You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2011.

http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780822959243-2


http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/poets/m_r/rukeyser/rukeyser.htm

Muriel Rukeyser’s FBI file:

http://vault.fbi.gov/Muriel%20Rukeyser

http://vault.fbi.gov/Muriel%20Rukeyser/Muriel%20Rukeyser%20Part%201%20of%201/view

Advertisements

Now and then I am contacted with queries from people for advice about where and how to publish. I thought I had posted notes on these topics previously in the blog, but looked back over the entries and couldn’t find any to refer people to. But here’s a couple of recent notes. The first more for poets, the second more for novelists:

Publication resources for poets

St. Mark’s Poetry Project NYC
http://poetryproject.org/resources/useful-links
(includes magazines, presses, other resources)

Poets & Writers magazine is a “how to” magazine
—Its classified ads list calls for submissions, as well as contact information and deadlines for grants, fellowships and artist colonies which provide partial or full room & board for writers:
http://www.pw.org/classifieds

A local resource:
Poetry Flash, the free Bay Area poetry bi-monthly publishes calls for submissions:
http://www.poetryflash.org/Calls_for_Submissions.html

Directory

The International Directory of Magazines and Small Presses
46th edition, 2010 – 2011
“. . . the Bible of the Business”
–The Wall Street Journal
The International Directory of Little Magazines & Small Presses lists almost 4,000 book and magazine publishers of literary, avant garde, cutting-edge contemporary, left wing, right wing and fiction to non-fiction essays, reviews, artwork, music, satire, criticism, commentary, letters, parts of novels, longpoems, concrete art, collages, plays, news items and more!
Contents:
Full editorial information on both book and magazine publishers.
4,000 markets for writers to sell their work.
Sources of unique subject material for readers and researchers.
All entries indexed alphabetically, regionally and by subject.
$38

—This publisher publishes a directory specifically for poetry with 1800 listings. I heard Len Fulton recently died, so I’m not sure if this resource will continue to be available.

Some of that information can be found on-line at sites such as “Litline”:
http://www.litline.org/links/index.html
(links to magazines, presses, organizations, and other resources: “Journals: A comprehensive list of literary journals with an online presence, from Agni to ZYZZYVA. We pride ourselves on having the most extensive and refined yet avant-garde collection of such links on the web.”)

Advice on publishing
1. Give people poems if they ask you; give readings if they ask you to read. That leads to publication.
2. Look at the acknowledgments page in the books of poets you enjoy. Identify journals and magazines where they publish.
3. Subscribe and read literary journals and magazines that seem interesting. How else will you know what they publish?
4. Be creative and open-minded about sharing your poetry. Poetry can be a way to create community wherever it may be.

self-publishing versus going to an agent:

on self-publishing versus agent + publisher:

actually i think there’s 3 publication routes:
1. find an agent to sell to ny publisher
2. contact small presses and have them publish
3. self-publish thru “pay to play, print on demand” publishers

i think you should go with one of the first two options. the last option, more and more electronically feasible these days, is crowded with more and more unedited, unprofessional and lame books. actually, i was reading in ny times about how one woman in the midwest wrote some vampire romance novels and self-published and made millions, so clearly it works for some people. but all the self-published books i see are strictly amateur and will never have editors to help revise them, and a publisher to help market and distribute them, and they will never get anywhere.

—if you get an agent, they will get you more money, at least one or two zeros more on your advance check. it’s a tricky proposition, but people do it and it makes it easier for them to live and write.
—if you contact small presses yourself, and make that happen, then it’s more like having friends publish your work. you have a press who will more likely stand behind your book, keep it in print, distribute and market it for you, and give it more credibility for reviewers. small presses represent independent voices, artistic (aesthetic) visions, and democratic politics, and when you publish with a small press you associate with their values, and they support yours. (so there’s feminist presses, radical presses, local regional presses, artsy presses, avant garde poets’ presses, anarchist presses, university and intellectuals presses, etc.—that’s why i am happy to publish with city lights, of course.)

CARLOS MONTES ON TRIAL

Unfortunately, we have become too accustomed to hearing about political repression all over the world and around the U.S. When it comes home, into our own neighborhoods and families, we are forced to react, often too late to avoid serious damage. This is a case where we can affect the outcome of a political attack before it creates a much more serious and painful result.

Carlos Montes has been an activist for just about all of his adult life. Beginning with the Brown Berets, the East L.A. high school walkouts, the Chicano Moratorium Against War, and other actions of the Chicano movement, he became an early spokesman for our communities. Forced into an underground existence for awhile, he re-surfaced and continued his militant activities: supporting undocumented immigrants, forming the Southern California Immigration Coalition, participating in hunger strikes, building and rebuilding community organizations such as the Community Service Organization. In the Boyle Heights area, he formed a coalition to take on the unwieldy LAUSD administration, fighting for school clean-ups, for new high schools in East L.A., the campaign for “No Military Recruiters in the Schools” and other educational reforms in defense of public education.. In effect, Carlos is an all-around organizer, involved at all levels of political, social and community struggle.

