>
> But why go this route? These defense campaigns are serious life-and-death
> business, and you want to drag Pam Africa and Woodfox into the middle of
> your little squabble with the IAC? Woodfox is still in prison, and you want
> to air accounts of disputes about his defense on the internet for everyone
> to see including the Louisiana Attorney General, with no idea if Woodfox
> wants you to do that or not, for your own political purposes.
Yes, these defense campaigns are serious life-and-death matters. What I relayed was an account by somebody who was seriously trying to help somebody in prison. For their efforts, they had their work sabotaged by the IAC.
I've written quite a bit of criticism over the years about the strategies and politics within the Free Mumia movement. Frequently, I encountered the same rhetoric from the Left sectarians that we hear around anti-war work. They would say that we "needed to be united" and that I was being sectarian in my criticisms. Left vanguardists will do everything they can to stifle discussion and criticism within movements and coalitions. We're supposed to follow their enlightened leadership. If one of us points out that the entire support campaign is being led off the cliff by a series of questionable decisions, we are labelled as "dividers" and "sectarians."
If you were interested in getting somebody out of jail, wouldn't you be interested in knowing about all of the options? Would you not be interested in the ramifications of working with certain allies? Would you want to know that a certain ally or group was a political liability? Wouldn't it also be worthwhile to consider organizing styles, especially ones that tended to build larger numbers of supporters?
Chuck0