US Bill of Rights

United States Bill of RightsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
(At end see addendum on Pastor Niemoller's famous statement: "First they came for the Socialists...")

United States Bill of Rights
Created September 25, 1789
Ratified December 15, 1791
Location National Archives
Authors James Madison
Purpose To set limits on what the government can and cannot do in regard to personal liberties.
The Bill of Rights is the name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.[1] They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States.

The Bill of Rights is a series of limitations on the power of the United States federal government, protecting the natural rights of liberty and property including freedom of speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. In federal criminal cases, it requires indictment by a grand jury for any capital or "infamous crime", guarantees a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury composed of members of the state or judicial district in which the crime occurred, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution[2] and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. Most of these restrictions on the federal government were later applied to the states by a series of legal decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

Delegates to the Philadelphia Convention on September 12, 1787 debated whether to include a Bill of Rights in the body of the U.S. Constitution, and an agreement to create the Bill of Rights helped to secure ratification of the Constitution itself.[3] Ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists threatened the final ratification of the new national Constitution. Thus, the Bill addressed the concerns of some of the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the fundamental principles of human liberty.

Twelve articles were proposed to the States, but only the last ten articles were ratified in the 18th Century, corresponding to the First through Tenth Amendments. The proposed first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of U.S. Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the power of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment.

The Bill of Rights plays a key role in American law and government, and remains a vital symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the first fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Contents [hide]
1 Text of the Bill of Rights
1.1 Preamble
1.2 Amendments
1.3 Proposed amendments not passed with Bill of Rights
2 Background
2.1 Early sentiments favoring expanding the Bill of Rights
2.2 The Anti-Federalists
2.3 Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise
2.4 Ratification timeline
2.5 Antecedents
2.5.1 Locke
2.5.2 Virginia Declaration of Rights
2.5.3 English Bill of Rights
2.6 Madison's preemptive proposal
3 Ratification process
3.1 Ratification dates
3.2 Later consideration
4 Copies of the Bill of Rights
5 Incorporation extends to States
6 Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights
7 See also
8 References
9 Bibliography
10 External links
10.1 U.S Government sites
10.2 Related documents
10.3 History and analysis

Text of the Bill of RightsPreambleCongress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.[4]

AmendmentsFirst Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [5]

Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Proposed amendments not passed with Bill of RightsArticle I – Apportionment.
After the enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons.
Article II (ratified in 1992 as Twenty-seventh Amendment) – Congressional pay raises.
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
BackgroundThe Philadelphia Convention set out to correct weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation that had been apparent even before the American Revolutionary War had been successfully concluded.[6] The newly constituted Federal government included a strong executive branch, a stronger legislative branch and an independent judiciary.

Early sentiments favoring expanding the Bill of Rights
A portrait of Alexander Hamilton shortly after the American RevolutionThe idea of adding a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, argued against a "Bill of Rights," asserting that ratification of the Constitution did not mean the American people were surrendering their rights, and, therefore, that protections were unnecessary: "Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations." Critics pointed out that earlier political documents had protected specific rights, but Hamilton argued that the Constitution was inherently different:

Bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was "Magna Charta", obtained by the Barons, swords in hand, from King John.[7]

Finally, Hamilton expressed the fear that protecting specific rights might imply that any unmentioned rights would not be protected:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?[7]

Essentially, Hamilton and other Federalists believed in the British system of common law which did not define or quantify natural rights. They believed that adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution would limit their rights to those listed in the Constitution. This is the primary reason the Ninth Amendment was included.

