A statement in support of the hunger strikers
by Kevin Rashid Johnson
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” – Frederick Douglass
Rashid Johnson, self portrait
Six thousand six hundred California prisoners participated in a three-week-long hunger strike in July, seeking relief from unjust and inhumane conditions. In the face of California Department of Corrections (CDC) officials failing to honor settlement negotiations, the hunger strike resumed on Sept. 26, with nearly 12,000 prisoners participating in 13 of that state’s prisons.
It is a truism that oppression breeds resistance. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence enshrines the right and duty of the oppressed to resist their oppression.
In this era of capitalist oppression on a global scale, the hunger strike exhibits the very same humyn spirit, courage and outrage that drove millions across North Afrika and the Middle East this year to take to the streets in protest against oppressive governments. U.S. rulers, in the face of pretending to champion and support human rights, democracy and the demands for basic rights by people half a world away, can’t admit they practice abuses just as vile against their own subjects – right here in Amerika.
Hosni Mubarak, the U.S. puppet and Egyptian dictator who was driven out of Egypt by mass protests this year, was notorious for torturing his own people. But so too are U.S. officials. Indeed, one of the key protest issues of the California prisoners is the acute psychological torture of sensory deprivation in the CDC’s Security Housing Units (SHUs) – Pelican Bay’s SHU in particular. This torture can’t be honestly denied.
It has long been the game of U.S. officials, especially since the 2004 Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib torture scandals, to pretend that psychological torture isn’t really torture at all. However, they secretly know the exact opposite to be true. According to torture experts, psychological – or “clean” torture – is the most destructive, sadistic and inhumane type of torture. Among the methods proven most effective is the very sort inflicted by design in the isolated cells of the SHUs, namely sensory deprivation.
According to torture experts, psychological – or “clean” torture – is the most destructive, sadistic and inhumane type of torture. Among the methods proven most effective is the very sort inflicted by design in the isolated cells of the SHUs, namely sensory deprivation.
Noted psychologist and torture expert, Dr. Albert Biderman, long ago found as to sensory deprivation, “The effect of isolation on the brain function of the prisoner is much like that which occurs if he is beaten, starved or deprived of sleep.”
The very same U.S. Central Intelligence Agency that employed Biderman as one of its torture researchers and experimenters encoded these findings in its 1963 “Kubark Counterintelligence Interrogation” torture manual, confirming that:
1. The deprivation of sensory stimuli induces stress;
2. The stress becomes unbearable for most subjects;
3. The subject has a growing need for physical and social stimuli; and
4. Some subjects progressively lose touch with reality, focus inwardly, which produces delusions, hallucinations and other pathological effects.
This drawing by Rashid Johnson of Red Onion Prison, Va., has become the icon of California prisoner hunger strike solidarity.
What’s more, over a century ago the U.S. high court found and denounced the same in U.S. prisons, in the face of In Re Medley, 134 U.S. 150 (1890).
These findings have been repeated in U.S. courts today in response to the conditions of SHUs and super-maximum security prisons that have swept Amerika since the 1970s, alongside massive imprisonment of the poor and people of color. In one case concerning Pelican Bay’s SHU, the California federal courts found “many, if not most, inmates in SHU experience some degree of psychological trauma in reaction to their extreme social isolation and the severely restricted environmental stimulation in SHU.” Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (1995).
So it’s no wonder thousands of prisoners have been driven to starve themselves in desperate efforts for exposure and redress and to show they are worthy of basic humyn rights and dignity.
But the typical response of officials is to discredit the resistance of those who suffer at their hands by villainizing (or “dirtying up,” as Johnnie Cochran used to called it) the victim. It was done to Civil Rights activists from the 1950s-1970s who opposed and exposed racism – U.S. officials projected them as fronts for foreign Communists and denounced as “Soviet propaganda” graphic photos of Southern lynching that appeared in world media.
The typical response of officials is to discredit the resistance of those who suffer at their hands by villainizing (or “dirtying up,” as Johnnie Cochran used to called it) the victim.
Whatever happens to be the popular official enemy and bogeyman of the day is the label used to discredit those who resist official oppression. During the Cold War, the “enemy” was Communists. Then it was terrorists. In the era of mass incarceration and ongoing persecution of Black and Brown youth, it’s gangs. These labels are used to provoke visceral reactions in the population at large of fear, hatred and consequent disregard for and alienation against the oppressed. And true to form, the hunger strike has been “dirtied up” as the work of prison gangs:
This drawing by Rashid is called “Control Unit Torture.” To see a mind-blowing display of his work – all of it done while he himself is being tortured in a control unit – go to http://rashidmod.com/art/. Rashid encourages the use of his art for free. You’ll find a drawing on almost every topic you care about. – Art: Kevin “Rashid” Johnson
“The CDCR has continued to lie about the hunger strike – saying it was organized by gangs and attacking representatives of the strikers and others, depicting them as the ‘generals’ of the prison gangs and the ‘shot callers’ who order other prisoners to engage in gang violence.
