ReportWire

Tag: Rebellion

  • Former South Korean president sentenced to 5 years in prison

    [ad_1]

    A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to five years in prison Friday on some charges related to his imposition of martial law.The verdict is the first against Yoon in the eight criminal trials over the decree he issued in late 2024 and other allegations.Video above: Former South Korean president arrives at Seoul courtThe most significant charge against him alleges that he led a rebellion in connection with his martial law enforcement and it carries a potential death penalty.The Seoul Central District Court in the case decided Friday sentenced him for other charges like his defiance of authorities’ attempts to detain him.Yoon hasn’t immediately publicly responded to the ruling. But when an independent counsel earlier demanded a 10-year prison term for Yoon over those charges, Yoon’s defense team accused them of being politically driven and lacking legal grounds to demand such “an excessive” sentence.Yoon has been impeached, arrested and dismissed as president after his short-lived imposition of martial law in December 2024 triggered huge public protests calling for his ouster.Yoon maintains he didn’t intend to place the country under military rule for an extended period, saying his decree was only meant to inform the people about the danger of the liberal-controlled parliament which obstructed his agenda. But investigators have viewed Yoon’s decree as an attempt to bolster and prolong his rule, charging him with rebellion, abuse of power and other criminal offenses.

    A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to five years in prison Friday on some charges related to his imposition of martial law.

    The verdict is the first against Yoon in the eight criminal trials over the decree he issued in late 2024 and other allegations.

    Video above: Former South Korean president arrives at Seoul court

    The most significant charge against him alleges that he led a rebellion in connection with his martial law enforcement and it carries a potential death penalty.

    The Seoul Central District Court in the case decided Friday sentenced him for other charges like his defiance of authorities’ attempts to detain him.

    Yoon hasn’t immediately publicly responded to the ruling. But when an independent counsel earlier demanded a 10-year prison term for Yoon over those charges, Yoon’s defense team accused them of being politically driven and lacking legal grounds to demand such “an excessive” sentence.

    Yoon has been impeached, arrested and dismissed as president after his short-lived imposition of martial law in December 2024 triggered huge public protests calling for his ouster.

    Yoon maintains he didn’t intend to place the country under military rule for an extended period, saying his decree was only meant to inform the people about the danger of the liberal-controlled parliament which obstructed his agenda. But investigators have viewed Yoon’s decree as an attempt to bolster and prolong his rule, charging him with rebellion, abuse of power and other criminal offenses.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What makes a rebellion? Trump’s troop deployment may hinge on one man’s dictionary

    [ad_1]

    At the center of the sprawling legal battle over President Trump’s domestic military deployments is a single word: rebellion.

    To justify sending the National Guard to Los Angeles and other cities over the outcry of local leaders, the Trump administration has cited an obscure and little-used law empowering presidents to federalize soldiers to “suppress” a rebellion, or the threat of one.

    But the statute does not define the word on which it turns. That’s where Bryan A. Garner comes in.

    For decades, Garner has defined the words that make up the law. The landmark legal reference book he edits, Black’s Law Dictionary, is as much a fixture of American courts as black robes, rosewood gavels and brass scales of justice.

    The dictionary is Garner’s magnum opus, as essential to attorneys as Gray’s Anatomy is to physicians.

    Now, Black’s definition of rebellion is at the center of two critical pending decisions in cases from Portland, Ore., and Chicago — one currently being reheard by the 9th Circuit and the other on the emergency docket at the Supreme Court — that could unleash a flood of armed soldiers into American streets.

    That a dictionary could influence a court case at all owes in part to Garner’s seminal book on textualism, a conserative legal doctrine that dictates a page-bound interpretation of the law. His co-author was Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice whose strict originalist readings of the Constitution paved the way for the court’s recent reversal of precedents on abortion, voting rights and gun laws.

    On a recent weekday, the country’s leading legal lexicographer was ensconced among the 4,500 some-odd dictionaries that fill his Dallas home, revising the entry for the adjective “calculated” ahead of Black’s 13th Edition.

    But, despite his best efforts not to dwell on the stakes of his work, the noun “rebellion” was never far from his mind.

    Federal authorities stand guard at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Ore., that has been the site of protests against the Trump administration.

    (Sean Bascom / Anadolu via Getty Images)

    “One of the very first cases citing my book sent a man to his capital punishment,” he explained of an earlier dictionary. “They cited me, the guy was put to death. I was very disturbed by that at first.”

