Nozomi Hayase – Resistance Against Enclosure; Internet as Global Commons

From Antiwar.com

This is a speech given at the Direct Democracy Festival at Thessaloniki on September 4, 2014 about the trend of decentralization creating a global commons on the Internet and the disruptive potential of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Thank you for inviting me to this event. I feel honored to be here in Greece, the birthplace of democracy.

I was born and grew up in Japan. I moved to the States as a young adult. I live beyond borders and don’t belong to one particular nation. In a sense, I find the Internet to be my home. Indeed if there wasn’t the Internet, I wouldn’t be here right now.

Often I find this online borderless world more real than the world outside. In this place called “real life”, we are separated and controlled by the interlocking power of nation-states and corporations. Every aspect of our lives is financialized and imaginations are captured by institutionalized hierarchies. Yet in the interconnected world of cyberspace, I find that imagination is not just surviving but thriving.

I here ask a question. Can the imagination of this virtual world help free the world that has been commodified? Tonight I am going to talk about the resistance against enclosures happening on the Internet and how the trend of decentralization in recent years is facilitating a reopening of the commons.

BitTorrent, Pirate Bay, Creative Commons, Linux and WikiPedia. Here we see the emergence of waves of uprising that challenge this culture of ownership and are weaving a new network based on sharing.

These waves of decentralization in the digital space perhaps best express the essence of social movements. A movement must move. It must flow. This movement of decentralization was built on net-neutrality. The Internet is anarchy, a true force for democracy. In this ecosystem, there is no governing center, no command from above. It enables unmediated peer-to-peer direct connection. In this decentralized system, power is distributed to everyone and there are no levers of control.

These new waves have begun disrupting outer central power that has been stagnating the flow of sharing and communication. In describing the reason behind her release of troves of classified documents, WikiLeaks whistle-blower Chelsea Manning said that “Information wants to be free”.

In 2010, with the rise of WikiLeaks, we saw the beginning of the decentralization of information. WikiLeaks was the birth of journalism for the global commons. With the idea that cryptography could liberate people, they aimed to open governments by exposing secrecy and lies that are used to steal from the public.

This stateless whistleblowing site opened the floodgates, freeing information that had been kept in hierarchical media institutions or centralized state control. Information as the currency of democracy has begun to flow.

But this was not just about information. Manning also said, “I cant separate myself from others, I feel connected to everybody like they were distant family”. In this outer world, we were taught to identify with national flags and look at other people across borders as either allies or enemies, but not as brothers and sisters.

Manning’s conscience was a spark that frees us from the biases of patriotism, imperialism and racism. It kindled an awakening to a larger sense of the commons. We began imagining each other anew based on the ground of equality.

This struck a chord throughout the Internet, bringing forth a new insurgence of justice. In the wake of the financial blockade of WikiLeaks, the online collective Anonymous stepped forward. Anonymous is an open source idea. There are no levers of control, no leadership, only the influence of thought.

They broke down the firewall of the corporate state and restored the right to freely assemble, this time on a global platform. Now everyone can associate with anyone in the world to create Ops and form a legion of shared ideas. The leaderless and egalitarian decision-making in IRC Chat rooms then morphed into a new insurrection in the streets during the Occupy movement. Open source protocols of consensus found resonance around the world and a shared resistance exposed the corruption of global power in the Anglo-Euro alliance that uses financial institutions as weapons of control.

In the West, the financial sector carries between 8 to 15 percent of the entire economy. Visa, Paypal, investment markets, Central banks and remittance industries monopolize the services of money printing and transfer, loans and wealth management. Some of the biggest corporations are running this financial system for their own gain. They charge massive fees, penalizing and basically steal money from the poor and transfer it to the rich.

Those occupy encampments at the centers of capital control gave birth to collective decision making through general assembly to challenge predatory capitalism. But then these movements were crushed by the brutal power of the state. Yet nothing can stop an idea whose time has come. The imagination for a decentralized future has emerged again in another wave of powerful resistance.