Now Carlos has been targeted by the FBI because he and his allies organized demonstrations at the last Republican National Convention, built the movement against the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and the whole wide world, supported the Palestinians against the brutal Israeli occupation… wherever the U.S. government’s repression comes down. Carlos visited Colombia several times, trying to link up with the popular movement against U.S. intervention in support of that neo-fascist regime. He also visited Cuba and participated in various international conferences building peace and social justice throughout the world.

On May 15th, his home was raided by the Sheriff’s SWAT Team and the FBI. He now faces current accusations of 6 felonies, all dealing with the allegations of felon purchasing guns at a local sporting goods store. His defense may turn out to be expensive— presently, he is paying $250 an hour for legal counsel. As long-time friends and allies, Veva and I have participated with Carlos in actions over many years. We are confident that he will be able to build a defense which will exonerate him and keep him out of jail, free to carry on the kinds of struggles that define our embattled democracy in this country.

So the importance of our collective response at this time should be obvious. When the FBI comes knocking down doors, taking people away, drumming up exaggerated charges, this kind of attack resonates throughout American history: it has happened before many times at moments of crisis in our nation. The Palmer Raids in 1919, the deportations during the Depression, the LAPD Red Squad’s activities throughout the 1940s and 1950s, COINTELPRO’s destructive effect on our 1960s movement… we cannot remain silent and unmoved in the face of this kind of illegitimate power.

So, as a small contribution to the effort to preserve our American democracy, we are organizing a Tardeada, August 6th, 2011, 5:00 to 10:00 PM, at our house, 1808 Wollam Street, Los Angeles, CA 90065. There will be food, poetry, art and good talk. Please join us if you can.

Con safos…, Don Newton and Veva Perez

RAUL SENDIC, TUPAMARO, (2004) pelicula por Alejandro Figueroa, con Eduardo Galeano y otros:

downloadable:

http://nuestro.norte.es.el.sur.over-blog.com/article-raul-sendic-tupamaro-documental-de-alejandro-figueroa-51791787.html

http://cinerebelde.blogspot.com/2007/04/raul-sendic-tupamaro.html

wikipedia:

Raúl Sendic Antonaccio (March 16, 1926 – April 28, 1989) was a prominent Uruguayan Marxist and founder of the Tupamaros.

Born in a rural area, near the village of Juan Jose Castro, in the Flores Department, Sendic worked with his father as a peasant on a crab apple farm until he finished high school and left his home to study in Montevideo. In 1952, he obtained the title of attorney, given before the law degree (he actually completed 5 and a half years of the 6 years required for the law degree). During his time in Montevideo, he joined the socialist youth movement of the Socialist Party of Uruguay, becoming a prominent member. His social activity became intensified during the 50’s, as he became trade union attorney of rural workers and, later, union founder. UTAA (sugar cane workers), SUDA (sugar beet workers) and the project for an all-inclusive association of rural workers, SUDOR, were born as a result of his actions. Sendic both saw and experienced the abuse by agricultural employers in areas where there seemed to be no awareness of democracy.

In the late 50’s Sendic started a campaign for creating social awareness of the cane workers situation, in Montevideo (cane plantations are still now located in Artigas, on the frontier with Brazil, 600 km from the capital city). Four hundred workers marched to Montevideo with the motto: “Por la tierra y con Sendic” (For the land and with Sendic). The marchers were repeatedly repressed.

Hence, Sendic began to think that the only option for the country was an armed struggle that should complement the workers’ requests. 1963 was perhaps a decisive year, when the surreptitious robbery of an arms shop in Colonia, carried out by an organised movement marks the start of the Tupamaros and states the will of creating a guerrilla movement.

However, the MLN began to be recognised because of its activities only in 1967, when government repression, during the presidency of Jorge Pacheco Areco, caused the mobilization and response of a variety of groups, principally the Tupamaros.

MLN-T began by staging the robbing of banks, gun clubs and other businesses in the early 1960s, then distributing stolen food and money among the poor in Montevideo. By the late 1960s, it was engaged in political kidnappings, “armed propaganda” and assassinations. Of particular note are the kidnapping of powerful bank manager Pereyra Rebervel and of the United Kingdom ambassador to Uruguay, Geoffrey Jackson, as well as the assassination of Dan Mitrione, the FBI agent alleged to have taught techniques of torture to police forces in various Latin American countries.

The peak of the Tupamaros was in 1970 and 1971. During this period they made liberal use of their Cárcel del Pueblo (or “People’s Prison”) where they held those that they kidnapped. In 1971 over 100 imprisoned Tupamaros escaped the Punta Carretas prison. Nonetheless, the movement was hampered by a series of events including serious strategic gaffes and the betrayal of high-ranking Tupamaro Héctor Amodio Pérez, and the army’s counteroffensive, which included the Escuadrón de la Muerte (“Death Squad”), police officers who were granted liberal repressive powers to deal with Tupamaros.

Sendic was arrested in Uruguay on August 7, 1970, and remained in prison until his escape September 6, 1971. Sendic remained in Uruguay as a fugitive until his eventual capture one year later.

