How Law Enforcement and Media Covered Up the Plan to Burn Christopher Dorner Alive

AlterNet / By Max Blumenthal
chris-dornerWanted
HIghly disturbing behavior by newspaper and Live TV sources in complying with the San Bernardino Sheriffs.
February 13, 2013

At approximately 7 PM ET, I listened through a police scanner as San Bernardino Sheriffs gave the order to burn down the cabin where suspected murderer Christopher Dorner was allegedly hiding. Deputies were maneuvering a remote controlled demolition vehicle to the base of the cabin, using it to tear down the walls of the cabin where Dorner was hiding, and peering inside.

In an initial dispatch, a deputy reported seeing “blood spatter” inside the cabins. Dorner, who had just engaged in a firefight with deputies that killed one officer and wounded another, may have been wounded in the exchange. There was no sign of his presence, let alone his resistance, according to police dispatches.

It was then that the deputies decided to burn the cabin down.

“We’re gonna go ahead with the plan with the burner,” one sheriff’s deputy told another. “Like we talked about.” Minutes later, another deputy’s voice crackled across the radio: “The burner’s deployed and we have a fire.”

Next, a sheriff reported a “single shot” heard from inside the house. This was before the fire had penetrated deeply into the cabin’s interior, and may have signaled Dorner’s suicide. At that point, an experienced ex-cop like him would have known he was finished.

Over the course of the next hour, I listened as the sheriffs carefully managed the fire, ensuring that it burned the cabin thoroughly. Dorner, a former member of the LAPD who had accused his ex-colleagues of abuse and racism in a lengthy, detailed manifesto, was inside. The cops seemed to have little interest in taking him alive.

“Burn that fucking house down!” shouted a deputy through a scanner transmission inadvertently broadcast on the Los Angeles local news channel, KCAL 9. “Fucking burn this motherfucker!” another cop could be heard exclaiming.

While live ammo exploded inside the cabin, the deputies pondered whether the basement would burn as well – they wanted to know if its ceiling was made of wood or concrete. They assumed Dorner was hiding there, and apparently wanted to ensure that he would be burned to a crisp. “Because the fire is contained, I’m gonna let that heat burn through the basement,” a deputy declared.

SWAT teams airlifted to the location were told to be ready in case Dorner did manage to escape. “Guys be ready on the number four side [the front of the cabin],” a deputy declared. “He might come out the back.”

Just after 7 PM (4 PM PT), right when the orders were given to deploy the “burners,” the San Bernardino Country Sheriff’s Department Public Information Officer Cindy Bachman hastily gathered reporters for an impromptu press conference. Claiming to know nothing new, she told reporters that she had no idea why the cabin was on fire, or who started the fire. Reporters badgered Bachman for information, but she had none, raising the question of why the presser was convened when it was.

Around the same time, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department requested that all reporters and media organizations stop tweeting about the ongoing standoff with Dorner, claiming their journalism was “hindering officer safety.” As the cabin sheltering Dorner burned, the local CBS affiliate was reportedly told by law enforcement to zoom its helicopter camera out to avoid showing the actions of sheriff’s deputies. By all accounts, the media acceded to police pressure for self-censorship.

On Twitter, the Riverside Press Enterprise, a leading local newspaper,announced on Twitter, “Law enforcement asked media to stop tweeting about the#Dorner case, fearing officer safety. We are complying.” The paper’s editorsadded, “We are going to tweet broad, non-tactical details, as per the San Bernardino DA’s request.”

“Per [San Bernardino Country Sheriff’s Department] request,” tweeted the local CBS affiliate, KCBS, “we are complying and will not tweet updates on #Dorner search.”

At the time that I am writing this, some online media outlets are beginning to entertain the possibility that San Bernardino County Sheriff’s deliberately set the fire that killed Dorner – a fact that I reported on Twitter as soon the sheriff’s department order came down. If there is any doubt about the authenticity of theYouTube clip containing audio of the sheriff deputies’ orders to burn the cabin down, I can verify that it is the real thing. I was listening to the same transmissions when they first blared across the police scanners.

In the hours after the standoff, however, the police cover-up remained unchallenged thanks largely to local media complicity. An initialLos Angeles Times report recounted the incident in a passive voice, claiming “flames began to spread through the structure, and gunshots, probably set off by the fire, were heard.” Similarly, LA’s ABC affiliate, KABC, quoted Bachman’s vague comment about “that cabin that caught fire,” failing to explore why it was aflame or who torched it.

Today, the Los Angeles Times reported claims by anonymous “law enforcement sources” that the sheriffs used “incendiary tear gas” to flush Dorner out of the cabin. The sources claimed the deputies who had besieged the cabin were under a “constant barrage of gunfire” and that, “There weren’t a lot of options.”