In 2008, a white paper published under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto put forward a proposal for a peer-to-peer digital cash without any central authority. Now many people know Bitcoin as a form of digital cash, but what is the significance of this invention?

The potential for elimination of central authority in virtually any communication or financial transactions brings the source of legitimacy back to the individual. We can associate with anyone and create a decentralized system of our shared interest.

The core of this invention is a decentralized network that can achieve consensus amongst strangers at a large scale. This is similar to the “In Each Other We Trust” that was practiced during Occupy. Now with the blockchain technology, this trust is distributed at a global scale.

Here we have an open source network of distributed trust where no single person or institution acts as an authority. Unmediated horizontal interaction and decision making allows us to interact, innovate, and build a new infrastructure for the world without permission.

The blockchain distributed trust network is a global square for the commons. This is a square that cannot be cleared by the state and works autonomously, free of outer control. Access to the network is open to everyone. Unlike banks, the blockchain responds to and welcomes all people indiscriminately regardless of their economic status, nationality or credit history.

The Bitcoin network brings people who are excluded into the circle of consensus. Currently only one billion of the world’s population have real access to the financial and banking system. There are 6 billion people that are unbanked or underbanked. Now through this technology, those who are excluded from this Western-controlled financial system can participate in the world economy on their own terms.

The protocol of this blockchain public square is open source and built through collaboration. The anonymous creator of this technology knew that in order to build and secure the system, there needed to be an incentive to maintain it. This is one reason why currency was embedded in the protocol as its first application. Bitcoin is a public asset ledger that creates peer to peer digital cash.

This is the world’s first transnational currency. It is the Internet of money, and it empowers everyone. In this value transfer network of the blockchain, the concept of the nation-state becomes obsolete. It also makes mafia banks like Goldman Sachs obsolete, as well as the wire transfer industries such as Western Union. We are beginning to take back the power and flow of currency that has for too long been privatized by corporations and central banks. This can eliminate a huge portion of these financial services that extract money from the world economy and then bring this power back into the hands of the people.

The people’s currency has already been used to crowd-fund parts of the global commons. For instance, it was used to collect donations for Edward Snowden and to circumvent the financial blockade of WikiLeaks to sustain this global 4th estate.

With this decentralized currency, we now become our own banks. What happens when we gain the ability to create money and keep it in our own hands? We can declare independence from hierarchical institutions that divide the world into consumer class and sweatshop slaves, into “first world” and “third world” and thus determine access to information, finance and resources.

Up till the invention of blockchain and this stateless currency, we have been systematically kept unfree. Decentralization of information weakened the central powers that control narratives. Because of social media, Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza and the reality of the police state in Ferguson can no longer be kept secret. More people are becoming aware of the continuous illegal wars in the Middle East. Yet, information was not truly liberated to become a revolutionary force that could meaningfully challenge state control.

Around the world, people have been protesting and demanding that governments end the wars. Yet, have these efforts really worked? Many of us have come to think that wars never stop and central control will always prevail. Why is this so? Because right now governments don’t have to listen to the people. They have the means to fund wars simply by printing more money.

Whenever we use the Euro and the US dollar, we are paying for wars, bailing out banks and funding state violence and oppressive regimes around the world. In this modern world, we might think we have moved away from monarchy. Yet, we have the fiat U.S. dollar as world reserve currency, declared on high acting as a King. What we really have is Exxon Mobile dollars or Chevron coins. We have been using Goldman Sachs coins that are disguised as national interest but are actually imposed upon us.

Central banks of the world stagnate the flow of money and use it as means of control to create war economies and enslave us through debt. Bitcoin has a fixed monetary policy. Its decentralized design has a potential to limit or even eliminates this power. If governments don’t have the ability to print money, they cannot buy tanks, missiles and endlessly fund wars. They cannot debase currency with austerity, taxation through rent seeking and support financial colonization by controlling borders and forcing remittance.

With blockchain decentralized trust, information as a currency of democracy could generate a bottom up power of consensus. We can have our own banks and money in our own hands and direct its flow. As we divest from the war economy, governments will have to beg people to pay for their war operations. They won’t get to print money for war. They will have to ask. Who here would want to join #OpUS – CollateralMurder or #OpIsraelGenocideofGaza?