    He managed his distress by doubling down on his craft. In its first 100 years, Black’s Law Dictionary was revised and reissued six times. From 1999 to 2024, Garner produced six new editions.

    “I work on it virtually every day,” he said.

    Most mornings, he rises before dawn, settling behind a desk in one of his three home libraries around 4 a.m. to begin the day’s defining.

    That fastidiousness has not stopped the lexical war over his work in recent months, as judges across the country read opposite meanings into “rebellion.”

    The Department of Justice and the attorneys general of California, Oregon and Illinois have likewise sparred over the word.

    In making their case, virtually all have invoked Black’s definition — one Garner has personally penned for the last 30 years. He began editing the 124-year-old reference book in 1995.

    “The word ‘rebellion’ has been stable in its three basic meanings in Black’s since I took over,” he said.

    Ooo! So at some point I added, ‘usually through violence,’” he amended himself.

    This change comes from the definition’s first sense: 1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler; esp., an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, usu. through violence.

    States have touted this meaning to argue the word rebellion cannot possibly apply to torched Waymos in Los Angeles or naked bicyclists in Portland.

    The Trump administration, meanwhile, has leaned on the second and third senses to say the opposite.

    The California Department of Justice wrote in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Illinois case that federal authorities argue rebellion means any form of “resistance or opposition to authority or tradition,” including disobeying “a legal command or summons.”

    “But it is not remotely plausible to think that Congress intended to adopt that expansive definition,” the state said.

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth walks onto a stage

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth walks onstage to deliver remarks as part of the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary celebration at Camp Pendleton on Oct. 18.

    (Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images)

    Although the scope and the stakes of the rebellion fight make it unique, the debate over definitions is nothing new, experts say.

    The use of legal dictionaries to solve judicial problems has surged in recent years, with the rise of Scalia-style textualism and the growing sense in certain segments of the public that judges simply make the law up as they go along.

    By 2018, the Supreme Court was citing dictionary definitions in half of its opinions, up dramatically from prior years, according to Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School.

    Splitting hairs over what makes a rebellion is a new level of absurdity, he said. “This is an unfortunate consequence of the Supreme Court’s obsession with dictionaries.”

    “Reducing the meaning of a statute to one (of the many) dictionary definitions is unlikely to give you a useful answer,” he said. “What it gives you is a means of manipulating the definition to achieve the result you want.”

    Garner has publicly acknowledged the limits of his work. Ultimately, it’s up to judges to decide cases based on precedents, evidence, and the relevant law. Dictionaries are an adjunct.

    Still, he and other textualists see the turn to dictionaries as an important corrective to interpretive excesses of the past.

    “The words are law,” Garner said.

    Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge as a protester stands outside in an inflatable frog costume

    Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as a protester stands outside in an inflatable frog costume on Oct. 21 in Portland, Ore.

    (Jenny Kane / Associated Press)

    Judges who cite dictionaries are “not ceding power to lexicographers,” he argued, but simply giving appropriate heft to the text enacted by Congress.

    Others call the dictionary a fig leaf for the interpretive excesses of jurists bent on reading the law to suit a political agenda.

    “Judges don’t want to take personal responsibility for saying ‘Yes, there’s a rebellion’ or ‘no, there isn’t,’ so they say ‘the dictionary made me do it.’” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “No, it didn’t.”

    Though he agreed with Black’s definition of rebellion, Segall rejected the idea it could shape jurisprudence: “That’s not how our legal system works,” he said.

    The great challenge in the troops cases, legal scholars agree, is that they turn on a vague, century-old text with no relevant case law to help define it.

    Unlike past presidents, who invoked the Insurrection Act to combat violent crises, Trump deployed an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to wrest command of National Guard troops from state governors and surge military forces into American cities.

    Before Trump deployed troops to L.A. in June, the law had been used only once in its 103-year history.

    With little interpretation to oppose it, the Justice Department has wielded its novel reading of the statute to justify the use of federalized troops to support immigration arrests and put down demonstrations.

    Administration attorneys say the president’s decision to send soldiers to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago is “unreviewable” by courts, and that troops can remain in federal service in perpetuity once called up, regardless of how conditions change.

    A Border Patrol official marches with federal agents

    Border Patrol official Greg Bovino marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 14.

    (Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

    Judges have so far rejected these claims. But they have split on the thornier issues of whether community efforts to disrupt immigration enforcement leave Trump “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” — another trigger for the statute — and if sporadic violence at protests adds up to rebellion.

