HungryBlues

Hungry Blues Has MOVED

This blog now lives at

http://hungryblues.net

Please update your bookmarks, blogrolls, rss feeds, etc. accordingly.

All comments and trackbacks on this site are now closed.

All existing content, including comments, has been migrated to the new site.

I will continue to maintain this site until I finish the long, tedious process of manually updating all of the internal links on the new site. Until that process is complete, internal links on older posts may take you back to this site.

If you want to comment on a post you have found here, copy and paste the title of that post into the search box in the sidebar of the new site. The search result should take you to the post in the new site.

For more on the site migration see this page on hungryblues.net.

By The Content of Their Character

The email, below, is the last communication I have received to date from James E Prince III concerning his demands that I remove comments posted here by one of my readers. The back story is in the post immediately preceding this one.

From: James E. Prince III <jprince at neshobademocrat dot com>
To: Benjamin Greenberg <minorjive at gmail dot com>
Date: Jun 16, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: FalseAndDefamatory


Mr. Greenberg:

The 5th Circuit is so far upholding the rights of bloggers like you to defame and slander, I am advised, although that does not prevent one from attempting to set new legal precedent. So at least for now you win on that count. But still, you are knowingly publishing false and defamatory statements, contradicting your own pledge on your website.

Is this the new liberalism, to knowingly harm another human being for sheer entertainment and attention?

I have in good faith asked you to remove statements by “Suzy Sharino” that are false and defamatory and clearly a very personal attack by a former disgruntled employee posing as a woman. No such person has ever worked for me nor do I know “her.”

Of all my experiences with The Philadelphia Coalition and the successful prosecution of Edgar Ray Killen, I am shocked most at how threatened you and the other ultraliberals are by conservatives who are willing to speak out on matters such as the civil rights murders in Neshoba County. Rather than join us at the table, you resort to smear campaigns to discredit.

Surprisingly, the resistance has not come from within Neshoba County or Mississippi. The resistance has come from the liberal left. (That’s the book in me.)

Even the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists have not stooped to the level that you have with personal attacks. Comment all you want on my written record and the facts. But let’s not resort to personal attacks.

From the outset what motivated me most in organizing the Coalition was justice along with peace and reconciliation that I have come to realize flows only from a regenerated heart. People like you make reconciliation difficult to achieve with your divisiveness and petty blog practices that serve no useful purpose other than to tear down. But in a Google age, you rule.

You are committing murder with the tongue and are no better than the band of thugs who took the lives of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney.

You are a disgrace to your father’s name.

Sincerely,

Jim Prince

--
James E. Prince III
Editor and Publisher
The Neshoba Democrat
P.O. Box 30
Philadelphia, MS 39350
601-656-4000
FAX 601-656-6379
jprince at neshobademocrat dot com

Update on James Prince's Legal Threats Against Me

Early last month I posted an exchange of emails between myself and James E. Prince III, editor and publisher of the Neshoba Democrat and co-chair of the Philadelphia Coalition.

Last February, a person who identifies herself as Suzy Sharino, and who claims to be a former reporter for Prince, left a comment on HungryBlues, which enraged Mr. Prince. Sharino's comment was made in response to this post. There and elsewhere (more), I am critical of Prince and the Philadelphia Coalition, which has charged itself with "establishing a perpetual structure that will foster racial harmony and reconciliation" in Neshoba County, MS.

Prince claimed that Sharino's comments are false and defamatory. For that reason, Prince demanded that I remove them from my blog. Prince was unclear in those initial emails, which specific statements by Sharino were false and defamatory; instead, he insisted I remove the entirety of Sharino's comment and made vague threats about contacting his lawyer.

In my last email message to Prince, I explained that neither bloggers nor their ISPs are liable for comments left by third parties, like Suzy Sharino. I concluded by saying:

If you have a specific request to make of me, please make it with the appropriate rationale, so I can consider it. Be advised, however, that since the statements that you mention were made be [sic] a third party, retractions are purely a matter of my discretion. Your threats have no sway with me. You are of course welcome to make a comment on my blog to rebut any of Suzy Sharino's statements.

That was on June 4 in the afternoon. That evening, Prince wrote to me again, making specific denials by asserting that:

Among other things, my grandfather was never in the Citizens Counsel, I certainly didn’t embezzle funds from the Coalition and give them to Haley Barbour and I have never sexually harassed an employee.

