Industry groups and right-wing opportunists have rapidly mobilized to label James Lee a “radical environmentalist” in order to push their political agenda. Absent from this media frenzy, though, is any rational look at the difference between a “radical environmentalist” who uses extreme tactics, and someone struggling with serious mental illnesses who latches on to environmental issues.

For James Lee, the Discovery Channel was a personal obsession. It consumed him, and came to be the focus of all things wrong in the world. It was a personal campaign led by he alone. While some commentators have been quick to point out merits to the concerns Lee raised about overpopulation, Lee’s “manifesto” was not grounded in reality. For instance, he demands that the Discovery Channel “keep out the fraudulent peace movements.” He says, “They are liars and fakes and had no real intention of ending the wars. ALL OF THEM ARE FAKE! On one hand, they claim they want the wars to end, on the other, they are demanding the human population increase.”

He also makes racist comments about “stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth.” However, Lee served time in prison for smuggling immigrants from Mexico. As psychologists and psychiatrists have told ABC News, these are the words and actions of an individual in need of help, possibly suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; there is no rational explanation for such a mental disconnect between words and actions.

Talking heads have been name-dropping “The Unabomber” and drawing comparisons to James Lee. That’s a comparison worth exploring. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, killed three people and injured twenty-three in his twenty years of bombings. As his crimes continued, the usual suspects were labeling him an “eco-terrorist” and trying to connect him to the mainstream environmental movement (which is happening now, as well, and I’ll be writing about that in a future post).

However, today Kaczynski is absent from nearly every chronology of the radical animal rights and environmental movements, including those created by industry groups and the government. Kaczynski was the target of the most intensive manhunt in the FBI’s history, but the bureau’s “Chronological Summary of Terrorist Incidents in the United States 1980-2005” does not mention him once; in Congressional testimony and FBI news releases on “eco-terrorism,” the bureau has said “these terrorists haven’t taken lives.” In Congressional hearings, government documents, think tank reports, and terrorism timelines, Kaczynski is always absent.

While his manifesto argued for the dismantling of industrial civilization, he made clear he did not consider himself part of any social movement. In a journal entry he wrote, “I believe in nothing… I don’t believe in the cult of nature worshipers or wilderness-worshipers.”

All but the most extreme industry advocates have treated him as a serial killer or an individual in need of mental help. During his trial, Kaczynski fired his attorneys because they argued that he was insane. It was later revealed that Kaczynski was a volunteer in mind-control experiments sponsored by the CIA.

Michael Mello, author of the recently published book, “The United States of America vs. Theodore John Kaczynski,” notes that at some point in his Harvard years–1958 to 1962–Kaczynski agreed to be the subject of “a psychological experiment”. Mello identifies the chief researcher for these only as a lieutenant colonel in World War II, working for the CIA’s predecessor organization, the Office of Strategic Services. In fact, the man experimenting on the young Kaczynski was Dr. Henry Murray, who died in 1988.

Lee’s sister-in-law described how his mental health deteriorated after the death of two people he loved, and that he was incapable of having a healthy relationship with his family or others. In a letter written when in prison for trafficking immigrants, Lee was already thinking of his own end:

“When I get out of prison, I undoubtedly will have the same personality traits as I had before. I wish I could point a finger at someone or something and magically be someone else…. I don’t know if my life will end with a happy ending, but all I ask is for an ending that is not in prison.”

There has been buzz on various websites and email lists, animal rights and environmental activists who do not agree with what James Lee did, but are not sure how to speak about these events because “there was a little truth in what he said.” I think it’s important to be honest and forthright about this. Recognizing that there may be some seeds of true in the hysteria of people like James Lee, or even the Unabomber, does not mean ignoring their sicknesses or supporting, in any way, the strange fruits they produced.

A hostage crisis at the Discovery Channel building has ended with the attacker shot dead, and pundits and reporters are rushing to label him a “radical environmentalist,” “eco-terrorist,” and “environmental activist.” Some are even saying “eco-fascist.” And others are pointing to the Earth Liberation Front. For talking heads, it is a good soundbite for pushing their political agenda, and for the press is makes a sexier headline, but the label just doesn’t make any sense.

James Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is a one-man campaign against the Discovery Channel, which airs programs such as Whale Wars… programs that the Japanese have attacked as supporting “eco-terrorists.” Lee spent thousands of dollars out of his own pockets advertising his protests, and paid homeless people to attend. His “manifesto,” as some are beginning to call it, rails against “parasitic human infants,” including “immigration pollution and anchor baby filth.”

I have been covering the radical environmental movements for over 10 years, and I’m flat-out confused by all of this. Here’s why. Lee’s “radical environmentalism” is directed at a company that is not the ire of any other animal rights and environmental activists. The Discovery Channel has actually been attacked as promoting radical environmentalism. Lee seems to have had no involvement with any environmental groups (aboveground or underground) except his one-man show. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of the environmental movement. None of it adds up. Yet the mainstream press has been clamoring to say this was a “radical environmentalist” or “eco-terrorist.”

Is “radical environmentalist” a more acceptable rush judgment than saying someone was insane? Because that’s the first, and only, thing that has come to mind in this case.

James Lee has written:

“The Discovery Channel is a big part of the problem, not the solution. Instead of showing successful solutions, their broadcast programs seem to be doing the opposite. Shows like ‘Cash Cab’ and ‘Dirty Jobs’ serve as diversions to keep the focus off what is really important, which is Global Warming and Animal Extinction. Why do they broadcast a show like “Future Weapons” that only promise to destroy the planet even more? And their new lineup “Planet Green” is all about more products and other substandard solutions.”

I’ve read countless communiques and justifications by radical groups about their actions, and whether or not you agree with them, you can at least follow some string of reasoning. The target has some connection to the radical beliefs they espouse. In this case? It seems to be the result of personal obsession divorced from reality.

Even with far-right extremists murdering abortion-providers, shooting up mosques, bombing black churches, there is some line of reasoning, however thin, that can be threaded between them and their targets. When a white supremacist stormed the Holocaust museum, one can connect the actions to a long line of holocaust denialism in those groups. When an anti-abortion bomber murders doctors, the link is much more direct. When Joe Stack flew a plane into the IRS building in Austin, there was a network of people supporting his actions and decrying the tyranny of taxation. Some call him a hero.

So could some of the right-wingers and mainstream reporters covering this please make the same connection in this case? Is there a movement against the Discovery Channel I am unaware of? Are there other eco-terrorists outraged by “Dirty Jobs” and “Future Weapons”? I do not intend to make light of this situation or the fear instilled in those hostages. However, as this issues spirals out of control, could one of these talking heads please stop and help me connect Lee to something, ANYTHING, except the local homeless shelter?

[Update: For more, see "James Lee, the Unabomber, and Mental Illness vs. Terrorism"]

Seven members of Greenpeace have been arrested for painting anti-drilling slogans, in crude oil, on a drilling support ship in the Gulf.

Greenpeace says the ship is scheduled to sail to the Arctic this summer, so they rappelled down the side and painted “Ban Arctic Drilling” in oil on the side of the Shell-owned ship.

According to the New York Times, the New Orleans Joint Terrorism Task Force of the FBI “is looking into the matter” of whether the non-violent activists will face terrorism-related charges.

If you’ve been to GreenIsTheNewRed before, you know “terrorism” laws have been recklessly used against non-violent activists for years. The scare-mongering around this disaster has been particularly bold, though. Just a few weeks ago, Rush Limbaugh was trying to blame the oil spill on “eco-terrorists.” Now, in the wake of the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, we are to believe it is the activists, not the oil corporations, who are the criminals?

Phil Radford of Greenpeace put it well:

“It is outrageous that prosecutors would confront peaceful protesters with such a heavy hand while not a single BP executive has been charged for the devastation they have wrought on the Gulf of Mexico and the people and animals that depend on it…”

Thanks to B. Shuga for the link.

By Matt Bors. Just change Bush to Obama.

The proposal to chip away at Miranda rights is yet another attempt in recent weeks to carve out exceptions to fundamental legal protections for people the government has labeled terrorists, or “suspected terrorists.”