The Uruguayan military unleashed a bloody campaign of mass arrests and selective disappearances, dispersing those guerrillas who were not killed or arrested. The torture tactics were incredibly effective, and by 1972, the MLN had been severely weakened. Its principal leaders were imprisoned under terrible conditions for the next 12 years.

Despite the diminished threat[citation needed], the civilian government of Juan María Bordaberry ceded governmental authority to the military in 1973 in a bloodless coup d’état that led to further repression against the population and the suppression of all political parties.

Raúl Sendic and 8 of the MLN leaders were confined to different improvised prisons in aberrant and humiliating conditions for 12 years. They suffered continuous physical and psychological torture. In 1981, UN Human Rights Committee has recognized that Uruguay violated articles 7, 9, 10 and 14 of ICCPR in respect of Sendic during his trial and imprisonment[1].

After the military dictatorship went down in 1985, Sendic was released from the prison and the Tupamaros returned to public life as a part of a political party, the Movement of Popular Participation. Today the party comprises the largest single group within the ruling left-wing Frente Amplio coalition.

Sendic died in Paris in 1989 of ALS. In Montevideo, a crowd attended his funeral, where his remains rest today.

His son, Raúl Fernando Sendic Rodríguez, is a former Industry Minister of Uruguay.

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE Sendic v. Uruguay Communication No. R.14/63 28 October 1981

VIEWS

Submitted by: Violeta Setelich on behalf of her husband Rau1 Sendic Antonaccio State party concerned:

Uruguay Date of communications 28 November 1979

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Meeting on 28 October 1981,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. R.14/63 submitted to the Committee by Violeta Setelich under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication and by the State party concerned,
Adopts the following:

Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol

1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 28 November 1979 and further letters dated 28 and 31 May, 23 June, 7 July and 3 October 1980, 9 February, 27 May and 22 July 1981) is Violeta Setelich, a Uruguayan national residing in France. She submitted the communication on behalf of her husband, Raul Sendic Antonaccio, a 54 year old Uruguayan citizen, detained in Uruguay.

2.1 The author stated in her submission on 28 November 1979 that her husband had been the main founder of the Movimiento de Liberacion Nacional (MLN-Tupamaros). She commented that the MLN(T) had been a political movement – not a terrorist one -aimed at
establishing a better social system through the radical transformation of socio-economic structures and recourse to armed struggle. She further stated that, on 7 August 1970, after seven years of clandestine activity, her husband was arrested by the Uruguayan police; that on 6 September 1971 he escaped from Punta Carretas prison together with 105 other political detainees; that he was re-arrested on 1 September 1972 and taken, seriously wounded, to a military hospital; and that, after having been kidnapped by a military group, he finally appeared in Military Detention Establishment No. 1 (Libertad prison).

2.2 The author further stated that, between June and September 1973, eight women and nine men, including her husband, were transferred by the army to unknown places of detention, and that they were informed that they had become “hostages” and would be executed if their organization, MLN(T), took any action. She added that, in 1976, the eight women “hostages” were taken back to a military prison, but that the nine men continued to be held as “hostages”. The author enclosed a statement, dzted February 1979, from Elena Curbelo de Mirza, one of the eight women “hostages” who were released in March 1978. (In her statement, Mrs. Mirza confirmed that Raul Sendic and eight other men detaincos continued to be considered as “hostages”. She listed the names of her fellow hostages, both the men and the women. She stated that a hostage lived in a tiny cell with only a mattress. The place was damp and cold and had no window. The door was always closed and the detainee was kept there alone 24 hours a day. On rare occasions he was taken out to the yard, blindfolded and with his arms tied. She further stated that hostages were often transferred to fresh prisons, that relatives had then to find where they were and that visits were authorized only at very irregular intervals.)

2.3 The author described five places of detention where her husband was kept between 1973 and 1976, and stated that in all of them he was subjected to mistreatment (solitary confinement, lack of food and harassment), while in one of them, as a result of a severe beating by the guards, he developed a hernia. She mentions that, in September 1976, he was transferred to the barracks of Ingenieros in the city of Paso de los Toros.

2.4 The author declared that, beginning in February 1978, her husband was once again subjected to inhuman treatment and torture: for three months, he was made to do the “planton” (stand upright’ with his eyes blindfolded) throughout the day; he was only able to rest and sleep for a few hours at a time; he was beaten and given insufficient food and he was not allowed to receive visits. In May 1978, he received his first visit after this three months’ sanction and his state of health was alarming.

2.5 At the end of August 1978, the authorities officially stated that, because of the danger he represented, her husband was not detained in Libertad Prison, but at Paso de los Toros. The author maintained that the fact that her husband was held as a hostage and the cruel and discriminatory treatment to which he was subjected constituted flagrant violations of both national and international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

2.6 The author stressed that her husband’s situation had not changed with the coming into force of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Optional Protocol on 23 March 1976. She requested the Human Rights Committee to take appropriate action with a view to securing her husband’s right to submit a communication himself.

