RECENT BOOKS 2010: ACTIVISM, ORGANIZING, AGITATING, BUILDING MOVEMENTS, CHANGING THE WORLD
--Cohen, Robert. Freedom’s Orator: Mario Savio and the Radical Legacy of the 1960s. Rev. The Nation (March 29, 2010). “Savio was a revoolutionary and civil libertarian, logician and poet, scientific observer and self-aware partisan—and in his heyday a virtuosic extemporizer….”?
--Kahn, Si. Creative Community Organizing: A Guide for Rabble-Rousers, Activists, and Quiet Lovers of Justice. Berrett-Koehler, 2010. Rev. Fellowship Fall 2010. Theory, resources, tools, but especially case studies. See Reinsborough and Channing.
--Reinsborough, Patrick and Doyle Channing. Re:Imagining Change: How to Use Story-Based Strategy to Win Campaigns, Build Movements, and Change the World. PM P, 2010. Rev. Fellowship Fall 2010. See Kahn.
--Lerner, Steve. Sacrifice Zones: The Front Lines of Toxic Exposure in the United States. 2010. Stories of 12 environmental activists who live in areas dangerously polluted and inhabited by poor, minority populations. African Americans are 79% more likely than whites to live in such neighborhoods. But activists in many of these sites rise and organize to go to court and close toxic sites.
--Wimsatt, Billy. Please Don’t Bomb the Suburbs. 2010. Interv. In These Times (Nov. 2010). Also author of Bomb the Suburbs 1994) and No More Prisons (1998).
2010 BOOKS continued
--Anderson, Kevin. Agitations: Ideologies and Strategies in African American Politics. U of Arkansas P, 2010. From the 19th c. to the present, particularly how the NAACP, the SCLC, and SNCC fought on multiple fronts. NAACP lawsuits and lobbying. SCLC: nonviolent mass action. SNCC: community empowerment.
--Cooper, Peter. From Educating to Agitating.
--Mickenberg, Julia, ed. Tales for Little Rebels: A Collection of Radical Children’s Literature. NYU P, 2010.
--Trigg, Mary, ed. Leading the Way: Young Women’s Activism for Social Change. Rutgers UP, 2010.
--Loeb, Paul Rogat. Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in Challenging Times. New and Revised Ed. St. Martin’s, 2010. Rev. Veterans for Peace Newsletter (Summer 2010). Explains how ordinary citizens can make their voices heard.
--Civilian Ally: A Guide to Organizing with Veterans and Service Members to Build a GI Resistance Movement. War Resisters League, 2009, 36pp.Three anti-war groups provide a tookit for civilians to use in supporting GI resistance.
--Hoffman, Nicholas Von. Radical: A Portrait of Saul Alinsky. Nation Books, 2010. Rev. Mother Jones (July/August 2010). Alinsky possessed “a singular understanding of how to acquire power and what to do with it.”
--Pertschuk, Michael. The DeMarco Factor. Vanderbilt UP, 2010. Rev. Public Citizen News (July/August 2010). Story of Vinny DeMarco, social justice public interest activist hero, and a guide to public advocacy: reaching out to media, framing messages, organizing communities, securing tech. and financial assistance, etc.
--DeFelippis, James, et al. Contesting Community: The Limits and Potential of Local Organizing. Rutgers UP, 2010.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Why Does the US Public Go Along with US Permanent War?
WHY ARE THEY SILENT?
Several explanations of German public support of the Nazis give us material for analysis of support of recurrent US governments by the public.
Get STATS on % support
Of course one nation was a dictatorship and the other is a republic, but the issue is the mutual viciousness of their national policies—for this essay specifically foreign policies--and why the public went along.
How did the Nazis gain such broad support from the German population?
One view is that the Third Reich was a nightmare of fear and intimidation, created by the Gestapo, the prisons for dissenters, and torture. .
A much stronger explanation is that the German populace was already extremely anti-Semitic needing only a little incentive to be willing executioners.
A third view marshalls the evidence of the power of Hitler’s personality greatly magnified by an extraordinary national propaganda machine.
And a forth explanation is that the Nazis satisfied the economic self-interest of the people, by decent wages, a graduated income tax, a pension system, and the plunder from the occupied territories, which enabled the Nazis to keep their own populace and their soldiers content, and their occupied territories quiescent.
A historian has written, “The Nazis were not only the most notorious murderers in history but also the greatest thieves.” In comparison, the US is a child. One historian does claim that BLUM So the question stands: How did the U.S. elected rulers gain such broad support for its longest war against Afghanistan fought simultaneously with a second war against Iraq, and additional wars emerging after ten years?
Of the four explanations listed above, only the first three seem to apply to the U. S.
Fear does permeate our country. The communist and socialist parties have been virtually eradicated. “Liberals” are now under similar attack. The FBI has revived aspects of their 1960s COINTELPRO. Millions of the US populace do not want to sign petitions for fear of being placed on an “un-American” or “terrorist” list. The FBI is not the Gestapo, and the Marion super-max prison is not Buchenwald, but it’s enough, maybe, to explain why so few “citizens” publicly decry the leaders and politices of the government.
Replace Jews with Muslims and you see the parallel scapegoating today. Over a thousand Muslims were detained after 9-11, hundreds for extended periods without charge, and reports of bigoted actions against Muslims are numerous to the present. Invading and occupying Muslim nations and killing tens of thousands of Muslim civilians, and assassinating and torturing thousands of suspected terrorists without benefit of trial, have not produced more than the outcry of the peace movement. The U.S. willing executioners are small numerically compared to the Nazi slaughter, but intrinsically it’s similar behavior.
Presidents Bush and Obama are cardboard cutouts compared to Hitler; their rallies possessing the drama of a boy scout gathering compared to the spectacles organized by the Nazis at Nuremberg for Hitler’s rants, but combined with the fear and bigotry their speeches and persistence carried the Congress and the populace forward to continued war. Only one member of the House of Representatives voted against the resolution (not Declaration of War) supporting the invasion of Afghanistan, but that was much more the shock of the plane bombings and the pre-existent hatred of “ragheads” than from any cult of personality surrounding President G. W. Bush.
The fourth, economic, explanation does not seem to apply at all, for although the war industry capitalists are making money, the income of the general populations has continued to decline, along with services and state and municipal services.
Have we then answered the question why the U.S. public generally is so acquiescent against its governments’ illegal, unjust, financially disastrous wars? The peace movement can get to work especially on extricating the public from the fear and bigotry which fuels their support or their passivity?
But these explanations don’t seem adequate to me. The public does not seem so timorous or so prejudiced. Other motives seem to be in play. Have the people become so cynical and exhausted by endless war that they cannot recognize and feel the suffering of the victims of our wars? Or is it something else, distinctly different from fear, hatred, cynicism, or numbness? Let’s come back to this subject. Dick.
References
Aly, Gotz. Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. Metropolitan/Holt, 2007.
Goldhagen, Daniel. Hitler’s Willing Executioners . 1996.
Herzog, Dagmar. “Handouts from Hitler.” NYT Book Review (2-18-07). Rev. of Aly: The Nazis used economic policy to retain power.
Several explanations of German public support of the Nazis give us material for analysis of support of recurrent US governments by the public.
Get STATS on % support
Of course one nation was a dictatorship and the other is a republic, but the issue is the mutual viciousness of their national policies—for this essay specifically foreign policies--and why the public went along.
How did the Nazis gain such broad support from the German population?
One view is that the Third Reich was a nightmare of fear and intimidation, created by the Gestapo, the prisons for dissenters, and torture. .
A much stronger explanation is that the German populace was already extremely anti-Semitic needing only a little incentive to be willing executioners.
A third view marshalls the evidence of the power of Hitler’s personality greatly magnified by an extraordinary national propaganda machine.
And a forth explanation is that the Nazis satisfied the economic self-interest of the people, by decent wages, a graduated income tax, a pension system, and the plunder from the occupied territories, which enabled the Nazis to keep their own populace and their soldiers content, and their occupied territories quiescent.
A historian has written, “The Nazis were not only the most notorious murderers in history but also the greatest thieves.” In comparison, the US is a child. One historian does claim that BLUM So the question stands: How did the U.S. elected rulers gain such broad support for its longest war against Afghanistan fought simultaneously with a second war against Iraq, and additional wars emerging after ten years?
Of the four explanations listed above, only the first three seem to apply to the U. S.
Fear does permeate our country. The communist and socialist parties have been virtually eradicated. “Liberals” are now under similar attack. The FBI has revived aspects of their 1960s COINTELPRO. Millions of the US populace do not want to sign petitions for fear of being placed on an “un-American” or “terrorist” list. The FBI is not the Gestapo, and the Marion super-max prison is not Buchenwald, but it’s enough, maybe, to explain why so few “citizens” publicly decry the leaders and politices of the government.
Replace Jews with Muslims and you see the parallel scapegoating today. Over a thousand Muslims were detained after 9-11, hundreds for extended periods without charge, and reports of bigoted actions against Muslims are numerous to the present. Invading and occupying Muslim nations and killing tens of thousands of Muslim civilians, and assassinating and torturing thousands of suspected terrorists without benefit of trial, have not produced more than the outcry of the peace movement. The U.S. willing executioners are small numerically compared to the Nazi slaughter, but intrinsically it’s similar behavior.
Presidents Bush and Obama are cardboard cutouts compared to Hitler; their rallies possessing the drama of a boy scout gathering compared to the spectacles organized by the Nazis at Nuremberg for Hitler’s rants, but combined with the fear and bigotry their speeches and persistence carried the Congress and the populace forward to continued war. Only one member of the House of Representatives voted against the resolution (not Declaration of War) supporting the invasion of Afghanistan, but that was much more the shock of the plane bombings and the pre-existent hatred of “ragheads” than from any cult of personality surrounding President G. W. Bush.
The fourth, economic, explanation does not seem to apply at all, for although the war industry capitalists are making money, the income of the general populations has continued to decline, along with services and state and municipal services.
Have we then answered the question why the U.S. public generally is so acquiescent against its governments’ illegal, unjust, financially disastrous wars? The peace movement can get to work especially on extricating the public from the fear and bigotry which fuels their support or their passivity?
But these explanations don’t seem adequate to me. The public does not seem so timorous or so prejudiced. Other motives seem to be in play. Have the people become so cynical and exhausted by endless war that they cannot recognize and feel the suffering of the victims of our wars? Or is it something else, distinctly different from fear, hatred, cynicism, or numbness? Let’s come back to this subject. Dick.
References
Aly, Gotz. Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. Metropolitan/Holt, 2007.
Goldhagen, Daniel. Hitler’s Willing Executioners . 1996.
Herzog, Dagmar. “Handouts from Hitler.” NYT Book Review (2-18-07). Rev. of Aly: The Nazis used economic policy to retain power.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Guantanamo and Torture: A Consequence of the "War on Terror"
GUANTANAMO
BOOKS
--Kurnaz, Murat. Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo. Palgrave, 2008. Rev. Z Magazine (Dec. 2010). Torture of Muslim prisoners was “systemic,” with “countless acts of murder…at least in the hundreds.” “Pentagon architects designed prisons that were sadistic torture chambers.”
--Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side. Doubleday, 2008.
--Andy Worthington, The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law.
From Democracy Now in Dec. 2009
Amy Goodman interviewed Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law. He noted that Gitmo was to be closed by Jan. 11, 2010; that date was extended; and now extended again in order not to release Yemeni prisoners, of which 86 are still in G. Worthington also said that the Pentagon exaggerated the no. of G. released prisoners who rejoined al Qaeda.
REPORTER CAROL ROSENBERG
Glenn, David. “The Record Keeper: Carol Rosenberg Owns the Guantanamo Beat.” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010). Rosenberg, reporter for The Miami Herald, is the most persistent critic of “the way the military runs things at Guantanamo.” This article describes many aspects of her presence at Gitmo and exposes Pentagon machinations.
The End of Shame in America
This sort of thing should be shouted from the rooftops, and those responsible chased from public life. But instead we’ll have the grinning loons on cable news and talk radio telling us why it’s okay.
Report: U.S. military based Gitmo training on tactics China used in Korean War - USA Today
A training course at Gitmo was modeled on tactics that Chinese forces used to interrogate American prisoners during the Korean War, according to The New York Times.
The paper reports that interrogation trainers used a chart with "coercive management techniques" that were "copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."
To read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-us-milit.html (from Richard D)
PRISONERS
Scott Horton, “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides’: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle,” Harper’s Magazine (Jan/Feb 2010). See: DN 1-19-10 Gitmo in 2006: 3 prisoners murdered, G. commander claimed suicide, gov’t /CIA covered up…….
MOHAMMED JAWAD
TMN (7-31-09), “Judge Orders Detainee’s Release.” The youngest detainee, tortured into confessing to crimes, imprisoned at G. six and a half years.without charge or trial.
JOHN WALKER LINDH
Democracy Now interv. his parents Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker 7-31-09.
MOAZZAM BEG
Released from G. See Guantanamo Justice Center.
BOOKS
--Kurnaz, Murat. Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo. Palgrave, 2008. Rev. Z Magazine (Dec. 2010). Torture of Muslim prisoners was “systemic,” with “countless acts of murder…at least in the hundreds.” “Pentagon architects designed prisons that were sadistic torture chambers.”
--Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side. Doubleday, 2008.
--Andy Worthington, The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law.
From Democracy Now in Dec. 2009
Amy Goodman interviewed Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law. He noted that Gitmo was to be closed by Jan. 11, 2010; that date was extended; and now extended again in order not to release Yemeni prisoners, of which 86 are still in G. Worthington also said that the Pentagon exaggerated the no. of G. released prisoners who rejoined al Qaeda.
REPORTER CAROL ROSENBERG
Glenn, David. “The Record Keeper: Carol Rosenberg Owns the Guantanamo Beat.” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010). Rosenberg, reporter for The Miami Herald, is the most persistent critic of “the way the military runs things at Guantanamo.” This article describes many aspects of her presence at Gitmo and exposes Pentagon machinations.
The End of Shame in America
This sort of thing should be shouted from the rooftops, and those responsible chased from public life. But instead we’ll have the grinning loons on cable news and talk radio telling us why it’s okay.
Report: U.S. military based Gitmo training on tactics China used in Korean War - USA Today
A training course at Gitmo was modeled on tactics that Chinese forces used to interrogate American prisoners during the Korean War, according to The New York Times.
The paper reports that interrogation trainers used a chart with "coercive management techniques" that were "copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."
To read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-us-milit.html (from Richard D)
PRISONERS
Scott Horton, “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides’: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle,” Harper’s Magazine (Jan/Feb 2010). See: DN 1-19-10 Gitmo in 2006: 3 prisoners murdered, G. commander claimed suicide, gov’t /CIA covered up…….
MOHAMMED JAWAD
TMN (7-31-09), “Judge Orders Detainee’s Release.” The youngest detainee, tortured into confessing to crimes, imprisoned at G. six and a half years.without charge or trial.
JOHN WALKER LINDH
Democracy Now interv. his parents Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker 7-31-09.
MOAZZAM BEG
Released from G. See Guantanamo Justice Center.
Recent Books on Right Wing USA
RECENT BOOKS
--Atlas, John. Seeds of Change. Vanderbilt UP, 2010. Defends ACORN from right-wing malice. See Michael Schudson and Julia Sonnevend, “In ACORN’s Shadow,” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010): Studies 647 stories on ACORN during 2007-08: ACORN’s alleged voter fraud “was absurdly hyped for partisan advantage; the national media were steamrolled into promoting…a ‘disingenuous controversy’; and ACORN twisted in the wind.”
--Berlet, Chip. Right Wing Populism in America and editor of Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash. And video: “Right Wing Populism in America,” June 8, 2010. www.zcommunications.org; 508-548-9063.
--Greenwald, Glenn. Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. Examines the deceitful personality-based tactics the right uses to win elections, and the establishment media's vital role.
-Jenkins, Philip. Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America. Oxford, 2010.
----Press, Bill. Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves. Bill Press, 2010.
--Alexander Zaitchick. Common Nonsense. On Glenn Beck.
--Atlas, John. Seeds of Change. Vanderbilt UP, 2010. Defends ACORN from right-wing malice. See Michael Schudson and Julia Sonnevend, “In ACORN’s Shadow,” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010): Studies 647 stories on ACORN during 2007-08: ACORN’s alleged voter fraud “was absurdly hyped for partisan advantage; the national media were steamrolled into promoting…a ‘disingenuous controversy’; and ACORN twisted in the wind.”
--Berlet, Chip. Right Wing Populism in America and editor of Eyes Right! Challenging the Right Wing Backlash. And video: “Right Wing Populism in America,” June 8, 2010. www.zcommunications.org; 508-548-9063.
--Greenwald, Glenn. Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics. Examines the deceitful personality-based tactics the right uses to win elections, and the establishment media's vital role.
-Jenkins, Philip. Decade of Nightmares: The End of the Sixties and the Making of Eighties America. Oxford, 2010.
----Press, Bill. Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves. Bill Press, 2010.
--Alexander Zaitchick. Common Nonsense. On Glenn Beck.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
, Public Services, Costs of the Wars, Public Silence
11-28-10
To the Editor
Doug Thompson
The inability of our towns and counties to afford a broad range of needs and desires can be traced directly to the wars our leaders have led us into. These wars are an enormous drain on our finances. Of President Obama’s 2011 Recommended Discretionary Spending, over 50% goes to the military (the wars, the Pentagon, Veterans Affairs, Nuclear Weapons). But for our urgent local needs? For Health and Human Services, the 2011 budget provides only 6%; for Transportation, 6%; for Education, 4%; for Housing and Urban Development, 3%; for Justice, 2%; for Agriculture, 2%; for Environmental Protection Agency, 1%. Everything is shorted for the military.
Yet We, the people are largely silent. Why is that? We are not entirely to blame. Particularly, we are deceived about the real financial costs of the wars. We are not paying as we go the present costs of the wars directly by taxes, because payment has been delayed through loans from Japan and China, for our children and grandchildren to pay.