This is almost certainly a lie. The only mention by a deputy at the scene of a gunshot from inside the cabin was the “single shot” that occurred as soon as the “burners,” or incendiary teargas munitions, were deployed. After that point, deputies made constant mention of ammunition exploding inside the cabin as a result of the intense heat of the fire they set, but said nothing about any shots fired at them.

If there were a “constant barrage of gunfire,” it would have been the main source of concern among the police at the scene. Instead, they were preoccupied with ensuring that the fire burned the cabin completely without spreading into the surrounding woods.

There is a grand tradition of law enforcement using incendiary devices to assault besieged suspects, and of covering up their use. One of the most famous examples of this tactic, and its horrible consequences, was the Philadelphia Police Department’s bombing of the compound of the radical black nationalist cult, M.O.V.E., dropping C-4 explosives by helicopter on the house, killing 11 members of the group, including 5 children, and destroying 65 homes in the West Philadelphia neighborhood.

It was not until the 51-day FBI siege of the Waco, Texas compound of the messianic Branch Davidian cult that “burners,” or incendiary 40mm military grade cartridges, were used to burn a structure down. Six years after claiming that the Branch Davidians deliberately burned their own compound down, the FBI finallyadmitted that it used incendiary rounds, but insisted that none of them contributed to the fire that consumed the compound.

The “burners,” or pyrotechnic rounds the San Bernardino County Sheriffs used to torch Dorner’s cabin, are likely similar, and perhaps more powerful, than those employed by the FBI in Waco. Through the five-year-old “Department of Defense Excess Property Program,” the US military has provided police departments across the country with billions of dollars worth of military equipment, from amphibious tanks to AR-15 assault rifles, allowing the military to circumvent Posse Comitatus regulations by outsourcing their firepower to local cops.

“Burners,” or military grade incendiary grenades, are very likely among the items passed down from the US army to local police outfits like the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department.The “burner” of choice for the modern American soldier is the AN-M14 TH3. It is a hand held grenade comprised of a thermite mixture that rapidly converts to molten iron when it is thrown, burning at a temperature of 4000 degrees Fahrenheit, hot enough to burn through a half inch steel plate or bring an engine block to a boil. It can also produce enough heat to set off unloaded ammunition, which would explain why the ammo inside Dorner’s hideout was popping.

If the San Bernardino Sheriffs employed the AN-M14 TH3 or something like it against Dorner – and it appears they did – they have good reason to attempt to cover their actions up. Without even a token attempt to establish communication with the suspect, who was, to be sure, a wanted killer hell-bent on murdering cops, they attacked him with what was likely a military grade weapon designed to destroy fortified structures. By burning Dorner alive, then misleading and deceiving the public about the operation, the sheriffs may have validated the rogue ex-cop’s sharpest indictments of the culture of American law enforcement.

Yet no element in the Dorner drama was more disturbing than the performance of mainstream media. At every point, major news outlets complied with law enforcement calls for self-censorship, and still demonstrate little interest in determining how and why a lethal fire started on a snow-covered mountain in the dead of winter. As a quintessentially American tragedy reaches its denouement, the truth remains buried beneath a smoldering pile of ashes.

Read a Storify collection of Max Blumenthal’s livetweeting of the Dorner standoff.




Throwing Light on the Dark Side of Dorner’s Rampage

Police Brutality as Tactical Strategy
by LINN WASHINGTON, JR.
ChrisDorner

On September 10, 2012 the Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline: “LAPD to hold meetings on use of force policies.”

Top Los Angeles police officials announced those community meetings to counter growing criticism about videoed brutality incidents involving LA police officers in the preceding months, that article noted.

On November 24, 2012 The Daily Beast posted an article with the headline: “In Los Angeles, Questions of Police Brutality Dog LAPD” reporting abuse incidents by officers of that department placed under federal oversight between 2001 and 2009 after repeated brutality and corruption scandals.

Over two months after that Daily Beast posting about LAPD brutality a fired LAPD officer unleashed a murderous rampage as revenge against his claimed unfair firing by the LAPD.

That former LAPD cop, military veteran Christopher Dorner, claimed his attack campaign was retaliation against retaliation LAPD personnel directed against him for his reporting a 2007 brutality incident he observed while on duty.

Following a controversial hearing, LAPD officials found Dorner’s brutality claim against a policewoman unfounded and fired him for filing false statements. The father of the alleged victim said his mentally ill son confirmed Dorner’s account.

LA police officials contend that man sustained facial injuries from falling into some bushes while resisting arrest by Dorner, not from the female officer’s kick.

Despite the recent record of brutality detailed in news coverage last fall, a New York Times article on the Dorner rampage inferred brutality by Los Angeles police –- brutality that sparked two of America’s most destructive urban riots – was not a current problem.