2.7 The author further alleged that her husband had needed an operation for his hernia since 1976; that, despite a medical order to perform such an operation, the military authorities had refused to take him to a hospital, and that his state of health continued to deteriorate. (Because of his hernia, he could take only liquids and was unable to walk without help; he also suffered from heart disease.) She feared for his life and even thought that it had been decided to kill him slowly, notwithstanding the official abolition of the death penalty in Uruguay in 1976. She therefore requested the Human Rights Committee to apply rule 86 of its provisional rules of procedure in order to avoid irreparable damage to his health.

2.8 The author stated that her husband had been denied all judicial guarantees. She further stated that, since December 1975, it had been compulsory for all cases relating to political offences to be heard by military courts. and that her husband’s trial, which was still pending, would, therefore, be before such a body.

2.9 She added that in July 1977, the Government issued “Acts Institucional No. 8”, which in effect subordinated the judicial power to the Executive, and that independent and impartial justice could not be expected from the military courts. She further alleged that domestic remedies such as habeas corpus, were not applicable, that civilians were deprived of the safeguards essential to a fair trial and of the right to appeal, that defence lawyers were systematically harassed by the military authorities and that her husband had not been allowed to choose his own counsel. She maintained that all domestic remedies had been exhausted.

2.10 She also stated that, at the time of writing (28 November 1979), she was unaware of her husband’s whereabouts. She requested the Human Rights Committee to obtain information from the State party about his place of detention and conditions of imprisonment.

3. The author claimed that the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights had been violated by the Uruguayan authorities: articles 2, 6, 7, 10 and 14.

4. On 26 March 1980, the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility of the communication. The Committee also requested the State party to furnish information on the state of health of Rau1 Sendic Antonaccio, the medical treatment given to him and his precise place of detention.

5. By a note dated 16 June 1980, the State party contested the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the same matter had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) as case No. 2937. In this connexion the Committee ascertained from the Secretariat of IACHR that the case referred to was submitted by a third party and opened before IACHR on 26 April 1978. The State party did not furnish any information concerning Rail Sendic’s state of health, the medical treatment given to him or
his whereabouts.

6. In her submission dated 23 June 1980, the author, commenting on the State party’s submission, stated that she had never submitted her husband’s case to the IACHR. She further stated that it had become known, thanks to strong international pressure on the military authorities, that her husband was detained in the Regimiento “Pablo Galarza” in the department of Durazno. She alleged that the State party had refrained from giving any information on her husband’s state of health because he was kept on an inadequate diet in an underground cell with no fresh air or sunlight and his contacts with the outside world were restricted to a monthly visit that lasted 30 minutes and took place in the presence of armed guards.

7. In a further submission dated 7 July 1980, Violeta Setelich identified the author of the communication to IACHR concerning its case No. 2937 and enclosed a copy of his letter, dated 8 June 1980, addressed to the Executive Secretary of IACHR, requesting that consideration of case No. 2937 concerning Rail Sendic should be discontinued before that body, so as to remove any procedural uncertainties concerning the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider the present communication under the Optional Protocol.

8. In the circumstances, the Committee found that it was not precluded by article 5(2)(a) of the Optional Protocol from considering the communication. The Committee was unable to conclude from the information at its disposal that there had been remedies available to the victim of the alleged violations which had not been invoked. Accordingly, the Committee found that the communication was not inadmissible under article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol.

9. On 25 July 1980, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided:
(a) That the communication was admissible;
(b) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol, the State party should be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of the Committee’s decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the measures, if any, that it had taken to remedy the situation;
(c) That the State party should be requested to furnish the Committee with information on the present state of health of Rau1 Sendic Antonaccio, the medical treatment given to him and his exact whereabouts;
(d) That the State party should be informed that the written explanations or statement submitted by it under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol must relate primarily to the substance of the matter under consideration. The Committee stressed that, in order to discharge its responsibilities, it required specific responses to the allegations which had been made by the author of the communication, and the State party’s explanations of its actions. The State party was requested, in that connection, to enclose copies of any court orders or decisions of relevance to the matter under consideration.

10. In a letter dated 3 October 1980, the author argued that her husband had the right to be informed of the Committee’s decision of 25 July 1980, declaring the communication admissible, and that he should be given copies of the relevant documents and afforded an opportunity to supplement them as he saw fit.

11. On 24 October 1980, the Human Rights Committee:
Noting that the author of the communication, in her submission of 28 November 1979, had expressed grave concern as to her husband’s state of health and the fact that his whereabouts were kept secret by the Government of Uruguay,
Taking into account the fact that its previous requests for information about the present situation of Raul Sendic Antonaccio had gone unheeded,
Noting further the letter dated 3 October 1980 from the author of the communication,
Decided,
1. That the State party should be reminded of the decisions of 26 March and 25 July 1980 in which the Human Rights Committee requested information about the state of health of Raul Sendic Antonaccio, the medical treatment given to him and his exact whereabouts;
2. That the State party should be urged to provide the information sought without any further delay;
3. That, as requested by Violeta Setelich, the State party should be requested to transmit all written material pertaining to the proceedings (submissions of the parties, decisions of the Human Rights Committee) to Raul Sendic Antonaccio, and that he should be given the opportunity himself to communicate directly with the Committee.