Thomas Jefferson was a supporter of the Bill of Rights.[8] George Mason "wished the plan [the Constitution] had been prefaced with a Bill of Rights." Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts "concurred in the idea & moved for a Committee to prepare a Bill of Rights." Roger Sherman argued against a Bill of Rights stating that the "State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution." Mason then stated "The Laws of the U. S. are to be paramount to State Bills of Rights." Gerry's motion was defeated with 10-Nays, 1-Absent, and No-Yeas.[9]

The Anti-Federalists See also: Anti-Federalism and Anti-Federalist Papers

On June 5, 1788, Patrick Henry spoke before Virginia's ratification convention in opposition to the Constitution: "Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!"Following the Philadelphia Convention, some famous revolutionary figures and statesmen, such as Patrick Henry, publicly argued against the Constitution.[10] Many were concerned that the strong national government proposed by the Federalists was a threat to individual rights and that the President would become a king, and objected to the federal court system in the proposed Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, at the time serving as Ambassador to France, wrote to Madison advocating a Bill of Rights: "Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."[11] George Mason refused to sign the proposed Constitution, in part to protest its lack of a Bill of Rights.[12]

In a paper later collected into the Anti-Federalist papers, the pseudonymous "Brutus" (probably Robert Yates) wrote,

We find they have, in the ninth section of the first article declared, that the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless in cases of rebellion — that no bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, shall be passed — that no title of nobility shall be granted by the United States, etc. If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution.[13]

Brutus continued with an implication directed against the Founding Fathers:

Ought not a government, vested with such extensive and indefinite authority, to have been restricted by a declaration of rights? It certainly ought. So clear a point is this, that I cannot help suspecting that persons who attempt to persuade people that such reservations were less necessary under this Constitution than under those of the States, are wilfully endeavoring to deceive, and to lead you into an absolute state of vassalage.[13]

Ratification and the Massachusetts Compromise
George Washington's 1788 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette observed, "the Convention of Massachusetts adopted the Constitution in toto; but recommended a number of specific alterations and quieting explanations." Source: Library of CongressIndividualism was the strongest element of opposition; the necessity, or at least the desirability, of a bill of rights was almost universally felt, and the Anti-Federalists were able to play on these feelings in the ratification convention in Massachusetts. By this stage, five of the states had ratified the Constitution with relative ease; however, the Massachusetts convention was bitter and contentious:

In Massachusetts, the Constitution ran into serious, organized opposition. Only after two leading Anti-federalists, Adams and Hancock, negotiated a far-reaching compromise did the convention vote for ratification on February 6, 1788 (187–168). Anti-federalists had demanded that the Constitution be amended before they would consider it or that amendments be a condition of ratification; Federalists had retorted that it had to be accepted or rejected as it was. Under the Massachusetts compromise, the delegates recommended amendments to be considered by the new Congress, should the Constitution go into force. The Massachusetts compromise determined the fate of the Constitution, as it permitted delegates with doubts to vote for it in the hope that it would be amended.[14]

Four of the next five states to ratify, including New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York, included similar language in their ratification instruments. They all sent recommendations for amendments with their ratification documents to the new Congress. Since many of these recommendations pertained to safeguarding personal rights, this pressured Congress to add a Bill of Rights after Constitutional ratification. Additionally, North Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution until progress was made on the issue of the Bill of Rights. Thus, while the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in their quest to prevent the adoption of the Constitution, their efforts were not totally in vain.


James Madison, "Father of the Constitution" and first author of the Bill of RightsAfter the Constitution was ratified in 1789, the 1st United States Congress met in Federal Hall in New York City. Most of the delegates agreed that a "bill of rights" was needed and most of them agreed on the rights they believed should be enumerated.

Madison, at the head of the Virginia delegation of the 1st Congress, had originally opposed a Bill of Rights but hoped to pre-empt a second Constitutional Convention that might have undone the difficult compromises of 1787: a second convention would open the entire Constitution to reconsideration and could undermine the work he and so many others had done in establishing the structure of the United States Government. Writing to Jefferson, he stated, "The friends of the Constitution...wish the revisal to be carried no farther than to supply additional guards for liberty...and are fixed in opposition to the risk of another Convention....It is equally certain that there are others who urge a second Convention with the insidious hope of throwing all things into Confusion, and of subverting the fabric just established, if not the Union itself."[15]

Madison based much of the Bill of Rights on George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776),[16] which itself had been written with Madison's input. He carefully considered the state amendment recommendations as well. He looked for recommendations shared by many states to avoid controversy and reduce opposition to the ratification of the future amendments.[17] Additionally, Madison's work on the Bill of Rights reflected centuries of English law and philosophy, further modified by the principles of the American Revolution.


Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."
| Related Articles | Comments | E-mail updates | How to cite this article




Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who opposed the Nazi regime. He spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Germany, 1937.

— Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz
View Photographs

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was an ardent nationalist and prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last 7 years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.

Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.

The quotation stems from Niemöller's lectures during the early postwar period. Different versions of the quotation exist. These can be attributed to the fact that Niemöller spoke extemporaneously and in a number of settings. Much controversy surrounds the content of the poem as it has been printed in varying forms, referring to alternating groups such as Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Trade Unionists or Communists depending upon the version. Nonetheless his point was that Germans -- in particular, he believed, the leaders of the Protestant churches -- had been complicit through their silence in the Nazi imprisonment, persecution, and murder of millions of people.

At the same time, however, Niemöller, like most of his compatriots, was largely silent about the persecution and mass murder of the European Jews. Only in 1963, in a West German television interview, did Niemöller acknowledge and make a statement of regret about his own antisemitism (see Gerlach, 2000, p. 47).

Further Reading

James Bentley, Martin Niemöller: 1892-1984 (NY: Macmillan Free Press,1984)

Victoria Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest under Hitler (NY: Oxford University Press, 1992)

Wolfgang Gerlach, And the Witnesses were Silent: The Confessing Church and the Jews (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2000)

Geneva Conventions IV and Protocols Humanitarian

Had the people of the United States (and G.W. Bush's own lawyers!) been familiar with Geneva Conventions, perhaps the atrocities perpetrated by the Bush admin. against Iraqis would have been prevented. For example, read Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals., chap. 11, "Blowback."

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva ConventionConvention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Full text [Display Introduction] [Display articles] ...
www.icrc.org › icrc.org › Treaties Home › Introduction - Cached►

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional ProtocolsThe Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are at the core of ...
www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/.../geneva-conventions/index.jsp - Cached

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva ConventionConvention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of ...
www.icrc.org › icrc.org › Treaties Home › Introduction › Full text - Cached

Show more results from icrc.orgFourth Geneva Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to Part IV. Execution of the Convention‎: They are similar in all four Geneva Conventions Commentary: Part IV : Execution of the convention ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention -

Home | What's new | Contacts
Language Select one Français Español عربي Português русский 中文 Search International Committee of the Red Cross
Geneva Conventions Who we are
Who we are - International Committee of the Red CrossMandate and missionStructureFinancesWorking for the ICRCThe MovementHistoryFunds and medalsContactsWhat we do
What we do - ICRC activities on behalf of people affected by warVisiting detaineesProtecting civiliansReuniting familiesEnsuring economic securityWater and habitatHealthCooperation with National SocietiesBuilding respect for IHLOther activitiesWhere we work
Where we work - the ICRC worldwideAfricaAmericasAsia & PacificEurope & the CaucasusMiddle East & North AfricaWar & Law
War & Law - the legal basis for our actionTreaties and customary lawContemporary challenges for IHLProtected personsConduct of hostilitiesWeaponsEmblemIHL in domestic lawInternational criminal jurisdictionIHL and other legal regimesResource centre
Resource centre - SearchPublications and filmsPhotosMapsInternational reviewAnnual reportIHL databasesLibrary and research servicesICRC ArchivesEventsOther sitesGift shopVideo newsroomSearchWar & Law

Treaties and customary law
Geneva Conventions
Customary law
Contemporary challenges for IHL