Also, the true costs are hidden from us through Pentagon secrecy, government subsidies to corporations, corporate public relations, media complicity, and sheer complexity. The cost of gasoline for the tanks and planes, for example, is substantially higher than the price the Pentagon pays, because much of this cost is hidden from the public. Especially uncounted and unmeasured is the destruction to the environment by U.S. wars.
Even our local officials are complicit in the cover-up. When lamenting the shrunken budget, our public officials do not confront the major cause in the four to six trillion dollars the Iraq and Afghan wars are to cost (not including the expansion of the wars into Pakistan and Yemen, and throughout the world via our network of some 900 military bases). Not until the people are told the real costs of the wars and the true causes of municipal and county shortfalls will the public ever know enough to be motivated to change the war economy of the U.S. National Security State.
I turn to our officials then: the next time you speak to the public about your struggle to find money for the services We, the people need, don’t omit the facts of the wars.
Dick Bennett
2582 Jimmie Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
442-4600
To the Editor
Doug Thompson
The inability of our towns and counties to afford a broad range of needs and desires can be traced directly to the wars our leaders have led us into. These wars are an enormous drain on our finances. Of President Obama’s 2011 Recommended Discretionary Spending, over 50% goes to the military (the wars, the Pentagon, Veterans Affairs, Nuclear Weapons). But for our urgent local needs? For Health and Human Services, the 2011 budget provides only 6%; for Transportation, 6%; for Education, 4%; for Housing and Urban Development, 3%; for Justice, 2%; for Agriculture, 2%; for Environmental Protection Agency, 1%. Everything is shorted for the military.
Yet We, the people are largely silent. Why is that? We are not entirely to blame. Particularly, we are deceived about the real financial costs of the wars. We are not paying as we go the present costs of the wars directly by taxes, because payment has been delayed through loans from Japan and China, for our children and grandchildren to pay.
Also, the true costs are hidden from us through Pentagon secrecy, government subsidies to corporations, corporate public relations, media complicity, and sheer complexity. The cost of gasoline for the tanks and planes, for example, is substantially higher than the price the Pentagon pays, because much of this cost is hidden from the public. Especially uncounted and unmeasured is the destruction to the environment by U.S. wars.
Even our local officials are complicit in the cover-up. When lamenting the shrunken budget, our public officials do not confront the major cause in the four to six trillion dollars the Iraq and Afghan wars are to cost (not including the expansion of the wars into Pakistan and Yemen, and throughout the world via our network of some 900 military bases). Not until the people are told the real costs of the wars and the true causes of municipal and county shortfalls will the public ever know enough to be motivated to change the war economy of the U.S. National Security State.
I turn to our officials then: the next time you speak to the public about your struggle to find money for the services We, the people need, don’t omit the facts of the wars.
Dick Bennett
2582 Jimmie Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
442-4600
Drones on Trial
The Dead were Completely Unrecognisable
Interview With Family Devastated by US Drone Attack
By Asim Qureshi
September 24, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- EXCLUSIVE - Cageprisoners interview with Haider whose brother-in-law Mohammed Asghar and his friends became the victims of an unlawful US drone attack.
CP: Could you please introduce yourself?
Bismillahir rahmaanir raheem
Haider: My name is Haider. My brother-in-law, Mohammed Asghar, lived in Peshawar and worked as a money exchanger in the markets there.
CP: Where did the drone attack take place?
H: The attacks took place in North Waziristan, Miranshah in District Ahmadkheel. My brother-in-law had friends he was visiting in Waziristan. As he was a guest there - and as is the custom of the people - many of the locals gathered to welcome him into the area. He was sat with a group of these people from the community when everybody gathered to pray the evening prayer (‘Isha) together. The drone attack happened in the middle of the prayers and the entire congregation was martyred.
CP: Were there any Taliban or Al Qaeda in the gathering or were they all civilians?
H: All the people gathered were locals from the community who had come to welcome the new guest to the area. The people are renowned for their hospitality and it is unthinkable for them that somebody would come to visit and they would not have a gathering to welcome them. In total, 31 people were killed. Drone attacks are so powerful nobody can escape them merely injured.
CP: How did you find out this happened?
H: Between our area and Waziristan is an 8 hour journey. The drone attack happened at night time and we all knew about it by the following morning. People who had witnessed the attack had come to tell us and described what they saw of the remnants and damage in the aftermath. They said the attack was so severe that they could not even distinguish the bodies from one another- even the bones of the people were completely blown apart. The dead were completely unrecognisable. My brother in law’s coffin was tightly sealed and we were not allowed to open it to view anything. We had the coffin with us for 30 minutes before it was taken away for burial.
CP: Why do you think the US/Pakistan government do this and what do you think they hope to gain?
H: We just don’t know. We don’t know how much authority Pakistan has given the US to attack our areas and we don’t know until when the US are given free license by the Pakistani government to carry out these drone attacks. So far between 1400-1600 people have died as a result of these attacks. Nobody takes responsibility for these civilian deaths. Ask the journalists or officials for the true statistics, we know that it is 1400-1600 civilians, women and children killed. In this, they would have been lucky to even have 11 or 12 ‘militants’ amongst them. These attacks are so widespread that even my brother in law who lives in Peshawar was made a victim of it. Who do I appeal to? Where can I go? I don’t even know who to hold responsible for his death and how I do it.
I am shocked that the US can come to attack Pakistan in this way and Pakistan does not even have the authority to question them on the deaths they are causing. The civilians in all these regions are extremely frightened and fearful. They can’t work in the day, nor can they sleep during the night. As soon as they hear the slightest sound of an aeroplane, they flee in panic from their homes and buildings trying to find a place for security. The whole community is in a state of fear and I just cannot explain to you how unbearable these calamities are for the people. Every household has at least half of its people martyred (i.e.: killed) as a result of these attacks. I simply do not understand what the understanding between Pakistan the US is on this matter.
CP: Haider, thank you for taking the time to speak with us and we are sorry for your loss.
This item was first posted at http://www.cageprisoners.com
COMMANDERS OF DRONES ON TRIAL
Activists Go on Trial in Nevada for Protesting Obama Admin Drone Program Democracy Now 9-13-10
This week marks the beginning of a trial for fourteen antiwar (the “Creech 14”)activists who held a ten-day vigil outside the Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada last year. The base is one of several homes of the American military’s aerial drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The activists were charged with criminal trespassing for entering the base with a letter describing their opposition to the drone program. Speaking out against US military drones
John Dear, SJ – “On the Road to Peace” National Catholic Reporter September 28, 2010
On Sept. 14, thirteen others and I -- known together as the "Creech 14" -- went on trial in Las Vegas, Nev., for an action we committed in April 2009 at Creech Air Force Base to protest the U.S. military's use of unmanned drones in combat abroad.
paste this link into your browser http://ncronline.org/node/20460
TESTIMONY BASED ON INTERNATIONAL LAWS
From Desert Voices: The Newsletter of the Nevada Desert Experience (Nov./Dec. 2010): Generally in such trials judges allow no to little defense testimony regarding motives, ethics, or international law, but this was an exception, putting drones themselves on trial under international laws. The judge allowed defendants to call three expert witnesses—former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, ret. Col. Ann Wright, and Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights. They asserted:
Intentional killings—assassinations--is a war crime, as embodied in U.S. constitutional law.
Drone strikes kill a disproportionate number of civilians.
People have the right and duty to stop war crimes.
According to Nuremberg principles, individuals are required to disobey domestic orders that cause crimes against humanity.
Defendant Renee Espeland said: “I am bound by the law of our land that makes it my duty to stop the killing of civilians and to protect U.S. soldiers being ordered to perform illegal acts.”
WHY IS THERE GENERAL SILENCE? Contact OMNI to raise your voice.
June 24, 2009
Pakistani Opposition Politician Imran Khan on US Drone Attacks, the "Massive Human Catastrophe" in the Swat Valley and the Escalation of War in Afghanistan
At least sixty people have reportedly died in the South Waziristan region of western Pakistan after a US drone attack Tuesday. The attack came as the Pakistani army and air force expanded their military operations from Swat into South Waziristan. We speak with Pakistani opposition figure and cricketing legend Imran Khan, the leader of the political party known as the Movement for Justice. Khan has been an outspoken critic of both US drone attacks as well as the Pakistani military’s offensive against the Taliban. [includes Democracy Now 9-24-10
CIA Drastically Increases Drone Campaign in Pakistan
The CIA has drastically increased its bombing campaign in the mountains of Pakistan in recent weeks. According to the New York Times, the CIA has launched at least twenty attacks with armed drone aircraft so far in September, the most ever during a single month. According to one Pakistani intelligence official, the recent drone attacks have not killed any senior Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders. Many senior operatives have already fled the region to escape the CIA drone campaign. Democracy Now (9-28-10)
US Attack Helicopters Strike Inside Pakistan
US Apache attack helicopters have carried out at least three air strikes inside Pakistan in recent days, killing more than seventy alleged militants. Pakistan criticized the NATO operation, saying the attack helicopters illegally entered Pakistani air space, but Pentagon officials said the strikes were done in self-defense. While the US regularly uses pilotless drone aircraft for missile strikes in Pakistan, manned military flights across the border have been rare up until now. Democracy Now (9-28-10) [Self-defense? A blatant example of US double-standards based upon the US myth of exceptionalism.]
Dick
Interview With Family Devastated by US Drone Attack
By Asim Qureshi
September 24, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- EXCLUSIVE - Cageprisoners interview with Haider whose brother-in-law Mohammed Asghar and his friends became the victims of an unlawful US drone attack.
CP: Could you please introduce yourself?
Bismillahir rahmaanir raheem
Haider: My name is Haider. My brother-in-law, Mohammed Asghar, lived in Peshawar and worked as a money exchanger in the markets there.
CP: Where did the drone attack take place?
H: The attacks took place in North Waziristan, Miranshah in District Ahmadkheel. My brother-in-law had friends he was visiting in Waziristan. As he was a guest there - and as is the custom of the people - many of the locals gathered to welcome him into the area. He was sat with a group of these people from the community when everybody gathered to pray the evening prayer (‘Isha) together. The drone attack happened in the middle of the prayers and the entire congregation was martyred.
CP: Were there any Taliban or Al Qaeda in the gathering or were they all civilians?
H: All the people gathered were locals from the community who had come to welcome the new guest to the area. The people are renowned for their hospitality and it is unthinkable for them that somebody would come to visit and they would not have a gathering to welcome them. In total, 31 people were killed. Drone attacks are so powerful nobody can escape them merely injured.
CP: How did you find out this happened?
H: Between our area and Waziristan is an 8 hour journey. The drone attack happened at night time and we all knew about it by the following morning. People who had witnessed the attack had come to tell us and described what they saw of the remnants and damage in the aftermath. They said the attack was so severe that they could not even distinguish the bodies from one another- even the bones of the people were completely blown apart. The dead were completely unrecognisable. My brother in law’s coffin was tightly sealed and we were not allowed to open it to view anything. We had the coffin with us for 30 minutes before it was taken away for burial.
CP: Why do you think the US/Pakistan government do this and what do you think they hope to gain?
H: We just don’t know. We don’t know how much authority Pakistan has given the US to attack our areas and we don’t know until when the US are given free license by the Pakistani government to carry out these drone attacks. So far between 1400-1600 people have died as a result of these attacks. Nobody takes responsibility for these civilian deaths. Ask the journalists or officials for the true statistics, we know that it is 1400-1600 civilians, women and children killed. In this, they would have been lucky to even have 11 or 12 ‘militants’ amongst them. These attacks are so widespread that even my brother in law who lives in Peshawar was made a victim of it. Who do I appeal to? Where can I go? I don’t even know who to hold responsible for his death and how I do it.
I am shocked that the US can come to attack Pakistan in this way and Pakistan does not even have the authority to question them on the deaths they are causing. The civilians in all these regions are extremely frightened and fearful. They can’t work in the day, nor can they sleep during the night. As soon as they hear the slightest sound of an aeroplane, they flee in panic from their homes and buildings trying to find a place for security. The whole community is in a state of fear and I just cannot explain to you how unbearable these calamities are for the people. Every household has at least half of its people martyred (i.e.: killed) as a result of these attacks. I simply do not understand what the understanding between Pakistan the US is on this matter.
CP: Haider, thank you for taking the time to speak with us and we are sorry for your loss.
This item was first posted at http://www.cageprisoners.com
COMMANDERS OF DRONES ON TRIAL
Activists Go on Trial in Nevada for Protesting Obama Admin Drone Program Democracy Now 9-13-10
This week marks the beginning of a trial for fourteen antiwar (the “Creech 14”)activists who held a ten-day vigil outside the Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada last year. The base is one of several homes of the American military’s aerial drone program in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The activists were charged with criminal trespassing for entering the base with a letter describing their opposition to the drone program. Speaking out against US military drones
John Dear, SJ – “On the Road to Peace” National Catholic Reporter September 28, 2010
On Sept. 14, thirteen others and I -- known together as the "Creech 14" -- went on trial in Las Vegas, Nev., for an action we committed in April 2009 at Creech Air Force Base to protest the U.S. military's use of unmanned drones in combat abroad.
paste this link into your browser http://ncronline.org/node/20460
TESTIMONY BASED ON INTERNATIONAL LAWS
From Desert Voices: The Newsletter of the Nevada Desert Experience (Nov./Dec. 2010): Generally in such trials judges allow no to little defense testimony regarding motives, ethics, or international law, but this was an exception, putting drones themselves on trial under international laws. The judge allowed defendants to call three expert witnesses—former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, ret. Col. Ann Wright, and Bill Quigley of the Center for Constitutional Rights. They asserted:
Intentional killings—assassinations--is a war crime, as embodied in U.S. constitutional law.
Drone strikes kill a disproportionate number of civilians.
People have the right and duty to stop war crimes.
According to Nuremberg principles, individuals are required to disobey domestic orders that cause crimes against humanity.
Defendant Renee Espeland said: “I am bound by the law of our land that makes it my duty to stop the killing of civilians and to protect U.S. soldiers being ordered to perform illegal acts.”
WHY IS THERE GENERAL SILENCE? Contact OMNI to raise your voice.
June 24, 2009
Pakistani Opposition Politician Imran Khan on US Drone Attacks, the "Massive Human Catastrophe" in the Swat Valley and the Escalation of War in Afghanistan
At least sixty people have reportedly died in the South Waziristan region of western Pakistan after a US drone attack Tuesday. The attack came as the Pakistani army and air force expanded their military operations from Swat into South Waziristan. We speak with Pakistani opposition figure and cricketing legend Imran Khan, the leader of the political party known as the Movement for Justice. Khan has been an outspoken critic of both US drone attacks as well as the Pakistani military’s offensive against the Taliban. [includes Democracy Now 9-24-10
CIA Drastically Increases Drone Campaign in Pakistan
The CIA has drastically increased its bombing campaign in the mountains of Pakistan in recent weeks. According to the New York Times, the CIA has launched at least twenty attacks with armed drone aircraft so far in September, the most ever during a single month. According to one Pakistani intelligence official, the recent drone attacks have not killed any senior Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders. Many senior operatives have already fled the region to escape the CIA drone campaign. Democracy Now (9-28-10)
US Attack Helicopters Strike Inside Pakistan
US Apache attack helicopters have carried out at least three air strikes inside Pakistan in recent days, killing more than seventy alleged militants. Pakistan criticized the NATO operation, saying the attack helicopters illegally entered Pakistani air space, but Pentagon officials said the strikes were done in self-defense. While the US regularly uses pilotless drone aircraft for missile strikes in Pakistan, manned military flights across the border have been rare up until now. Democracy Now (9-28-10) [Self-defense? A blatant example of US double-standards based upon the US myth of exceptionalism.]
Dick
Books on the US National Security State
A Few Recent BOOKS on the US NATIONAL SECURITY STATE, Empire, Militarism
--Beinart, Peter. The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris. Harper Collins, 2010. Rev. San Francisco Chronicle (7-2-10): “…a dense and sober assessment of American foreign policy since World War I. …Beinart clearly believes in the Great Man theory of history. His book's three main sections - "The Hubris of Reason," "... of Toughness" and "... of Dominance" - are structured around the personal narratives and defining characteristics of the presidents who shaped the national disposition during times of peace and war. When discussing Woodrow Wilson, for example, Beinart deals at length with the 28th president's intellectual confidence - arrogance, even - that he could remake the system….Decades later, John F. Kennedy's administration would come to exemplify the "hubris of power”….The Bay of Pigs, the Soviet stare-down, Vietnam - Beinart ties each of these to Kennedy's "toughness paradigm," but suggests that the president himself may have recognized "that toughness had become a conceptual prison" by the summer of 1963….The book's chapters on George W. Bush and his "hubris of dominance" are the least interesting, if only because Beinart has little new to say about the former president's foreign policy record….” Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/02/RVQ51DJI08.DTL#ixzz0u3MPqGna
--Bonpane, Blasé. Guerrillas of Peace. iUniverse, 2006. Advocates an international, inclusive path, to build a system of justice and peace that will lead to the dissolution of the war system.
--Douglass, Jim. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Interv.The Servant Song (Fall 2010). Agape Community. Agape: Pres. Kennedy “stood up to his own national security state and his generals….He wanted to end the war in Vietnam, looked to abolish nuclear weapos and finally end war as we know it. He was planning to pursue rapprochement with Castro through Khrushchev.P Douglass: He was killed “because the national security state felt it was necessary to kill him because he was a traitor.” Douglass: “Kennedy’s se3curity was withdrawn. He was driven into a trap. He had been set up.” The national security forces in government and corporate world “do not want us to see the connections…to understand that 1963 is right now.”