The last sentence in the seventh paragraph of that February 7, 2013 New York Times article stated: “Mr. Dorner laid out grievances against a police department that he said remained riddled with racism and corruption, a reference to a chapter of the department’s history that, in the view of many people, was swept aside long ago.”

That unsourced, anonymous “view’of many people” cited in the NY Times article obviously did not include the views of the dozens of identifiable actual people who participated in a October 2012 demonstration against police brutality outside LAPD headquarters.

On October 22, 2012 the Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline: “Downtown L.A. streets closed by protest at LAPD headquarters.”

Yes, the 1992 riots that rocked LA following the state court acquittal of the four LA police officers charged in the videoed savaging of Rodney King – a disturbance that caused over $1 billion in damages and claimed 53 lives – arguably qualifies as “long-ago.”

But long-ago does not apply to incidents within the past year like the woman kicked in her groin by a female LAPD officer in July 2012 who died minutes later while hog-tied inside a patrol car.

That unsourced “view” cited in the NY Times article is not shared by victims of the incidents triggering those LAPD brass community meetings like the skate boarder suckered punched by police, the nurse stopped for allegedly texting while driving who was slammed to the ground by two officers, who then gave each other a fist-bump for their take-down, and the handcuffed man shot by police.

While ‘many people’ certainly believe, or want-to-believe, that LAPD brutality is long gone, perhaps thanks to reforms implemented during that federal oversight period, news media accounts pushing that view without the balance of companion context comprise an element (albeit small) in the constant framing of police brutality as isolated incidents instead of as part of a long-standing, chronic and systemic issue for police across America.

At least that shabbily sourced NY Times article referenced racism and brutality, unlike many media entities that reported Dorner’s rampage without providing context beyond his crazed reaction to his firing.

The March 1968 Kerner Commission Report on ’60s-era urban riots –- the majority triggered by police abuse incidents including the deadly 1965 L.A. Watts Uprising -– criticized the news media for failing to “analyze and report adequately on racial matters” in America that included coverage of festering grievances like police brutality.

Compounding context-deficient coverage, news media reportage on police brutality rarely examines the central role played by prosecutors in perpetuating the problem.

The Los Angeles DA’s Office, for example, pushed one case protecting alleged police misconduct all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where in 2006 that court’s conservative majority issued a ruling experts said eroded protections for whistle-blowing public employees.

The case involved a veteran LA prosecutor who said supervisors had retaliated against him after he exposed improprieties by a deputy during a drug investigation. Those supervisors pursued the drug prosecution despite those improprieties and then bashed the whistleblower for providing the defense with details of the improprieties — something that is actually required by law.

That 11/12 Daily Beast article began with an anecdote about LA city prosecutors’ declining to charge officers caught lying about a December 2010 incident in which a woman had been beaten and tazed by four officers, one of whom videoed the incident.

Fired Officer Dorner alleged that his LAPD problems began in July 2007 when his training officer, a female, kicked a man during an arrest outside a hotel. Dorner claimed that training officer and their immediate supervisor compelled him to fudge his official report, omitting the kicking, according to court findings.

LAPD officials found Dorner guilty of making false statements, relying in their determination largely on an Internal Affairs investigation. The IA investigator had interviewed the training officer and two hotel employees, but neither Dorner nor the victim were interviewed, according to an October 2011 California state appellate court ruling that nonetheless upheld a trial court’s ruling rejecting Dorner’s appeal of his 2009 LAPD firing.

LAPD officials, in their administrative proceeding, faulted Dorner for failing to immediately report the alleged kicking incident. Officials brushed aside Dorner’s stated (and it turns out prescient) fears of backlash for exposing that alleged misconduct and also ignored the fact that he had in fact quickly reported that incident privately to two LAPD supervisors he knew ,, whom he also had told about racial slurs directed at him during his police academy training.

Officials also claimed Dorner manufactured the brutality complaint to maliciously deflate an adverse performance evaluation he suspected he would receive from his training officer.

LAPD officials have initiated a reexamination of Dorner’s firing since the rampage began.

Dorner, in an online manifesto posted before his rampage, criticized the fact that officers involved in both the Rodney King and other brutality scandals were promoted, not penalized.

An analysis of the Dorner incident for CounterPunch prepared by Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher and Mike King, a PhD candidate at UC Santa Cruz, concludes that brutality against non-whites remains a “structural function” of the LAPD.

“It is the commonness of excuses for police abuse/murder, the erasure of the victims as collateral damage that should be highlighted when trying to make sense of this broken, rogue, former Los Angeles cop,” Ciccariello-Maher and King wrote.

LINN WASHINGTON, JR. is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent Project Censored Award-winning online alternative newspaper. His work, and that of colleagues JOHN GRANT, DAVE LINDORFF, LORI SPENCER and CHARLES M. YOUNG, can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net




Preventive Detention and the Death of the Democratic State

by Chris Hedges
This article previously appeared in TruthDig [10].