Protected persons

Conduct of hostilities

Weapons

Emblem

IHL in domestic law

International criminal jurisdiction

IHL and other legal regimes






The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols
The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are at the core of international humanitarian law, the body of international law that regulates the conduct of armed conflict and seeks to limit its effects. They specifically protect people who are not taking part in the hostilities (civilians, health workers and aid workers) and those who are no longer participating in the hostilities, such as wounded, sick and shipwrecked soldiers and prisoners of war. Read full overview Sixty years of the Geneva Conventions
Sixty years of the Geneva Conventions: learning from the past to better face the future Geneva Conventions still going strong at 60 Sixty years of the Geneva Conventions and the decades ahead The Geneva Conventions of 1949: origins and current significance The Geneva Conventions Today Previous storiesNext storiesMore
The Additional Protocols
Status of the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions: ICRC statement to the United Nations, 2010
Protocols I and II additional to the Geneva Conventions
Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions
Treaty database : full texts, commentaries and State Parties
First Geneva Convention, 1949
Second Geneva Convention, 1949
Third Geneva Convention, 1949
Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949
Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
Protocol III additional to the Geneva Conventions, 2005
International Review of the Red Cross More articles

Sixty years of the Geneva Conventions: learning from the past to better face the future Ceremony to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, Geneva, 12 August 2009. The Geneva Conventions and Public International Law. British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Conference commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, London, 9 July 2009 More
Commentary on the Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III) Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem The reservations to the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims Accession to the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 by Trinidad and Tobago Domestic law
Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
The Protection of the Red Cross / Red Crescent Emblems
Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
Model Law - Geneva Conventions (Consolidation) Act
History
The Geneva Conventions of 1949: a decisive breakthrough
The Geneva Conventions of 1949: origins and current significance
Adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols
Development of modern international humanitarian law
In images More images

Film
International humanitarian law: a universal code
Photo gallery
Rules to limit suffering in war Publications More publications
Distinction: Protecting civilians in armed conflict
A concise overview of the requirements of all parties to an armed conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants, civilian objects and military targets.
The Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949
Full text of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

Share | Back to topSend pageLargerSmallerAll related pages

Annual Report
States party to the Geneva Conventions
487 KB
Map of States party to the Geneva Conventions
445 KB
Document printed from the web site of the ICRC
/eng/index.jsp

© 2010 International Committee of the Red Cross
HomeWho we areWhat we doWhere we workWar & LawResource centreSite mapAbout this siteCopyrightPrivacy policyRSS feedsContactsLast update: 18-02-11

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp

Strongly recommned: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Gene Sharp

GENE SHARP: Theoretician of Nonviolence Extraordinaire

Below are two links to Sharp. The first link is a down loadable PDF free book. The next is his web site.

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pd

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations98ce.html

His writings have inspired countless numbers of people and are presently being used as a guide to the peoples’ revolts such as in Egypt.
If you want to know what the word “comprehensive” means, check out the 3 vols. of Sharp’s The Politics of Nonviolent Action.
It’s time we applied Sharp to our situation in America as well.