----Elias, Robert. The Empire Strikes Out: How Baseball Sold U. S. Foreign Policy and Promoted the American Way Abroad. New P, 2010. Rev. The Progressive (August 2010). “Militarism and baseball have been intertwined since the get-go….Baseball also played a crucial role in the conquering of the western frontier….baseball alongside troops, corporations, and churches as U.S. emissaries overseas.”
--Johnson, Chalmers. Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last, Best Hope. Vol. 4 of American Empire Project (Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, Nemesis). Johnson died in Nov. 2010.
--Junger, Sebastian. War. Twelve, 2010. Rev. Tom Bissell, Columbia Journalism R (July/August 2010): “…left me sickened, moved, terrified, awed, and angry, and which now takes it place among the best works on the subject that I have read.” About a U.S. Army outpost called Restrepo in a remote, mountainous area in Afghanistan surrounded by hostile dwellers. From 2005 to April 2010 the US Army “sacrificed almost four dozen soldiers” to defend the small Korengal Valley.” The book studies what happens to men in such violent circumstances. They become like “street gangs” who “want to fight and kill” with an intensity that seems psychopathic.
--Lieven, Anatol, and John Huisman. Ethical Realism: A Vision for America’s Role in the World. Pantheon, 2006. Rev. NYT Book Rev. (Nov. 12, 2006). Authors oppose “democratism,” the promotion of democracy globally by war.
--McCoy, Alfred. Policing America’s Empire. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin P, 2009.
--Philipps, David. Lethal Warriors: When the New Band of Brothers Came Home; Uncovering the Tragic Reality of PTSD. Palgrave, 2010.
--Diana Rivers. City of Strangers. Solene was abducted from her home and country to become a bride to the king of Hernorium. But when Hernoriums' imperial plans include ignoring the treaties that have kept her people safe for centuries she realizes she must take risks to save her people--and herself.
-- Sanders, Barry. The Green Zone: The Enviromental Costs of Militarism. AK P, 2009. Exposes the environmental consequences of US military practices, from fuel emissions to radioactive wastes to defoliation campaigns. The US military is the single-greatest contributor to the worldwide environmental crisis. “The military produces enough greenhouse gases, by itself, to place the entire globe, with all its inhabitants large and small, in the most immanent danger of extinction.”
Evan Thomas and “The War Lovers” July 23rd, 2010
As the old adage goes, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” “The War Lovers” is a new book aimed at helping us avoid that fate, by revealing the parallels between the Spanish-American War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq — from red herrings to screaming headlines.
Dick
--Beinart, Peter. The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris. Harper Collins, 2010. Rev. San Francisco Chronicle (7-2-10): “…a dense and sober assessment of American foreign policy since World War I. …Beinart clearly believes in the Great Man theory of history. His book's three main sections - "The Hubris of Reason," "... of Toughness" and "... of Dominance" - are structured around the personal narratives and defining characteristics of the presidents who shaped the national disposition during times of peace and war. When discussing Woodrow Wilson, for example, Beinart deals at length with the 28th president's intellectual confidence - arrogance, even - that he could remake the system….Decades later, John F. Kennedy's administration would come to exemplify the "hubris of power”….The Bay of Pigs, the Soviet stare-down, Vietnam - Beinart ties each of these to Kennedy's "toughness paradigm," but suggests that the president himself may have recognized "that toughness had become a conceptual prison" by the summer of 1963….The book's chapters on George W. Bush and his "hubris of dominance" are the least interesting, if only because Beinart has little new to say about the former president's foreign policy record….” Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/02/RVQ51DJI08.DTL#ixzz0u3MPqGna
--Bonpane, Blasé. Guerrillas of Peace. iUniverse, 2006. Advocates an international, inclusive path, to build a system of justice and peace that will lead to the dissolution of the war system.
--Douglass, Jim. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. Interv.The Servant Song (Fall 2010). Agape Community. Agape: Pres. Kennedy “stood up to his own national security state and his generals….He wanted to end the war in Vietnam, looked to abolish nuclear weapos and finally end war as we know it. He was planning to pursue rapprochement with Castro through Khrushchev.P Douglass: He was killed “because the national security state felt it was necessary to kill him because he was a traitor.” Douglass: “Kennedy’s se3curity was withdrawn. He was driven into a trap. He had been set up.” The national security forces in government and corporate world “do not want us to see the connections…to understand that 1963 is right now.”
----Elias, Robert. The Empire Strikes Out: How Baseball Sold U. S. Foreign Policy and Promoted the American Way Abroad. New P, 2010. Rev. The Progressive (August 2010). “Militarism and baseball have been intertwined since the get-go….Baseball also played a crucial role in the conquering of the western frontier….baseball alongside troops, corporations, and churches as U.S. emissaries overseas.”
--Johnson, Chalmers. Dismantling the Empire: America’s Last, Best Hope. Vol. 4 of American Empire Project (Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, Nemesis). Johnson died in Nov. 2010.
--Junger, Sebastian. War. Twelve, 2010. Rev. Tom Bissell, Columbia Journalism R (July/August 2010): “…left me sickened, moved, terrified, awed, and angry, and which now takes it place among the best works on the subject that I have read.” About a U.S. Army outpost called Restrepo in a remote, mountainous area in Afghanistan surrounded by hostile dwellers. From 2005 to April 2010 the US Army “sacrificed almost four dozen soldiers” to defend the small Korengal Valley.” The book studies what happens to men in such violent circumstances. They become like “street gangs” who “want to fight and kill” with an intensity that seems psychopathic.
--Lieven, Anatol, and John Huisman. Ethical Realism: A Vision for America’s Role in the World. Pantheon, 2006. Rev. NYT Book Rev. (Nov. 12, 2006). Authors oppose “democratism,” the promotion of democracy globally by war.
--McCoy, Alfred. Policing America’s Empire. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin P, 2009.
--Philipps, David. Lethal Warriors: When the New Band of Brothers Came Home; Uncovering the Tragic Reality of PTSD. Palgrave, 2010.
--Diana Rivers. City of Strangers. Solene was abducted from her home and country to become a bride to the king of Hernorium. But when Hernoriums' imperial plans include ignoring the treaties that have kept her people safe for centuries she realizes she must take risks to save her people--and herself.
-- Sanders, Barry. The Green Zone: The Enviromental Costs of Militarism. AK P, 2009. Exposes the environmental consequences of US military practices, from fuel emissions to radioactive wastes to defoliation campaigns. The US military is the single-greatest contributor to the worldwide environmental crisis. “The military produces enough greenhouse gases, by itself, to place the entire globe, with all its inhabitants large and small, in the most immanent danger of extinction.”
Evan Thomas and “The War Lovers” July 23rd, 2010
As the old adage goes, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” “The War Lovers” is a new book aimed at helping us avoid that fate, by revealing the parallels between the Spanish-American War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq — from red herrings to screaming headlines.
Dick
Saturday, November 27, 2010
US War on Terrorism? Permanent War Against Muslim Countries?
Published on Friday, November 26, 2010 by Salon.com
"The US of A breaks the Soviet Record" by Glenn Greenwald
Even for the humble among us who try to avoid jingoistic outbursts, some national achievements are so grand that they merit a moment of pride and celebration:
US presence in Afghanistan as long as Soviet slog
The Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.
On Friday, the U.S.-led coalition will have been fighting in this South Asian country for as long as the Soviets did in their humbling attempt to build up a socialist state.
It seems clear that a similar -- or even grander -- prize awaits us as the one with which the Soviets were rewarded. I hope nobody thinks that just because we can't identify who the Taliban leaders are after almost a decade over there that this somehow calls into doubt our ability to magically re-make that nation. Even if it did, it's vital that we stop the threat of Terrorism, and nothing helps to do that like spending a full decade -- and counting -- invading, occupying, and bombing Muslim countries.
The good news -- beyond our shattering this record and thus showing that we can still kick those Soviets around even after they no longer exist -- is that this decade of utter futility hasn't at all diminished the Government's appetite for endless war in the Muslim world. By all accounts, the administration its actively debating whether to accelerate its already escalated intervention in Yemen. We've dramatically increased our covert actions in countless countries across the Muslim world. And today, former Bush State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III (one of the "moderates" from that era) argues in The Washington Post for a re-writing of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- not in order to rescind it after nine years of endless war-fighting, but rather to expand it, on the ground that it "provides insufficient authority for our military and intelligence personnel to conduct counterterrorism operations today" and outrageously fails to empower the President's "wish to target or detain a terrorist who is not part of al-Qaeda" (for good measure, he also wants the new law to authorize the killing of American citizens and to allow detention without charges).
Continue reading
Clearly, the AUMF is far too narrow and weak for our purposes since -- as Bellinger notes -- this is all we've been able to do in its name:
The Bush and Obama administrations have relied on this authority to wage the ground war in Afghanistan; to exert lethal force (including drone strikes) against al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; and to detain suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban members in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan.
What kind of lame AUMF is that? A decade's worth of war, some slaughtering through the use of remote-controlled sky robots over a few countries, and a worldwide regime of lawless detention? How are we supposed to Stay Safe when we tie one arm behind our back that way?
Fortunately, if this vision of Expanded Endless War proves to be unwise, the harm will be contained, since the U.S. -- unlike the former Soviet Union -- is so financially strong that it can easily sustain this. And whatever else is true, there's one thing we should all be able to agree on: the person presiding over all of this deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
UPDATE: In a New York Times article today on the possibility that many newly elected Tea Party candidates will dare to include military spending in demanded budget cuts and will be similarly hostile to foreign aid -- including, most alarmingly for some, to Israel -- the following passage appears (h/t Matt Duss):
“One of the first things Congressman Cantor can do is to make sure that his colleagues vote for aid to Israel,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who also met with Mr. Netanyahu.
In the face of all these economic difficulties, auterity measures, and calls for Endless War, it's comforting that at least some of America's representatives in Congress -- such as the Good Democrat Chuck Schumer -- have their priorities straight.
© 2010 Salon.com
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
.
"The US of A breaks the Soviet Record" by Glenn Greenwald
Even for the humble among us who try to avoid jingoistic outbursts, some national achievements are so grand that they merit a moment of pride and celebration:
US presence in Afghanistan as long as Soviet slog
The Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.
On Friday, the U.S.-led coalition will have been fighting in this South Asian country for as long as the Soviets did in their humbling attempt to build up a socialist state.
It seems clear that a similar -- or even grander -- prize awaits us as the one with which the Soviets were rewarded. I hope nobody thinks that just because we can't identify who the Taliban leaders are after almost a decade over there that this somehow calls into doubt our ability to magically re-make that nation. Even if it did, it's vital that we stop the threat of Terrorism, and nothing helps to do that like spending a full decade -- and counting -- invading, occupying, and bombing Muslim countries.
The good news -- beyond our shattering this record and thus showing that we can still kick those Soviets around even after they no longer exist -- is that this decade of utter futility hasn't at all diminished the Government's appetite for endless war in the Muslim world. By all accounts, the administration its actively debating whether to accelerate its already escalated intervention in Yemen. We've dramatically increased our covert actions in countless countries across the Muslim world. And today, former Bush State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III (one of the "moderates" from that era) argues in The Washington Post for a re-writing of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) -- not in order to rescind it after nine years of endless war-fighting, but rather to expand it, on the ground that it "provides insufficient authority for our military and intelligence personnel to conduct counterterrorism operations today" and outrageously fails to empower the President's "wish to target or detain a terrorist who is not part of al-Qaeda" (for good measure, he also wants the new law to authorize the killing of American citizens and to allow detention without charges).
Continue reading
Clearly, the AUMF is far too narrow and weak for our purposes since -- as Bellinger notes -- this is all we've been able to do in its name:
The Bush and Obama administrations have relied on this authority to wage the ground war in Afghanistan; to exert lethal force (including drone strikes) against al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; and to detain suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban members in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Afghanistan.
What kind of lame AUMF is that? A decade's worth of war, some slaughtering through the use of remote-controlled sky robots over a few countries, and a worldwide regime of lawless detention? How are we supposed to Stay Safe when we tie one arm behind our back that way?
Fortunately, if this vision of Expanded Endless War proves to be unwise, the harm will be contained, since the U.S. -- unlike the former Soviet Union -- is so financially strong that it can easily sustain this. And whatever else is true, there's one thing we should all be able to agree on: the person presiding over all of this deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
UPDATE: In a New York Times article today on the possibility that many newly elected Tea Party candidates will dare to include military spending in demanded budget cuts and will be similarly hostile to foreign aid -- including, most alarmingly for some, to Israel -- the following passage appears (h/t Matt Duss):
“One of the first things Congressman Cantor can do is to make sure that his colleagues vote for aid to Israel,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who also met with Mr. Netanyahu.
In the face of all these economic difficulties, auterity measures, and calls for Endless War, it's comforting that at least some of America's representatives in Congress -- such as the Good Democrat Chuck Schumer -- have their priorities straight.
© 2010 Salon.com
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
.
Cancun conference and Earth in Peril
Published on Friday, November 26, 2010 by The Independent/UK
There Won't Be a Bailout for the Earth by Johann Hari
Why are the world's governments bothering? Why are they jetting to Cancun next week to discuss what to do now about global warming? The vogue has passed. The fad has faded. Global warming is yesterday's apocalypse. Didn't somebody leak an email that showed it was all made up? Doesn't it sometimes snow in the winter? Didn't Al Gore get fat, or something?
Alas, the biosphere doesn't read Vogue. Nobody thought to tell it that global warming is so 2007. All it knows is three facts. 2010 is globally the hottest year since records began. 2010 is the year humanity's emissions of planet-warming gases reached its highest level ever. And exactly as the climate scientists predicted, we are seeing a rapid increase in catastrophic weather events, from the choking of Moscow by gigantic unprecedented forest fires to the drowning of one quarter of Pakistan.
Before the Great Crash of 2008, the people who warned about the injection of huge destabilizing risk into our financial system seemed like arcane, anal bores. Now we all sit in the rubble and wish we had listened. The great ecological crash will be worse, because nature doesn't do bailouts.
That's what Cancun should be about - surveying the startling scientific evidence, and developing an urgent plan to change course. The Antarctic - which locks of 90 percent of the world's ice - has now seen eight of its ice shelves fully or partially collapse. The world's most distinguished climate scientists, after recording like this, say we will face a three to six feet rise in sea level this century. That means the drowning of London, Bangkok, Venice, Cairo and Shanghai, and entire countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives.
And that's just one effect of the way we are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Perhaps the most startling news story of the year passed almost unnoticed. Plant plankton are tiny creatures that live in the oceans and carry out a job you and I depend on to stay alive. They produce half the world's oxygen, and suck up planet-warming carbon dioxide. Yet this year, one of the world's most distinguished scientific journals, Nature, revealed that 40 per cent of them have been killed by the warming of the oceans since 1950. Professor Boris Worm, who co-authored the study, said in shock: "I've been trying to think of a biological change that's bigger than this and I can't think of one." That has been the result of less than one degree of warming. Now we are on course for at least three degrees this century. What will happen?
The scientific debate is not between deniers and those who can prove that releasing massive amounts of warming gases will make the world warmer. Every major scientific academy in the world, and all the peer-reviewed literature, says global warming denialism is a pseudo-science, on a par with Intelligent Design, homeopathy, or the claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. One email from one lousy scientist among tens of thousands doesn't dent that. No: the debate is between the scientists who say the damage we are doing is a disaster, and the scientists who say it is catastrophe.
Yet the world's governments are gathering in Cancun with no momentum and very little pressure from their own populations to stop the ecological vandalism. The Copenhagen conference last year collapsed after the most powerful people in the world turned up to flush their own scientists' advice down a very clean Danish toilet. These leaders are sometimes described as "doing nothing about global warming." No doubt that form of words will fill the reporting from Cancun too. But it's false. They're not "doing nothing" - they are allowing their countries' emissions of climate-trashing gases to massively increase. That's not failure to act. It's deciding to act in an incredibly destructive way.
The collapse of Copenhagen has not shocked people into action; it has numbed them into passivity. Last year, we were talking - in theory, at least - about the legally binding cap on the world's carbon emissions, because the world's scientists say this is the only thing that can preserve the climate that has created and sustained human civilization. What are we talking about this year? What's on the table at Cancun, other than sand?
Almost nothing. They will talk about how to help the world's poor "adapt" to the fact we are drying out much of their land and drowning the rest. But everybody is backing off from one of the few concrete agreements at Copenhagen: to give the worst-affected countries $100bn from 2020. Privately, they say this isn't the time - they can come back for it, presumably, when they are on rafts. Oh, and they will talk about how to preserve the rainforests. But a Greenpeace report has just revealed that the last big deal to save the rainforests - with Indonesia - was a scam. The country is in fact planning to demolish most of its rainforest to plant commercial crops, and claim it had been "saved."
Karl Rove - who was George W. Bush's chief spin-doctor - boasted this year: "Climate is gone." He meant it is off the political agenda, but in time, this statement will be more true and more cursed than he realizes.
It's in this context that a new, deeply pessimistic framework for understanding the earth's ecology - and our place in it - has emerged. Many of us know, in outline, the warm, fuzzy Gaia hypothesis, first outlined by James Lovelock. It claims that the Planet Earth functions, in effect, as a single living organism called Gaia. It regulates its own temperature and chemistry to create a comfortable steady state that can sustain life. So coral reefs produced cloud-seeding chemicals which then protect them from ultraviolet radiation. Rainforests transpire water vapour so generate their own rainfall. This process expands outwards. Life protects life.
Now there is a radically different theory that is gaining adherents, ominously named the Medea hypothesis. The paleontologist Professor Peter Ward is an expert in the great extinctions that have happened in the earth's past, and he believes there is a common thread between them. With the exception of the meteor strike that happened 65 million years ago, every extinction was caused by living creatures becoming incredibly successful - and then destroying their own habitats. So, for example, 2.3 billion years ago, plant life spread incredibly rapidly, and as it went it inhaled huge amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This then caused a rapid plunge in temperature that froze the planet and triggered a mass extinction.