The blockchain network creates a world of voluntary association and mutual aid. In this new world, the populace cannot be forced into debt if they don’t agree to it. We can now fund our own Ops with our own currency based on shared trust. We can now create our own communities based on common values.

We share the same problems. Let’s solve them together. The privilege of Western Europe and North America creates the poverty of the Global South. Bitcoin distributed trust delivers power to the periphery. We can unite to keep our network in solidarity for a decentralized future within the global commons. The next time people in Cyprus are hit with the crisis of austerity and their government tries to steal their money, they have a choice.

From Somali migrant workers transmitting money back home to American college students in debt servitude and Argentinians resisting currency default, we can all work together to help each other create our own flow of common wealth. This decentralized autonomous network has the potential to transform war economies based on debt into new economies based on our indebtedness to one another.

Like WikiLeaks challenging information apartheid or Anonymous taking on a state-corporatist ideology of separation and hatred, with the blockchain we can free ourselves from the shackles of monetary apartheid, financial extraction and segregation.

Information is now being freed. Currency is flowing like never before. With the blockchain, we don’t have to occupy the city square. Each simply can become a part of a network that is already creating a global wave of uprising through simply acting as if we are already free.

As the imagination begins to move, forces that try to squash its flow has infiltrated cyberspace. With extreme surveillance and censorship, the militarization and centralization of the Internet has been creeping into our lives. The Internet has become a battleground.

Yet, the Internet is anarchy. It has already unleashed a true revolutionary force: our imagination as currency of the global commons. This is our movement. This is our flow. It cannot be diverted, devalued or controlled. Can our imagination save the world?

The answer is up to us.

Thank you.

Nozomi Hayase, Ph.D., is a writer who has been covering issues of freedom of speech, transparency and decentralized movements. Her work is featured in many publications. Find her on twitter @nozomimagine.

ACLU of Virginia | (Blog) Virginia’s Ever Growing Surveillance State

From the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia Blog

by Rob Poggenklass, Tony Dunn Legal Fellow

Virginia Police Have Been Secretively Stockpiling Private Phone Records.”  This is just the latest headline reminding Virginians about our ever growing surveillance state. In response to this latest revelation of abuse, the ACLU of Virginia sent Freedom of Information Act requests to five city governments in Hampton Roads, asking for information related to this police data sharing agreement.

The Hampton Roads Telephone Analysis Sharing Network, as the police agreement is called, is a system that allows local law enforcement agencies in Hampton Roads to store data collected from cell phone records. Police departments are saying this data is obtained legally, through a court order, subpoena, or warrant. Under the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the five cities, each agency stores that data so that if at some point in the future, some other law enforcement agency decides it wants to use some of the data, the agency can get the data for a different purpose – this time, theoretically, without a warrant, subpoena, or court order.

The information available so far indicates that this practice may well violate the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act, which protects individuals’ personal information from being collected, stored and shared by government agencies. As former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli wrote in a 2013 opinion, “[t]he Data Act seeks to protect individual privacy, by placing strictures upon the governmental collection, maintenance, use and dissemination of personal information.” And, because personal information includes information that “describes, locates or indexes anything about an individual,” the passive collection and dissemination of a person’s telephone records, the Hampton Roads phone sharing program appears to violate the law.

The Data Act does not inhibit the ability of state and local police departments to obtain a warrant to get information related to an active criminal investigation. But, it does place limits on passive collection of data for future reference and it limits how these law enforcement agencies can keep and share information collected legally as a part of a particular criminal investigation. A police department that collects a phone record, for example by subpoena, is authorized to collect and maintain that record in relation to the alleged criminal activity under investigation. But under the Data Act, the agency may not store that record indefinitely or share it with whomever it wants.