“If we lose in Hedges v. Obama, electoral politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Nero’s Rome.”

POLICE-STATE-USA-The-Paranoid-Style-of-American-Governance

Last Wednesday a few hundred activists crowded into the courtroom of the Second Circuit, the spillover room with its faulty audio feed and dearth of chairs, and Foley Square outside the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan where many huddled in the cold. The fate of the nation, we understood, could be decided by the three judges who will rule on our lawsuit against President Barack Obama for signing into law Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The section permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who “substantially support”—an undefined legal term—al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces,” again a term that is legally undefined. Those detained can be imprisoned indefinitely by the military and denied due process until “the end of hostilities.” In an age of permanent war this is probably a lifetime.

Anyone detained under the NDAA can be sent, according to Section (c)(4), to any “foreign country or entity.” This is, in essence, extraordinary rendition [11] of U.S. citizens. It empowers the government to ship detainees to the jails of some of the most repressive regimes on earth.

Section 1021(b)(2) was declared invalid in September after our first trial, in the Southern District Court of New York. The Obama administration appealed the Southern District Court ruling. The appeal was heard Wednesday in the Second Circuit Court with Judges Raymond J. Lohier, Lewis A. Kaplan and Amalya L. Kearse presiding. The judges might not make a decision until the spring when the Supreme Court rules in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, another case in which I am a plaintiff. The Supreme Court case challenges the government’s use of electronic surveillance. If we are successful in the Clapper case, it will strengthen all the plaintiffs’ standing in Hedges v. Obama. The Supreme Court, if it rules against the government, will affirm that we as plaintiffs have a reasonable fear of being detained.

“Once the state seizes this unchecked power, it will inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags.”

If we lose in Hedges v. Obama—and it seems certain that no matter the outcome of the appeal this case will reach the Supreme Court—electoral politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Nero’s Rome. If we lose, the power of the military to detain citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military prisons will become a terrifying reality. Democrat or Republican. Occupy activist or libertarian. Socialist or tea party stalwart. It does not matter. This is not a partisan fight. Once the state seizes this unchecked power, it will inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags. I lived under several military dictatorships during the two decades I was a foreign correspondent. I know the beast.

“The stakes are very high,” said attorney Carl Mayer, who with attorney Bruce Afran brought our case to trial, in addressing a Culture Project [12] audience in Manhattan on Wednesday after the hearing. “What our case comes down to is: Are we going to have a civil justice system in the United States or a military justice system? The civil justice system is something that is ingrained in the Constitution. It was always very important in combating tyranny and building a democratic society. What the NDAA is trying to impose is a system of military justice that allows the military to police the streets of America to detain U.S. citizens, to detain residents in the United States in military prisons. Probably the most frightening aspect of the NDAA is that it allows for detention until ‘the end of hostilities.’” [To see videos of Mayer, Afran, Hedges and other participating in the Culture Project panel discussion, click here [13].]

Five thousand years of human civilization has left behind innumerable ruins to remind us that the grand structures and complex societies we build, and foolishly venerate as immortal, crumble into dust. It is the descent that matters now. If the corporate state is handed the tools, as under Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA, to use deadly force and military power to criminalize dissent, then our decline will be one of repression, blood and suffering. No one, not least our corporate overlords, believes that our material conditions will improve with the impending collapse of globalization, the steady deterioration of the global economy, the decline of natural resources and the looming catastrophes of climate change.

“What the NDAA is trying to impose is a system of military justice that allows the military to police the streets of America to detain U.S. citizens, to detain residents in the United States in military prisons.”

But the global corporatists—who have created a new species of totalitarianism—demand, during our decay, total power to extract the last vestiges of profit from a degraded ecosystem and disempowered citizenry. The looming dystopia is visible in the skies of blighted postindustrial cities such as Flint, Mich., where drones circle like mechanical vultures. And in an era where the executive branch can draw up secret kill lists that include U.S. citizens, it would be naive to believe these domestic drones will remain unarmed.

Robert M. Loeb, the lead attorney for the government in Wednesday’s proceedings, took a tack very different from that of the government in the Southern District Court of New York before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Forrest repeatedly asked the government attorneys if they could guarantee that the other plaintiffs and I would not be subject to detention under Section 1021(b)(2). The government attorneys in the first trial granted no such immunity. The government also claimed in the first trial that under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF), it already had the power to detain U.S. citizens. Section 1021(b)(2), the attorneys said, did not constitute a significant change in government power. Judge Forrest in September rejected the government’s arguments and ruled Section 1021(b)(2) invalid.