Prince also denied that anyone named Suzy Sharino ever worked for him. He made an insinuation about Sharino's real identity and then amplified his previous legal threats:

You may smugly hide hide behind the “third party” assertion but it’s my reputation and I believe that I will ultimately prevail in having this post removed if we have to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

I can’t print statements in my newspapers that are knowingly false without consequences. I would not mind making a point with someone as arrogant as you and who clearly possesses such a reckless disregard for the truth. The First Amendment is not a license to mount a slanderous attack on anyone as you have allowed.

I did not respond to this, but on on June 5, Prince sent me two separate email messages that included what he believed to be evidence that he did not sexually harass a former employee, as Sharino had claimed. I did not consider Prince's evidence to be conclusive. To avoid acting or speaking impulsively, however, I took no further action and did not respond to Prince.

Having heard nothing further from me, Prince wrote to me again on June 16, saying that he is backing down from his legal threats for now. He then launched into a vicious attack, saying, among other things that I am "no better than the band of thugs who took the lives of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney."

I did not want to respond to Prince in kind, so again I remained silent.

I have at this point decided on two courses of action.

1. The one allegation by Suzy Sharino that Prince addressed substantively was that Prince sexually harassed a former employee. Therefore, as a courtesy, I am deleting that portion Suzy Sharino's comment.
2. I am publishing in its entirety Prince's last message to me. I believe it will say more than I ever can about the character of James E. Prince III.

The Atrios and Luskin Story

Bloggers and blog readers who have been around a few years will get the allusion I made in my previous post.

For those unfamiliar, here's the short version.

Also see Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment and Director, The Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

More info at EFF and Chilling Effects.

Shades of Atrios and Luskin

James E. Prince III, Editor and Publisher of the Mississippi newspaper and online news source, the Neshoba Democrat, wrote an email message to me last night, at 11:19 p.m., which referenced this HungryBlues entry, which I posted last July, and said:

Mr. Greenberg:

The post by Jonathan David Jackson is false and defamatory and I ask that you remove it immediately.

Jim Prince

--
James E. Prince III
Editor and Publisher
The Neshoba Democrat
    P.O. Box 30
Philadelphia, MS 39350
601-656-4000
FAX 601-656-6379
[email protected]

Confused by this request, I wrote the following message back to Mr. Prince:

Dear Mr. Prince,

What part of Jonathan David Jackson's comment on my blog do you consider false and defamatory? Here is what he wrote, in full, in response to the post you reference:

    I love the clear, careful reasoning as you build this case against a closet (or not so closet) bigot and expose the true complexity of these issues. I also admire the primary source documents that you post on the site. This essay is definitely one of your most insightful.

    Posted by: Jonathan David Jackson | Wednesday, July 13, 2005 at 05:15 PM

Ben Greenberg

This morning James E.  Prince III replied with a clarification and a threat of legal action:

I’m speaking of the comments below apparently by Suzy Sharino then. It’s actually difficult to tell who made these slanderous comments. But they need to be gone. I don’t think either one of us wants to get my lawyers involved.

Jim Prince

Earlier this afternoon, I answered with this email:

Dear Mr. Prince,

I am surprised that you, as editor and publisher of a newspaper, would write an demand letter that is so vague. I would have assumed that you know the mechanics of demanding retractions for specific statements.

It would be less surprising to me, perhaps, if you are unaware that neither bloggers nor their ISPs are libel [sic] for comments left by third parties, such as Suzy Sharino.

If you have a specific request to make of me, please make it with the appropriate rationale, so I can consider it. Be advised, however, that since the statements that you mention were made be [sic] a third party, retractions are purely a matter of my discretion. Your threats have no sway with me. You are of course welcome to make a comment  on my blog to rebut any of Suzy Sharino's statements.

Ben Greenberg

It's nice when they like your writing, but...

Just a coincidence? Maybe, except it's at least two coincidences... Tell me what you think...

Yesterday on TalkLeft:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014801.html

Chicago's Abu Ghraib

Let's not forget prisoner abuse begins at home. [emphasis added --BG]

It's called Area 2. And for nearly two decades beginning in 1971, it was the epicenter for what has been described as the systematic torture of dozens of African-American males by Chicago police officers. In total, more than 135 people say they were subjected to abuse including having guns forced into their mouths, bags places over their heads, and electric shocks inflicted to their genitals. Four men have been released from death row after government investigators concluded torture led to their wrongful convictions.

In December on HungryBlues:

http://minorjive.typepad.com/hungryblues/2005/12/torture_begins_.html

Torture Begins At Home

US sanctioned torture is one of the pressing human rights issues of our time. I very much admire and am grateful for the moral vigilance with which some are responding to this administration's attack on democracy and human rights in its war on terror. Yet I also wish for a day when there is comparable popular awareness of and outrage about the long standing, institutionalized human rights abuses that take place within US borders. The most recent example of the latter to come my way was in Salim Muwakkil's latest article in In These Times:

The latest domestic example is Chicago, where for nearly two decades (from 1973 to 1991) the police department virtually condoned the torture of more than 100 black criminal suspects. Those illegal techniques led to the wrongful conviction of dozens of black men, and even prompted Amnesty International in 1990 to call for an inquiry into police torture in the city.