As former Attorney General Cuccinelli explained, the collection of personal information is not permitted under Virginia law “unless the need for it has been clearly established in advance.” And, as General Cuccinelli made clear, the “need” that must be established is the need related to a particular criminal investigation – not a generalized societal need or the perceived usefulness of the data at some time in the future. The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the five cities does not meet the standard of particularized need that would bring this data collection and dissemination activity within the bounds of the state law. It appears to seek to authorize a practice of mass surveillance that the state law clearly was designed to protect us against.

The bottom line is that this is exactly the kind of “general warrant” our Founding Fathers had in mind when they put the Fourth Amendment into the Bill of Rights and the prohibitions against general warrants in the Virginia Constitution. As they put it, “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” And in a recent case, Justice Scalia noted that the first Virginia Constitution, which predated the U.S. Constitution, “declared that ‘general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed,’ or to search a person ‘whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence,’ ‘are grievous and oppressive, and ought not be granted.’”

The Hampton Roads Telephone Analysis Sharing Network provides for law enforcement agencies to obtain citizens’ personal information from other law enforcement agencies without probable cause, without getting a warrant, and without establishing a clear need for the information in advance. This is unacceptable and illegal. That may be why the Virginia State Police, as well as the Hampton Roads communities of Portsmouth and Virginia Beach, declined to participate in the data sharing agreement.

As several news outlets have reported, five city governments – Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Chesapeake – signed the agreement. Two of these cities approved the agreement by having the city council vote on it. In the other three cities, however, unelected city officials simply OK’d the data sharing agreement without a vote. Importantly, they justify this action because the data sharing agreement is paid for by civil asset forfeiture funds, which are obtained through laws that enable law enforcement to take an individual’s property simply by asserting that they believe the property is connected to some type of illegal activity – they don’t even need to obtain a criminal conviction.

Through our Freedom of Information Act requests, we hope to discover more about the data sharing agreement, what led officials from these five cities to sign it, and whether they have signed other, similar agreements.

We are encouraged that the leaders of the bipartisan, bicameral Ben Franklin Liberty Caucus of the Virginia General Assembly have pledged to add this issue to the Caucus’ agenda. We urge the people’s elected representatives in these five localities to make more considered judgments about the legality and the appropriateness of this initiative and reconsider their city’s involvement. As the Virginian Pilot said in a recent editorial on this issue, the data sharing agreement is “more than a problem; it’s wrong, an offense against liberty, and an example of what happens when government pursues an end without regard for the means.”

Want to stay informed about our advocacy to rein in the surveillance state? Continue to follow our blog, and check out our Facebook and Twitter for breaking news! And, sign up to be a grassroots advocate.

Anarchist Black Cross of Mexico: The four anarchist comrades end hunger strike

On October 17th, 2014, comrades Carlos López, Mario González, Fernando Bárcenas and Abraham Cortés called off their hunger strike that began on October 1st.

The comrades are well, without complications or physical damage. They will soon make the reasons and motives for ending the strike public.

For now this is all the information we have.

Freedom for all! Down with the prison walls!

Anarchist Black Cross of Mexico
h/t Anarchist News

When are Virginia police legally allowed to shoot someone?

The Alexandria Anarchist Black Cross needs your help in areas including but not limited to the creation of content and the organization of letter writing nights. E-mail alexabc@riseup.net [pgp] for more information.

That’s the question asked by the Virginian-Pilot’s Gary A. Harky in a September 1st piece. The most interesting parts come from those behind the badge.

Police are trained to respond to others’ actions. That puts them at a disadvantage, said Mark Schuster, public information officer for the Virginia Beach Sheriff’s Office.

“When you confront an individual, you don’t know what is going through their head,” he said. “They have the advantage.”

Harky also features Corinne Geller, spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police, who deflects blame from her office by explaining that departments create their own policies. At the end of the day “police may use deadly force to protect their life or the lives of others.” All officers need is a

“reasonable belief,” which would “cause an ordinary and prudent person to act or think in a similar way under similar circumstances.”

Read the Viriginia State Police Use of Force Policy here: opr-05-01-use-of-force-1 (pdf)

Glenn Greenwald: The U.S. Government’s Secret Plans to Spy for American Corporations

The Alexandria Anarchist Black Cross needs your help in areas including but not limited to the creation of content and the organization of letter writing nights. E-mail alexabc@riseup.net [pgp] for more information.