Ward believes nature isn't a nurturing mother like Gaia. No: it is Medea, the figure from Greek mythology who murdered her own children. In this theory, life doesn't preserve itself. It serially destroys itself. It is a looping doomsday machine. This theory adds a postscript to Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. There is survival of the fittest, until the fittest trash their own habitat, and do not survive at all.
But the plants 2.3 billion years ago weren't smart enough to figure out what they were doing. We are. We can see that if we release enough warming gases we will trigger an irreversible change in the climate and make our own survival much harder. Ward argues that it is not inevitable we will destroy ourselves - because human beings are the first and only species that can consciously develop a Gaian approach. Just as Richard Dawkins famously said we are the first species to be able to rebel against our selfish genes and choose to be kind, we are the first species that can rebel against the Medean rhythm of life. We can choose to preserve the habitat on which we depend. We can choose life.
At Cancun, the real question will be carefully ignored by delegates keen to preserve big business as usual. Do we want to ramp up global warming with filthy fossil fuels, or make the leap to a clean planet fuelled by the sun, the wind and the waves? Right now we are making the wrong choice. But we could change the ending of this story, if we act decisively. Long after our own little stories are forgotten, this choice we make now will still be visible - in the composition of the atmosphere, the swelling of the seas, and the crack and creak of the great Antarctic ice. Do we want to be Gaia, or Medea?
© 2010 The Independent
Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world.
There Won't Be a Bailout for the Earth by Johann Hari
Why are the world's governments bothering? Why are they jetting to Cancun next week to discuss what to do now about global warming? The vogue has passed. The fad has faded. Global warming is yesterday's apocalypse. Didn't somebody leak an email that showed it was all made up? Doesn't it sometimes snow in the winter? Didn't Al Gore get fat, or something?
Alas, the biosphere doesn't read Vogue. Nobody thought to tell it that global warming is so 2007. All it knows is three facts. 2010 is globally the hottest year since records began. 2010 is the year humanity's emissions of planet-warming gases reached its highest level ever. And exactly as the climate scientists predicted, we are seeing a rapid increase in catastrophic weather events, from the choking of Moscow by gigantic unprecedented forest fires to the drowning of one quarter of Pakistan.
Before the Great Crash of 2008, the people who warned about the injection of huge destabilizing risk into our financial system seemed like arcane, anal bores. Now we all sit in the rubble and wish we had listened. The great ecological crash will be worse, because nature doesn't do bailouts.
That's what Cancun should be about - surveying the startling scientific evidence, and developing an urgent plan to change course. The Antarctic - which locks of 90 percent of the world's ice - has now seen eight of its ice shelves fully or partially collapse. The world's most distinguished climate scientists, after recording like this, say we will face a three to six feet rise in sea level this century. That means the drowning of London, Bangkok, Venice, Cairo and Shanghai, and entire countries like Bangladesh and the Maldives.
And that's just one effect of the way we are altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Perhaps the most startling news story of the year passed almost unnoticed. Plant plankton are tiny creatures that live in the oceans and carry out a job you and I depend on to stay alive. They produce half the world's oxygen, and suck up planet-warming carbon dioxide. Yet this year, one of the world's most distinguished scientific journals, Nature, revealed that 40 per cent of them have been killed by the warming of the oceans since 1950. Professor Boris Worm, who co-authored the study, said in shock: "I've been trying to think of a biological change that's bigger than this and I can't think of one." That has been the result of less than one degree of warming. Now we are on course for at least three degrees this century. What will happen?
The scientific debate is not between deniers and those who can prove that releasing massive amounts of warming gases will make the world warmer. Every major scientific academy in the world, and all the peer-reviewed literature, says global warming denialism is a pseudo-science, on a par with Intelligent Design, homeopathy, or the claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. One email from one lousy scientist among tens of thousands doesn't dent that. No: the debate is between the scientists who say the damage we are doing is a disaster, and the scientists who say it is catastrophe.
Yet the world's governments are gathering in Cancun with no momentum and very little pressure from their own populations to stop the ecological vandalism. The Copenhagen conference last year collapsed after the most powerful people in the world turned up to flush their own scientists' advice down a very clean Danish toilet. These leaders are sometimes described as "doing nothing about global warming." No doubt that form of words will fill the reporting from Cancun too. But it's false. They're not "doing nothing" - they are allowing their countries' emissions of climate-trashing gases to massively increase. That's not failure to act. It's deciding to act in an incredibly destructive way.
The collapse of Copenhagen has not shocked people into action; it has numbed them into passivity. Last year, we were talking - in theory, at least - about the legally binding cap on the world's carbon emissions, because the world's scientists say this is the only thing that can preserve the climate that has created and sustained human civilization. What are we talking about this year? What's on the table at Cancun, other than sand?
Almost nothing. They will talk about how to help the world's poor "adapt" to the fact we are drying out much of their land and drowning the rest. But everybody is backing off from one of the few concrete agreements at Copenhagen: to give the worst-affected countries $100bn from 2020. Privately, they say this isn't the time - they can come back for it, presumably, when they are on rafts. Oh, and they will talk about how to preserve the rainforests. But a Greenpeace report has just revealed that the last big deal to save the rainforests - with Indonesia - was a scam. The country is in fact planning to demolish most of its rainforest to plant commercial crops, and claim it had been "saved."
Karl Rove - who was George W. Bush's chief spin-doctor - boasted this year: "Climate is gone." He meant it is off the political agenda, but in time, this statement will be more true and more cursed than he realizes.
It's in this context that a new, deeply pessimistic framework for understanding the earth's ecology - and our place in it - has emerged. Many of us know, in outline, the warm, fuzzy Gaia hypothesis, first outlined by James Lovelock. It claims that the Planet Earth functions, in effect, as a single living organism called Gaia. It regulates its own temperature and chemistry to create a comfortable steady state that can sustain life. So coral reefs produced cloud-seeding chemicals which then protect them from ultraviolet radiation. Rainforests transpire water vapour so generate their own rainfall. This process expands outwards. Life protects life.
Now there is a radically different theory that is gaining adherents, ominously named the Medea hypothesis. The paleontologist Professor Peter Ward is an expert in the great extinctions that have happened in the earth's past, and he believes there is a common thread between them. With the exception of the meteor strike that happened 65 million years ago, every extinction was caused by living creatures becoming incredibly successful - and then destroying their own habitats. So, for example, 2.3 billion years ago, plant life spread incredibly rapidly, and as it went it inhaled huge amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This then caused a rapid plunge in temperature that froze the planet and triggered a mass extinction.
Ward believes nature isn't a nurturing mother like Gaia. No: it is Medea, the figure from Greek mythology who murdered her own children. In this theory, life doesn't preserve itself. It serially destroys itself. It is a looping doomsday machine. This theory adds a postscript to Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest. There is survival of the fittest, until the fittest trash their own habitat, and do not survive at all.
But the plants 2.3 billion years ago weren't smart enough to figure out what they were doing. We are. We can see that if we release enough warming gases we will trigger an irreversible change in the climate and make our own survival much harder. Ward argues that it is not inevitable we will destroy ourselves - because human beings are the first and only species that can consciously develop a Gaian approach. Just as Richard Dawkins famously said we are the first species to be able to rebel against our selfish genes and choose to be kind, we are the first species that can rebel against the Medean rhythm of life. We can choose to preserve the habitat on which we depend. We can choose life.
At Cancun, the real question will be carefully ignored by delegates keen to preserve big business as usual. Do we want to ramp up global warming with filthy fossil fuels, or make the leap to a clean planet fuelled by the sun, the wind and the waves? Right now we are making the wrong choice. But we could change the ending of this story, if we act decisively. Long after our own little stories are forgotten, this choice we make now will still be visible - in the composition of the atmosphere, the swelling of the seas, and the crack and creak of the great Antarctic ice. Do we want to be Gaia, or Medea?
© 2010 The Independent
Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world.
Cheers for Truth-Tellers
NOVEMBER 25, 2010 THANKS TO THESE AND ALL OTHER TRUTH-TELLERS—WHISTLEBLOWERS, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTERS, PROTESTERS. (OMNI's book fund at UA's Mullins Library, among other purchase subjects, specifies whistleblowers and intestigative reporters.)
Scroll down for Bradley Mnnning.
(Sue Skidmore)
This Holiday & Always Give Thanks for the Whistle Blowers – The Truth Tellers for their courageous efforts in speaking Truth to Power. Truth - Telling including our own actions in relationship with Truth which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence are our only Hope. ~Sue
Sibel Edmonds: Sibel Edmonds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sibel Deniz Edmonds is a Turkish-American former FBI translator and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). ...
Early life and education - FBI career - Post-FBI - Notes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
Indira Singh: 9/11 & Terrorist Financing
Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about.html
Delmart "Mike" Vreeland: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/1252_rev_12802.html
Former intelligence officer Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Mounting evidence that BushCo knew well in advance that the 9/11 attack was being planned Former intelligence officer Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer’s new book reveals that BushCo knew that plans were being made for the 9/11 attack, but chose to do nothing to stop it and a few things to make sure it succeeded.
This is why the Defense Intelligence Agency recently demanded, after buying up the first 10,000 copies of the book, that all references to a meeting between Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, the book’s author, and the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, be removed from the book. In that meeting, which took place in Afghanistan, Col. Shaffer alleges that the head of the 9/11 Commission was told about the identification of Mohammed Atta prior to the attacks. So why wasn’t any mention of this made in the final 9/11 report?
Cindy Sheehan: Cindy Sheehan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cindy Lee Miller Sheehan (born July 10, 1957) is an American anti-war activist whose son, Specialist Casey Sheehan, was killed during his service in the ...
Personal life - Anti-war campaign - Political activism - See also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan -
Coleen Rowley: TIME Magazine: The Bombshell Memo
A TIME cover story on an explosive letter to the head of the FBI, Minneapolis agent Coleen Rowley acuses the agency of obstructing information that may have ...
www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html - Cached - Similar
Ray McGovern: Ray McGovern: A "Good" Terrorist Captured by Iran
Feb 26, 2010 ... Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence
www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern02262010.html - Cached
Naomi Wolf: • Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | World news | The ... Apr 24, 2007 ... From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional ...www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment -
Richard A. Clarke
Source Watch: WhistleBlowers: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Whistleblowers
Robert Scheer: Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers - Robert Scheer's ...
Thanks to Daniel Ellsberg, who risked much to make the record of the .... I guess I have to give you credit for your honesty, but on the ...
www.truthdig.com/.../thank_god_for_the_whistle-blowers_20100728/ -
Jim Hightower: Giving Thanks to Citizens and Grass-Roots Progressives
http://act.commondreams.org/go/3298?akid=289.126591.md5kVv&t=30
Also Thanks to Jim Marrs investigative reporter and author
Daniel Estulin Bilderberger investigative author
Jordan Maxwell investigative author
Dr Steven Greer Disclosure Project
Dr Brian OLeary former NASA scientist and truthteller.
Plus Many, Many More….
Greetings: I thought I would share with you what Rick replied about giving thanks. ~Sue
From: rick meis
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 9:38 AM
I give thanks for industrial insurance whistleblower Wendell Potter who more than eighteen months ago provided more than enough information to prove that the Baucus/Obama Insurance Industry Indemnification and Enrichment Act would not work, nay, could not work. He was ignored by the Democrats, Republicans, press and the public. In fact, I think it was he that first labeled the bill as something other than health care reform.
I give thanks for the freedom of the press in Europe that has pointed out that much of what is talked about in the US press, US enviro groups and by US politicians regarding global warming and carbon emissions is not the whole truth; that the rest of the world is suffering the effects of the chosen ignorance of the US as the most responsible country for carbon emissions on the planet. I give thanks that people like David Brower put the basis of that very information into writing before he went on to the big wild country in the sky.. ….Rick
PRIVATE BRADLEY MANNING, LEAKER
http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/71-71/2609-bradley-
REMEMBER YOSSARIAN IN "CATCH-22":
"Bradley Manning: An American Hero
How is waging an illegal war where civilians are intentionally killed 'patriotic', but exposing it is 'illegal'?" by Stephen Lendman Saturday, 7 August 2010
Manning exposed cold-blooded civilian murders, the public being unaware that Pentagon rules-of-engagement (ROEs) targets them like combatants in every warfare theater. The public has a right to know their country is waging wars of aggression.
Manning, of course, is the courageous Army intelligence analyst turned whistleblower, who admitted leaking:
• "260,000 classified United States diplomatic cables and video of a (US) airstrike in Afghanistan that killed 97 civilians last year," and
• an "explosive (39 minute) video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the Reuters news agency" - "collateral murder" he felt obligated to expose.
It got him in trouble. On June 7, the military in Iraq arrested him, saying:
"The Department of Defense takes the management of classified information very seriously because it affects our national security, the lives of our soldiers, and our operations abroad."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the leak "potentially dramatic and grievously harmful....The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that part of the world. Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures, will become known to our adversaries."
Unmentioned was the following:
• our attack, invasion and occupation are illegal under US and international law;
• war crimes, including murder, torture, and targeted assassinations happen daily;
• civilian men, women, and children are willfully targeted;
• since October 2001, millions of Afghans have been killed, injured or displaced, their country perhaps the most hellish anyway, devastated by decades of war, deep poverty, depravation, and unimaginable human suffering, mostly caused by America;
• the same holds for Iraq, Pakistan, and nations where Washington wages proxy wars; and
• our presence and imperial aims cause harm, not Manning or WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, exposing truths the public has a right and need to know.
They deserve praise [in the above context], not prosecutions, compliments, not condemnation, and accolades, not accusations. They are heroes, risking personal harm to disclose disturbing truths, what government and media reports suppress, sanitize and distort, letting warlords plunder lawlessly so war profiteers can cash in, Americans the worse off for it.
In his August 4 Anti-Empire Report (www.killinghope.org), author William Blum asked:
"So please tell me again: What's the war about?" Lies, of course, about 9/11 and leaders repeating them, Obama for one last August 17 saying:
"But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
On July 28, 2010, Obama lied again, saying:
"the region from which the 9/11 attacks were waged and other attacks against the United States and our friends and allies have been planned."
Rubbish according to Blum, saying:
"Never mind that out of the tens of thousands of people the United States and its NATO front have killed in Afghanistan not one has been identified as having had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001."
"The only 'war of necessity' that draws the United States to Afghanistan is the need for protected oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea area, (and) establishment of military bases (there), making it easier to watch and pressure next-door Iran (besides being a land-based aircraft carrier to target Russia and China). What more could any respectable imperialist nation desire? Oh, did I mention that the military-industrial-security-intelligence complex and its shareholders" will profit handsomely.
In 1996, America helped the Taliban gain power, funneling military aid through Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). Oil was the hidden agenda, Taliban representatives visiting Unocal in Houston in December 1997 to negotiate a trans-Afghan pipeline from the oil rich Caspian area. It was nearly agreed, the kicker being America's refusal to extend recognition, a small courtesy to avoid war, occupation, and a deepening unwinnable quagmire.
On December 14, 1997, London's Daily Telegraph reported:
"the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract."
On December 4, 1997, a BBC correspondent said "the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea."
By recognizing the Taliban government, it would have been built and today's quagmire avoided. Perhaps America's graveyard also, no invader ever occupying Afghanistan successfully, not the Soviets or British, the UK government suffering its greatest ever slaughter and defeat in 1842, losing 16,000 soldiers and civilians, except one man, historians believing Afghans let him live to recount the horror. As a result, Britain withdrew all its personnel and left, a lesson now forgotten, about 9,500 UK troops deployed with Americans and other NATO forces.
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was a former Unocal adviser when pipeline negotiations took place. He was also a CIA asset. Unocal claimed it abandoned the pipeline project. Secret talks, however, continued up to a few months before 9/11, Taliban representatives visiting the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council. They even had a Queens, New York diplomatic office, and US officials visited Taliban ones in Islamabad.
The French newspaper Le Figaro also quoted Arab specialist Antoine Sfeir, saying CIA operatives met with bin Laden (a CIA asset in the 1980s) and maintained contact with him until his training camp was attacked in 1998.
America's fine line between enemies and friends is their willingness or reluctance to obey - do what we say or we'll boycott or bomb you, a threat with teeth, revealed by Manning and WikiLeaks.
Revealing Disturbing Truths Is Risky
Held initially in Kuwait, a July 29 Baghdad Pentagon press release said:
"US Army officials transferred PFC Bradley Manning from the Theater Field Confinement Facility in Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico Brig in Quantico, Virginia, on July 29. (He) remains in pretrial confinement pending an Article 32 investigation (like a grand jury or preliminary hearing) into the charges preferred against him on July 5."
"The criminal investigation remains open....findings and recommendations (will determine) whether to recommend (if) the case (will) be referred to trial by court-martial." For sure, that's what's planned, the Pentagon and Obama administration to throw the book at him or worse unless somehow their plans are derailed.
On August 2, Congressman Mike Rogers (R. MI) told Michigan radio station WHMI that Manning should be executed, saying:
"He release(d) this information to a third party who they say will make the determination that there's nothing harmful in it, while we know for a fact that there will be people that will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed. That's pretty serious. If they don't charge him with treason, they ought to charge him with murder."
Asked if he should be punished by death, Rogers said: "Yes, and I would support it 100 percent."
Federal Charges Against Manning
In early July, the Pentagon charged him with four noncriminal offenses, and eight violations of federal criminal law, including one count of violating the 1917 Espionage Act.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) charges included:
• eight violations of federal criminal law, including unauthorized computer access and transmitting classified information to an unauthorized third party; and
• four noncriminal Army regulations violations, governing the handling of classified information and computers.
If convicted on all charges, he faces up to 52 years in prison.
The Bradley Manning Support Network
Its purpose is to:
• "Harness the outrage felt by millions (viewing) the 'Collateral Murder' video into a coordinated defense of Manning;
• Raise awareness" about his arrest, charges and likely court-martial;
• "Coordinate" efforts to support him;
• "Collect funds (for a) high-quality" defense;
• "Provide supporters with accurate, updated information as the" pretrial hearing and likely trial progress; and
• "Provide prisoner support for (him) throughout his imprisonment."