Vague And Overbroad Powers

The Black Commentator's Margaret Kimberly notes that Halliburton has won yet another multi-million dollar government contract—this one to build "temporary detention facilities" in case of an "immigration emergency."

The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts.

Kimberly quotes the passage, above, from Halliburton's press release and then comments:

Anyone paying a little bit of attention will ask, "What immigration emergency?" If there is an immigration emergency looming on the horizon it is a big secret. Of course immigrants will be the first ensnared in the net that big brother Bush has in mind, but the net won't stop with them.

What sort of national emergency requires detention centers? America has plenty of prisons. More of our population is behind bars than in any country on earth. There are detention centers for immigration in existence already. As for helping in case of a natural disaster, hurricane Katrina proved that saving American lives is not on the Bush agenda.

When the word detention comes up, hairs should rise on the back of every neck. Thanks to the Patriot Act and the creation of "enemy combatants" these detention centers can be used to lock up anyone for any reason for any length of time that Uncle Sam wishes.

Kimberly hopes for the "best case scenario" in which "this contract may be just the latest hand out to the welfare queen of corporate America," but she also entertains the more likely possibility that "our government is planning to create more [Jose] Padillas." I say "more likely" because history suggests this development is nothing less than a revival of J. Edgar Hoover's Emergency Detention Program, detailed in a 1976 Congressional report:

The development of plans during this period for emergency detention of dangerous persons and for intelligence about such persons took place entirely within the executive branch. In contrast to the employee security program, these plans were not only withheld from the public and Congress but were framed in terms which disregarded the legislation enacted by Congress. Director Hoover's decision to ignore Attorney General Biddle's 1943 directive abolishing the wartime Custodial Detention List had been an example of the inability of the Attorney General to control domestic intelligence operations. In the 1950s the FBI and the Justice Department collaborated in a decision to disregard the attempt by Congress to provide statutory direction for the Emergency Detention Program. This is not to say that the Justice Department itself was fully aware of the FBI's activities in this area. The FBI kept secret from the Department its most sweeping list of potentially dangerous persons, first called the "Communist Index" and later renamed the "Reserve Index," as well as its targeting programs for intensive investigation of "key figures" and "top functionaries" and its own detention priorities labeled "Detcom" and "Comsab"(emphasis added).

Director Hoover advised Attorney General Clark in March 1946 of the existence of its Security Index, although he did not say that it had existed since Attorney General Biddle's 1943 directive. The Index listed persons "who would be dangerous or potentially dangerous in the event of . . . serious crisis, involving the United States and the U.S.S.R." The Justice Department then prepared a memorandum concluding that the available options for action in an emergency were a declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The FBI Director recommended going to Congress to secure "statutory backing for detention" (emphasis added).

After a conference between Department and FBI officials, the FBI submitted a lengthy analysis of its standards for classifying potentially dangerous persons. The memorandum gave specific examples of "Communists and Communist sympathizers whose names appear in the Bureau's Security Index." However, the FBI did not provide any specific examples in the category "Espionage Suspects and Government Employees in Communist Underground." Assistant Director Ladd advised Director Hoover of the reason for excluding any such examples:

The Bureau has identified over 100 persons who are logically suspected of being in the Government Communist Underground; however, at the present time, the Bureau does not have evidence, whether admissible or otherwise, reflecting actual membership in the Communist Party. It is believed that for security reasons, examples of these logical suspects should not be set forth at this time. (emphasis added)

The Director noted, "I most certainly agree. There are too many leaks."

This past week there was a related revelation about a central repository of alleged terrorism suspects (via Julius Speaks):

The National Counterterrorism Center maintains a central repository of 325,000 names of alleged international terrorism suspects or people who aid them, a number that has more than quadrupled since the fall of 2003, according to counterterrorism officials.

The list kept by the National Counterterrorism Center - created in 2004 to be the primary U.S. terrorism intelligence agency - contains a far greater number of international terrorist suspects and associated names in a single government database than has previously been disclosed.