Glenn Greenwald, writing for The Intercept,has a new story based on documents from Edward Snowden which shows U.S. government preparations to engage in espionage on behalf of major corporations in the event “that the technological capacity of foreign multinational corporations could outstrip that of U.S. corporations.”

The NSA told the Washington Post last August “The department does ***not*** engage in economic espionage in any domain, including cyber.” (emphasis original)

We know the intelligence community lies, we know the U.S. government is concerned first and foremost with protecting itself, protecting individuals of power and protecting the monied interests of a very few.

This remains a major revelation and serves to further deny NSA defenders the right to claim defense of the citizenry at large as justification for their actions.

Despite the insistence of some in U.S. state media, Glenn Greenwald has not peaked.

Read the story here.

The Barrett Brown Review of Arts and Letters and Jail: We’ll Take the Hole SHU-bang

From the D Magazine website here

-Barrett Brown

I was released back into the relative freedom of the jail unit the other day after spending a month and a half in the hole, or “SHU,” where I had been confined due to an accusation by a wacky guard that I had instigated a “semi-disturbance.” A lengthy investigation by the prison administration having eventually concluded that there was no evidence that I had instigated anything at all and thus ought not to be punished for such an offense, I was finally let out of the, er, punishment cell. But I did participate in the “semi-disturbance” in question, along with some 30 other inmates, and so I was charged with “Engaging in a Group Demonstration,” pleaded guilty, and had my family visits and phone call privileges taken away for three months. It’s probably worth mentioning that the semi-disturbance/group demonstration which it turns out I didn’t instigate was directed toward the same wacky guard mentioned above, whose wackiness we simply wanted to bring to wider attention. I’ll go into all the wacky details at some later date when I’m out of this wacky prison’s wacky clutches, but in the meantime I have another story from the SHU that I will be kind enough to relate to you now.

One day, my red-headed Mohammedan cellmate, D, and I were being led back to our cell in handcuffs after one of our thrice-weekly showers when we noticed several paper bags sitting outside our door that hadn’t been there earlier. A brief but spirited exchange with the guard revealed that these were packaged foodstuffs an officer had confiscated from D after having determined through some mysterious federal calculus that his possession of them constituted “hoarding,” which is not permitted. Actually, the snacks in question had been saved up from past meal trays to serve as D’s breakfast on those days when the staff failed to bring him his morning repast before sunrise, as they’re supposed to in accordance with their own religious freedom regulations, as this was Ramadan and D is, in his own way, a very observant Saracen. Naturally he was upset about this; it’s hard enough to refrain from so much as drinking water throughout the day when one is being held in a non-air-conditioned cell throughout a Texas July without also having one’s backup breakfast seized by infidels.

After the guard left us, D turned to me and said something that I didn’t quite catch, not being conversant with his bizarre country-gangsta dialect, but which from the context and also from the fact that his entire body had just turned red I took to indicate that he had become angry and was now intent on wreaking havoc against our toy fascist jailors.

“Very well, then,” I replied to whatever it was that he had said. Then I grabbed my books from the floor and clambered up to the top bunk, which struck me as a safe place in which to ride out the cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation that always ensues when these dynamic young jihadis start mixing it up with the various Western nation-states.

Drawing upon 10 years of experience with the notoriously tumultuous Texas state prison system, D immediately set about fortifying our little cell. First he cut a slit in his mattress cover in order that he might hang the whole thing from the sprinkler head situated above the door. This would prevent the unbelievers from being able to see through the door grill, thereby denying them valuable intelligence; it would also serve as an effective barrier, making it difficult for them to rush in on us if things came to that. But the covering tore, not being strong enough to hold the weight of the mattress.