Connected with Assange, he's more vulnerable, a 2008 classified Counterintelligence Center report placing WikiLeaks on "the list of enemies threatening the security of the United States," discussing ways to destroy its reputation and effectiveness, saying:
"Web sites such as WikiLeaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to WikiLeaks.org would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar actions."
With Manning in custody and facing trial, score one for the Pentagon, expected to exploit his case to the fullest to set an example and deter others. He'll likely be convicted and imprisoned, not executed as Congressman Rogers wants.
Law Professor Francis Boyle "believe(s) a treason charge wo(n't) stick (because) Congress has not declared war." The best outcome for military resisters he helped defend was to "get them off of prison time, out of the military, or else minimum time served." He and others also got Amnesty International to designate Capt. Dr. Huett Vaughn, Staff Sgt. Mejia, and Lt. Ehren Watada Prisoners of Conscience (POC).
Watada was the first commissioned officer refusing to deploy to Iraq, saying: "as an officer of honor and integrity, (he could not participate in a war that was) manifestly illegal....morally wrong (and) a horrible breach of American law."
As a result, he faced court-martial, a possible dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and seven years in prison, but got off thanks to Boyle and others. Before his Article 32 hearing, he publicly called the war illegal. Not wanting that revealed in testimony, the presiding judge declared a mistrial. He'd lost control, knew Watada was right, and had to suppress the truth to avoid an acquittal possibility on constitutional grounds.
Afghanistan is also illegal, Boyle explaining that Congress never declared war. The UN Security never authorized it under Article 51, and the Taliban never "attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack." In public testimony, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and CIA's then Deputy Director John McLaughlin admitted finding no link between the Taliban and 9/11.
Nonetheless, the Bush administration preemptively attacked in violation of US and international law. Obama is a war criminal pursuing and escalating it, expanding it cross border into Pakistan, and continuing the Iraq conflict and occupation.
American forces may refuse to serve, citing US and international law, including Army Field Manual (FM) 27 - 10, incorporating the Nuremberg Principles, Judgment and Charter and The Law of Land Warfare (1956).
FM's paragraph 498 states that any person, military or civilian, who commits a crime under international law is responsible for it and may be punished. Paragraph 499 defines a war crime. Paragraph 500 refers to a conspiracy, attempts to commit it and complicity with respect to international crimes. Paragraph 509 denies the defense of superior orders in the commission of a crime, and paragraph 510 denies the defense of an "act of state" to absolve them.
These provisions apply to all US military and civilian personnel, including top commanders, the Secretary of Defense, his subordinates, and the President and Vice President. Boyle calls resisting lawlessness "our Nuremberg moment." Those refusing them and exposing crimes should be praised, not prosecuted.
Manning provided evidence and may denounce the war's illegality, perhaps using it as a defense. He found crimes, needing to be exposed, acting honorably and heroically doing it as did WikiLeaks by publishing them anonymously.
In edited chat logs posted by Wired.com, Manning admitted "want(ing) people to see the truth....regardless of who they are....because without information, you cannot make informed decisions...." He never considered selling it to foreign powers or anyone, saying: "information should be free....it belongs in the public domain....if it's out in the open....it should be a public good," exposing crimes and corruption to generate "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms."
That's honor, not espionage or treason, Manning saying:
"Everywhere there's a US post, there's a diplomatic scandal (to) be revealed. World-wide anarchy in CVS format. It's Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It's beautiful and horrifying. (The documents describe) almost criminal political back dealings. (They belong) in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark corner in Washington, DC (or the Pentagon. Our government is involved in) incredible things, awful things."
He exposed cold-blooded civilian murders, the public unaware that Pentagon rules-of-engagement (ROEs) target them like combatants in every warfare theater. Waging permanent wars of aggression, America acts lawlessly and recklessly. The public has a right to know. Manning and Assange are heroes, deserving plaudits for their courage.
A Final Note
On Sunday, August 8, a public rally will be held outside the Quantico, VA Marine base, supporting Manning. War criminals remain free uncharged. Manning, an American hero, faces 52 years in prison for exposing their crimes.
________________________________________
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His blog is sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to Lendman's cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Mr. Lendman's stories are republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.
________________________________________
Copyright © 2010 The Baltimore News Network. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.
Baltimore News Network, Inc., sponsor of this web site, is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed in stories posted on this web site are the authors' own.
This story was published on August 7, 2010.
manning-an-american-hero
Scroll down for Bradley Mnnning.
(Sue Skidmore)
This Holiday & Always Give Thanks for the Whistle Blowers – The Truth Tellers for their courageous efforts in speaking Truth to Power. Truth - Telling including our own actions in relationship with Truth which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence are our only Hope. ~Sue
Sibel Edmonds: Sibel Edmonds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sibel Deniz Edmonds is a Turkish-American former FBI translator and founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC). ...
Early life and education - FBI career - Post-FBI - Notes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
Indira Singh: 9/11 & Terrorist Financing
Michael C. Ruppert and From The Wilderness Publications http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about.html
Delmart "Mike" Vreeland: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/1252_rev_12802.html
Former intelligence officer Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer: Mounting evidence that BushCo knew well in advance that the 9/11 attack was being planned Former intelligence officer Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer’s new book reveals that BushCo knew that plans were being made for the 9/11 attack, but chose to do nothing to stop it and a few things to make sure it succeeded.
This is why the Defense Intelligence Agency recently demanded, after buying up the first 10,000 copies of the book, that all references to a meeting between Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, the book’s author, and the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, be removed from the book. In that meeting, which took place in Afghanistan, Col. Shaffer alleges that the head of the 9/11 Commission was told about the identification of Mohammed Atta prior to the attacks. So why wasn’t any mention of this made in the final 9/11 report?
Cindy Sheehan: Cindy Sheehan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cindy Lee Miller Sheehan (born July 10, 1957) is an American anti-war activist whose son, Specialist Casey Sheehan, was killed during his service in the ...
Personal life - Anti-war campaign - Political activism - See also
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy_Sheehan -
Coleen Rowley: TIME Magazine: The Bombshell Memo
A TIME cover story on an explosive letter to the head of the FBI, Minneapolis agent Coleen Rowley acuses the agency of obstructing information that may have ...
www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html - Cached - Similar
Ray McGovern: Ray McGovern: A "Good" Terrorist Captured by Iran
Feb 26, 2010 ... Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence
www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern02262010.html - Cached
Naomi Wolf: • Naomi Wolf: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | World news | The ... Apr 24, 2007 ... From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional ...www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment -
Richard A. Clarke
Source Watch: WhistleBlowers: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Whistleblowers
Robert Scheer: Thank God for the Whistle-Blowers - Robert Scheer's ...
Thanks to Daniel Ellsberg, who risked much to make the record of the .... I guess I have to give you credit for your honesty, but on the ...
www.truthdig.com/.../thank_god_for_the_whistle-blowers_20100728/ -
Jim Hightower: Giving Thanks to Citizens and Grass-Roots Progressives
http://act.commondreams.org/go/3298?akid=289.126591.md5kVv&t=30
Also Thanks to Jim Marrs investigative reporter and author
Daniel Estulin Bilderberger investigative author
Jordan Maxwell investigative author
Dr Steven Greer Disclosure Project
Dr Brian OLeary former NASA scientist and truthteller.
Plus Many, Many More….
Greetings: I thought I would share with you what Rick replied about giving thanks. ~Sue
From: rick meis
Sent: Friday, November 26, 2010 9:38 AM
I give thanks for industrial insurance whistleblower Wendell Potter who more than eighteen months ago provided more than enough information to prove that the Baucus/Obama Insurance Industry Indemnification and Enrichment Act would not work, nay, could not work. He was ignored by the Democrats, Republicans, press and the public. In fact, I think it was he that first labeled the bill as something other than health care reform.
I give thanks for the freedom of the press in Europe that has pointed out that much of what is talked about in the US press, US enviro groups and by US politicians regarding global warming and carbon emissions is not the whole truth; that the rest of the world is suffering the effects of the chosen ignorance of the US as the most responsible country for carbon emissions on the planet. I give thanks that people like David Brower put the basis of that very information into writing before he went on to the big wild country in the sky.. ….Rick
PRIVATE BRADLEY MANNING, LEAKER
http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/71-71/2609-bradley-
REMEMBER YOSSARIAN IN "CATCH-22":
"Bradley Manning: An American Hero
How is waging an illegal war where civilians are intentionally killed 'patriotic', but exposing it is 'illegal'?" by Stephen Lendman Saturday, 7 August 2010
Manning exposed cold-blooded civilian murders, the public being unaware that Pentagon rules-of-engagement (ROEs) targets them like combatants in every warfare theater. The public has a right to know their country is waging wars of aggression.
Manning, of course, is the courageous Army intelligence analyst turned whistleblower, who admitted leaking:
• "260,000 classified United States diplomatic cables and video of a (US) airstrike in Afghanistan that killed 97 civilians last year," and
• an "explosive (39 minute) video of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the Reuters news agency" - "collateral murder" he felt obligated to expose.
It got him in trouble. On June 7, the military in Iraq arrested him, saying:
"The Department of Defense takes the management of classified information very seriously because it affects our national security, the lives of our soldiers, and our operations abroad."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the leak "potentially dramatic and grievously harmful....The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that part of the world. Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures, will become known to our adversaries."
Unmentioned was the following:
• our attack, invasion and occupation are illegal under US and international law;
• war crimes, including murder, torture, and targeted assassinations happen daily;
• civilian men, women, and children are willfully targeted;
• since October 2001, millions of Afghans have been killed, injured or displaced, their country perhaps the most hellish anyway, devastated by decades of war, deep poverty, depravation, and unimaginable human suffering, mostly caused by America;
• the same holds for Iraq, Pakistan, and nations where Washington wages proxy wars; and
• our presence and imperial aims cause harm, not Manning or WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, exposing truths the public has a right and need to know.
They deserve praise [in the above context], not prosecutions, compliments, not condemnation, and accolades, not accusations. They are heroes, risking personal harm to disclose disturbing truths, what government and media reports suppress, sanitize and distort, letting warlords plunder lawlessly so war profiteers can cash in, Americans the worse off for it.
In his August 4 Anti-Empire Report (www.killinghope.org), author William Blum asked:
"So please tell me again: What's the war about?" Lies, of course, about 9/11 and leaders repeating them, Obama for one last August 17 saying:
"But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
On July 28, 2010, Obama lied again, saying:
"the region from which the 9/11 attacks were waged and other attacks against the United States and our friends and allies have been planned."
Rubbish according to Blum, saying:
"Never mind that out of the tens of thousands of people the United States and its NATO front have killed in Afghanistan not one has been identified as having had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001."
"The only 'war of necessity' that draws the United States to Afghanistan is the need for protected oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea area, (and) establishment of military bases (there), making it easier to watch and pressure next-door Iran (besides being a land-based aircraft carrier to target Russia and China). What more could any respectable imperialist nation desire? Oh, did I mention that the military-industrial-security-intelligence complex and its shareholders" will profit handsomely.
In 1996, America helped the Taliban gain power, funneling military aid through Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence). Oil was the hidden agenda, Taliban representatives visiting Unocal in Houston in December 1997 to negotiate a trans-Afghan pipeline from the oil rich Caspian area. It was nearly agreed, the kicker being America's refusal to extend recognition, a small courtesy to avoid war, occupation, and a deepening unwinnable quagmire.
On December 14, 1997, London's Daily Telegraph reported:
"the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children 'despicable,' appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract."
On December 4, 1997, a BBC correspondent said "the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea."
By recognizing the Taliban government, it would have been built and today's quagmire avoided. Perhaps America's graveyard also, no invader ever occupying Afghanistan successfully, not the Soviets or British, the UK government suffering its greatest ever slaughter and defeat in 1842, losing 16,000 soldiers and civilians, except one man, historians believing Afghans let him live to recount the horror. As a result, Britain withdrew all its personnel and left, a lesson now forgotten, about 9,500 UK troops deployed with Americans and other NATO forces.
Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai was a former Unocal adviser when pipeline negotiations took place. He was also a CIA asset. Unocal claimed it abandoned the pipeline project. Secret talks, however, continued up to a few months before 9/11, Taliban representatives visiting the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council. They even had a Queens, New York diplomatic office, and US officials visited Taliban ones in Islamabad.
The French newspaper Le Figaro also quoted Arab specialist Antoine Sfeir, saying CIA operatives met with bin Laden (a CIA asset in the 1980s) and maintained contact with him until his training camp was attacked in 1998.
America's fine line between enemies and friends is their willingness or reluctance to obey - do what we say or we'll boycott or bomb you, a threat with teeth, revealed by Manning and WikiLeaks.
Revealing Disturbing Truths Is Risky
Held initially in Kuwait, a July 29 Baghdad Pentagon press release said:
"US Army officials transferred PFC Bradley Manning from the Theater Field Confinement Facility in Kuwait to the Marine Corps Base Quantico Brig in Quantico, Virginia, on July 29. (He) remains in pretrial confinement pending an Article 32 investigation (like a grand jury or preliminary hearing) into the charges preferred against him on July 5."
"The criminal investigation remains open....findings and recommendations (will determine) whether to recommend (if) the case (will) be referred to trial by court-martial." For sure, that's what's planned, the Pentagon and Obama administration to throw the book at him or worse unless somehow their plans are derailed.
On August 2, Congressman Mike Rogers (R. MI) told Michigan radio station WHMI that Manning should be executed, saying:
"He release(d) this information to a third party who they say will make the determination that there's nothing harmful in it, while we know for a fact that there will be people that will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed. That's pretty serious. If they don't charge him with treason, they ought to charge him with murder."
Asked if he should be punished by death, Rogers said: "Yes, and I would support it 100 percent."
Federal Charges Against Manning
In early July, the Pentagon charged him with four noncriminal offenses, and eight violations of federal criminal law, including one count of violating the 1917 Espionage Act.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) charges included:
• eight violations of federal criminal law, including unauthorized computer access and transmitting classified information to an unauthorized third party; and
• four noncriminal Army regulations violations, governing the handling of classified information and computers.
If convicted on all charges, he faces up to 52 years in prison.
The Bradley Manning Support Network
Its purpose is to:
• "Harness the outrage felt by millions (viewing) the 'Collateral Murder' video into a coordinated defense of Manning;
• Raise awareness" about his arrest, charges and likely court-martial;
• "Coordinate" efforts to support him;
• "Collect funds (for a) high-quality" defense;
• "Provide supporters with accurate, updated information as the" pretrial hearing and likely trial progress; and
• "Provide prisoner support for (him) throughout his imprisonment."
Connected with Assange, he's more vulnerable, a 2008 classified Counterintelligence Center report placing WikiLeaks on "the list of enemies threatening the security of the United States," discussing ways to destroy its reputation and effectiveness, saying:
"Web sites such as WikiLeaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to WikiLeaks.org would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar actions."
With Manning in custody and facing trial, score one for the Pentagon, expected to exploit his case to the fullest to set an example and deter others. He'll likely be convicted and imprisoned, not executed as Congressman Rogers wants.
Law Professor Francis Boyle "believe(s) a treason charge wo(n't) stick (because) Congress has not declared war." The best outcome for military resisters he helped defend was to "get them off of prison time, out of the military, or else minimum time served." He and others also got Amnesty International to designate Capt. Dr. Huett Vaughn, Staff Sgt. Mejia, and Lt. Ehren Watada Prisoners of Conscience (POC).
Watada was the first commissioned officer refusing to deploy to Iraq, saying: "as an officer of honor and integrity, (he could not participate in a war that was) manifestly illegal....morally wrong (and) a horrible breach of American law."
As a result, he faced court-martial, a possible dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and seven years in prison, but got off thanks to Boyle and others. Before his Article 32 hearing, he publicly called the war illegal. Not wanting that revealed in testimony, the presiding judge declared a mistrial. He'd lost control, knew Watada was right, and had to suppress the truth to avoid an acquittal possibility on constitutional grounds.
Afghanistan is also illegal, Boyle explaining that Congress never declared war. The UN Security never authorized it under Article 51, and the Taliban never "attacked the United States or authorized or approved such an attack." In public testimony, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and CIA's then Deputy Director John McLaughlin admitted finding no link between the Taliban and 9/11.
Nonetheless, the Bush administration preemptively attacked in violation of US and international law. Obama is a war criminal pursuing and escalating it, expanding it cross border into Pakistan, and continuing the Iraq conflict and occupation.
American forces may refuse to serve, citing US and international law, including Army Field Manual (FM) 27 - 10, incorporating the Nuremberg Principles, Judgment and Charter and The Law of Land Warfare (1956).
FM's paragraph 498 states that any person, military or civilian, who commits a crime under international law is responsible for it and may be punished. Paragraph 499 defines a war crime. Paragraph 500 refers to a conspiracy, attempts to commit it and complicity with respect to international crimes. Paragraph 509 denies the defense of superior orders in the commission of a crime, and paragraph 510 denies the defense of an "act of state" to absolve them.
These provisions apply to all US military and civilian personnel, including top commanders, the Secretary of Defense, his subordinates, and the President and Vice President. Boyle calls resisting lawlessness "our Nuremberg moment." Those refusing them and exposing crimes should be praised, not prosecuted.
Manning provided evidence and may denounce the war's illegality, perhaps using it as a defense. He found crimes, needing to be exposed, acting honorably and heroically doing it as did WikiLeaks by publishing them anonymously.
In edited chat logs posted by Wired.com, Manning admitted "want(ing) people to see the truth....regardless of who they are....because without information, you cannot make informed decisions...." He never considered selling it to foreign powers or anyone, saying: "information should be free....it belongs in the public domain....if it's out in the open....it should be a public good," exposing crimes and corruption to generate "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms."