Attorney General Eric Holder said the recent Times Square bombing attempt reflects the need for “modifying the rules” in the case of suspected terrorists. The administration argues that reading someone their rights interrupts the flow of interruption and could prevent investigators from learning critical information.

This is a solution in search of a problem. There is already a law on the books allowing a delayed reading of Miranda rights if there is an immediate threat to public safety. According to The New York Times:

After the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound jet on Dec. 25, for example, the F.B.I. questioned the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, for about 50 minutes without reading him his rights. And last week, Mr. Brennan said, the F.B.I. interrogated Mr. Shahzad for three or four hours before delivering a Miranda warning.

Plus, even after Shahzad was read his rights, he waived them and kept talking.

In supporting this legislation, Obama is lock-step with far-right politicians who say that when it comes to “terrorism” cases, the rule of law is too inconvenient.

Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani said of the Times Square bomber: “I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning…I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant…”

This proposal comes at the same time there is a bipartisan bill to strip “suspected terrorists” of their citizenship, and Arizona has outlawed ethnic studies programs and classes that are “subversive.” In addition to all of this, in Obama’s home state there is a secretive political prison that could be made permanent.

Supporters of all of these unconstitutional policies claim that if you aren’t a terrorist, you have nothing to worry about. These laws, we’re told, are merely tools to keep us safe.

My question at this point is: Is there anything off the table? Is there any part of the Constitution that Obama and others are not willing to hack? Any point at which they say, “No, now that would just be going too far”?

What was it again the terrorists hate?

Americard, by Ian Geldard

On this website I have exclusively documented the crackdown on the first group: attempts to label people as “terrorists” because of their political beliefs. The new immigration law in Arizona makes clear, though, that this “Green Scare” does not exist in a vacuum.

Arizona’s law, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires immigrants to carry paperwork proving their immigration status. It allows Arizona police to stop and question people who they think are “reasonably suspect.”

So what’s the problem? As supporters of the law have repeatedly said, “If you are here legally, you have nothing to worry about.” Right?

The phrase “Show me your papers” has no place in a democracy.

It puts unchecked power in the hands of government officials and law enforcement to stop people at their whim. In terms of immigration, the most immediate concern is racial profiling and harassment of those who look like an “illegal” [read: brown people].

Supporters of this legislation have justified it in a few ways. They point to terrorism concerns due to lax border security, and say illegal immigrants unfairly benefit from living in the United States without contributing through taxes (actually, illegal immigrants are vital to economic growth).

However, this law (and a similar one proposed in Michigan) is not about national security, and it is not about the economy. It is about using a vulnerable class of people as a political scapegoat in order to push a larger political agenda.

For example, the demonization of immigrants in Arizona has moved from the border to the classrooms. Legislation has been proposed to outlaw ethnic studies programs:

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or “advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.”

[Update: This bill has become law.]

Much like animal industries have moved from targeting the Animal Liberation Front to targeting mainstream groups, anti-immigrant groups are moving from targeting so-called “illegals” to targeting anyone who ideologically supports them.

Both of these crackdowns, on dissidents and on immigrants, are about the vilification of the “other.” [For a great, accessible discussion of this, check out the Pinky Show, "How to Solve Illegal Immigration."] As Naomi Wolf has documented in The End of America, one of the defining characteristics of increasingly totalitarian societies is the creation of both internal and external threats as scapegoats, and then slowly widening the net.

Activists of all social movements should reject Arizona’s law, and all others guided more by fear than compassion. It promotes racial profiling, it is intended to terrify communities, and it will destroy families. Those reasons alone are enough to oppose this legislation. But this is not not solely about immigration; it is about whether we continue advancing towards a society where the “illegals” are not just individuals, but entire belief systems.

Americans accused of being involved with terrorist organizations, even if they have never been convicted of a crime, could have their citizenship revoked under a bipartisan bill that has been introduced in Congress.