12.1 In further letters dated 9 February, 27 May and 22 July 1981, the author restated her deep concern about her husband’s state of health. She reiterated that after soldiers had struck him in the lower abdomen with gun butts at Colonial barracks in mid-1974, her husband had developed an inguinal hernia and that there was a risk that the hernia might become strangulated. She stated that Sendic’s relatives had repeatedly requested that he should be operated on because of his extremely poor state of health, but to no avail.

12.2 She added that her husband’s conditions of detention were slightly better at the Regimiento Pablo Galarza No. 2, since he was allowed to go out to the open air for one hour a day. She stressed, however, that he should be transferred to the Libertad Prison, where all other political prisoners were held.

12.3 Concerning her husband’s legal situation, she added the following information:
(i) In July 1980, her husband was sentenced to the maximum penalty under the Uruguayan Penal Code: 30 years’ imprisonment and 15 years of special security measures. He had not been informed of the charges against him before the trial, or allowed to present witnesses and the hearing had been held in camera and in his absence. He had been denied the right of defence as he had never been able to contact the. lawyer assigned to him, Mr. Almicar Perrea.
(ii) In September 1980 and in April and May 1981, the authorities announced that her husband’s sentence was to be reviewed by the Supreme Military Tribunal, but this has not yet occurred.
(iii) Though Sendic’s relatives had appointed Maitre Cheron to be his lawyer, Maitre Cheron was denied in September 1980 and in January 1981 the right to examine Sendic’s dossier and to visit him.
13. The time-limit for the State party’s submission under article 4(2) of the Optional Protocol expired on 27 February 1981. To date, no such submission has been received from the State party.

14. On 21 August 1981, the State party submitted the following comments on the Committee’s decision of 24 October 1980 (see para. 11 above):
“The Committee’s decision of 24 October 1980 adopted at its eleventh session on the case in question exceeds its authority. The competence granted to the Committee on Human Rights by the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is contained in article 5 (4) which states: ‘The Committee shall forward its views to the State party concerned and to the individual.’ The scope of this rule is quite clearly defined. The Committee has authority only to send its observations to the State party concerned.
“On the contrary, in the present decision, the Committee had arrogated to itself competence which exceeds its powers.
“The Committee on Human Rights is applying a rule which does not exist in the text of the Covenant and the Protocol, whereas the function of the .Committee is to fulfil and apply the provisions of those international instruments. It is inadmissible for a body such as the Committee to create rules flagrantly deviating from the texts emanating from the will of the ratifying States. Those were the circumstances in which the decision in question was taken. Paragraph 3 requests, with absolutely no legal basis, that a detainee under the jurisdiction of a State party – Uruguay – be given the opportunity to communicate directly with the Committee. The Government of Uruguay rejects that decision, since to accept it would be to create the dangerous precedent of receiving a decision which violates international instruments such as the Covenant and its Protocol. Moreover, the Uruguayan Government considers that the provisions in those international instruments extend to Stat~ parties as subjects of international law. Thus these international norms, like any agreement of such nature, are applicable to States and not directly to individuals. Consequently, the Committee can hardly claim that this decision extends to any particular individual. For the reasons given, the Government of Uruguay rejects the present decision of the Committee, which violates elementary norms and principles and thus indicates that the Committee is
undermining its commitments in respect of the cause of promoting and defending human rights”.

15. The Human Rights committee, having examined the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties as provided in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, hereby decides, in the absence of comments by the State party, to base its views on the following facts as set out by the author:

16.1 Events prior to the entry into force of the Covenant: Rau1 Sendic Antonaccio, a main founder of the Movimiento de Liberacion Nacional (MLN) – Tupamaros, was arrested in Uruguay on 7 August 1970. On 6 September 1971, he escaped from prison, and on 1 September 1972 he was re-arrested after having been seriously wounded. Since 1973 he has been considered as a “hostage”, meaning that he is liable to be killed at the first sign of action by his organization, MLN (T). Between 1973 and 1976, he was held in five penal institutions and subjected in all of them to mistreatment (solitary confinement, lack of food and harassment). In one of them, in 1974, as a result of a severe beating by the guards, he developed a hernia.

16.2 Events subsequent to the entry into force of the Covenantx In September 1976, he was transferred to the barracks of Ingenieros in the city of Paso de los Toros. There, from February to May 1978, or for the space of three months, he was subjected to torture (“plantones”, beatings, lack of food). On 28 November 1979 (date of the author’s initial communication), his whereabouts were unknown. He is now detained in the Regimiento- Pablo Galarza No. 2, Department of Durazno, in an underground cell. His present state of health is very poor (because of his hernia, he can take only liquids and is unable to walk without help) and he is not being given the medical attention it requires. In July 1980, he was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment plus 15 years of special security measures. He was not informed of the charges brought against him. He was never able to contact the lawyer assigned to him, Mr. Almicar Perrea. His trial was held in camera and in his absence ant he was not allowed to present witnesses in support of his case. In September 1980 and in April and May 1981, it was publicly announced that his sentence was to be reviewed by the Supreme Military Tribunal.