    As of this week, appellate courts also remain sharply divided on the evidence.

    On Oct 23, Oregon claimed the Department of Justice inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland in response to protests to more than triple its actual size — a mistake the department called an “unintended ambiguity.”

    The inflated number was repeatedly cited in oral arguments before the 9th Circuit and more than a dozen times in the court’s Oct. 20 decision allowing the federalization of Oregon’s troops — an order the court reversed Tuesday while it is reviewed.

    The 7th Circuit noted similar falsehoods, leading that court to block the Chicago deployment.

    “The [U.S. District] court found that all three of the federal government’s declarations from those with firsthand knowledge were unreliable to the extent they omitted material information or were undermined by independent, objective evidence,” the panel wrote in its Oct 11 decision.

    A Supreme Court decision expected in that case will probably define Trump’s power to deploy troops throughout the Midwest — and potentially across the country.

    For Garner, that decision means more work.

    In addition to his dictionaries, he is also the author of numerous other works, including a memoir about his friendship with Scalia. In his spare time, he travels the country teaching legal writing.

    The editor credits his prodigious output to strict discipline. As an undergrad at the University of Texas, he swore off weekly Longhorns games and eschewed his beloved Dallas Cowboys to concentrate on writing, a practice he has maintained with Calvinist devotion ever since.

    “I haven’t seen a game for the last 46 years,” the lexicographer said, though he makes a biannual exception for the second halves of the Super Bowl and college football’s national championship game.

    As for the political football with Black’s “rebellion,” he’s waiting to see how the Illinois Guard case plays out.

    “I will be looking very closely at what the Supreme Court says,” Garner said. “If it writes anything about the meaning of the word rebellion, that might well affect the next edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.”

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • 9th Circuit rethinks ruling that bolstered Trump’s authority to deploy troops

    [ad_1]

    Three of the country’s most powerful judges met in Pasadena on Wednesday for a rare conclave that could rewrite the legal framework for President Trump’s expansive deployment of troops to cities across the United States.

    The move to flood Los Angeles with thousands of federalized soldiers over the objection of state and local leaders shocked the country back in June. Five months later, such military interventions have become almost routine.

    But whether the deployments can expand — and how long they can continue — relies on a novel reading of an obscure subsection of the U.S. code that determines the president’s ability to dispatch the National Guard and federal service members. That code has been under heated debate in courts across the country.

    Virtually all of those cases have turned on the 9th Circuit’s decision in June. The judges found that the law in question requires “a great level of deference” to the president to decide when protest flashes into rebellion, and whether boots on the ground are warranted in response.

    On Wednesday, the same three judge panel — Jennifer Sung of Portland, Eric D. Miller of Seattle and Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu — took the rare move of reviewing it, signaling a willingness to dramatically rewrite the terms of engagement that have underpinned Trump’s deployments.

    “I guess the question is, why is a couple of hundred people engaging in disorderly conduct and throwing things at a building over the course of two days of comparable severity of a rebellion?” said Miller, who was appointed to the bench in Trump’s first term. “Violence is used to thwart the enforcement of federal law all the time. This happens every day.”

    The question he posed has riven the judicial system, splitting district judges from appellate panels and the Pacific Coast from the Midwest. Some of Trump’s judicial appointees have broken sharply with their colleagues on the matter, including on the 9th Circuit. Miller and Bennett appear at odds with Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, who expanded on the court’s June ruling in a decision Monday that allowed federalized troops to deploy in Oregon.

    Most agreethat the statute itself is esoteric, vague and untested. Unlike the Insurrection Act, which generations of presidents have used to quell spasms of violent domestic unrest, the law Trump invoked has almost no historical footprint, and little precedent to define it.

    “It’s only been used once in the history of our country since it was enacted 122 years ago,” California Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt told the court Wednesday.

    Attorneys from both sides have turned to legal dictionaries to define the word “rebellion” in their favor, because the statute itself offers no clues.

    “Defendants have not put forward a credible understanding of the term ‘rebellion’ in this litigation,” Harbourt told the panel Wednesday. “We’re continuing to see defendants rely on this interpretation across the country and we’re concerned that the breadth of the definition the government has relied on … includes any form of resistance.”

    The wiggle room has left courts to lock horns over the most basic facts before them — including whether what the president claims must be provably true.