The “Terrorist Expatriation Act” was introduced this week by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA), along with Congressmen Jason Altmire (D-PA) and Charlie Dent (R-PA). The bill was introduced in the wake of the Times Square bomber media frenzy. So far the Obama administration has remained silent, but the bill has some bipartisan support.

This bill would direct the State Department, at its own discretion, to determine if someone is involved with or working with a terrorist organization (as identified in the State Department’s list of designated terrorist groups).

Those accused would still have the right to contest the designation, but in an administrative hearing. If they lose, they would be stripped of their citizenship, even if they have not been convicted of any crime. Once stripped of citizenship, some legal experts have said suspects could be locked in military prisons indefinitely, or face military tribunals where they have fewer legal protections.

Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor of law at American University, told the Boston Globe that this bill harkens back to the darkest periods of U.S. history:

In 1952, at the height of the McCarthy era, Congress revamped the statute and added new provisions aimed at communists, allowing the removal of citizenship for anyone guilty of treason or advocating the nation’s violent overthrow…

“The bill is so broad that it would allow the government to strip citizenship from someone who never committed a hostile act against the United States,’’ said Vladeck. He said providing material support to terrorists could be interpreted as broadly as preparing Hamas or Hezbollah to advocate before the United Nations.

In an oped in the Washington Post, David Cole makes a solid case of why the bill is dead in the water, describing it as a proposal “so flawed it can be explained only as pure political grandstanding.”

I hope he is right. Personally, though, I am beyond the point of relying on logic and no-they-could-never-get-away-with-that assurances. Politicians are getting away with it, and they are growing more and more bold.

This bill needs to be placed in the context of the simultaneous, sweeping crackdown in the name of fighting “domestic terrorism.”

Legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act singles out animal rights activists for harsher penalties if they harm corporate profits. Activists in California are being charged under the AETA for chalking slogans on sidewalks and wearing masks at protests. Meanwhile, the government has proposed making the secretive political prisons, called Communications Management Units, permanent.

This expatriation bill is dangerous enough on its own: it places far too much unchecked power in the hands of the government to make inherently subjective, political determinations of what is a terrorist organization and what constitutes support. When examined in the broader context of the attack on political activists as terrorists, the bill is even more chilling.

Supporters of these efforts all defend their proposals in the same way. It doesn’t matter if it’s this expatriation bill, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Guantanamo, military tribunals, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping… they all reassure the American people that “You have nothing to worry about. This will just affect the bad guys, the terrorists.”

It’s time we stop believing them.

The new issue of Resistance magazine is out, taking a look at the environmental movement on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day. It has great articles by Eliza M. Adam, Steve Best, Davey Curnow-Garland, Michael Donnelly, Jim Flynn, Leslie James Pickering, Kim Marks, and Stu Sugarman.

I have an article in there as well, about how environmentalism has become mainstream, while environmentalists have become “eco-terrorists.” [Expanding on the ideas in my recent post here, "From Earth Day to “Eco-Terrorism.'"]

You can pick up a copy at your local independent bookstore, and also at Borders, Hastings, and Books a Million. It’s a hard time for independent publications and indie bookstores, please support them!

Michele Basso labeled the activists who protested her cruel experiments as terrorists.

Basso testified about her firsthand experiences with “animal rights terrorism,” such as receiving unwanted magazine subscriptions, home demonstrations, and local activists campaigning to open a museum. She has never been the target of violence, and said of this campaigning: “…I can’t stress the critical impact that this has had on me and my ability to do my work.”

Well, it looks like animal activists were not nearly as great a threat to Basso’s career as Basso herself.

She was recently suspended from working with animals, a “rare move prompted by what officials called a ‘clear pattern’ of problems with animal welfare.” According to the Wisconsin State Journal:

University administrators say researcher Michele Basso has had a bumpy history, citing a lack of respect for veterinarians, incomplete record-keeping and instances where monkeys developed brain injuries…

It is unusual for the university to suspend a main researcher’s work with animals, and officials say they only do so when they perceive that the risks to animals outweigh the benefits to science and medicine…

In other words, university officials came to the same conclusion as the “terrorists,” that the results of Basso’s experiments were not worth the cruelty.