The government, however, argued Wednesday that as “independent journalists” we were exempt from the law and had no cause for concern. Loeb stated that if journalists used journalism as a cover to aid the enemy, they would be seized and treated as enemy combatants. But he assured the court that I would be untouched by the new law as long as “Mr. Hedges did not start driving black vans for people we don’t like.”

“Senior officials in the Reagan administration regularly denounced many of us in the press as fifth columnists and collaborators with terrorists.”

Loeb did not explain to the court who defines an “independent journalist.” I have interviewed members of al-Qaida as well as 16 other individuals or members of groups on the State Department’s terrorism list. When I convey these viewpoints, deeply hostile to the United States, am I considered by the government to be “independent”? Could I be seen by the security and surveillance state, because I challenge the official narrative, as a collaborator with the enemy? And although I do not drive black vans for people Loeb does not like, I have spent days, part of the time in vehicles, with armed units that are hostile to the United States. These include Hamas in Gaza and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in southeastern Turkey.

I traveled frequently with armed members of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in El Salvador and the Sandinista army in Nicaragua during the five years I spent in Central America. Senior officials in the Reagan administration regularly denounced many of us in the press as fifth columnists and collaborators with terrorists. These officials did not view us as “independent.” They viewed us as propagandists for the enemy. Section 1021(b)(2) turns this linguistic condemnation into legal condemnation.

Alexa O’Brien, another plaintiff and a co-founder of the US Day of Rage [14], learned after WikiLeaks released 5 million emails from Stratfor, a private security firm that does work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Marine Corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency, that Stratfor operatives were trying to link her and her organization to Islamic radicals, including al-Qaida, and sympathetic websites as well as jihadist ideology. If that link were made, she and those in her organization would not be immune from detention.

Afran said at the Culture Project discussion that he once gave a donation at a fundraising dinner to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish Catholic organization. A few months later, to his surprise, he received a note of thanks from Sinn Féin [15]. “I didn’t expect to be giving money to a group that maintains a paramilitary terrorist organization, as some people say,” Afran said. “This is the danger. You can easily find yourself in a setting that the government deems worthy of incarceration. This is why people cease to speak out.”

The government attempted in court last week to smear Sami Al-Hajj [16], a journalist for the Al-Jazeera news network who was picked up by the U.S. military and imprisoned for nearly seven years in Guantanamo. This, for me, was one of the most chilling moments in the hearing.

“Just calling yourself a journalist doesn’t make you a journalist, like Al-Hajj,” Loeb told the court. “He used journalism as a cover. He was a member of al-Qaida and provided Stinger missiles to al-Qaida.”

“You can easily find yourself in a setting that the government deems worthy of incarceration.”

Al-Hajj, despite Loeb’s assertions, was never charged with any crimes. And the slander by Loeb only highlighted the potential for misuse of this provision of the NDAA if it is not struck down.

The second central argument by the government was even more specious. Loeb claimed that Subsection 1021(e) of the NDAA exempts citizens from detention. Section 1021(e) states: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Afran countered Loeb by saying that Subsection 1021(e) illustrated that the NDAA assumed that U.S. citizens would be detained by the military, overturning two centuries of domestic law that forbids the military to carry out domestic policing. And military detention of citizens, Afran noted, is not permitted under the Constitution.

Afran quoted the NDAA bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said on the floor of the Senate: “In the case where somebody is worried about being picked up by a rogue executive branch because they went to the wrong political rally, they don’t have to worry very long, because our federal courts have the right and the obligation to make sure the government proves their case that you are a member of al-Qaida and didn’t [just] go to a political rally.”

Afran told the court that Graham’s statement implicitly acknowledged that U.S. citizens could be detained by the military under 1021(b)(2). “There is no reason for the sponsor to make that statement if he does not realize that the statute causes that chilling fear,” Afran told the judges.

After the hearing Afran explained: “If the senator who sponsored and managed the bill believed people would be afraid of the law, then the plaintiffs obviously have a reasonably objective basis to fear the statute.”

In speaking to the court Afran said of 1021(e): “It says it is applied to people in the United States. It presumes that they are going to be detained under some law. The only law we know of is this law. What other laws, before this one, allowed the military to detain people in this country?”