    In the Oregon case, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, called the president’s assertions about a rebellion there “untethered to the facts.”

    But a separate 9th Circuit panel overruled her, finding the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to use soldiers domestically.

    “The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts,” the court wrote in its Monday decision.

    Nelson went further, calling the president’s decision “absolute.”

    Upon further review, Sung signaled a shift to the opposite interpretation.

    “The court says when the statute gives a discretionary power, that is based on certain facts,” she said. “I don’t see the court saying that the underlying decision of whether the factual basis exists is inherently discretionary.”

    That sounded much more like the Midwest’s 7th Circuit decision in the Chicago case, which found that nothing in the statute “makes the President the sole judge of whether these preconditions exist.”

    “Political opposition is not rebellion,” the 7th Circuit judges wrote. “A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows.”

    The Trump administration’s appeal of that decision is currently before the Supreme Court on the emergency docket.

    But experts said even a high court ruling in that case may not dictate what can happen in California — or in New York, for that matter. Even if the justices ruled against the administration, Trump could choose to invoke the Insurrection Act or another law to justify his next moves, an option that he and other officials have repeatedly floated in recent weeks.

    The administration has signaled its desire to expand on the power it already enjoys, telling the court Wednesday there was no limit to where troops could be deployed or how long they could remain in the president’s service once he had taken control of them.

    “Would it be your view that no matter how much conditions on the ground changed, there would be no ability of the district court or review — in a month, six months, a year, five years — to review whether the conditions still support [deployment]?”

    “Yes,” McArthur said.

    Bennett pressed the point, asking whether under the current law the militia George Washington federalized to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 could “stay called up forever” — a position the government again affirmed.

    “There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” McArthur said. “The president’s determination of whether the exigency has arisen, that decision is vested in his sole and exclusive discretion.”

    [ad_2]

    Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • Insurrection Act, plenary power, martial law and more expla

    [ad_1]

    When asked whether President Donald Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act, Vice President JD Vance said Trump is “looking at all his options.”

    The decision would allow Trump to deploy the U.S. military domestically for law enforcement purposes without congressional authorization and over the objections of state governors. 

    Vance’s Oct. 12 comment on NBC’s “Meet the Press” was just one of many in recent months about Trump’s ambitions to send the National Guard to Democratic cities such as Portland and Chicago.

    But the legal terms being tossed around —  Insurrection Act, plenary authority, martial law, Posse Comitatus Act — might not be familiar to everyone. These terms defy simple definitions after decades of interpretation by the courts. 

    Here, we explain.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    What is the Insurrection Act?

    This 1807 law allows the U.S. president to deploy federal military personnel domestically to suppress rebellion and enforce civilian law.

    Invoking the Insurrection Act temporarily suspends another U.S. law that forbids federal troops from conducting civilian law enforcement. A president can invoke the law after determining that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the federal government make it “impracticable to enforce” U.S. law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings,” the law says. In those cases, the Insurrection Act would allow the president to direct federal troops to enforce U.S. laws or stop a rebellion.

    The law is broadly written and doesn’t define terms such as “insurrection” or “rebellion.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1827 that the president has exclusive power to decide whether a situation represents an acceptable reason to invoke the law.

    Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government, previously told PolitiFact the law provides “limited authority” for the president to use the military to respond to “genuine emergencies — a breakdown in regular operational law when things are really falling apart.”

    The Insurrection Act has been formally invoked around 30 times in the U.S. since 1808, including when southern governors refused to integrate schools in the 1950s and ’60s and during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of Rodney King, a Black man.

    What is martial law?

    People sometimes conflate martial law with the Insurrection Act. Martial law typically refers to imposing military law on civilians, while the Insurrection Act uses the military to impose civilian law. Martial law is more stringent and has fewer protections than civilian law, experts said.

    The Supreme Court wrote in a 1946 ruling that the term martial law “carries no precise meaning,” and that it wasn’t defined in the Constitution or in an act of Congress. Legal experts told PolitiFact that, because of this, it isn’t clear whether the U.S. president has a legal path to declaring martial law in the way that it’s commonly understood.

    Still, it has been declared in the past. The U.S. imposed martial law in Hawaii after the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and President Abraham Lincoln declared martial law in certain parts of the country during the Civil War.

    The Supreme Court held in 1866 that martial law could be imposed only if civilian courts weren’t functioning.