Undismayed, D moved on to the offensive itself: he used some plastic bags to seal off the half-inch gap between the bottom of the cell door and the floor, clogged up the toilet with a towel, and started flushing. The purpose of this exercise is to accumulate a good six inches or so of water in one’s cell and then release the plastic bags or whatever one has stuffed under the door, thereby flooding the hallway. One can also dispense with all this blockage and accumulation and instead just flood the hallway gradually, but in that case one’s efforts are far more likely to be detected by the guards before one manages to cause any real problems. Inmates also consider this latter method to lack artistry. At least, I’m assuming they do. I certainly do.

As D stood there flushing the toilet over and over again, wondering aloud how long he could fill up our cell with water before a guard happened to come by and get wise to what he was up to, I found myself facing an antediluvian dilemma of my own. I knew that if matters escalated past a certain point, the prison’s in-house SWAT team would be sent in to subdue us, but first a video camera would be set up on a tripod opposite the door to record the proceedings so as to discourage the cops from beating us up too badly in the process, as is the custom among cops. I figured the resulting video would be pretty hilarious if, while they’re storming into our tiny flooded cell and D is fighting them off and yelling, “Allah Akbar!” or whatever, I would just be sitting up there in my bunk reading the most thematically inappropriate possible book for the occasion, preferably something very erudite or sentimental or both.

The problem was that I couldn’t decide on a book. If I’d still had the little personal library I’d managed to store up back in the jail unit, I would obviously have picked Brideshead Revisited, with a volume of memoirs by Malcolm Muggeridge coming in a strong second. Here in the hole, though, my choices were more limited. Although the hard-bound collection of works by Thoreau that someone had sent me the previous week would work in a pinch, for some reason it just didn’t tickle my funny bone. I also had a copy of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, but then the only thing funny about Philip K. Dick is how awesome he is; in fact, I reflected, one could make a strong case that Philip K. Dick is so awesome that it’s not even funny. This led me to reflect in turn on the injustice of a world in which someone like Philip K. Dick can spend much of his life broke and having to borrow money from Robert Heinlein while someone like Orson Scott Card can make a real success of himself, whereas in a more perfect world Philip K. Dick would have been living it up in a gold-plated space station while Orson Scott Card starved to death in a gutter. Then I got back to the task at hand, considering and rejecting several more titles, including The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which I dismissed as too apropos.

Finally, I settled on William Shirer’s The Collapse of the Third Republic, which charts that ill-fated government from its inception in 1871 to its fall to the Nazis in 1940. Though the title was far from ideal for my subtle comedic purposes, I wanted to get back to reading it anyhow, as I had left off at an interesting point; it was that part where the institutions of a free and pluralistic society inevitably come under assault by authoritarian Catholics. Ha, ha, just kidding; that’s pretty much the whole book. But I really was at an interesting part — the French generals were all agreeing with each other that the military had little use for airplanes or Jews — and it had also now occurred to me that I was putting too much energy into the setting up of a sight gag that would almost certainly be lost on its sole audience of prison officials who review SWAT extraction videos. Collapse it would be, then.

Meanwhile, D’s watery onslaught against the Decreasingly Great Satan had run into another snag after a passing guard noticed a puddle spreading outside our cell; in the throes of his fanaticism, D had not sufficiently sealed the space under the door. The guard stopped in his tracks and contemplated the puddle for five or six seconds, at which point he seemed to decide that it was unauthorized. After that it was only a few seconds more of investigation before he came to grasp that this particular liquid might perhaps be best understood as merely a portion of some much larger body of liquid, perhaps originating from, say, the nearby cell from which it was clearly originating. And so finally he looked through our door grill and saw the inch or so of water that had accumulated in our cell, saw D standing there muttering in Arabic and repeatedly flushing a toilet which in turn was visibly clogged by a towel, saw me sitting on the top bunk staring back at him and taking notes — he saw all of this and he said, “Fuck.” Then he ran back down the hall.

“You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!” I called after him, that being the only appropriately ominous Bob Dylan protest lyric I could think of at the time. Then I went back to my book.

“Everybody get yo’ shit off the flo’! Imma flood this bitch!” D yelled through the grill for the benefit of the other SHU inmates, whom I could hear rushing to comply with this most practical of fatwas lest their property get soaked.