“Dolores, whose son has been in the SHU for 10 years, said, ‘If that is their [the prisoners’] way of thinking, then why did they just conduct a hunger strike willing to risk their own lives, to suffer on a daily basis in a nonviolent demonstration that spread across California prisons involving thousands and thousands of men crossing all racial lines? It’s because they are human beings. They do have dignity, and they want to be heard.”
Not coincidentally, another of the hunger strike’s main protest issues is the CDCR’s labeling prisoners as gang members upon the flimsiest grounds, then confining them in SHUs until they “debrief” – that is, finger other prisoners as gang members to be thrown in the SHU. Thus the only way to leave SHU is as a known informant to be ostracized and targeted as such by others.
The real purpose of SHUs and Super-maxes
The true purpose of SHUs isn’t to control gangs and racial violence. In fact, the CDCR has long instigated and facilitated prisoner-on-prisoner violence. From the notorious “gladiator fights” – where guards at CDCR’s Corcoran State Prison set up prisoner fights, gambled on the outcomes and then shot the prisoners for fun, killing eight and shooting 43 just between 1989 and 1994 – to massive numbers of prisoner-on-prisoner clashes instigated and manipulated by the notoriously corrupt California prison guards’ union to generate public support for building more prisons to increase prison jobs and dues-paying membership.
In 1999, prisoners at the New Folsom Prison went on a hunger strike protesting being forced onto prison yards with rivals. CDC Ombudsman Ken Hurdle rejected negotiations, stating: “Then you’d have two groups normally aligned on the yard together. They would have only staff as their enemy.”
This admits officials are deliberately facilitating prisoner-on-prisoner violence as a technique of prison control.
This is what they fear in the unity shown by the hunger strikers. And it undermines the disunity they need to project them as animals.
Officials welcome and incite gang violence. It creates jobs, justifies their oppression and enhances their “control.” Even Crips co-founder Stanley Tookie Williams, who was executed by the CDCR, exposed this.
)
Officials welcome and incite gang violence. It creates jobs, justifies their oppression and enhances their “control.”
More revealing is that then-California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected massive international pleas to stay Tookie’s execution on grounds that Tookie dedicated his book, “Life in Prison,” to Black revolutionary George Jackson, who was murdered by CDC officials in 1971. Schwarzenegger said the dedication “defies reason and is a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed.” Which brings us closer to exposing the real reasons SHUs exist.
The actual “leaders” officials fear and who are the prime targets of SHUs and super-maxes are those who are politically conscious and prove able to unite prisoners across racial and other lines.
The proliferation of SHUs and super-maxes began with the Marion Control Unit, which opened in 1972, following the murder of George Jackson and the peaceful 1971 Attica uprising that officials ended with the coldblooded murders of 29 prisoners and 10 civilians and the systematic humiliation and torture of hundreds of prisoners, provoking international outrage.
The actual “leaders” officials fear and who are the prime targets of SHUs and super-maxes are those who are politically conscious and prove able to unite prisoners across racial and other lines.
Like the brutal government responses to mass protests in Asia and Afrika this year, when the prisoners of Attica took to the yard in protest, with grievances articulated and represented by politically conscious prisoners, the official response was murder and torture, then high security torture units. In one of the few admissions on record, Ralph Arons, a former warden at Marion, testified in federal court: “The purpose of the Marion Control Unit is to control revolutionary attitudes in the prison and in society at large.”
Yet U.S. officials deny confining or persecuting people for political beliefs.
Created during the reign of George W. Bush, this drawing by Rashid, titled “Fascism,” foreshadows Occupy Wall Street. – Art: Kevin “Rashid” Johnson
In fact, Pelican Bay officials recently banned my own book, “Defying the Tomb,” as “gang material,” a book of political writings and art, which many readers and reviewers have compared to George Jackson’s writings, whose books CDC banned in the 1970s as well. And with the resurgence of prisoners’ political consciousness, they’ve recently begun confiscating this book as “gang material.” Like Nazi book burnings and concentration camps, the object is to censor and persecute political consciousness and revolutionary culture amongst the most oppressed peoples. And “gang” labels are used to “dirty up” the people, practices and ideas they seek to repress.
Just as I am confined in a remote Virginia super-max, under “special” conditions of a SHU because of my political beliefs and having co-founded the New Afrikan Black Panther Party as a party of the oppressed, so too you’ll find in these units across Amerika those who hold and practice revolutionary political views and affiliations that are supposed to be constitutionally protected, not persecuted. As the high court once proclaimed:
“Our form of government is built on the premise that every citizen shall have the right to engage in political expression and association. This right was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Exercise of these basic freedoms in America has traditionally been through the media of political associations. Any interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents. All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups ….”
But contrast these political ideals with the political reality that such parties face at the hands of officials, as admitted by Justice Hugo Black: “History should teach us … that … minority parties and groups which advocate extremely unpopular social or governmental innovations will always be typed as criminal gangs and attempts will always be made to drive them out.”