Examples like this illustrate the government’s backwards priorities. Rather than catering to special interest groups and labeling political activists as “terrorists,” perhaps lawmakers should be listening to, and acting on, their concerns.

The Supreme Court has struck down a federal law targeting “depictions of animal cruelty,” including dog-fighting and “crush” videos. And that’s a very good thing for the animal rights movement.

That might sound incongruous, at best, and heretical, at worst, to animal rights activists. Many people who care about animals have treated the ruling as a defeat, an attack on their attempts to protect animals from being tortured in the name of entertainment. However, the ruling in US v. Stevens is an important one for animal rights activists for three reasons:

1. Similar legislation could undoubtedly have been used against supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and direct action. Proponents of the legislation, 18 U.S.C. 48, argued that the animal cruelty depicted in such videos is illegal, and it has “minimum redeeming value.” To be clear, I am not taking issue with either point. This conduct should be illegal, and it has no more redeeming value, in my opinion, than child pornography. However, the legislation itself is too broad and too vague. Denying First Amendment rights based on whether the media depicts illegal conduct with a “redeeming value” is incredibly dangerous. As the court said, it reflects an “alarming breadth.” These are standards that could easily be tweaked to apply to the publications of animal rights activists themselves.

   Within the animal rights and environmental movements there are publications that support property destruction and direct action. Magazines such as No Compromise, Bite Back, and the Earth First Journal support illegal tactics and sometimes include “how-to” style columns. There have also been full-length films and activist campaign videos that unabashedly support direct action, and clearly urge others to do the same. (The trailer above is a good example, as are the videos in the campaign to shut down Huntingdon Life Sciences).

   I have no doubt that the same industry groups who have sponsored “eco-terrorism” legislation would seek to use a similar rational to defend their attacks on publications like Bite Back or films like Behind the Mask. Does that sound far-fetched? Well, “eco-terrorism” legislation out of Washington State proposed exactly that.

2. Similar legislation could be used to target depictions of animal cruelty produced by activists themselves. This may seem like another overly-worrisome claim. But if you have been following the tactics of industry groups, it is clear that they are willing to use any and all tools at their disposal, including distorting existing laws and proposing new ones to attack even the most mainstream organizations.

   For examples, see these two articles:

   *Ringling Bros. Sues ASPCA Using Mafia Law
   *Mafia Law Used Against Environmentalists for Tree Sits, Civil Disobedience, Blog Post

   The mob law was never intended to target animal rights activists protesting the circus, and this law was never intended to target undercover investigations by animal rights activists, but in the hands of well-funded corporate industry groups and ambitious prosecutors, vague legislation can be exploited.

   What was even more worrisome about this case is that the government defended this fluidity. “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection,” the government argued, “depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

   Chief Justice Roberts rebuked the Obama administration for that, and rightly so: “As a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage, that sentence is startling and dangerous.”

3. The court made clear that Congress can’t simply say, “Trust us, we’re the government.”The court focused much of its arguments on the scope of the legislation, and how it has, and will be, applied. The government responded to concerns about over breadth by promising to only prosecute “extreme cruelty.”

   In this ruling, the Supreme Court unequivocally rejected those promises.

   “The First Amendment protects against the government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige,” Roberts wrote.
   
   “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably.” [emphasis added]

   Similar questions are at the heart of opposition to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, legislation so broad it is being used to target activists for chalking slogans on public streets.

   When I testified before Congress against the AETA, I argued that it was vague and overly broad, and therefore must be rejected on Constitutional grounds. In response, supporters included a provision that says nothing in the law shall be construed “to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the First Amendment.”

   This ruling is an important one because it makes incredibly clear that the government’s promises, whether only to prosecute depictions of “extreme cruelty” or only to prosecute those who support “extreme” activism, are meaningless.

Some activists have incorrectly portrayed the Supreme Court as ruling that animal cruelty is protected speech. Far from it. The court did not challenge the intent of this legislation, or its value. It simply said that this particular approach, this particular legislation, was too vague and too broad.