17. The Human Rights Committee observes that, when it took its decision on admissibility on 25 July 1980, it had no information about Rau1 Sendic’s trial before a court of first instance. The Committee further observes that, although his sentence is to be reviewed by the Supreme Military Tribunal (there has as yet been no indication that these final review proceedings have taken place), the Committee is not barred from considering the present communication, since the application of remedies has been unreasonably prolonged.

18. The Human Rights Committee cannot accept the State party’s contention that it exceeded its mandate when in its decision of 24 October 1980, it requested the State party to affort to Rau1 Sendic Antonaccio the opportunity to communicate directly with the Committee. The Committee rejects the State party’s argument that a victim’s right to contact the Committee directly is invalid in the case of persons imprisoned in Uruguay. If governments had the right to erect obstacles to contacts between victims and the Committee, the procedure established by the Optional Protocol would, in many instances, be rendered meaningless. It is a prerequisite for the effective application of the Optional Protocol that detainees should be able to communicate directly with the Committee. The contention that the International Covenant and the Protocol apply only to States, as subjects of international law, and that, in consequence, these instruments are not directly applicable to individuals is devoid of legal foundation in cases where a State has recognized the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals under the Optional Protocol. That being so, denying individuals who are victims of an alleged violation their rights to bring the matter before the Committee is tantamount to denying the mandatory nature of the Optional Protocol.

19. The Human Rights Committee notes with deep concern that the State party has failed to fulfill its obligations under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol and has completely ignored the Committee’s repeated requests for information concerning Rau1 Sendic’s state of health, the medical treatment given to him and his exact whereabouts. The Committee is unable to fulfill the task conferred upon it by the Optional Protocol if States parties do not provide it with all the information relevant to the formation of the views referred to in article 5(4). Knowledge of the state of health of the person concerned is essential to the evaluation of an allegation of torture or ill-treatment.

20. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee, in so far as they continued or occurred after 23 March 1976 (the date on which the Covenant and the Optional Protocol entered into force for Uruguay), disclose violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, particularly:
of article 7 and article 10 (1) because Raul Sendic is held in solitary confinement in an underground cell, was subjected to torture for three months in 1978 and is being denied the medical treatment his condition requires;
of article 9 (3) because his right to trial within reasonable time has not been respected; of article 14 (3) (a) because he was not promptly informed of the charges against him;
of article 14 (3) (b) because he was unable either to choose his own counsel or communicate with his appointed counsel and was, therefore, unable to .prepare his defence;
of article 14 (3) (c) because he was not tried without undue delays of article 14 (3) (d) because he was unable to attend the trial at first instances
of article 14 (3) (e) because he was denied the opportunity to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf.

21. The Committee, accordingly, is of the view that the State party is under an obligation to take immediate steps to ensure strict observance of the provisions of the Covenant and to
provide effective measures to the victim, and in particular to extend Rau1 Sendic treatment laid down for detained persons in articles 7 and 10 of the Covenant and to give him a fresh trial with all the procedural guarantees prescribed by article 14 of the Covenant. The State party must also ensure that Raul Sendic receives promptly all necessary medical care.

http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/116_uruguay63vws.pdf

I will go orange to purplish islands. Mawkish generations will pass by, peeling the cellophane off of musical fingers. Children will be lined up, squirting. Caissons shall be believed. Rayon and orange, masticated via prosthetic. No one will say or hear the word lissome in public hearings. Gases released from ferment of taste. Cartilage. How will you pay, one genocide or 2? I will see the light of day in a certain eye. This will be possible to avoid if you can get to Anchorage, Alaska by June 10, 1992. The magazines of the future say this.

one big night, i will be tearing off black chunks of rubbery darkness eating with both hands. i will pull on a glove of my own hand. eating will consume me in planes. on piles of trash and collusion, filched japanese and concepts of holes. polish will groan, dogs look. the two-armed man will walk back and forth both hands covering his face, then that of his child, then another. vaguely, all of this will shine dead and squeaking like mountains of old toys from the thrift store. old-fashioned killers will demand sympathy and grief out of the bones of trees. radios will play roads, crows. i will have a pocketful of chinese coins. i will pull out a piece of paper and this is what it says.

at noon 6 or 8 harleys parked in front of the house, the riders standing about. one of them had apparently gone off the road, because there was a four year old boy standing in the highway. the boy (who we did not see) was unharmed and untouched. in the afternoon i walked grateful through the forest of hemlock, spruce and cedar, and now that darkness has fallen, i go on, grateful still.

Hello everyone. I am writing this message to you as friends of Slanguage Studio. We are in need of your help. We need to raise funds to pay rent, dwp and phone bills. If you can help us with anything that would be great. We need your help to continue the service we provide the our artistic community. Please let us know if you can help. Thank you! : ) —Mario Ybarra Jr.