    The court “more or less found that martial law could only be declared in an active war zone,” Chris Mirasola, University of Houston Law Center assistant professor, told PolitiFact. “The circumstances within which presidents have invoked martial law and that the Supreme Court has understood martial law are incredibly narrow. It would require an active hostility on U.S. territory that prevents civilian legal proceedings from occurring.”

    Trump, who has shown a willingness to challenge constitutional precedent, has continued to muse about using military powers against civilians. Trump told top U.S. military commanders Sept. 30 that the military could be used against the “enemy within” and suggested that some U.S. cities could be used as military “training grounds.”

    What is plenary authority?

    “Plenary authority” is defined by the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School as “power that is wide-ranging, broadly construed, and often limitless for all practical purposes.”

    The term made headlines when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller started to say that Trump has “plenary authority” to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. cities in an Oct. 6 CNN interview. Miller abruptly stopped talking and CNN said the disruption was from a technical glitch. But social media users said Miller froze because he mentioned plenary authority.

    When the show returned, Miller finished his answer, saying he was “making the point that under federal law, Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president has the authority anytime he believes federal resources are insufficient to federalize the National Guard to carry out a mission necessary for public safety.”

    Although the president has broad powers under the Constitution, like issuing pardons for federal crimes, he doesn’t have limitless power. The U.S. government is divided into three branches — legislative, executive and judicial — in order to have checks and balances.

    Title 10 of the U.S. code outlines the role of the country’s armed forces and constrains what the military is allowed to do and what orders the president can lawfully issue.

    It doesn’t include terms like “plenary authority” or “plenary power.” Instead, it says that when the president “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States” and the U.S. faces a foreign invasion, a rebellion, or danger of rebellion, the president “may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any state.”  

    A judge in Oregon has twice blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops to Portland; a federal appeals court also blocked the administration from deploying the guard to Chicago, saying troops can remain federalized for now but cannot be deployed.

    Trump officials say the guard is needed to protect federal ICE officers and federal facilities. Trump previously cited section 12406 of Title 10 when he called for National Guard troops to be sent to Los Angeles during immigration protests in June. A federal judge ruled in September the deployment violated the law. The administration is appealing.

    What is the Posse Comitatus Act?

    The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, generally prevents the use of the military as a domestic police force on U.S. soil, with exceptions for the Insurrection Act.

    The phrase “posse comitatus” refers to a group of people called upon by a county sheriff to maintain peace and suppress lawlessness. Think of Western movie depictions of posses of townspeople gathering to catch fugitives. “The Posse Comitatus Act is so named because one of the things it prohibits is using soldiers rather than civilians as a posse comitatus,” the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive nonprofit policy institute, wrote in 2021.

    As the Posse Comitatus Act has been interpreted by the courts, civilian law-enforcement officials cannot make “direct active use” of military personnel, including using federal military forces, over their citizens to “regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory authority,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

    The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to the National Guard when it is under state authority and the command of a governor; the law’s restrictions apply when the National Guard is federalized by the president. This means the National Guard generally cannot conduct arrests, searches or seizures unless there is an exception, such as the Insurrection Act.

    The only National Guard exception is the District of Columbia’s, which is solely under federal control. 

    What is the National Guard?

    The National Guard is a state-based military force with certain federal responsibilities. The guard often responds to domestic emergencies, such as natural disasters and civil unrest, and can support U.S. military operations overseas.

    Over 430,000 National Guard members serve in units in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    The National Guard typically operates as a part-time reserve force that can be mobilized for active duty by governors. The guard also helps train foreign allies in over 100 countries under the State Partnership Program

    A president in some cases can federalize and take control of a state’s National Guard over the objection of governors for domestic missions and to serve in wars overseas, but it rarely happens without governors’ consent. When the National Guard is federalized, its troops are subject to the same restrictions as federal troops.

    The National Guard has been federally mobilized in the U.S. several times, including in response to the 2020 protests over the murder of George Floyd; the 1992 Los Angeles riots; and civil unrest following the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. 

    The Ohio National Guard’s 1970 deployment to anti-war protests at Kent State University resulted in troops shooting students, killing four people and injuring nine others.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The ‘Scream!’ horror anthology is as unnerved by AI as the rest of us (Exclusive) | The Mary Sue

    The ‘Scream!’ horror anthology is as unnerved by AI as the rest of us (Exclusive) | The Mary Sue

    [ad_1]

    As the days grow shorter and the wind gets colder, Rebellion is celebrating the 40th anniversary of its landmark British horror weekly, Scream! Debuting in the UK in November and the U.S. in December, Scream! 40 Years of Terror is an oversized anthology comics special featuring four brand-new stories from some of today’s top creators—and although the collection celebrates the 15-issue weekly that debuted in 1984, the topics explored herein are very relevant to today’s readers.