To put it another way, this ruling is not about supporting these despicable videos, it is about not prohibiting others. And that’s a sentiment which will ultimately benefit supporters of both mainstream and “radical” animal rights activism.

As a quick introduction, there are two Communications Management Units, or CMUs, in the country. They radically restrict prisoner communications with the outside world to levels that rival, or exceed, the most restrictive facilities in the country, including the “Supermax,” ADX-Florence. [For more information on CMUs and who is housed there: "Secretive U.S. Prison Units Used to House Muslim, Animal Rights and Environmental Activists."]

On April 6, the Bureau of Prisons submitted a proposed rule (Docket No. 1148-P), listed in the federal register. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, there is now a required public comment period for responses to this proposal.

The public notice comes after the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union each filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the secretive facilities, where political prisoners have been transferred without notification, without explanation, and without opportunity for appeal. [See "5 Things You Should Know About America’s 'Little Guantanamo.'"]

FOLLOWING THE LAW IN HINDSIGHT

The submitted proposal is clearly a response to these lawsuits, and an acknowledgment that the Communications Management Units were opened secretly and illegally. Now government officials are trying to cover their tracks and follow the legal process in hindsight.

It is a positive development that the government is recognizing, and being forced to defend, prison facilities kept hidden from the public. There is the possibility of placing true checks and balances on the government’s power to create experimental units that are unparalleled in the federal prison system.

However, this step in the right direction is negated by the Bureau of Prisons’ proposal to actually make these secretive prisons even more inhumane.

INCREASING RESTRICTIONS

Daniel McGowan is housed at a Communications Management Unit

“I haven’t been able to hug my husband, or even hold his hand, for two years,” said Jenny Synan, the spouse of a CMU prisoner and a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “This proposed rule does not explain how prohibiting a husband from holding his wife’s hand or keeping a father from hugging his daughter, is necessary for prison security.”

The new proposal includes even more restrictions, including:

• “Written correspondence may be limited to three pieces of paper, double-sided, once per week to and from a single recipient;
• Telephone communication may be limited to a single completed call per calendar month for up to 15 minutes;
• and Visiting may be limited to one hour each calendar month.

MORE POWER, LESS OVERSIGHT

It should be noted that all federal prisoners have their communications monitored. And there are already policies in place for dangerous inmates who need additional monitoring.

The most prevalent of those policies are called Special Administrative Measures, or SAMs. SAMs are authorized by the attorney general based on information from the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.

This new proposal lowers the threshold for such special restrictions. According to the proposal, it allows for prison officials to act on “evidence which does not rise to the same degree of potential risk [emphasis added] to national security or risk of acts of violence or terrorism which would warrant the Attorney General’s intervention by issuance of a SAM.”

The government is arguing two competing claims simultaneously: (1) That Communications Management Units are needed because the inmates are heightened security risks, and (2) That traditional oversight is too cumbersome because these inmates are not dangerous enough.

The aim is, admittedly, to place more unchecked power in the hands of lower-ranking government officials.

POLITICAL PRISONS

If, according the Bureau of Prisons, these inmates “do not rise to the same degree of potential risk to national security,” who is housed here?

As I have discussed here before, inmates and guards at the CMUs call them “Little Guantanamo.” They have also been described as prisons for “second-tier” terrorists.

The proposal confirms this, saying: “One important category of inmates which might be designated to a CMU is inmates whose current offense(s) of conviction, or offense conduct, included association, communication, or involvement, related to international or domestic terrorism.”

It references past behavior as grounds for inmates being transferred there, but as I have reported, and as the recent lawsuits make clear, many of these inmates have no disciplinary history and no communications violations. Furthermore, these individuals were not the 9/11 hijackers or what most people think of as terrorists. They are prisoners like Daniel McGowan, who destroyed property as part of the Earth Liberation Front in the name of defending the environment.

The Bureau’s proposal makes clear that the CMUs are intended to keep these cases isolated, and to keep political prisoners with “inspirational significance” from communicating with the communities and social movements of which they are part.

These secretive prisons are for political cases the government would rather have out of the public spotlight.