That's honor, not espionage or treason, Manning saying:
"Everywhere there's a US post, there's a diplomatic scandal (to) be revealed. World-wide anarchy in CVS format. It's Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It's beautiful and horrifying. (The documents describe) almost criminal political back dealings. (They belong) in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark corner in Washington, DC (or the Pentagon. Our government is involved in) incredible things, awful things."
He exposed cold-blooded civilian murders, the public unaware that Pentagon rules-of-engagement (ROEs) target them like combatants in every warfare theater. Waging permanent wars of aggression, America acts lawlessly and recklessly. The public has a right to know. Manning and Assange are heroes, deserving plaudits for their courage.
A Final Note
On Sunday, August 8, a public rally will be held outside the Quantico, VA Marine base, supporting Manning. War criminals remain free uncharged. Manning, an American hero, faces 52 years in prison for exposing their crimes.
________________________________________
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His blog is sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to Lendman's cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Mr. Lendman's stories are republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.
________________________________________
Copyright © 2010 The Baltimore News Network. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.
Baltimore News Network, Inc., sponsor of this web site, is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed in stories posted on this web site are the authors' own.
This story was published on August 7, 2010.
manning-an-american-hero
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Justifications for Wars Examined
NEW BOOK: WAR IS A LIE by David Swanson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 31 October 2010
WAR IS A LIE is a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those wars that have been most widely defended as just and good. This is a handbook of sorts, a manual to be used in debunking future lies before future wars have a chance to begin.
“David Swanson despises war and lying, and unmasks them both with rare intelligence. I learn something new on every page.” — Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR and author of Cable News Confidential.
Table of Contents
Introduction 7
1. Wars Are Not Fought Against Evil 15
2. Wars Are Not Launched in Defense 47
3. Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity 86
4. Wars Are Not Unavoidable 106
5. Warriors Are Not Heroes 131
6. War Makers Do Not Have Noble Motives 168
7. Wars Are Not Prolonged for the Good of Soldiers 196
8. Wars Are Not Fought on Battlefields 212
9. Wars Are Not Won, and Are Not Ended By Enlarging Them 235
10. War News Does Not Come From Disinterested Observers 250
11. War Does Not Bring Security and Is Not Sustainable 267
12. Wars Are Not Legal 291
13. Wars Cannot Be Both Planned and Avoided 312
14. War Is Over If You Want It 323
Notes 337
Index 352
Acknowledgments 369
About the Author 371
Advance Praise:
"If decisions to go to war were really made on the basis of reason and facts, rather than greed and power, David Swanson's brilliant new book would put a stop to them. Those of us who know David understand that he writes quickly and eloquently, speaks honestly and powerfully, and follows a logical point all the way to its conclusion. He has a philosopher's mind with a computer's precision. And he always maintains a justifiable moral outrage at the lies of the war criminals -- calling out their crimes, detailing their carnage, poking holes in their excuses. Reading 'War Is a Lie' is like reading Mark Twain's 'War Prayer,' only in book form." — Steve Cobble, IPS Associate Fellow, PDA co-founder, AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder, Jackson & Kucinich campaign advisor.
“While Americans elect leaders whom they trust are honest, truthful and really care about the kids they send to kill for our country, War Is A Lie reveals decade after decade the sordid side of our history — that our elected officials lie us into war with stunning and embarrassing regularity and are little concerned about the harm to innocent civilians, much less to members of our own military.” — Colonel (retired) Ann Wright, author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience.
“This book is every American’s best defense against the greatest danger we face as human beings: the threat of war. Swanson reveals how American leaders (from both major political parties) have confused the public to create the illusion of consent for endless destruction and slaughter. Behind the fear-mongering, flag-waving and lies of George W. Bush and the blandishments of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama lies the ugly reality that our leaders have been seduced by political ambition, delusions of military superiority, and the promise of secrecy and impunity to commit otherwise unthinkable crimes.” — Nicolas J. S. Davies, Author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
“David Swanson is an antidote to the toxins of complacency and evasion. He insists on rousing the sleepwalkers, confronting the deadly prevaricators and shining a bright light on possibilities for a truly better world.” — Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
"This book is revolutionary, and certainly truth-telling in a remarkable and brave way. The writing is so clear and easy-to-read, too. A pleasure to read, except that the content is so devastating, because it all means that not only are we utterly deceived but our entire reality is based on that deception. Swanson has gotten to the core of something. The only thing is I'm not sure he realizes how hopeless it is to expect a change -- and yet that is part of the appeal of his writing: his hopefulness in the face of lies and repression and denial." — Jennifer Van Bergen, author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America.
“War Is A Lie is an important and compelling book that arrives at a time when America is engaged in its longest running war to date. Swanson offers an incisive examination of the rationalizations, justifications, and outright lies that have led the United States, and other nations, into battle. And he shows the personal cost to the current generation of combatants returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” — Cynthia Wachtell, author of War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature 1861-1914.
“David Swanson has taken the mantle of AJ Muste, who had the guts and the audacity to declare World War II to have been unnecessary and wrong. Swanson takes Muste’s argument further to make the audacious claim that all wars are not just unnecessary, but a crime. He is correct, of course. Just as no good outcome (whether the ouster of a tyrant or the freeing of captive nations) can compensate for the death of millions of innocents, which of course is the argument made in defense of calling World War II a ‘good’ war, no good (whether the ousting of a tyrant or the claimed improvement in the rights of oppressed women) can compensate for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq or of tens of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan. This is a book that every American should read, especially those who think the United States is the good guy.” — Dave Lindorff , journalist, author of The Case for Impeachment, and founder of the online newspaper ThisCantBeHappening!
________________________________________
About the Publication and Sale:
I'm making the book available at little more than cost (including shipping cost), so that peace and justice groups can buy it in bulk and sell it for their own profit or distribute it at events or outside recruiting stations. If you buy 10 or more through this website, the price is only $10 each (which covers shipping too), half the list price.
You can also keep one and give nine great holiday gifts to friends and elected representatives.
I've turned down three major publishers who wanted to publish this book in 2011 or 2012 in order to publish it myself in 2010. Self-publishing avoids huge delays and allows more of the profit to go to the author. Purchasing this book supports my work, not a corporation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted on 31 October 2010
WAR IS A LIE is a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those wars that have been most widely defended as just and good. This is a handbook of sorts, a manual to be used in debunking future lies before future wars have a chance to begin.
“David Swanson despises war and lying, and unmasks them both with rare intelligence. I learn something new on every page.” — Jeff Cohen, founder of FAIR and author of Cable News Confidential.
Table of Contents
Introduction 7
1. Wars Are Not Fought Against Evil 15
2. Wars Are Not Launched in Defense 47
3. Wars Are Not Waged Out of Generosity 86
4. Wars Are Not Unavoidable 106
5. Warriors Are Not Heroes 131
6. War Makers Do Not Have Noble Motives 168
7. Wars Are Not Prolonged for the Good of Soldiers 196
8. Wars Are Not Fought on Battlefields 212
9. Wars Are Not Won, and Are Not Ended By Enlarging Them 235
10. War News Does Not Come From Disinterested Observers 250
11. War Does Not Bring Security and Is Not Sustainable 267
12. Wars Are Not Legal 291
13. Wars Cannot Be Both Planned and Avoided 312
14. War Is Over If You Want It 323
Notes 337
Index 352
Acknowledgments 369
About the Author 371
Advance Praise:
"If decisions to go to war were really made on the basis of reason and facts, rather than greed and power, David Swanson's brilliant new book would put a stop to them. Those of us who know David understand that he writes quickly and eloquently, speaks honestly and powerfully, and follows a logical point all the way to its conclusion. He has a philosopher's mind with a computer's precision. And he always maintains a justifiable moral outrage at the lies of the war criminals -- calling out their crimes, detailing their carnage, poking holes in their excuses. Reading 'War Is a Lie' is like reading Mark Twain's 'War Prayer,' only in book form." — Steve Cobble, IPS Associate Fellow, PDA co-founder, AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder, Jackson & Kucinich campaign advisor.
“While Americans elect leaders whom they trust are honest, truthful and really care about the kids they send to kill for our country, War Is A Lie reveals decade after decade the sordid side of our history — that our elected officials lie us into war with stunning and embarrassing regularity and are little concerned about the harm to innocent civilians, much less to members of our own military.” — Colonel (retired) Ann Wright, author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience.
“This book is every American’s best defense against the greatest danger we face as human beings: the threat of war. Swanson reveals how American leaders (from both major political parties) have confused the public to create the illusion of consent for endless destruction and slaughter. Behind the fear-mongering, flag-waving and lies of George W. Bush and the blandishments of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama lies the ugly reality that our leaders have been seduced by political ambition, delusions of military superiority, and the promise of secrecy and impunity to commit otherwise unthinkable crimes.” — Nicolas J. S. Davies, Author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.
“David Swanson is an antidote to the toxins of complacency and evasion. He insists on rousing the sleepwalkers, confronting the deadly prevaricators and shining a bright light on possibilities for a truly better world.” — Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.
"This book is revolutionary, and certainly truth-telling in a remarkable and brave way. The writing is so clear and easy-to-read, too. A pleasure to read, except that the content is so devastating, because it all means that not only are we utterly deceived but our entire reality is based on that deception. Swanson has gotten to the core of something. The only thing is I'm not sure he realizes how hopeless it is to expect a change -- and yet that is part of the appeal of his writing: his hopefulness in the face of lies and repression and denial." — Jennifer Van Bergen, author of The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America.
“War Is A Lie is an important and compelling book that arrives at a time when America is engaged in its longest running war to date. Swanson offers an incisive examination of the rationalizations, justifications, and outright lies that have led the United States, and other nations, into battle. And he shows the personal cost to the current generation of combatants returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” — Cynthia Wachtell, author of War No More: The Antiwar Impulse in American Literature 1861-1914.
“David Swanson has taken the mantle of AJ Muste, who had the guts and the audacity to declare World War II to have been unnecessary and wrong. Swanson takes Muste’s argument further to make the audacious claim that all wars are not just unnecessary, but a crime. He is correct, of course. Just as no good outcome (whether the ouster of a tyrant or the freeing of captive nations) can compensate for the death of millions of innocents, which of course is the argument made in defense of calling World War II a ‘good’ war, no good (whether the ousting of a tyrant or the claimed improvement in the rights of oppressed women) can compensate for the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq or of tens of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan. This is a book that every American should read, especially those who think the United States is the good guy.” — Dave Lindorff , journalist, author of The Case for Impeachment, and founder of the online newspaper ThisCantBeHappening!
________________________________________
About the Publication and Sale:
I'm making the book available at little more than cost (including shipping cost), so that peace and justice groups can buy it in bulk and sell it for their own profit or distribute it at events or outside recruiting stations. If you buy 10 or more through this website, the price is only $10 each (which covers shipping too), half the list price.
You can also keep one and give nine great holiday gifts to friends and elected representatives.
I've turned down three major publishers who wanted to publish this book in 2011 or 2012 in order to publish it myself in 2010. Self-publishing avoids huge delays and allows more of the profit to go to the author. Purchasing this book supports my work, not a corporation.
New J Street Proposal for Israel/Palestinian Peace
Time For A New American Strategy To End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from J Street November 23, 2010
In the coming days or weeks, the United States may reach agreement with Israel on an extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction on the West Bank, and the terms of that extension may be sufficient to bring the Palestinian leadership to the table as well. J Street would welcome the resumption of direct talks, but our interest is less in reaching an agreement to keep talking or over the format of those talks than in finding a route to actually ending the conflict between the parties.
Therefore, we believe it is time for the Obama administration to adopt a bolder, more assertive approach in its efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Administration should focus – with or without resuming direct negotiations and/or a 90-day extension of the moratorium – on delineating an agreed-upon border between the state of Israel and the state-to-be of Palestine, and on establishing security arrangements and that would accompany a two-state deal.
J Street supports long-standing American policy that both parties – Israel and the Palestinians – should comply with all of their internationally-recognized obligations. This includes prior Israeli commitments under the Road Map and other agreements both to stop all new settlement construction over the Green Line and to remove outposts, as well as Palestinian commitments to ensure security and prevent incitement.
However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements. With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.
Detailed security arrangements are necessary to guarantee a two-state deal and to address the full range of threats it faces (from Iran, from Hezbollah and from within Palestinian lands). Such a security plan will give Israelis the confidence that there is a U.S.-led international commitment to their long-term security as Israel pulls back from control of the territories. Finalizing arrangements on borders and security will then create a positive momentum toward addressing other final status issues.
Even if there is a new 90-day moratorium, it will pass quickly, and the Administration and the parties cannot afford to reach day 89 and suddenly find yet another impasse and crisis. Therefore, we suggest that the United States adopt a “borders and security first” strategy along the following lines:
If there is a resumption of talks, engage the parties in an exercise under American supervision to draw the actual border between the two states based on the following principles:
The borders should create the new Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps.
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel’s future recognized sovereign territory.
The agreement on borders between the states should also address the border within Jerusalem with the exception of the Old City and its very immediate environs.
If the sides are not able to reach agreement on borders within the 90-day period, or if “direct talks” do not in fact resume, the United States should present a proposal to both sides that adheres to the parameters presented above for a yes or no decision, with the support of the Quartet and other international stakeholders.
Simultaneously, address and finalize the security arrangements between Israel and a demilitarized future Palestine, and at Palestine’s external international border crossings, allowing for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the agreed provisions. The US should take this occasion to reiterate its commitment to guaranteeing the long-term security of Israel.
Once the border and security arrangements are agreed and in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable, Israel will withdraw from all of the territories designated for the Palestinian state and all other provisions will be implemented.
In parallel with implementation of the border/security arrangements, negotiations will then continue (or resume) on all other outstanding final status issues.
We also suggest that the Obama administration expressly take note of the Arab League Peace Initiative and urge the Arab League to recognize this new American-led effort as consistent with and responsive to their offer to achieve comprehensive, regional peace. To this end, we suggest opening discussions under US supervision to address the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, regional agreement (including between Israel and Lebanon) that leads to full recognition and acceptance of the state of Israel by the Arab League.
A comprehensive regional deal will significantly reduce Iranian influence and its capacity to act as a spoiler in the region, posing the following choice for the regime in Tehran: either join the consensus for peace and recognition for Israel or be further isolated. The former option will open new horizons for negotiations with Iran while the latter would increase U.S. and regional leverage with Iran as the international community re-dedicates itself to preventing Iranian obstructionism and development of a nuclear weapons capacity.
The parties and outside experts are more than familiar with the options and trade-offs needed to establish a border and with it a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. This proposal puts the key question squarely before both the leadership and people on both sides and asks them to express their political willingness to actually achieve a viable solution – rather than continuing to put the spotlight on talks about talks and the conditions for entering into them.
----------
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
In the coming days or weeks, the United States may reach agreement with Israel on an extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction on the West Bank, and the terms of that extension may be sufficient to bring the Palestinian leadership to the table as well. J Street would welcome the resumption of direct talks, but our interest is less in reaching an agreement to keep talking or over the format of those talks than in finding a route to actually ending the conflict between the parties.
Therefore, we believe it is time for the Obama administration to adopt a bolder, more assertive approach in its efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Administration should focus – with or without resuming direct negotiations and/or a 90-day extension of the moratorium – on delineating an agreed-upon border between the state of Israel and the state-to-be of Palestine, and on establishing security arrangements and that would accompany a two-state deal.
J Street supports long-standing American policy that both parties – Israel and the Palestinians – should comply with all of their internationally-recognized obligations. This includes prior Israeli commitments under the Road Map and other agreements both to stop all new settlement construction over the Green Line and to remove outposts, as well as Palestinian commitments to ensure security and prevent incitement.
However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements. With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.
Detailed security arrangements are necessary to guarantee a two-state deal and to address the full range of threats it faces (from Iran, from Hezbollah and from within Palestinian lands). Such a security plan will give Israelis the confidence that there is a U.S.-led international commitment to their long-term security as Israel pulls back from control of the territories. Finalizing arrangements on borders and security will then create a positive momentum toward addressing other final status issues.
Even if there is a new 90-day moratorium, it will pass quickly, and the Administration and the parties cannot afford to reach day 89 and suddenly find yet another impasse and crisis. Therefore, we suggest that the United States adopt a “borders and security first” strategy along the following lines:
If there is a resumption of talks, engage the parties in an exercise under American supervision to draw the actual border between the two states based on the following principles:
The borders should create the new Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps.
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel’s future recognized sovereign territory.
The agreement on borders between the states should also address the border within Jerusalem with the exception of the Old City and its very immediate environs.
If the sides are not able to reach agreement on borders within the 90-day period, or if “direct talks” do not in fact resume, the United States should present a proposal to both sides that adheres to the parameters presented above for a yes or no decision, with the support of the Quartet and other international stakeholders.
Simultaneously, address and finalize the security arrangements between Israel and a demilitarized future Palestine, and at Palestine’s external international border crossings, allowing for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the agreed provisions. The US should take this occasion to reiterate its commitment to guaranteeing the long-term security of Israel.
Once the border and security arrangements are agreed and in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable, Israel will withdraw from all of the territories designated for the Palestinian state and all other provisions will be implemented.
In parallel with implementation of the border/security arrangements, negotiations will then continue (or resume) on all other outstanding final status issues.
We also suggest that the Obama administration expressly take note of the Arab League Peace Initiative and urge the Arab League to recognize this new American-led effort as consistent with and responsive to their offer to achieve comprehensive, regional peace. To this end, we suggest opening discussions under US supervision to address the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, regional agreement (including between Israel and Lebanon) that leads to full recognition and acceptance of the state of Israel by the Arab League.
A comprehensive regional deal will significantly reduce Iranian influence and its capacity to act as a spoiler in the region, posing the following choice for the regime in Tehran: either join the consensus for peace and recognition for Israel or be further isolated. The former option will open new horizons for negotiations with Iran while the latter would increase U.S. and regional leverage with Iran as the international community re-dedicates itself to preventing Iranian obstructionism and development of a nuclear weapons capacity.