“You ain’t floodin’ shit,” came the dismissive reply from another, more competent guard who had just walked up and now threw down a stack of blankets in front of our door just as D was pulling the barrier, effectively blocking in most of D’s would-be flood. Whatever water that did manage to soak through the blankets was soon taken care of by an orderly with a mop, orderlies with mops being the real victims of most guard-inmate conflicts of this sort. And pretty soon the guards had shut off our water altogether, leaving D with few offensive options. This was just as well, as he had stopped being angry about 10 minutes prior and was now just going through the motions for form’s sake. So when the guards came back a minute later to put the “shield” over the door grill — the shield is a rectangular transparent plate intended to deflect any urine that an inmate may decide to toss from a cup at a guard, but which, being transparent, doesn’t obstruct the guard’s view of the inmate — D felt obligated to at least attempt to knock the thing off the grill. This is tricky, as the grill is laced together rather tightly such that nothing wider than a pencil can be pushed through. Thankfully, Dank — the gangster, pie tycoon, and accomplished SHU insurgent whose own adventures I detailed in the last edition of this column — was already shouting instructions to D from his own cell down the hall. His method involved pencils and pieces of paper rolled up to make a tube by which the pencils can be more easily grasped and then pushed through or something of that sort, which I didn’t quite follow as I’ve always found physics to be confusing and, frankly, kind of suspicious. Plus I was now distracted with a new problem: I’d decided to provide D with moral support by singing the “The Song of Marseilles,” but then I remembered that I didn’t know the lyrics in French, or the lyrics in English, or the tune. To clarify, I’ve almost certainly heard the tune before, but I wouldn’t be able to pick it out from among several other tunes that I vaguely associate with France and revolutionaries and whatnot. It really wouldn’t do for me to try to start singing what I suspected to be the “The Song of Marseilles” but which would actually turn out to be “Le Internationale” or something by Daft Punk. And, come to think of it, there was no good reason to bring the French into a situation that was already complicated enough. So instead I just shouted, “Down with all human institutions!” in a sort of self-parody.

D now managed to pry the shield loose using his mystical pencil-paper contraption, and it fell to the floor with a very satisfying clatter. Just then a captain showed up. Those clever bastards at the prison administration had opted to send in the kindly old black man whose grandfatherly ways melt all opposition (they’ve also got this soccer mom-looking guard that serves the same purpose; during the “semi-disturbance” standoff, when we had refused to go back to our cells after being ordered to do so, after being ordered to do so in a somewhat more menacing tone, and after being ordered to do so by a guard who was meanwhile shaking up his pepper spray, they brought in Lieutenant Probably Someone’s Mom, who came up to us, looked around, put her hands on her matronly hips, and said, “Well, I think y’all better turn around and put your hands against the walls!” at which point we all turned around and put our hands against the walls).

“Now, what’s wrong, D?” asked this infuriatingly venerable old captain, his face treacherously composed into a mask of understanding and earthy good humor that is almost certainly genuine but which still enrages me for some reason. D responded with a litany of vague complaints that had nothing to do with his original and quite legitimate grievance, which, naturally, he had already forgotten. In conclusion, he explained, “Sometimes I just need to express myself!”

I swear to God that D actually said that. And apparently this struck the grandfatherly old captain as a very reasonable answer, because he nodded knowingly and went off to get some more towels with which D could begin to dry our floor. Actually I’m quite fond of the grandfatherly old captain, and I like to imagine that he and the handful of other humane and pleasant guards argue on behalf of us inmates in the secretive Council of the Guards, taking our side against the more numerous Evil Guards, who are forever proposing that we all be be fed to wild dogs or sold to the Chinese. And the Good Guards are all like, “No, no, let’s just give them candy!” It’s all very Olympian.

***

Bible Verse of the Day: Daniel 8:5-7

“As I was reflecting, a he-goat with a prominent horn on its forehead suddenly came from the west across the whole earth without touching the ground. It came to the two-horned ram I had seen standing by the river, and rushed toward it with savage force. I saw it reach the ram; enraged, the he-goat attacked and shattered both its horns. The ram did not have the strength to withstand it; the he-goat threw the ram to the ground and trampled upon it. No one could rescue the ram from its power.”