This was a question Judge Lohier, at Afran’s urging, asked Loeb during the argument. Loeb concurred that the NDAA was the only law he knew of that permitted the military to detain and hold U.S. citizens.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays on Truthdig, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig

[17]
Source URL: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/preventive-detention-and-death-democratic-state
Links:
[1] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/drone-wars
[2] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/authorization-use-military-force-act
[3] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/kurdistan-workers-party
[4] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/hamas
[5] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/ndda
[6] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/national-defense-authorization-act
[7] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/hedges-v-obama
[8] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/extraordinary-rendition
[9] http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/POLICE-STATE-USA-The-Paranoid-Style-of-American-Governance.jpg
[10] http://www.truthdig.com/
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Rendition
[12] http://cultureproject.org/
[13] http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/activist_heavyweights_convene_against_the_detention_powers_20130208/
[14] http://usdayofrage.org/
[15] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sinn+Fein
[16] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/john_brennan_sami_al-hajj_and_the_blight_of_guantanamo_20130110/
[17] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Fpreventive-detention-and-death-democratic-state&linkname=Preventive%20Detention%20and%20the%20Death%20of%20the%20Democratic%20State




Christopher Dorner: The Defector Who Went Out With A Bang

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by executive editor Glen Ford

christopher-dornerMilitary

Once upon a time: Proudly a member of the Imperial Navy

The ghost of Nat Turner did not descend on LA over the past week, although lots of Black folks imagined as much. Christopher Dorner’s fans “embraced his death-throe defection from the LAPD, and imbued him with qualities they wish were reliably available to the struggle: a Nat Turner, or a Spook Who Sat By the Door.”
“Dorner is best described as a disaffected soldier in the ranks of the U.S. global and local Los Angeles occupation armies.”

Although his fans will argue otherwise, Christopher Jordan Dorner was neither a Nat Turner nor a Spook Who Sat by the Door.

Nat Turner was a leader of men, who inspired approximately 70 enslaved and free Black men in a glorious attempt to overthrow the slave system in Virginia, in 1831. The rebellion that goes by his name was a collective struggle that shook the slavocracy to its core, and one of the few U.S. slave revolts that was not betrayed by informers. Christopher Donner enlisted no one in his fatal and solitary vendetta against those he felt had done him personal harm. He died alone trying to hide his huge Black self in a mostly white mountain recreation area, leaving behind a “manifesto [11]” that was mainly about himself and his service to the national and local armed forces.

Chris Dorner was no Dan Freeman, the protagonist “Spook” of the 1973 movie about an urban Black rebellion in the United States. Freeman is a Black nationalist who joins – infiltrates – the CIA, learns all he can about their evil arts, then returns to the Black community to train a cadre of urban guerilla fighters. The war of liberation catches fire. Christopher Dorner’s manifesto reveals a man who – until the unraveling – had been wholly captured by the myth and mystic of superpower America, a proud reserve lieutenant in the imperial Navy and officer in the LAPD who wanted only to serve with personal honor as a man-at-arms.

Dorner is best described as a disaffected soldier in the ranks of the U.S. global and local Los Angeles occupation armies, who made his psychologically break with the forces of racial oppression – or, was broken by them – only after having first been ejected. He transformed his ejection into a bloody defection, and flamed out – effectively, a suicide-by-cop (and, almost certainly, a victim of execution by white phosphorous-like incendiary).

“He transformed his ejection into a bloody defection, and flamed out.”

His self-definition could not survive separation from the institution that became his personal nemesis. In the end, he was as lonely as Rambo in First Blood [12], and just as politically lost.

A public death belongs to the public. Dorner’s fans, his African American public, whom he did not serve but who would inevitably embrace his weeklong death-throe defection from the LAPD, imbue him with qualities they wish were reliably available to the struggle: a Nat Turner, a Spook Who Sat by the Door. The Bronx, New York dope dealer, Larry Davis, who in 1986 succeeded in shooting six of seven [13] cops who came to his sister’s apartment to arrest or assassinate him, achieved similar fame.

Davis eluded capture for 17 days, negotiated a live surrender at his public housing hideout as residents chanted “Lar-ry! Lar-ry!” – and beat the charges of attempted murder of cops. (William Kunstler and Lynne Steward were his lawyers.) His fans forgave Davis’s dope dealing ways, just as Dorner’s fans forgave his previous service to the Los Angeles Occupation Army.

The enduring lesson of Dorner’s saga is that the transformation of the LAPD into a majority-minority police force does not change its nature as an army of occupation, whose mission is racist to the core, regardless of its ethnic composition. That fact finally dawned on Christopher Dorner – and it killed him.

For Black Agenda Radio, I’m Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com [14].

http://traffic.libsyn.com/blackagendareport/20130213_gf_Dorner.mp3
[15]
Source URL: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/christopher-dorner-defector-who-went-out-bang
Links:
[1] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/willian-kunstler
[2] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/spook-who-sat-door
[3] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/police-occupation-army
[4] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/nat-turner-rebellion
[5] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/lynne-stewart
[6] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/larry-davis-shoot-out
[7] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/dorner-manifesto
[8] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/african-america/dan-freeman
[9] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/life-america/rambo-first-blood
[10] http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/dorner.jpg
[11] http://laist.com/2013/02/07/christopher_dorners_manifesto_in_fu.php
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Blood
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Davis_%28criminal%29
[14] mailto:Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
[15] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Fchristopher-dorner-defector-who-went-out-bang&linkname=Christopher%20Dorner%3A%20The%20Defector%20Who%20Went%20Out%20With%20A%20Bang




The Long-Distance Revolutionary

Capturing Mumia (on Film)
The Long-Distance Revolutionary

mumia-Abu-Jamal
by LINN WASHINGTON JR.

