whatever her intention, >Barrett's actions made available new details in a case >filled with questionable evidence and media distortions. >The newly released tapes only strengthen the argument that >authorities are trying to frame Al-Amin. > >On the night of the shooting, the two deputies were in the >West End neighborhood of Atlanta to serve Al-Amin a warrant >for failure to appear--a relatively minor and non-violent >offense. Al-Amin is respected in the neighborhood for his >efforts to rid the area of drug dealers. He was also the >Imam, or prayer leader, of the community mosque. > >The picture of what happened on the night of March 16 is >still blurry. But it is becoming clearer with each passing >week. At the time of the shooting, Deputy English radioed >that shots had been fired and Kinchen was down. > >That night English stated that he had shot and wounded the >suspect. In the days after the shooting, there was much >media attention to this detail, and to the appearance of a >fresh blood trail a few blocks from the scene. > >Once Al-Amin was in custody and it became apparent that he >was uninjured, the blood trail was dismissed as unrelated >to the case. > >If authorities admitted that the blood trail were >relevant, that admission would tear at the very fabric of >their case against Al-Amin as the shooter. > >The release of the tapes from the night of the shootings >has brought new information to light. Minutes after >English's first radio call, a man was seen five blocks from >the scene. > >According to police records, someone called 911 and >reported an injured man near the scene of the shootings. >The dispatcher's log reads, "Caller advises perp in a >vacant building on Westview bleeding begging for a ride." > >Atlanta police have not commented on this new detail. Nor >have they provided any further information about the >bleeding man or the 911 caller. > >Authorities had released tapes of 911 reports from callers >about the wounded officers. But the call about the bleeding >man was not released. > >Al-Amin's defense lawyers will certainly question the >identity and whereabouts of this bleeding person. Al-Amin's >only statement to the media thus far came shortly after >being placed in custody in Alabama before being sent back >to Atlanta. He called the case a "government conspiracy" >against him. > >The knowledge that authorities have charged Al-Amin with >murder and intend to seek the death penalty even though >they have evidence of another suspect makes his assertion >all the more powerful. > > - END - > >(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to >copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but >changing it is not allowed. For more information contact >Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message >to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org) > > > >Message-ID: <00a001bfe09f$5e121b10$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [WW] U.S. refuses Leonard Peltier parole >Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:22:47 -0400 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >------------------------- >Via Workers World News Service >Reprinted from the June 29, 2000 >issue of Workers World newspaper >------------------------- > >U.S. REFUSES LEONARD PELTIER PAROLE > >By John Catalinotto > >The federal government continued its persecution of >political prisoner and American Indian Movement warrior >Leonard Peltier on June 12, when the U.S. parole examiner >refused to consider new evidence regarding his parole. The >hearing took place at Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas. > >Peltier has been in prison 24 years. He is suffering from >health problems that could result in stroke, heart disease >and kidney failure, according to a report from Dr. Peter >Basch. The Parole Commission refused to read the medical >report. > >Peltier's lawyers--who include Jennifer Harbury, Carl >Nadler and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark-- >argued that the Parole Commission's original reason to deny >parole was wrong and that it had yet to justify its reasons >for refusing to release Peltier. Nadler said the ruling >would be appealed. > >Representatives of Amnesty International and the National >Council of Churches also attended, and tried to plead on >Peltier's behalf. Members of the National Congress of >American Indians and the Assembly of First Nations were >also there. > >Various Native organizations and tribes offered eight >parole plans to give employment to Peltier. > >According to those present, the examiner began writing the >decision to continue Peltier's sentence even as the >presentations were being made. > >WHY THE FRAME-UP? > >Peltier was convicted in the shooting deaths of two >federal agents on the Pine Ridge Reservation on June 26, >1975. Yet, since formerly withheld documents supporting >Peltier's innocence were released government >representatives have admitted they have no idea who >actually shot the agents. > >Over 35 million people around the world have signed >petitions and letters to the U.S. government demanding >Peltier's freedom. He is known internationally as a >political prisoner who was framed by the U.S. government >for his role in defending his people. > >On June 26, 1975, the AIM camp on Pine Ridge was encircled >and attacked by FBI agents and SWAT teams. The shootout >left two FBI agents and one Native man, Joe Stuntz >Killsright, dead. They were probably killed in the FBI's >own cross-fire. > >Leonard Peltier and other members of AIM had come to the >reservation to provide security at the invitation of >residents. Only Peltier and two other Native men who were >defending themselves that day were put on trial. > >The two co-defendants--Dino Butler and Bob Robideau--were >found not guilty by reason of self-defense. After years of >trials, Peltier was convicted of "aiding and abetting" the >murders of the agents. > >But what was the real reason for the reign of terror at >Pine Ridge, the attack on the AIM camp, and Peltier's >continued imprisonment for 24 years? The U.S. government >was attempting to suppress the active Native movement in >defense of sovereignty that had risen up with the 1973 AIM- >led liberation of Wounded Knee on Pine Ridge. > >And AIM was considered a direct threat to the interests of >the transnational energy companies that wanted to exploit >the known uranium deposits on Pine Ridge. > >At the same time the June 26 firefight was taking place, >the corrupt tribal government signed papers in Washington >that gave away 133,000 acres of Lakota land to the U.S. >government. This land was then leased to transnational >energy companies such as Shell, Kerr McGee and Exxon for >exploitation. > >The Leonard Peltier Defense Committee suggests that >supporters call the White House Comments Line at 202-456- >1111 to demand justice for this political prisoner and to >demand Peltier's parole. > > - END - > >(Copyleft Workers World Service. Everyone is permitted to >copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but >changing it is not allowed. For more information contact >Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] For subscription info send message >to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.workers.org) > > > >Message-ID: <00a601bfe09f$748b4790$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From: "WW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [WW] When will U.S. troops leave Korea? >Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:23:24 -0400 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >------------------------- >Via Workers World News Service >Reprinted from the June 29, 2000 >issue of Workers World newspaper >------------------------- > >AFTER HISTORIC KOREAN SUMMIT: WHEN WILL U.S. TROOPS LEAVE? > >By Deirdre Griswold > >How much longer can the U.S. military keep Korea divided? > >Ever since the end of the Korean War, the occupation of >the southern half of the Korean peninsula by U.S. troops >has prevented the people in the north and south from having >even the most minimal contact with each other. A concrete >wall built by the south across the peninsula along the >demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel symbolizes this >cruel division. > >The stationing of nearly 40,000 U.S. troops in the south, >many of them smack up against the DMZ separating the two >social systems, has made it impossible for south Koreans to >even visit the other half of the country. > >Now, a historic agreement has been signed, on June 14, by >President Kim Dae Jung of south Korea and Kim Jong Il, >leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, during >a three-day meeting in the northern capital of Pyongyang. >It has aroused tremendous hopes among Koreans, north and >south, that some form of reunification is at last possible. > >But the Pentagon, through its spokesperson Kenneth Bacon, >said again at a press conference on June 19 that it has no >intention of withdrawing any troops from Korea. > >To this day, despite the south Korean president's trip to >the north, the National Security Law imposes harsh jail >sentences on any ordinary south Korean who goes there, or >even meets with people from the north. > >In May, right after Koreans from the north, the south and >overseas had met in Beijing, China, to form a pan-Korean >organization for reunification, Lee Duek-Joon, the >delegate from the south, was arrested and jailed on his >return home. Lee heads a special committee of the National >Alliance for Democracy and Reunification of Korea that is >investigating U.S. war crimes in Korea. > >This draconian law hardly ever gets mentioned in the U.S. >media. On the contrary, south Korea is always touted as a >great democracy. Yet until a few years ago it had the >longest-held political prisoners in the world. Today these >former prisoners--some of whom were confined for over 40 >years--are among the most militant speakers at >demonstrations demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops and >the reunification of the country. > >THE BURNING ISSUE > >The presence of U.S. troops has become the burning issue >in the south. On June 17, thousands of demonstrators >clashed yet again with police at the U.S. bombing range >near Maehyang-ri, a fishing village 50 miles southwest of >Seoul. This time villagers and their supporters were joined >by hundreds of workers from a nearby Kia automobile >factory, even though police had tried to seal off the >country roads into the area. > >Thousands of riot police attacked the demonstrators. One >Catholic priest, Father Jong-Soo Choi, was beaten bloody >and unconscious. Choi is executive director of a group >calling for repeal of the Status of Forces Agreement, the >legal fig leaf for U.S. military occupation. > >The U.S. has been using this pastoral area for bombing >practice ever since the Korean War in the 1950s. Especially >during the Gulf War and the war in Kosovo, jets screamed >over the area 300 to 400 times a day to drop their payloads >on two coastal islands--reduced from three islands by the >constant pounding. > >Over