    Today, The Mary Sue can reveal an exclusive preview from “The Thirteenth Floor” by Torunn Gronbekk and Emily Schnall. The story is about an apartment block run by an AI called “Max” that will do anything to keep its tenants safe, including mass murder and torture “where applicable.” Given current fears about AI and its uses and abuses, this particular story is especially haunting.

    Check out art from “The Thirteenth Floor” and the Scream! 40 Years of Terror cover art below.

    (Rebellion)
    The Thirteenth Floor art from Scream! 40 Years of Terror anthology
    (Rebellion)
    The Thirteenth Floor art from Scream! 40 Years of Terror anthology
    (Rebellion)
    Scream! 40 Years of Terror anthology cover

    In addition to the story above, the Scream! special will also include “The Dracula File” by Alex Paknadel and Alejandro Aragon, about a strange figure who breaks into a journalist’s home as she works on a story about bizarre disappearances in London; “And His Skin Is Cold” by Anna Readman and George Pooley, about a British rock band that discovers a startling route to immortality during a U.S. tour in the ’70s; and “Inverted Burial” by V. V. Glass, about what really goes on in the Paris catacombs…

    These stories are perfect to celebrate Scream!, published by IPC Magazines between March and June 1984. It’s since become a beloved cult classic. Rebellion republished all 15 original issues in a hardcover collection, 40 Years of Scream!, which sold out shortly after release in May. Pre-orders are currently available for the second edition.

    Scream! 40 Years of Terror will be available physically and digitally in the UK on November 4, with the U.S. edition to follow on December 11.


    The Mary Sue is supported by our audience. When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn a small affiliate commission. Learn more about our Affiliate Policy

    [ad_2]

    Samantha Puc

    Source link

  • Long live the Conch Republic

    Long live the Conch Republic

    [ad_1]

    The United States acquired the island of Key West through neither military conquest nor diplomatic treaty. In good American fashion, it was purchased with private funds.

    The island was uninhabited except by foliage and flamingos when John Whitehead spotted it while sailing from Nassau in 1819. It had little to recommend it—not even a source of fresh water—except a deep harbor, fortuitously placed between America’s Eastern Seaboard and the busy gulf port of Mobile, Alabama.

    Sensing the potential in that location, Whitehead and a business partner, John Simonton, tracked down the island’s owner, a Spanish citizen named Juan Pablo Salas, and made him a $2,000 offer. “Salas accepted, no doubt believing he’d gotten the better part of the deal,” writes Maureen Ogle in Key West: History of an Island of Dreams.

    The island began to fill with settlers and just as soon acquired a reputation as a “deadly nest” of pirates and disease. “In another time and place, such a reputation may have killed the settlement,” Ogle explains. “But in early-nineteenth-century America—alive with the pioneering spirit—that reputation only added to Key West’s allure.” As Simonton himself put it, “Capital and capitalists will always go where profit is to be found.”

    Wrecking, or salvaging the cargo of distressed sea vessels, was the town’s chief industry. Wreckers provided an invaluable service, venturing out during violent storms at grave risk to themselves to prevent the loss of both life and goods when ships foundered on the hazardous coral reefs. “It was a vocation regulated by few laws,” writes Victoria Shearer in It Happened in the Florida Keys, “but governed by firm rules of honor: The first wrecking vessel to arrive at a distressed ship became the wrecking master of record, directing the salvage and earning a larger share of the proceeds. Other wreckers received shares in proportion to the amount of tonnage they saved.”

    On shore, commission agents waited to receive the cargo and arranged to have it auctioned off—for a cut of the reward, of course.

    The construction of public lighthouses (and the introduction of steam-powered ships, less likely to be blown aground) eventually put the wreckers out of business. Sea-sponge harvesting, cigar manufacturing, and tourism took over as engines of the local economy. The second of those was a product of government intervention: In the 1850s, Congress imposed stiff tariffs on Cuban cigars but failed to apply the duty to raw tobacco leaf. Predictably, entrepreneurs took to making bulk ingredient purchases in Havana and then set up factories in Key West, a mere 90 miles away. The workers were largely imported from Cuba as well.