“Solitary Confinement Is Not the Answer”

solitary-confinement

From the Democracy Now! website and Truthdig.

By Amy Goodman & Denis Moynihan

There has been much attention, and rightly so, on the CIA’s extensive use of torture, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is said to have documented in its still-classified 6,000-page report. The use of torture is not limited to the CIA, however. It is all too common across the United States. Solitary confinement is torture, and it is used routinely in jails, prisons and immigration detention facilities here at home. Grass-roots movements that have been pressuring for change are beginning to yield significant results. The coalitions include prisoners, their families, a broad swath of legal and social-justice groups and, increasingly, prison guards and officials themselves.

One official who worked to reduce the use of solitary confinement was Tom Clements. The executive director of Colorado’s Department of Corrections, Clements was at home on March 19, 2013, when his doorbell rang. As he opened the door, he was gunned down, murdered by Evan Ebel, who had been released from solitary confinement directly to the street less than two months earlier. The small, nonprofit Colorado Independent was the only outlet to link the murder to the psychological damage that Ebel suffered in solitary confinement. Another ex-prisoner who corresponded with Ebel disclosed text messages with him, shortly before Ebel killed Clements. One text read, “im just feeling peculiar & the only way i know i know to remedy that is via use of ‘violence.’”

Ironically, Clements was trying, successfully, to reform Colorado’s solitary-confinement policies, referred to there as “administrative segregation.” A year before his murder, Clements told The Colorado Independent’s Susan Greene, “There’s a lot of research around solitary and isolation in recent years, some tied to POWs and some to corrections … long periods of isolation can be counter-productive to stable behavior and long-term rehabilitation goals.” He was concerned with the direct release of prisoners from solitary back into the community, a practice that likely contributed to his murder. His successor, Rick Raemisch, continues to pursue the reforms started by Tom Clements. Raemisch subjected himself to over 20 hours in solitary, and emerged even more committed to changing the system.

Juan Mendez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture, issued a special report on solitary confinement in 2011, concluding “Segregation, isolation, separation, cellular, lockdown, Supermax, the hole, Secure Housing Unit (SHU) … whatever the name, solitary confinement should be banned by states as a punishment or extortion technique.” His latest full report on global torture includes several noted alleged excesses by the United States, including abusive solitary confinement practiced from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay to New York state, Louisiana and California.

In California, prisoners went on hunger strike for months last year, protesting solitary confinement, gaining widespread public support and achieving some of their demands. In Louisiana, Albert Woodfox has been in solitary confinement for more than 42 years, found guilty of murdering a prison guard, despite the lack of any physical evidence linking him to the crime and eyewitnesses placing him elsewhere at the time. Courts have ordered his release three times, the most recent of which was appealed by the state of Louisiana. A federal appeals court is expected to decide on his case soon.

Studies have found that irreversible psychological damage can occur after just 15 days in solitary confinement. The UN’s Mendez alleges that New York state’s prison system is excessively harsh in its use of solitary. The New York Campaign for Alternatives to Isolated Confinement is pushing a bill, the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Act. The bill would limit such confinement to 15 days, and create special treatment facilities for prisoners suffering from mental illness, and grant more time outside the cell, including contact with others.

Even prison guards are weighing in against solitary. In Texas, Lance Lowry, president of AFSCME Local 3807 of the Texas Correctional Employees, wrote an open letter to Texas prison officials that called on them to reduce the use of solitary confinement, including on the state’s death row. He told me on the “Democracy Now!” news hour, “What we found is the overall use of solitary confinement in Texas was not serving its intended purposes. We went from a couple hundred lock-up cells to over 8,000 at one point.” Recidivism, violence and the overall financial costs of incarceration are all increased by the use of solitary confinement.

Most importantly, it’s torture. It’s time to put an end to solitary confinement.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 1,200 stations in North America. She is the co-author of “The Silenced Majority,” a New York Times best-seller.