The keeping of large lists of "suspects" is also part of the Hoover heritage. The Custodial Detention List was established in the early 1940s, abolished by Attorney General Francis Biddle in 1943, and immediately re-invented by Hoover as the Security Index, which was maintained through the early 1970s, when it was re-named as the Administrative Index. At each stage in the game, there were subsidiary indices—such as the Communist Index, the Reserve Index and the Agitator Index—less well-known to the Attorney General and Congressional oversight committees. The 1976 Congressional report states that

By early 1951, the total had increased to 13,901 names [on the Security Index] as the result of an FBI decision after the outbreak of the Korean War to broaden "the basis for inclusion in the Security Index to include alI active members of the Communist Party." The size of the Communist Index, as contrasted with the Security Index, was indicated by the figures from the New York field office which had 2,897 names on the Security Index and 42,000 names on the Communist Index. Since the Communist Index was based on "allegations of Communist activity," it was "a measure of investigations performed." If this proportion applied "throughout the field," as the FBI memorandum suggested, then the Communist Indexes in the field offices contained over 200,000 names.

The Bush administration says we should take some comfort in knowing that US citizens comprise "only a very, very small fraction" of the 325,00 names in the National Counterterrorism Center's central repository. "The vast majority are non-U.S. persons and do not live in the U.S.," a Bush administration official said.

The comments of ACLU legislative counsel for privacy rights, Timothy Sparapani, are more to the point:

We have lists that are having baby lists at this point, they're spawning faster than rabbits.... If we have over 300,000 known terrorists who want to do this country harm, we've got a much bigger problem than deciding which names go on which list. But I highly doubt that is the case.

The existence of these over-swollen lists is evidence of what the new, Halliburton-built detention centers are intended for. The development of an infrastructure for mass detentions does not come out of the blue. It has long been a desired power of the federal law enforcement. Even in 1974, after many of these earlier programs came to light and the Attorney General demanded more precise "guidelines" for how security lists would be maintained, the 1976 Congressional report concluded that "the broad claims of power in the hands of the Executive branch could readily permit a return to the vague and overbroad domestic intelligence policies of the past."

And readily permit a return they have.

FURTHER READING
FOX Unleashes Vile McCarthyite Smear Campaign Against Cindy and the Peace Movement

My New Job And Other Recent Developments

After a long job search, I finally accepted a job offer on Wednesday.

On March 6, I will start working as Web Community Coordinator for Physicians for Human Rights. After over a year of job hunting, it is great to finally have a full-time job, and it is a dream come true to have an internet communications and organizing job for a human rights organization like PHR.

After my first two weeks at PHR, they will be sending me to Seattle to attend the N-TEN Nonprofit Technology Conference. This will be a cool opportunity to learn from and to network with colleagues in what is still a very new field—and to have some fun in a great city.

For the rest of this month, I'll be finishing my work as guest editor for the March/April issue of Dollars & Sense, devoted to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi since Katrina. We have some exciting interviews with and great articles by local local activists, as well as pieces by other authors, including myself. I'm in the middle of writing my longish article about my travels on the Mississippi Gulf Coast at the end of January. I spent six days in Mississippi and two days in New Orleans. I interviewed numerous storm survivors and learned a lot about the situations of some of the Gulf Coast African American communities. I've been posting some excerpts from my interviews on the Dollars & Sense blog. The magazine should be available by the end of March.

Dollars & Sense is in the process of overhauling its website. The new site is up and running and is a big improvement over what we had before. Watch for web exclusives and multimedia content in the near future. In the meantime, you should check out the online material from the Jan/Feb issue. I highly recommend former d&s intern Rebecca Parish's interview with Lani Guinier and longtime D&S Collective member John Miller's What's Good for Wal-Mart . . .

More Interview Excerpts At Dollars & Sense Blog

  DSCN1117 
  Originally uploaded by BenTG.

Last week, I posted two excerpts from my interview with Shone, about her experiences surviving Katrina in Biloxi, MS.

Shone weathered the storm with her six children and others, at her mother's home, in the neighborhood called The Point, which was among the hardest hit in Biloxi. Almost every building was destroyed or very seriously damaged.

The house Shone and her family were in filled with about five feet of water and was carried off of its foundation into a neighboring yard.

Part I: "The wind was blowin' so hard, we thought those kids was gonna get blowed out the attic."

Part II: "He was like, no, I can't see it, I don't have time."

MS Blogging At Dollars & Sense Blog

I got back from Mississippi on Monday evening and have been blogging over at the dollars & sense blog. Here are some of the recent posts:

Resources

Railroad Tracks

Gayle Tart: "you wanna say no, I can't do it, I just can't, not anything else, not another problem, not another person."

Nothing like this has ever happened in America

Alice T: "I was left there for a reason, to help out."

Miss TT

You can also go over to my flickr page to check out some of my photos from the trip.