The parties and outside experts are more than familiar with the options and trade-offs needed to establish a border and with it a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. This proposal puts the key question squarely before both the leadership and people on both sides and asks them to express their political willingness to actually achieve a viable solution – rather than continuing to put the spotlight on talks about talks and the conditions for entering into them.
----------
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
New J Street Proposal for Israel/Palestinian Peace
Time For A New American Strategy To End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from J Street November 23, 2010
In the coming days or weeks, the United States may reach agreement with Israel on an extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction on the West Bank, and the terms of that extension may be sufficient to bring the Palestinian leadership to the table as well. J Street would welcome the resumption of direct talks, but our interest is less in reaching an agreement to keep talking or over the format of those talks than in finding a route to actually ending the conflict between the parties.
Therefore, we believe it is time for the Obama administration to adopt a bolder, more assertive approach in its efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Administration should focus – with or without resuming direct negotiations and/or a 90-day extension of the moratorium – on delineating an agreed-upon border between the state of Israel and the state-to-be of Palestine, and on establishing security arrangements and that would accompany a two-state deal.
J Street supports long-standing American policy that both parties – Israel and the Palestinians – should comply with all of their internationally-recognized obligations. This includes prior Israeli commitments under the Road Map and other agreements both to stop all new settlement construction over the Green Line and to remove outposts, as well as Palestinian commitments to ensure security and prevent incitement.
However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements. With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.
Detailed security arrangements are necessary to guarantee a two-state deal and to address the full range of threats it faces (from Iran, from Hezbollah and from within Palestinian lands). Such a security plan will give Israelis the confidence that there is a U.S.-led international commitment to their long-term security as Israel pulls back from control of the territories. Finalizing arrangements on borders and security will then create a positive momentum toward addressing other final status issues.
Even if there is a new 90-day moratorium, it will pass quickly, and the Administration and the parties cannot afford to reach day 89 and suddenly find yet another impasse and crisis. Therefore, we suggest that the United States adopt a “borders and security first” strategy along the following lines:
If there is a resumption of talks, engage the parties in an exercise under American supervision to draw the actual border between the two states based on the following principles:
The borders should create the new Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps.
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel’s future recognized sovereign territory.
The agreement on borders between the states should also address the border within Jerusalem with the exception of the Old City and its very immediate environs.
If the sides are not able to reach agreement on borders within the 90-day period, or if “direct talks” do not in fact resume, the United States should present a proposal to both sides that adheres to the parameters presented above for a yes or no decision, with the support of the Quartet and other international stakeholders.
Simultaneously, address and finalize the security arrangements between Israel and a demilitarized future Palestine, and at Palestine’s external international border crossings, allowing for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the agreed provisions. The US should take this occasion to reiterate its commitment to guaranteeing the long-term security of Israel.
Once the border and security arrangements are agreed and in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable, Israel will withdraw from all of the territories designated for the Palestinian state and all other provisions will be implemented.
In parallel with implementation of the border/security arrangements, negotiations will then continue (or resume) on all other outstanding final status issues.
We also suggest that the Obama administration expressly take note of the Arab League Peace Initiative and urge the Arab League to recognize this new American-led effort as consistent with and responsive to their offer to achieve comprehensive, regional peace. To this end, we suggest opening discussions under US supervision to address the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, regional agreement (including between Israel and Lebanon) that leads to full recognition and acceptance of the state of Israel by the Arab League.
A comprehensive regional deal will significantly reduce Iranian influence and its capacity to act as a spoiler in the region, posing the following choice for the regime in Tehran: either join the consensus for peace and recognition for Israel or be further isolated. The former option will open new horizons for negotiations with Iran while the latter would increase U.S. and regional leverage with Iran as the international community re-dedicates itself to preventing Iranian obstructionism and development of a nuclear weapons capacity.
The parties and outside experts are more than familiar with the options and trade-offs needed to establish a border and with it a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. This proposal puts the key question squarely before both the leadership and people on both sides and asks them to express their political willingness to actually achieve a viable solution – rather than continuing to put the spotlight on talks about talks and the conditions for entering into them.
----------
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
In the coming days or weeks, the United States may reach agreement with Israel on an extension of the limited moratorium on settlement construction on the West Bank, and the terms of that extension may be sufficient to bring the Palestinian leadership to the table as well. J Street would welcome the resumption of direct talks, but our interest is less in reaching an agreement to keep talking or over the format of those talks than in finding a route to actually ending the conflict between the parties.
Therefore, we believe it is time for the Obama administration to adopt a bolder, more assertive approach in its efforts to resolve the Middle East conflict. The Administration should focus – with or without resuming direct negotiations and/or a 90-day extension of the moratorium – on delineating an agreed-upon border between the state of Israel and the state-to-be of Palestine, and on establishing security arrangements and that would accompany a two-state deal.
J Street supports long-standing American policy that both parties – Israel and the Palestinians – should comply with all of their internationally-recognized obligations. This includes prior Israeli commitments under the Road Map and other agreements both to stop all new settlement construction over the Green Line and to remove outposts, as well as Palestinian commitments to ensure security and prevent incitement.
However, the time has come for the United States to put forward a proposal to establish a border and security arrangements. With a border established, there will be no further need to negotiate over settlement construction. Both Israel and the Palestinians will be able to build where they please within their borders and not beyond.
Detailed security arrangements are necessary to guarantee a two-state deal and to address the full range of threats it faces (from Iran, from Hezbollah and from within Palestinian lands). Such a security plan will give Israelis the confidence that there is a U.S.-led international commitment to their long-term security as Israel pulls back from control of the territories. Finalizing arrangements on borders and security will then create a positive momentum toward addressing other final status issues.
Even if there is a new 90-day moratorium, it will pass quickly, and the Administration and the parties cannot afford to reach day 89 and suddenly find yet another impasse and crisis. Therefore, we suggest that the United States adopt a “borders and security first” strategy along the following lines:
If there is a resumption of talks, engage the parties in an exercise under American supervision to draw the actual border between the two states based on the following principles:
The borders should create the new Palestinian state on the equivalent of 100 percent of the land beyond the 1967 Green Line with one-to-one land swaps.
The borders should allow for many existing settlements, (which could account for as many as three-quarters of all settlers) to be part of Israel’s future recognized sovereign territory.
The agreement on borders between the states should also address the border within Jerusalem with the exception of the Old City and its very immediate environs.
If the sides are not able to reach agreement on borders within the 90-day period, or if “direct talks” do not in fact resume, the United States should present a proposal to both sides that adheres to the parameters presented above for a yes or no decision, with the support of the Quartet and other international stakeholders.
Simultaneously, address and finalize the security arrangements between Israel and a demilitarized future Palestine, and at Palestine’s external international border crossings, allowing for the deployment of an international force to guarantee the agreed provisions. The US should take this occasion to reiterate its commitment to guaranteeing the long-term security of Israel.
Once the border and security arrangements are agreed and in accordance with an agreed-upon timetable, Israel will withdraw from all of the territories designated for the Palestinian state and all other provisions will be implemented.
In parallel with implementation of the border/security arrangements, negotiations will then continue (or resume) on all other outstanding final status issues.
We also suggest that the Obama administration expressly take note of the Arab League Peace Initiative and urge the Arab League to recognize this new American-led effort as consistent with and responsive to their offer to achieve comprehensive, regional peace. To this end, we suggest opening discussions under US supervision to address the outstanding issues between Israel and Syria with the goal of achieving a comprehensive, regional agreement (including between Israel and Lebanon) that leads to full recognition and acceptance of the state of Israel by the Arab League.
A comprehensive regional deal will significantly reduce Iranian influence and its capacity to act as a spoiler in the region, posing the following choice for the regime in Tehran: either join the consensus for peace and recognition for Israel or be further isolated. The former option will open new horizons for negotiations with Iran while the latter would increase U.S. and regional leverage with Iran as the international community re-dedicates itself to preventing Iranian obstructionism and development of a nuclear weapons capacity.
The parties and outside experts are more than familiar with the options and trade-offs needed to establish a border and with it a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. This proposal puts the key question squarely before both the leadership and people on both sides and asks them to express their political willingness to actually achieve a viable solution – rather than continuing to put the spotlight on talks about talks and the conditions for entering into them.
----------
J Street is the political home of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
Monday, November 22, 2010
UN USA Magazine The Independent
The InterDependent:
Providing the Best Coverage on the UN
The Interdependent magazine, an online publication of the United Nations Association of the USA (www.theinterdependent.com), offers original reporting on issues related to the United Nations. Recent articles include Barbara Crossette on Iran’s failure to gain a coveted spot on the board of the new UN Women agency; the cholera epidemic in Haiti; and an interview with UN Women’s new chief, Michelle Bachelet.
Mark Turner, a former African and UN correspondent for the Financial Times, reviews a controversial new book on the vagaries of humanitarian aid, “The Crisis Caravan,” by Linda Polman. In Views, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former UN under secretary-general and high representative, laments the status of the Security Council resolution to protect women in conflict in “When Will Progress Really Be Made for 1325?”
Readers also learn about Unesco’s latest list of intangible cultural assets – French food, geoparks, Croatian singing, among others; what it means to be a UN volunteer; the growing spread of slavery; Guinea’s struggle to carry out its first fair presidential election; the wariness between the UN and the Group of 20; how the US fared in its first peer review at the Human Rights Council; and blog posts on the International Criminal Court.
Since its founding in 1973, The Interdependent, now solely online, has provided news and features on the UN written by top reporters and essayists, the only publication in the world to cover the world body comprehensively and objectively.
To read The ID, go to www.theinterdependent.com, and while you’re there, become a member of UNA-USA, a new program of the United Nations Foundation.
Sincerely,
Ed Elmendorf
Executive Director, UNA-USA
United Nations Association of the United States of America
801 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Email: publications@unausa.org | Tel: 212 907-1300
Providing the Best Coverage on the UN
The Interdependent magazine, an online publication of the United Nations Association of the USA (www.theinterdependent.com), offers original reporting on issues related to the United Nations. Recent articles include Barbara Crossette on Iran’s failure to gain a coveted spot on the board of the new UN Women agency; the cholera epidemic in Haiti; and an interview with UN Women’s new chief, Michelle Bachelet.
Mark Turner, a former African and UN correspondent for the Financial Times, reviews a controversial new book on the vagaries of humanitarian aid, “The Crisis Caravan,” by Linda Polman. In Views, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former UN under secretary-general and high representative, laments the status of the Security Council resolution to protect women in conflict in “When Will Progress Really Be Made for 1325?”
Readers also learn about Unesco’s latest list of intangible cultural assets – French food, geoparks, Croatian singing, among others; what it means to be a UN volunteer; the growing spread of slavery; Guinea’s struggle to carry out its first fair presidential election; the wariness between the UN and the Group of 20; how the US fared in its first peer review at the Human Rights Council; and blog posts on the International Criminal Court.
Since its founding in 1973, The Interdependent, now solely online, has provided news and features on the UN written by top reporters and essayists, the only publication in the world to cover the world body comprehensively and objectively.
To read The ID, go to www.theinterdependent.com, and while you’re there, become a member of UNA-USA, a new program of the United Nations Foundation.
Sincerely,
Ed Elmendorf
Executive Director, UNA-USA
United Nations Association of the United States of America
801 Second Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Email: publications@unausa.org | Tel: 212 907-1300
Rev. Dave on Wage Theft
Wage Theft Vigil
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Dickson Street at the Railroad Track
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Forty-six years ago, back in the fall of 1964, I was in my first year of law
school. One of the required courses – all the first year courses were required – one
of the required courses was Contracts. We read case after case presenting unusual
or unexpected situations, where the dispute could be resolved only by a court; the
parties could not reach an agreement on their own.
Did I mention that we just had a new roof put on our house?
What we didn’t study in that course on Contracts were the easy cases. A
man agrees to work for a roofing company, for $10 an hour, to be paid at the end
of each week. The man works five eight-hour days. At the end of the week he
expects to receive $400. Of course, he realizes there are deductions for Social
Security and so on. Without offering any excuses at all, the owner – I’m making
this up; this is not my roofer – refuses to pay him.....
From the law student’s point of view, that would be an easy case. From the worker’s point of view, it’s a mostdifficult case. He can’t pay the rent; he can’t buy the groceries.The right to be paid for one’s work, to be paid the agreed-upon wage, is so
basic, so obvious, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t
explicitly mention it. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration talks about a right to
work, about equal pay for equal work, about a right to remuneration that will
ensure worker and family “an existence worthy of human dignity,” but the
underlying simple right to be paid for one’s labor isn’t mentioned. It didn’t have
to be. No one would dispute it.
When Jesus talks about paying workers, he doesn’t tell us about the
vineyard owner who refuses to pay his workers. No, he talks about the vineyard
owner who pays them too much. He pays the workers who worked the full day the
standard wage for a full day’s work. But then he pays those who worked just the
last few hours of the day the same amount. Unfair, the full-day workers complain.
And we would probably agree that the arrangement is unfair. But the vineyard
owner didn’t stiff any of the workers. Everyone was paid. [Matt. 20:1-16]
So I don’t get it. I don’t understand how anyone could hire a worker; the
worker does the job; and then the boss refuses to pay them. I don’t suppose that
someone who would behave like that would be transformed by my quoting the
Bible to them.
I’m sure they’ve heard of the Ten Commandments. They probably couldn’t
name them all – I don’t think I could myself – but I have no doubt that they would
recognize “Thou shalt not steal” as one of them. What could be plainer than that?
Rev. Dave Hunter
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville
479-444-8168
dhhunter@sbcglobal.net
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Dickson Street at the Railroad Track
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Forty-six years ago, back in the fall of 1964, I was in my first year of law
school. One of the required courses – all the first year courses were required – one
of the required courses was Contracts. We read case after case presenting unusual
or unexpected situations, where the dispute could be resolved only by a court; the
parties could not reach an agreement on their own.
Did I mention that we just had a new roof put on our house?
What we didn’t study in that course on Contracts were the easy cases. A
man agrees to work for a roofing company, for $10 an hour, to be paid at the end
of each week. The man works five eight-hour days. At the end of the week he
expects to receive $400. Of course, he realizes there are deductions for Social
Security and so on. Without offering any excuses at all, the owner – I’m making
this up; this is not my roofer – refuses to pay him.....
From the law student’s point of view, that would be an easy case. From the worker’s point of view, it’s a mostdifficult case. He can’t pay the rent; he can’t buy the groceries.The right to be paid for one’s work, to be paid the agreed-upon wage, is so
basic, so obvious, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t
explicitly mention it. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration talks about a right to
work, about equal pay for equal work, about a right to remuneration that will
ensure worker and family “an existence worthy of human dignity,” but the
underlying simple right to be paid for one’s labor isn’t mentioned. It didn’t have
to be. No one would dispute it.
When Jesus talks about paying workers, he doesn’t tell us about the
vineyard owner who refuses to pay his workers. No, he talks about the vineyard
owner who pays them too much. He pays the workers who worked the full day the
standard wage for a full day’s work. But then he pays those who worked just the
last few hours of the day the same amount. Unfair, the full-day workers complain.
And we would probably agree that the arrangement is unfair. But the vineyard
owner didn’t stiff any of the workers. Everyone was paid. [Matt. 20:1-16]
So I don’t get it. I don’t understand how anyone could hire a worker; the
worker does the job; and then the boss refuses to pay them. I don’t suppose that
someone who would behave like that would be transformed by my quoting the
Bible to them.
I’m sure they’ve heard of the Ten Commandments. They probably couldn’t
name them all – I don’t think I could myself – but I have no doubt that they would
recognize “Thou shalt not steal” as one of them. What could be plainer than that?
Rev. Dave Hunter
Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Fayetteville
479-444-8168
dhhunter@sbcglobal.net
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Thanksgiving Day
OMNI THANKSGIVING DAY NEWSLETTER, NOVEMBER 25, 2010, NATIONAL DAY OF GRATITUDE, MOURNING, AND ATONEMENT by Dick Bennett, for a CULTURE OF PEACE..
For a decade OMNI has promoted the UN concept of Building a Culture of Peace. I have interpreted this goal to include the reconstitution of certain national “Days” (the creation of alternative national "Days"). We have a Julia Ward Howe Mother's Day for Peace, Indigenous People's Day (to replace Columbus Day), Unity Day (Veteran’s Day), for examples, and we celebrate many Days that oppose war and tyranny (UN Day, Human Rights Day, etc.). These are structural changes, not just treating symptoms (such as battered women's sheltesr and homeless rescue, which we need, given the world as it is), but trying to change the countless sources of the US Violence-Corporate -Military State (our National Security State). We have not yet tackled Thanksgiving. What should we do?
One approach is to remember that Thanksgiving Day is a day to remember and give thanks for and with immigrants, and mourn for and with them, and help them. Margaret Regan’s book The Death of Josseline tells the story of a 14-year-old Mexican girl who dies crossing the desert on the U.S.-Mexican border. Regan connects that sad tale with the story of her own great-grandparents, who emigrated from Ireland in 1872 only to die penniless in Philadelphia at the ages of 36 and 34. Thanksgiving should not be a time to only to take a break or celebrate self-indulgence, but to remember the immigrants who risk everything to seek a better life and do not always have a happy life or ending. During Thanksgiving this year ask what is your family’s immigration story. When did your immigrant ancestors’ descendents begin to enjoy a better life, of if they all did.