    During the 19th century, “a decidedly cosmopolitan city slowly emerged from the mangrove thickets,” Ogle writes. “Because Key West sat at the crossroads of the Caribbean, everyone crossed paths with throngs of what one islander called ‘world wanderers,’” from Bahamians to Irishmen to “Hindoos” to Swedes.

    Key West naturally selected for a certain anti-authoritarian disposition. When state health officials responded to an 1896 smallpox outbreak by establishing a quarantine camp and closing the harbor, residents “balked,” Ogle recounts. “At a town meeting, seven hundred people listened as one speaker after another denounced government interference. Key Westers paid taxes and got nothing but grief” from the state capital, they said. Eventually, “the crowd voted to inform the state legislature of their desire to secede.”

    It wouldn’t be the last time.

    ***

    By the early 20th century, Key West was gaining fame as a haven of vice. Saloons lined Duval Street. Gambling and prostitution were major attractions.

    The situation intensified with the passage of the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol. Suddenly, rumrunning became the biggest business of all. “Liquor washed over Key West during Prohibition like high tide under a full moon,” Shearer writes. “Given its proximity to Cuba and the Bahamas, both of which were swimming in booze, the Florida Keys became a wide-open distribution point….Locals considered smuggling liquor a public service.”

    In Key West, even the Prohibition agents often left the islanders well enough alone—and for good reason. One story, recounted in both books, involves a 1926 speakeasy raid by a group of federal “revenooers” down from Miami. For whatever reason, this time the townspeople weren’t having it. “Proprietors of the raided properties swore out warrants against the agents,” Ogle writes, “charging them with assault and battery, destruction of private property, and larceny.”

    The justice of the peace for the Keys, Rogelio Gomez, “sided with the locals and granted the warrants,” Shearer explains, making him “the only county magistrate in the United States ever to issue an arrest warrant against a Prohibition agent.” The Miami agents, apparently seeing the writing on the wall, snuck out through the back door of the courthouse and escaped aboard a Navy ship. “The mess was finally cleaned up when the two sides—locals and feds—reached a compromise and dropped both cases,” Shearer writes.

    Around this time, Key Westers (also known as “Conchs”) rejoiced when the U.S. Coast Guard relocated its headquarters away from the island. “And why shouldn’t they have?” asks Ogle. “From the point of view of Key West rumrunners, the Coast Guard represented unfair competition. As soon as the Guard’s servicemen seized a cargo of contraband booze, they turned right around and sold it….Who wouldn’t be resentful?”

    The onset of the Great Depression a few years later hit the island city hard. It’s an exaggeration to say Ernest Hemingway’s personal expenditures single-handedly kept the economy going, but only just. The celebrity writer ate and drank at the city’s taverns; took out-of-town friends on deep-sea fishing expeditions; bought and renovated his now-famous residence on Whitehead Street; and lured in other literary types with disposable income, including the poet Robert Frost, the philosopher John Dewey, and the playwright Tennessee Williams.

    But even Hemingway’s largesse wasn’t enough for the struggling town. In 1934, Julius Stone Jr., head of the Florida division at the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, arrived with an ambitious plan: to “turn Key West into a first-class tourist destination” by rehabilitating the historic downtown with a combination of federal dollars and local volunteer labor. Hoping to cultivate the arts scene, Stone also tasked a cadre of writers, painters, thespians, and musicians employed by the Works Progress Administration and the Federal Writers’ Project with beautifying the island.

    Perhaps the least libertarian aspect of Key West history, then, is that its fame as a hub of arts and culture was purchased in sizable part with tax money. But that story’s epilogue is worth bearing in mind: After the New Deal programs dried up, locals created an arts league in an effort to maintain their new reputation. Stone himself, “back in town as a practicing attorney and mover-and-shaker, served as one of the organization’s first presidents,” Ogle writes. “Later, he would flee the island when one of his many shady deals turned sour.”

    Leading lights such as Hemingway and Frost, lamenting the touristification of the island, decamped. But those who remained bet on the allure of “bohemianism,” producing glossy brochures that, in Ogle’s words, “played up the island’s live-and-let-live attitude and portrayed the community as a hotbed of eccentricity.” Later, the same spirit would make Key West into a gay enclave famous for its drag shows.