Donate:
http://slanguagestudio.com/support/

SUZANNE HUDSON: In his installations and community-based projects, Mario Ybarra Jr. reimagines the possibilities of “contemporary art that is filtered through a Mexican-American experience in Los Angeles,” as he told the LA Times. While refusing to discount social or political context, Ybarra remains skeptical about the concept of Chicano identity, a position owing as much to the politicized dockworkers of his native Wilmington neighborhood as to such artists as Rubén Ortiz-Torres and Daniel Joseph Martinez. Indeed, the work of this “cholo aestheticist and inveterate jester,” in the words of critic Andrew Berardini, frequently considers the exigencies—and perverse oddities—of cultural translations and the appropriative acts they presuppose. Brown and Proud (2006) melds Diego Rivera’s civic frescoes with inner-city graffiti art, juxtaposing the Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata with Star Wars character Chewbacca in a large-scale mural emblazoned with slogans (“POR VIDA”/ “FOR LIFE”), frenetic tags, and the requisite badass, bikiniclad model.

At the Serpentine Gallery in London’s Kensington Gardens, Ybarra and his partner, Karla Diaz, created a makeshift ornithological club for The Peacock Doesn’t See Its Own Ass/Let’s Twitch Again: Operation Bird Watching in London (2006). Stuffed birds, found objects, museum artifacts, and corporate designs constituted a sort of anthropological excursion into local “birdlife” on the model of Marcel Broodthaers’s ersatz Musée d’Art Moderne, Département des Aigles (1968). For the 2008 Whitney Biennial, Ybarra realizes The Scarface Museum (2008), exhibiting memorabilia related to the movie from the collection of his friend Angel Montes Jr. The Scarface Museum is an outgrowth of a 2005 performance entitled For All I Know He Had My Friend Angel Killed, in which the artist read from a particularly brutal scene in the screenplay. An homage to Ybarra’s friend, to whom Al Pacino’s character represented a model of success, both works reflect on the story of the fictional gangster–drug dealer as one (admittedly flawed) embodiment of the American Dream.

Ybarra’s art is perhaps most notable for combining critical and institutional recognition with its deep-rooted connection to the social spaces to which it so often refers. The workshop-collective Slanguage (2002–05) and DSN: Do Something New (2007), a project for which local teenagers collaborated in producing T-shirts and other artwork and in recording auxiliary members’ oral histories, demonstrate Ybarra’s commitments. In 2005 Ybarra and Diaz won a competition held by artist Annie Shaw enabling them to convert a barbershop-cumproject space into a small art gallery. Their New Chinatown Barbershop was reproduced at scale for exhibition at Fair Exchange at the 2006 Los Angeles County Fair and the following year at the Tate Modern in London, where it returned to its roots, as it were, as the stage for a haircutting competition. SUZANNE HUDSON

If you can help us out with a donation. Please go to our website http://www.slanguagestudio.com and click on donate button. Thank you! : )

http://slanguagestudio.com/

A Gaint Claw, by Gronk, 2011 What Books Press, 83 pages.

There’s a droll ontology articulated by Gronk’s lines, which make meaning by poking fun at the apparent randomness of our own interior lives, where one thing might be followed literally by any other, where the present emotion might be followed by the emotional equivalent of a giant bird from outer space “17,000,000 years old!” attacking the world and laying it to waste. It may be 9-11, it may be the next stop ahead is your stop, it may be something entirely unexpected. Scratch that surface and sniff. From beneath the existentially absurdist humor arises the aroma of earth (rocks, terrain, the body)…

http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/7920847454/summer-shorts

By Adolfo Flores, Staff Writer 07/06/2011

Carlos Montes of Alhambra, right, stands outside the city s courthouse after pleading not guilty to six felony charges. Montes faces one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, one count of possession of ammunition and four counts of perjury. (Adolfo Flores / Staff Photographer)

Felony complaint

ALHAMBRA – An anti-war protestor and Chicano activist Wednesday plead not guilty to six felony counts at an arraignment in Alhambra Superior Court.

Carlos Montes, 63, of Alhambra faces one count of possession of a firearm by a felon, one count possession of ammunition and four counts of perjury for lying on gun registration paperwork and saying he had never been convicted of a felony.

“Montes unlawfully possessed, purchased, received and had custody and control of a 12-gauge shotgun,” said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the D.A.’s office. “It’s substantial state prison time, over five years.”

Outside the courthouse and joined by about 35 supporters Montes said the charges have less to do with the possession of the shotgun and more to do with his political activities.

“Our view is that this is a political attack because of my views denouncing the U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and denouncing U.S. policy support of Israel denying the Palestinian people their rights,” Montes said Wednesday .

“This is not about having a gun or buying a gun it’s about my political views and political activity.”

Montes said he was awakened on May 17 by members of a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s SWAT Team, who rushed in with a search warrant. He was subsequently arrested.

“They came in with guns on their shoulders, yelling, I was shocked,” Montes said of his arrest. “I thought let me close my eyes so I can go to sleep
Advertisement
and see if I wake up from this nightmare.”

Montes said authorities looked through his files and rifled through pictures of his anti-war organizing. Some of the documents detailed trips to Columbia others included immigration rights paperwork.

While he was waiting in the back of a patrol car Montes said he was approached by an FBI agent in plain clothes who asked him about the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, a Marxist-Lenninst group with a post office box in Chicago.

He believes the FBI was investigating him after he participated in a anti-war demonstration at the 2008 Republican National Convention in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

Montes is named in an October 2010 search warrant for the committee’s offices which were linked to the Freedom Road group.