)
This is the function of the SHUs like those that California’s prisoners are protesting, and the ones used as a weapon to censor and repress political consciousness.
Resistance to the oppression of these units is the meaning of the hunger strikes. Amerika’s oppressed and disenfranchised victims of modern penal enslavement and the New Jim Crow are struggling like those of generations past for recognition and respect as humyn beings. As a party of the oppressed, especially the imprisoned, the NABPP-PC stands in unity with the heroic struggles of California’s entombed and calls on all freedom-loving people everywhere to take up their cause.
Resistance to the oppression of these units is the meaning of the hunger strikes.
Dare to struggle! Dare to win! All Power to the People!
Rashid Johnson, a prisoner in Virginia, has been held in segregation since 1993. While in prison he founded the New Afrikan Black Panther Party – Prison Chapter. Rashid is also the artist who drew the image that has been used extensively during the strikes of arms linked in unity and a crossed out spoon and fork. His book, “Defying the Tomb,” with a foreword by Russell “Maroon” Shoats, has been banned as “gang literature” by Pelican Bay State Prison. It can be ordered at leftwingbooks.net, by writing to Kersplebedeb, CP 63560, CCCP Van Horne, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3W 3H8, or by emailing info@kersplebedeb.com. Send our brother some love and light: Kevin “Rashid” Johnson, 1007485, Red Onion State Prison, P.O. Box 1900, Pound, VA 24279.
Rashid’s art and writing are featured in this video. – Video: Black Agenda Report
The board of supervisors in Riverside County, California wants to start charging inmates rent. Supervisor Jeff Stone introduced an ordinance -- unanimously approved by the board -- that would charge prisoners about $140 for each day they serve in jail.
A pair of Stanford University law professors spent months this year writing ballot language to narrow, ever so slightly, California’s three strikes sentencing law.
The result is the "Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012" [PDF], which is now under legal review by the state attorney general's office. It aims to remove courts’ authority to sentence convicts to 25 years to life in prison when their crimes have been neither violent nor serious.
At the same time, the initiative's backers argue this measure will ensure dangerous criminals remain incarcerated.
By protecting one piece of the three strikes law (life sentences for violent offenders), the proponents hope California voters will agree to discard another piece (life sentences for minor crimes).
That transaction shows the initiative's political vulnerability, said Arnold Steinberg, a Republican political strategist. "Their challenge at the margins is to prevent their effort from being seen as soft on crime," he said.Past efforts to change the three strikes law have failed that challenge. California's law, enacted by voters in 1993, is the only law in the United States that allows convicts to receive a third strike for any new crime, including petty theft.
The initiative's supporters intend to focus on the cost of long prison terms for minor crimes, said Dan Newman, a spokesman for the effort. Felons previously convicted of murder, rape and child molestation could continue to receive a third strike for any conviction.
"Frankly, it's built to win," Newman said. "It’s built so it restores what voters wanted when they voted for three strikes in the first place. And it does so in a way that allows us to put together a broad coalition of supporters."
That coalition is still under construction, Newman said.
Supporters expect to begin collecting signatures next month to secure a spot on the November 2012 ballot.
Steinberg said the list of supporters has to include conservatives and law enforcement to convince voters that the measure won't risk public safety.
"It cannot look like liberals from central casting," he said.
In 2004, Proposition 66, a ballot measure that would have dramatically changed three strikes, was defeated after California prosecutors made a late media blitz characterizing it as a mass release of dangerous criminals. Numerous top state officials lined up against the measure, including former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gov. Jerry Brown.
Prop. 66 would have required that a third "strike" be a serious or violent crime and reduced the number of offenses deemed serious under state law.
Pre-election polls showed Prop. 66 was likely to pass before opponents claimed the measure could result in the release of 26,000 felons. Steve Ipsen, head of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, produced a four-page flier that listed 10 violent convicts who Ipsen contended would be "eligible for release" under the proposition.
The lineup included a man who had "cut dog's head off," the flier states.
The Stanford professors, David Mills and Michael Romano, kept that political attack in mind as they drafted the current initiative.
"Those criminals who committed heinous acts are singled out in the reform language to ensure they receive no benefit whatsoever," Newman said.
Romano leads the Stanford Three Strikes Project, where law students work to reduce life sentences for convicts who received their strikes for minor offenses, like shoplifting or drug possession.
Ipsen, a prosecutor for the Los Angeles district attorney's office, said he agrees that three strikes has resulted in some outsized prison sentences. However, he opposes altering the law, as it means reducing prosecutors' discretion in how they charge their cases.
"It would be very unfortunate if that happened because I think discretion can be used properly," Ipsen said. "It has been getting better."
The law would not change for convicts receiving a second strike if voters approve the initiative.
There are more than 32,000 inmates with two strikes presently serving time in state prison, compared with about 8,800 with three strikes, according to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation data [PDF]. So-called “second-strikers” have their sentences doubled under the law.
Ryan Gabrielson covers public safety for California Watch, a project of the non-profit Center for Investigative reporting. Find more California Watch stories here.