Many millions around the world are convinced they know imprisoned journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal from closely examining the ‘whodunit’ contentions surrounding his contentious conviction for the December 9, 1981 slaying of a Philadelphia policeman.

However, few really know the ‘Who’ of Mumia –- the individual behind the international image of a victim of injustice; the grandfather with a layered life beyond the simplistic characterizations of opponents who bash him as a murderous monster and of supporters [who assign to him] powers of mythical proportions.

The all too often missing ‘Who’ of Mumia Abu-Jamal is what makes the focus of an engaging new documentary film, “Long Distance Revolutionary: A Journey with Mumia Abu-Jamal,” truly unique. The film opens in New York City on February 1 and Los Angeles on March 1.

“Long Distance Revolutionary” presents the personality and the person of Mumia before, during and after his arrest and conviction for the murder of Officer Daniel Faulkner unlike all the previous movies on Abu-Jamal that principally probed contours and contradictions of his trial and conviction.

That missing ‘Who’ is what sparked the interest of Stephen Vittoria, a respected LA-based documentarian who wrote, directed and edited the this film.

“The story I found most remarkable is the story of a man who has produced an incredible body of revolutionary journalism and history under harsh conditions, especially after incarceration,” Vittoria said about his movie.

Vittoria screened “Long Distance” at film festivals from California to Copenhagen and other selected screenings before the forthcoming in-theater release Cinema Village in New York City.

“Thirty plus years on Death Row, no computer or Internet access [yet] he’s published seven books, thousands of written and recorded commentaries…For a filmmaker, that offers deep and resonant opportunities,” Vittoria said. “Like the title suggests, he is a long-distance revolutionary, a man who never talks about his own case but instead takes on the responsibility of giving voice to the voiceless…a man who refuses to let the repressive apparatus of a racist state suffocate his soul.”

This film gives viewers a sense of the ‘Who’ of Abu-Jamal , the content and context of his life, including providing viewpoints from acclaimed philosophers, historians, poets, writers, journalists and revolutionaries, as well as perspectives from members of his family.

Vittoria said the one interview in the film that “blows me away” is with Mumia’s older sister Lydia Barashango, who died months after having the on-camera interview with Vittoria.

“She gave us an insight into Mumia’s life at home as a kid, as an up-and-coming journalist in his twenties, his pain and suffering in prison, his separation from his family and children, and how much pain that causes him daily,” Vittoria said.

Full disclosure: I am one of the on-screen interviewees featured in “Long Distance Revolutionary.”

Fuller disclosure: I have been interviewed for every major movie on Mumia made in the 21st Century, including the film released in 2007 produced by Academy Award winner Colin Firth and the 2010 work released by Philadelphia filmmaker Tigre Hill.

Hill’s film simply regurgitated the prosecution’s case of absolute guilt without even referencing the grievous flaws in the prosecution/police case detailed in the Firth and other films.

Abu-Jamal and I worked together as news reporters in Philadelphia before his December 1981 arrest, he as a radio reporter while I worked for newspapers. I have followed his case closely since 1981, including traveling abroad to research and report on the ‘Mumia Movement’ which developed after his arrest and over the years of his incarceration and his legal battles with those trying to execute him.

In October 2012, for example, I traveled to Bobigny, France where officials of that Paris suburb named a street honoring Abu-Jamal. That was the second street-naming for Abu-Jamal in a suburb of Paris -– a city that extended Abu-Jamal the rare title of ‘Honorary Citizen.’

Given the total rejection American courts have given to Abu-Jamal’s appeals of his conviction (he did win an appeal overturning his death penalty conviction), it’s ironic that the Bobigny street bearing his name runs alongside a court building.

Lanquirary Painemal, an activist in Chile, was among the 100-plus attending the Bobigny ceremony, where a banner hung demanding the release of Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier, another American political prisoner.

Painemal said many in her country consider Abu-Jamal a freedom fighter because of his advocacy for the oppressed everywhere.

During that Bobigny ceremony, attended by one of Abu-Jamal’s sons, Mumia delivered a pre-recorded message of support in fluent French, a language he learned during his decades in a Death Row isolation cell.

Abu-Jamal once told me he transformed his Death Row isolation into a creative muse.

Vittoria said an amazing aspect for him personally which is displayed clearly in the film, is how Abu-Jamal appears not to be “bitter or broken or defeated” by his draconian incarceration.