FBI spokeswoman Ari Dekofsky would not confirm that Montes was being investigated by the FBI.

Los Angeles County sheriff’s Sgt. Miguel Mejia said Montes was booked in East Los Angeles, but the investigation into his activities was led by either the Sheriff’s terrorist unit or the emergency operations bureau, working with the FBI.

“It was an FBI action as I recall,” said Sgt. Jim Sully. “We assisted them.”

The Brown Beret co-founder and an organizer of the East Los Angeles walkouts of 1968 said he plans on denouncing the 1969 charge of assaulting an officer.

Jorge Gonzalez, Montes’ attorney questioned the timing of the raid.

“They’re pulling a 40-year-old conviction, something is behind this, but it’s early in the game,” he said.

adolfo.flores@sgvn.com

626-578-6300 ext.4475
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/ci_18422863?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150702678125607_23222003_10150704083680607

Nationally known Chicano activist charges FBI with targeting him for political speech

Frank Stoltze/ KPCC

Chicano anti-war activist Carlos Montes joins his supporters outside the L.A. County courthouse in Alhambra, where he pled not-guilty to gun charges.

Carlos Montes, an icon among Chicano and Latino activists, pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to illegal gun possession in Los Angeles. He said authorities are using the charges to target him for his political beliefs.

At a rally on his behalf outside an Alhambra courthouse, Montes wore a white dress shirt, slacks and sunglasses as he thanked supporters and promised to fight the charge.

“Today, I’m going to declare myself innocent. I’m going to fight this thing all the way. I know for sure this is part of a wider attack,” Montes said.

The rhetoric was classic Montes, who helped organize the East L.A. student walkouts and anti-war protests in the 1960s and 70s, and was an original member of the Brown Berets – an organization that patterned itself after the Black Panthers.

Montes, 63, described how his current legal troubles began with an early morning raid on his Alhambra home by an L.A. County Sheriff’s SWAT team on May 17.

“I was totally asleep. And then I hear this loud noise and crashing at my front door,” he told a reporter. “I look from my bedroom and I see people with helmets, guns up at their shoulders, you know, yelling.” He said deputies smashed his front door into pieces and ransacked his house.

“It was shocking,” he said.

Sheriff’s spokesman Steve Whitmore said the SWAT team raided Montes’ home after deputies received a tip.

“We were notified by a source that this individual was in fact in possession of a firearm,” Whitmore said. He declined to name the source.

Whitmore said it’s illegal for Montes to have a gun because he’s a convicted felon. The conviction is four decades old. It came during one of his many run-ins with authorities. He threw a soda can at a cop during a demonstration in the 1960s.

Prosecutors also said he lied when he bought his shotgun at Big Five Sporting Goods two years ago because he didn’t admit he was a felon. He faces a total of six felony charges. Officials have moved the case — originally filed at the L.A. County courthouse in Alhambra — to the downtown courthouse that handles higher-profile cases.

Montes won’t talk about the specifics of the charges against him. Instead, he wondered why deputies crashed through his door and seized his computer, two cell phones and files on his current political work on immigrant rights, labor unions, and anti-war causes.

Whitmore said the Sheriff’s Department’s search warrant allowed that.

“We had the legal authority, signed by a judge, to do that. And so it was seized to further our investigation,” he said. The investigation, he promised, was focused on his gun possession.

Montes is skeptical. He said a funny thing happened when he sat with a sheriff’s deputy inside a squad car after the raid.

“He said someone wants to talk you – the FBI wants to talk to you.”

Suddenly, Montes said, an FBI agent in a baseball cap stuck his head inside the door.

“He looked at me and said, ‘I’d like to ask you questions about Freedom Road Socialist Organization.'”

Ever defiant, Montes refused to answer.

Federal authorities reportedly are checking Freedom Road Socialist Organization’s possible connections to Palestinian and Colombian groups the State Department has labeled as terrorist.

FBI spokeswoman Ari Dekofsky wouldn’t disclose whether Montes is under investigation in that or any other probe.

Montes said he has no connection to any terrorist groups.

Mick Kelly believes federal authorities are shadowing Montes. Kelly is with the Committee to Stop F.B.I. Repression and other leftist political groups in Minneapolis. He saw his home raided in September. Other homes and offices were raided, too.

“When the FBI raided the anti-war committee offices in the Twin Cities, one of the people named on the search warrant was Carlos Montes,” Kelly said. “When FBI documents speak of six offices who are investigating the case that relates to mine, one of those FBI offices is Los Angeles, and that’s Montes is.”

Montes’ attorney Jorge Gonzales said federal authorities are using the threat of terrorism to target political activists.

“They’re using that in order to go after legitimate protesters, legitimate activists,” Gonzalez said.

Montes links the gun charges against him with an effort to quiet his political activities. He said it’s a familiar tune.

“I’ve been a victim of political frame-ups in the past. Indicted twice, East L.A. walkouts, numerous other arrests that most of the time I was found not guilty,” he said.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/07/07/nationally-known-chicano-activist-charges-fbi-targ/

July 2011
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031