    There does seem to be something to the notion that Conchs are just different from other folks. In 1962, Americans held their collective breath as the country tottered on the edge of war. News broke that the Soviets had installed nuclear missiles in communist Cuba, putting attack capabilities in the United States’ backyard. But despite being on the literal frontlines of that showdown, Shearer reports, “Life in Key West remained curiously, quintessentially laid back. After all, October in the Florida Keys, the height of hurricane season, had always been fraught with a degree of danger.”

    In the 1970s, the Keys emerged as a way station in the international drug trade. The same personal and geographic characteristics that had allowed Key West denizens to flourish during Prohibition (including a high tolerance for risk and hundreds of miles of marshy coastline) made it tough for federal law enforcement officials to keep up with traffickers half a century later—especially when local law enforcement officials were sometimes in on the game.

    ***

    By 1982, the feds had come up with a new tactic for catching drug runners and illegal immigrants entering the country through the Keys. Their move sparked an uprising that, in a sense, continues to this day.

    On April 18, without warning, the U.S. Border Patrol set up a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 1 at the top of the Keys—the only road out of town—and began searching all vehicles attempting to pass north onto the mainland. By some reports, the roadblock caused traffic to back up for 19 miles. Motorists, most of whom were vacationers headed home at the end of the weekend, sat for hours in the heat waiting for their chance to pass.

    The tourism industry felt an immediate impact in the form of canceled reservations. Proprietors didn’t take that lightly.

    Mayor Dennis Wardlow and the island’s Chamber of Commerce initially tried the legal route: They flew to Miami and filed for an injunction in federal court. It was to no avail. So the outraged Key Westers opted for a more dramatic response.

    On April 23, Wardlow announced that Key West was seceding from the Union. “They’re treating us like a foreign country,” he said, “so we might as well become one.” Assuming the title of prime minister, he lowered the stars and stripes and raised the light blue flag of the fledgling Conch Republic. “We serve notice on the government in Washington,” he declared, “to remove the roadblock or get ready to put up a permanent border to a new foreign land. We as a people may have suffered in the past, but we have no intention of suffering in the future at the hands of fools and bureaucrats….We’re Conchs and we’ve had enough.”

    Wardlow’s cheeky intention was to declare war on America, fire one shot, surrender, and then ask for $1 billion in aid for rebuilding. His countrymen carried out the plan of attack as only Key Westers would. “Using the Conch Republic’s weapon of choice—hard, stale Cuban bread,” Shearer writes, a member of Wardlow’s war cabinet “hit a cooperative young uniformed naval officer over the head, then immediately handed over the loaf.”

    The rebellion was part publicity stunt, part genuine protest. (“We’re happy to secede today with some humor,” Wardlow said. “But there’s some anger, too.”) It was effective on both counts: The roadblock was speedily removed, and the gag became a tourism bonanza.

    Today, Conch Republic apparel is available at pretty much all of Key West’s many, many T-shirt shops. A 10-day “independence” celebration happens every April, drawing thousands to the island. (The festivities include a mock battle in which combatants pelt naval vessels with water balloons and conch fritters.) Community leaders boast that Conchs are a people with a “sovereign state of mind.” The micronation even sells novelty passports—and there are documented cases of holders successfully using them to travel abroad and reenter the United States. Sovereign, indeed!

    In 1994, the Conchs sent an “official” delegation to the Summit of the Americas in Miami. In 1995, when a government shutdown in Washington caused the closure of Dry Tortugas National Park, just off the Florida coast, the Republic “threatened to use three antique biplanes loaded with stale Cuban bread to bomb the park’s Fort Jefferson” unless the popular tourist destination was reopened, Shearer writes.

    More recently, in 2006, the fake country “annexed” a stretch of an abandoned overseas bridge after the Coast Guard told a group of Cuban refugees that landing there did not trigger “wet foot, dry foot”—the policy at the time of granting legal status to any Cuban who landed on American soil.

    Peter Anderson, who held the title of Conch Republic ​​secretary general, “led a landing party of Conchs who staked miniature flags along the bridge,” wrote Darien Cavanaugh in a 2015 article for the War Is Boring website. “Since the federal government decided in its infinite wisdom that the old Seven Mile Bridge is not territory of the United States, the Conch Republic is very interested,” Anderson told reporters; Washington “chose not to defend” the bridge against the invasion.

    And there you have the colorful history behind the Key West motto, emblazoned on everything from sweatshirts to souvenir passports: “We seceded where others failed.”

    [ad_2]

    Stephanie Slade

    Source link