Another way to Thanksgiving is to try to perceive Thanksgiving from the perspective of Native Americans. What do American Indians think of the immigrants? Check out:
Thanksgiving A Loaded Holiday for Many Native-Americans
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/27-1
For some Native Americans and their European-American friends, the idea of
a National Day of Atonement is growing. The idea is to unravel the US superiority complex (US “exceptionalism”) that leads to blindness to our wrongdoings against Native Americans, Many in the general population condemn the genocides committed by the Hutus or Turks, but cannot add the Westward movement across the continent as also genocidal. This cartoon expresses the extreme edge of this point of view. This is such a fundamental overturning of a major US annual self-deception that I cannot hope for its acceptance by more than a handful for a long time to come. (Thanks to Sue Skidmore.).
Why We Shouldn't Celebrate Thanksgiving (sorry, the link would not work)
By Robert Jensen, AlterNet
Thanksgiving Day should be turned into a National Day of Atonement to acknowledge the genocide of America's indigenous peoples. Read more »
Thanksgiving in America (sorry again, the drawing of a family giving thanks at beginning of their Thanksgiving turkey dinner, their table and house resting on the bones of generations of Native Americans, would not copy).
--
Dick Bennett
Wars and Warming: Reducing the Footprints
My blog:
http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/
jbennet@uark.edu
(479) 442-4600
2582 Jimmie Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
For a decade OMNI has promoted the UN concept of Building a Culture of Peace. I have interpreted this goal to include the reconstitution of certain national “Days” (the creation of alternative national "Days"). We have a Julia Ward Howe Mother's Day for Peace, Indigenous People's Day (to replace Columbus Day), Unity Day (Veteran’s Day), for examples, and we celebrate many Days that oppose war and tyranny (UN Day, Human Rights Day, etc.). These are structural changes, not just treating symptoms (such as battered women's sheltesr and homeless rescue, which we need, given the world as it is), but trying to change the countless sources of the US Violence-Corporate -Military State (our National Security State). We have not yet tackled Thanksgiving. What should we do?
One approach is to remember that Thanksgiving Day is a day to remember and give thanks for and with immigrants, and mourn for and with them, and help them. Margaret Regan’s book The Death of Josseline tells the story of a 14-year-old Mexican girl who dies crossing the desert on the U.S.-Mexican border. Regan connects that sad tale with the story of her own great-grandparents, who emigrated from Ireland in 1872 only to die penniless in Philadelphia at the ages of 36 and 34. Thanksgiving should not be a time to only to take a break or celebrate self-indulgence, but to remember the immigrants who risk everything to seek a better life and do not always have a happy life or ending. During Thanksgiving this year ask what is your family’s immigration story. When did your immigrant ancestors’ descendents begin to enjoy a better life, of if they all did.
Another way to Thanksgiving is to try to perceive Thanksgiving from the perspective of Native Americans. What do American Indians think of the immigrants? Check out:
Thanksgiving A Loaded Holiday for Many Native-Americans
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/27-1
For some Native Americans and their European-American friends, the idea of
a National Day of Atonement is growing. The idea is to unravel the US superiority complex (US “exceptionalism”) that leads to blindness to our wrongdoings against Native Americans, Many in the general population condemn the genocides committed by the Hutus or Turks, but cannot add the Westward movement across the continent as also genocidal. This cartoon expresses the extreme edge of this point of view. This is such a fundamental overturning of a major US annual self-deception that I cannot hope for its acceptance by more than a handful for a long time to come. (Thanks to Sue Skidmore.).
Why We Shouldn't Celebrate Thanksgiving (sorry, the link would not work)
By Robert Jensen, AlterNet
Thanksgiving Day should be turned into a National Day of Atonement to acknowledge the genocide of America's indigenous peoples. Read more »
Thanksgiving in America (sorry again, the drawing of a family giving thanks at beginning of their Thanksgiving turkey dinner, their table and house resting on the bones of generations of Native Americans, would not copy).
--
Dick Bennett
Wars and Warming: Reducing the Footprints
My blog:
http://jamesrichardbennett.blogspot.com/
jbennet@uark.edu
(479) 442-4600
2582 Jimmie Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703
Afghanistan War
OMNI NEWSLETTER ON AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN #7 (see Iraq Newsletters for related materials), November 21, 2010, WE, THE PEOPLE BUILDING A CULTURE OF PEACE, Of, BY, and For the People. Edited by Dick Bennett. (This Newsletter was not sent directly to the members, but was placed in OMNI’s web site and in Dick’s Blog.) (#1 Feb. 18, 2008; #2 Jan. 2009, “25 Reasons for Leaving Afghanistan”; #3 Oct. 4, 2009; #4 April 12, 2010; #5 July 27, 2010; #6 October 8, 2010)
CONTENTS
Four More Years? More? Leaving Afghanistan Ever?
Continue the Demonstrations
Memorial to Civilian Casualties
Consequences of War: Returned Veterans’ Deaths and Suicides
Mainstream Media Support the War
Film on Tillman Coverup
Why are the Majority of the Public Silent?
US MILITARY NOT LEAVING AFGHANISTAN EVEN BY 2014?
NATO, US Differ Over Leaving Afghanistan in 2014
Alan Clendenning and Julie Pace, Associated Press
Excerpt: "Later, a senior Obama administration official said the US had not committed to ending its combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal administration discussions." https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12c6cbe2a0a36866
READ MORE
CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO REMEMBER AND PROTEST THE START OF THE AFGHAN WAR OCTOBER 2001
International Days of Action calling for ceasefire, negotiations, and withdrawal of all US and NATO troops. www.warresisters.org
ART: MEMORIAL TO THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
More than 40 artists from around the world contributed their vision of war and peace as a memorial to the victims. WINDOWS AND MIRRORS is a traveling exhibit of 45 panels, each 4’ by 6’. To find the site nearest to us contact www.AFSC.org
War’s Hidden Death Toll: After Service, Veteran Deaths & Suicides Surge
As of this month, over 5,700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That count does not include those veterans who commit suicide or die from war-related issues after returning home from military service. Well, a new investigation into California veterans and active service members reveals that three times as many veterans are dying soon after returning home than those being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. According to the report published in the Bay Citizen and the New York Times, more than 1,000 California veterans under 35 died between 2005 and 2008. For more go to: Soldier Suicides
Email to a friend Help Printer-friendly version Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN
WATCH
Real Video Stream
Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download
More…
Guest: Aaron Glantz, reporter with the Bay Citizen. His article 'After Service, Veteran Deaths Surge' appeared in the New York Times. He is the author of three books, most recently, The War Comes Home: Washington’s Battle against America’s Veterans.
Related stories
• "Operation Recovery": On 9th Anniversary of Afghan War, Veteran-Led Campaign Seeks to End Deployment of Traumatized Soldiers
• With Military Suicides on the Rise, Parents of Two Soldiers Who Took Their Own Lives Say Obama’s Words Ring Hollow
• "I Have No Regret to Anybody in the Military. This Is Clearly a Failure of Our Government"–Iraq War Vet Dan Choi Discharged Under "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND SUICIDES
“Why Are Troops Killing Themselves?” by Martha Rosenberg, originally on www.dissidentvoice.org (Aug. 3, 2010), reprinted in PublicCitizen Health Letter (September 2010). Examines the link between health and mental health effects of psychoactive drugs--antidepressants, antipsychotics, and antiseizure drugs--and soldier suicides. “Like the Army report, the Juvenile Justice report ignores the pharmaceutical elephant in the room and the tax dollars and human costs of feeding it.”
MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Peter Hart, “Exposes Just Excuses to Boost Afghan War,” Extra! The Magazine of FAIR (Oct. 2010). Corporate media reported the dismissal of Gen. McChrystal and the WikiLeaks release of classified documents. But the revelations “were mostly seen as opportunities to shore up support for the current Afghanistan policy rather than to debate it.”
FILM
“THE TILLMAN STORY.” Rev. Mother Jones (Nov. Dec. 2010). Story of the search for the truth behind Pat’s death in Afghanistan in 2004, which was hushed up far up the chain of command.
WHY DO THE PEOPLE OF THE US ACCEPT PERMANENT WAR? WHY ARE SO MANY SILENT?
One writer suggests they are bored with the wars. “Like a reality show that’s gone on too long, it ceases to shock, shame, or even interest.” (Gary Younge, “Forgetting Afghanistan,” The Nation, Nov. 8, 2010). But can that be, when violence attracts millions to dozens of TV shows? In Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, full of hatred for the Afghan “savages,” allegedly ordered murder of civilians, and then posed with his fellow soldiers with the corpses. Back in February a raid killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl, and a police commander, all innocent of any crime And just after Christmas last year eight teens and preteens in Kunar province were murdered by execution-style. Plenty of reality there. So the people of the US are bored with war violence but not TV violence? In a September poll, when asked “what the most important problems facing the country are, just 3 percent mentioned Afghanistan.” They are bored? Or do they want to forget that their leaders and they themselves supported the war? A Crusade for Security against the Vicious Muslims! Only one Representative, Barbara Lee, voted against it. And then bin Laden was never arrested. The Afghan killed have been literally countless because so many were never counted, and now US killed have doubled under Obama. So the public are silent because ashamed? Are they? Or because their fundamental commitment to the myth of US war and empire has been shown to be so mistaken? The US is not so perfect that no matter how many crimes it commits against the vulnerable of the world the results will be benign? US leaders and populace rejected alternatives to the horrific brutality of invading and occupying a third-world country, without achieving democracy or security? Barbara Lee was right? If not boredom or shame, why are the majority silent? Dick
END OF AFGHANISTAN NEWSLETTER #7 November 21, 2010
CONTENTS
Four More Years? More? Leaving Afghanistan Ever?
Continue the Demonstrations
Memorial to Civilian Casualties
Consequences of War: Returned Veterans’ Deaths and Suicides
Mainstream Media Support the War
Film on Tillman Coverup
Why are the Majority of the Public Silent?
US MILITARY NOT LEAVING AFGHANISTAN EVEN BY 2014?
NATO, US Differ Over Leaving Afghanistan in 2014
Alan Clendenning and Julie Pace, Associated Press
Excerpt: "Later, a senior Obama administration official said the US had not committed to ending its combat mission in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal administration discussions." https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12c6cbe2a0a36866
READ MORE
CONTINUE THE DEMONSTRATIONS TO REMEMBER AND PROTEST THE START OF THE AFGHAN WAR OCTOBER 2001
International Days of Action calling for ceasefire, negotiations, and withdrawal of all US and NATO troops. www.warresisters.org
ART: MEMORIAL TO THE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES OF THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN
More than 40 artists from around the world contributed their vision of war and peace as a memorial to the victims. WINDOWS AND MIRRORS is a traveling exhibit of 45 panels, each 4’ by 6’. To find the site nearest to us contact www.AFSC.org
War’s Hidden Death Toll: After Service, Veteran Deaths & Suicides Surge
As of this month, over 5,700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That count does not include those veterans who commit suicide or die from war-related issues after returning home from military service. Well, a new investigation into California veterans and active service members reveals that three times as many veterans are dying soon after returning home than those being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. According to the report published in the Bay Citizen and the New York Times, more than 1,000 California veterans under 35 died between 2005 and 2008. For more go to: Soldier Suicides
Email to a friend Help Printer-friendly version Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN
WATCH
Real Video Stream
Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download
More…
Guest: Aaron Glantz, reporter with the Bay Citizen. His article 'After Service, Veteran Deaths Surge' appeared in the New York Times. He is the author of three books, most recently, The War Comes Home: Washington’s Battle against America’s Veterans.
Related stories
• "Operation Recovery": On 9th Anniversary of Afghan War, Veteran-Led Campaign Seeks to End Deployment of Traumatized Soldiers
• With Military Suicides on the Rise, Parents of Two Soldiers Who Took Their Own Lives Say Obama’s Words Ring Hollow
• "I Have No Regret to Anybody in the Military. This Is Clearly a Failure of Our Government"–Iraq War Vet Dan Choi Discharged Under "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND SUICIDES
“Why Are Troops Killing Themselves?” by Martha Rosenberg, originally on www.dissidentvoice.org (Aug. 3, 2010), reprinted in PublicCitizen Health Letter (September 2010). Examines the link between health and mental health effects of psychoactive drugs--antidepressants, antipsychotics, and antiseizure drugs--and soldier suicides. “Like the Army report, the Juvenile Justice report ignores the pharmaceutical elephant in the room and the tax dollars and human costs of feeding it.”
MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Peter Hart, “Exposes Just Excuses to Boost Afghan War,” Extra! The Magazine of FAIR (Oct. 2010). Corporate media reported the dismissal of Gen. McChrystal and the WikiLeaks release of classified documents. But the revelations “were mostly seen as opportunities to shore up support for the current Afghanistan policy rather than to debate it.”
FILM
“THE TILLMAN STORY.” Rev. Mother Jones (Nov. Dec. 2010). Story of the search for the truth behind Pat’s death in Afghanistan in 2004, which was hushed up far up the chain of command.
WHY DO THE PEOPLE OF THE US ACCEPT PERMANENT WAR? WHY ARE SO MANY SILENT?
One writer suggests they are bored with the wars. “Like a reality show that’s gone on too long, it ceases to shock, shame, or even interest.” (Gary Younge, “Forgetting Afghanistan,” The Nation, Nov. 8, 2010). But can that be, when violence attracts millions to dozens of TV shows? In Afghanistan, Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, full of hatred for the Afghan “savages,” allegedly ordered murder of civilians, and then posed with his fellow soldiers with the corpses. Back in February a raid killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl, and a police commander, all innocent of any crime And just after Christmas last year eight teens and preteens in Kunar province were murdered by execution-style. Plenty of reality there. So the people of the US are bored with war violence but not TV violence? In a September poll, when asked “what the most important problems facing the country are, just 3 percent mentioned Afghanistan.” They are bored? Or do they want to forget that their leaders and they themselves supported the war? A Crusade for Security against the Vicious Muslims! Only one Representative, Barbara Lee, voted against it. And then bin Laden was never arrested. The Afghan killed have been literally countless because so many were never counted, and now US killed have doubled under Obama. So the public are silent because ashamed? Are they? Or because their fundamental commitment to the myth of US war and empire has been shown to be so mistaken? The US is not so perfect that no matter how many crimes it commits against the vulnerable of the world the results will be benign? US leaders and populace rejected alternatives to the horrific brutality of invading and occupying a third-world country, without achieving democracy or security? Barbara Lee was right? If not boredom or shame, why are the majority silent? Dick
END OF AFGHANISTAN NEWSLETTER #7 November 21, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Guantanamo versus Rule of Law
GUANTANAMO: US Legal and Moral Descent into Detention without Trial
ANDY WORTHINGTON
Andy Worthington, The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law.
From Democracy Now in Dec. 2009
Amy Goodman interviewed Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law. He noted that Gitmo was to be closed by Jan. 11, 2010; that date was extended; and now extended again in order not to release Yemeni prisoners, of which 86 are still in G. Worthington also said that the Pentagon exaggerated the no. of G. released prisoners who rejoined al Qaeda.
REPORTER CAROL ROSENBERG
Glenn, David. “The Record Keeper: Carol Rosenberg Owns the Guantanamo Beat.” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010). Rosenberg, reporter for The Miami Herald, is the most persistent critic of “the way the military runs things at Guantanamo.” This article describes many of her presence at Gitmo and exposes of Pentagon machinations.
The End of Shame in America
This sort of thing should be shouted from the rooftops, and those responsible chased from public life. But instead we’ll have the grinning loons on cable news and talk radio telling us why it’s okay.
Report: U.S. military based Gitmo training on tactics China used in Korean War - USA Today
A training course at Gitmo was modeled on tactics that Chinese forces used to interrogate American prisoners during the Korean War, according to The New York Times.
The paper reports that interrogation trainers used a chart with "coercive management techniques" that were "copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."
To read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-us-milit.html (from Richard D)
PRISONERS
Scott Horton, “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides’: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle,” Harper’s Magazine (Jan/Feb 2010). See: DN 1-19-10 Gitmo in 2006: 3 prisoners murdered, G. commander claimed suicide, gov’t /CIA covered up…….
MOHAMMED JAWAD
TMN (7-31-09), “Judge Orders Detainee’s Release.” The youngest detainee, tortured into confessing to crimes, imprisoned at G. six and a half years.without charge or trial.
Dick
ANDY WORTHINGTON
Andy Worthington, The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law.
From Democracy Now in Dec. 2009
Amy Goodman interviewed Andy Worthington, author of The Guantanamo Files: Stories from Outside the Law. He noted that Gitmo was to be closed by Jan. 11, 2010; that date was extended; and now extended again in order not to release Yemeni prisoners, of which 86 are still in G. Worthington also said that the Pentagon exaggerated the no. of G. released prisoners who rejoined al Qaeda.
REPORTER CAROL ROSENBERG
Glenn, David. “The Record Keeper: Carol Rosenberg Owns the Guantanamo Beat.” Columbia Journalism Rev. (Nov. Dec. 2010). Rosenberg, reporter for The Miami Herald, is the most persistent critic of “the way the military runs things at Guantanamo.” This article describes many of her presence at Gitmo and exposes of Pentagon machinations.
The End of Shame in America
This sort of thing should be shouted from the rooftops, and those responsible chased from public life. But instead we’ll have the grinning loons on cable news and talk radio telling us why it’s okay.
Report: U.S. military based Gitmo training on tactics China used in Korean War - USA Today
A training course at Gitmo was modeled on tactics that Chinese forces used to interrogate American prisoners during the Korean War, according to The New York Times.
The paper reports that interrogation trainers used a chart with "coercive management techniques" that were "copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners."
To read more: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-us-milit.html (from Richard D)
PRISONERS
Scott Horton, “The Guantánamo ‘Suicides’: A Camp Delta sergeant blows the whistle,” Harper’s Magazine (Jan/Feb 2010). See: DN 1-19-10 Gitmo in 2006: 3 prisoners murdered, G. commander claimed suicide, gov’t /CIA covered up…….
MOHAMMED JAWAD
TMN (7-31-09), “Judge Orders Detainee’s Release.” The youngest detainee, tortured into confessing to crimes, imprisoned at G. six and a half years.without charge or trial.
Dick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)