the years, nine people have been killed and many more >injured by bombing accidents and unexploded shells. Their >homes have been damaged by the shock waves. > >The villagers complain of noise, nervous strain and a high >rate of suicide, especially among older people who remember >when their once-peaceful town was famous for the fragrant >plum trees grown in the area. > >Now there are daily protests at the bombing range, called >Koon-ni and maintained by Lockheed Martin, a U.S. military- >industrial corporation that has raked in billions from the >Cold War. > >U.S. OCCUPATION IS ROOT OF PROBLEM > >The struggle against U.S. occupation goes to the root of >the Korean problem. Korea was never divided before U.S. >troops landed there in 1945. Even during 35 years of >Japanese colonial rule, Korea remained one nation. Its >history goes back nearly 2,000 years. > >The division of south from north came about because U.S. >imperialism was determined to prevent the liberation of >Korea by a revolutionary movement led by the communist and >anti-colonial hero Kim Il Sung. Anti-colonial movements in >China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaya and Indonesia grew >strong during the 1930s when Japan replaced the European >powers as colonial overlord. > >The world war that followed broke up the old regimes. The >popular anti-colonial movements, most of them led by >communists, carried out fierce guerrilla wars to liberate >their peoples. In Korea, the revolutionaries liberated the >north from the crumbling Japanese occupation in 1945, but >were stopped halfway down the peninsula when the U.S. >rushed its troops there. > >The communists had the allegiance of the masses because >their program was aimed at ending oppression by both >foreign and domestic exploiters. The Korean People's Army >in the north broke the power of the old ruling class, who >were especially hated because they had collaborated with >the Japanese occupation. People's committees in the south >tried to do the same, but were soon viciously repressed by >the Syngman Rhee dictatorship, set up by the U.S. >occupation. > >NO COMPARISON > >Comparisons are being made in Washington these days >between Korea and Germany. They reflect the wishful >thinking of the Pentagon and State Department that opening >commerce and traffic between north and south Korea will >result in the capitalist south swallowing up the socialist >north. > >They are hoping for a cold counter-revolution like the one >that destroyed the German Democratic Republic. It >drastically reduced the living standards of workers in >eastern Germany. Without the protection of a socialist >safety net, these workers--especially women--have lost most >of the benefits guaranteed them by the former East German >state. > >Instead of the promised prosperity of the "free market," >East German workers got the intense exploitation of >cutthroat capitalism, and are now being treated as semi- >colonial subjects in imperialist Germany. > >The GDR was founded after the Soviet Red Army defeated >Nazi Germany. Hitler's fascists had virtually exterminated >the left in Germany, along with Jews, Romas and gays. The >GDR's transformation into a socialist state came as a >result of the military destruction of the old regime by an >outside force. > >The DPRK is very different. There, a revolutionary >struggle of the masses, first in the liberation war against >Japan and then in resistance to the U.S. invaders, forged a >strong and united workers' party. This party led an >enthusiastic population in the socialist transformation of >the country. Tremendous achievements were made in health, >education and the development of a scientific-technological >base. > >Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the >DPRK suffered the loss of its greatest leader, Kim Il Sung, >followed by three years of devastating natural disasters. >Washington was confident that the severe economic hardships >it endured would bring down the regime. > >It had already threatened the annihilation of the DPRK. >This May former south Korean president Kim Young Sam told >the independent south Korean paper Hankyoreh Daily that he >had had a half-hour telephone conversation with President >Bill Clinton in June 1994 in which the U.S. president had >threatened a nuclear attack on north Korea. > >But despite a full-court press from the U.S. and severe >difficulties at home, the leadership in the north showed a >granite determination not to surrender in the way the party >leaders had done in Eastern Europe and the former USSR. > >The DPRK strengthened its defenses and began to rebuild >its badly damaged infrastructure. It is now on the road to >economic recovery. > >Washington's foreign policy makers, whose anti-communism >has not changed in the least, recognize that their decades >of overt hostility to the DPRK have failed to deflect it >from the path of socialist construction. So they have had >to assume a different posture. > >That is now reflected in the corporate media. >Reunification is no longer considered a communist plot. Kim >Jong Il, once derided in the imperialist press as >"reclusive" and "xenophobic," is suddenly being portrayed >as a skillful and confident leader. > >A great struggle has begun on a new level. While the >imperialists and their class allies in south Korea seek to >weaken the DPRK through economic penetration, they have >opened a Pandora's box. There can be no question that the >Korean people desperately want reunification. And, more and > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