The public in-theater release of “Long Distance Revolutionary” comes at a time of new revelations that further undermine Abu-Jamal’s conviction, of a reinvigoration of the Free Mumia Movement, of continued confirmation of the police corruption which stains the very core of Abu-Jamal’s conviction, and of still more of the vile venom that has long been aimed at persons who challenge the integrity and validity of his conviction.

In late December 2012, enemies of Abu-Jamal unleashed a barrage of terroristic threats against Heidi Boghosian, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild and against Professor Johanna Fernandez, a key Abu-Jamal activist, after that pair posted a picture on Facebook showing them standing arm in arm with Abu-Jamal during a prison visit with him shortly after he was finally transferred from his isolation on Pennsylvania’s death row to a regular prison that allowed visits where people could actually contact the incarcerated physically. (Death row inmates are only able to talk to visitors through a bullet-proof window.)

One poster named Ingram said he hoped “…YOU TWO BITCHES GET GANG RAPED AND MURDERED BY A BUNCH OF NIGGERS!!!” and another poster expressed his hope that “those broads suffer a flesh-eating bacteria starting in their cunts!”

Fernandez characterized those Facebook responses, some from active-duty Philadelphia police and firefighters, as “violent and, dare I say, fascistic…”

Fernandez made a 2010 film on the Abu-Jamal case entitled “Justice On Trial.”

In early fall 2012 a new book detailed first-ever accounts of the crass intimidation police, prosecutors and jurists directed at a witness in the Abu-Jamal case who had initially told police about seeing two men flee the scene of Faulkner’s fatal shooting — a claim that if true would totally undermine the prosecution’s case, which was premised on the assertion that Abu-Jamal was the only possible shooter on the scene.

When police arrested Abu-Jamal at the crime scene, they found him critically wounded by a bullet from Faulkner’s gun. Authorities contend no one fled the crime scene despite several accounts from other eyewitnesses to the contrary.

The intimidation of witness Veronica Jones included a bizarre courtroom incident during an appeal-phase proceeding in 1996 where Philadelphia prosecutors, with the consent of the presiding judge, orchestrated her arrest directly as she stepped off the witness stand after she had testified that police had forced her to lie during Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial.

This book, “Veronica & the Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal as told to her sister, Valerie Jones,” also presents the first-ever revelation of the professional and personal relationship between Veronica Jones (working at the time as a prostitute in 1981) and the married Officer Faulkner — a relationship that she said included their having sex.

While neither Faulkner nor Jones, who died in 2009, are alive to address the sex allegation in the book, many written and verbal records list Jones as persistently maintaining that she knew Faulkner and that Faulkner had helped her.

When Jones recanted her 1982 trail testimony during a 1996 Post Conviction Relief Act hearing, she explained that she needed to clear her conscience more than specially aiding Abu-Jamal, because she knew Faulkner and would do nothing to harm him.

Valerie Jones attended an early December 2012 screening of “Long Distance” held at Temple University in Philadelphia along with an older brother of Abu-Jamal, Keith Cook.

Cook and Professor Fernandez, during a program at that Philadelphia screening, announced plans for a new campaign to secure Abu-Jamal’s release within four years.

For the past six months multiple scandals have rocked the Philadelphia Police Department including misconduct by narcotics officers resulting in prosecutors dropping over 100 cases, a police supervisor discharged for punching a woman, a policewoman discharged for stealing properties and a group of officers fraudulently obtaining federal low-income energy assistance grants including a lieutenant who make $95,000 annually.

Philadelphia’s police department has a sordid history of recurring brutality and corruption scandals dating back over a century. Local prosecutors have a record of generally ignoring those misconduct scandals.

Evidence unearthed by Abu-Jamal lawyers, and by a few investigative journalists like Dave Lindorff and researcher Dr. Michael Schiffmann of Germany, amply document how Philadelphia police manufactured evidence and false testimony to secure Abu-Jamal’s conviction in collusion with Philadelphia prosecutors.

Appellate judges have brushed aside the documented improprieties and misconduct in Abu-Jamal’s conviction–improprieties and misconduct more extreme than in cases of other inmates who have been granted new trials or prison release by the same courts that have consistently upheld Abu-Jamal’s conviction.

Filmmaker Stephen Vittoria said Abu-Jamal’s persistent work exposing misconduct by police and prosecutors’ in Philadelphia and beyond, both before and after his incarceration, is a part of “…what makes Abu-Jamal’s life and work soar.”

For information on buying tickets to the movie, which opens Feb. 1, in New York, click here.

LINN WASHINGTON, JR. is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, the new independent Project Censored Award-winning online alternative newspaper. His work, and that of colleagues JOHN GRANT, DAVE LINDORFF, LORI SPENCER and CHARLES M. YOUNG, can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net