CIVILIAN BASED DEFENSE
Scholarly articles for civilian based defense

… The potential of civilian-based deterrence and defense - Sharp - Cited by 32
Civilian-based defense in a new era - Holst - Cited by 7
… ) as a specific defense against biological weapons - Casadevall - Cited by 98
►
Search Results
1. 025 Civilian-Based Defense - The Albert Einstein Institution
Civilian-Based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System by Gene Sharp ... For Further Reading on Civilian-Based Defense ...
www.aeinstein.org/organizationsd7c2.html - Cached - Similar
2. [PDF]
CIVILIAN-BASED DEFENSE
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Improvised Nonviolent Struggle and Civilian-based Defense ...
www.aeinstein.org/.../org/.../Civilian-Based%20Defense%20-%20English.pdf
Show more results from aeinstein.org
3. Nonviolence & Civilian-Based Defense
This article explores the potential of civilian-based defense—the technique of defending a nation's social institutions using strategic nonviolent action. ...
www.fragmentsweb.org/stuff/nvwar.html - Cached - Similar
4. Gene Sharp Lecture MP3 Audio
Civilian-Based Defense, Sharp suggests, may provide an effective nonviolent ...
www.fragmentsweb.org/fourtx/sharplec.html - Cached - Similar
Show more results from fragmentsweb.org
5. Civilian-Based Defense: A Short History
The effect of King-Hall's proposal and the subsequent discussion represented a turning point in the development of the civilian-based defense concept; ...
pbogdonoff.home.igc.org/cbdhist.html - Cached - Similar
6. The Memory Hole: Civilian-Based Defense
This association "is a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1982 to promote widespread consideration of civilian-based defense (CBD) and to engage ...
tmh.floonet.net/cbd2.html - Cached - Similar
7. Amazon.com: Civilian-Based Defense: A Post-Military Weapons System ...
"Two things are certain about the future of politics and international relations," writes Gene Sharp. "Conflict is inevitable, and effective defense will be ...
www.amazon.com › ... › Law › Criminal Law › Law Enforcement - Cached
8. civilian-based defense « Will's Way
Aug 9, 2010 ... Sharp then introduces the concept of “civilian-based defense,” in contrast to “military-based defense.” He points out many surprising ...
willdoherty.org/wordpress/?cat=34 - Cached - Similar
9. The Metta Center – Civilian-Based Defense
Civilian-Based Defense. A nonviolent form of defense against invasion or internal overthrow of a regime. This technique was well documented and made ...
www.mettacenter.org/definitions/civilian-based-defense-cbd - Cached
10. Feminists look at civilian-based defense, by Schweik Action Wollongong
Feminists look at civilian-based defense, an article by Schweik Action Wollongong, published in Civilian-Based Defense, Spring 2001, providing a survey of ...
www.bmartin.cc/pubs/01cbd.html - Cached



Civilian-Based Defense AssociationFrom SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search
Civilian-Based Defense Association (CBD) "is a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1982 to promote widespread consideration of civilian-based defense (CBD) and to engage in educational activities to bring CBD to public attention.
"CBD means protecting a nation against invasions or coups d'etat by preparing its citizens to resist aggression or usurpation by withholding cooperation and by active noncooperation rather than military force. Tactics include strikes, encouraging invading forces to desert, encouraging other countries to use sanctions against the invader, etc. Citizens would learn how to use CBD before aggression starts, which distinguishes it from spontaneous resistance. Prior preparation and publicity would enhance its effectiveness and also make it a deterrent to attack." [1]
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Board of Directors [2]
• 2 Contact
• 3 Resources and articles
o 3.1 Related Sourcewatch
o 3.2 References

Board of Directors [2]
• David Gallahan
• Colleen Morken
• Philip Mouch
• Suzanne Pearce
Contact
Web: http://www.civilianbaseddefense.org/
Resources and articles
Related Sourcewatch
• Albert Einstein Institution
• Christopher Kruegler
• Brian Martin
References
1. ↑ Home Page, CBD, accessed July 13, 2007.
2. ↑ About, CBD, accessed July 13, 2007.



Albert Einstein Institution
From SourceWatch
Jump to: navigation, search


The Albert Einstein Institution (AEI) as described in its own website:
Founded in 1983 by Dr. Gene Sharp, The Albert Einstein Institution is dedicated to advancing the study and use of strategic nonviolent action in conflicts throughout the world. It is committed to the defense of freedom, democracy, and the reduction of political violence through the use of nonviolent action.
To further its mission, the Institution has supported research projects (for examples, see our publications section), actively consulted with resistance and pro-democracy groups (including groups in Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, Serbia, and the Occupied Territories), and worked to publicize the power and potential of nonviolent struggle around the world through educational materials, analyses, translations, workshops, and media visibility.[1]
In 1989, "The Einstein Institution’s Board of Directors, meeting in September, approved a grant of $6,000 to the Civilian-Based Defense Association, a one hundred percent increase over last year’s funding level. The grant is specifically to provide general support for the production and distribution of the Association’s newsletter, Civilian-Based Defense: News and Opinion." [2]
In 1995, AEI noted that "The Program on Nonviolent Sanctions, which receives financial support from the Albert Einstein Institution, has now joined with the Cultural Survival Center, the research arm of Cultural Survival, a human rights organization, to run the Program on Nonviolent Sanctions and Cultural Survival (PNSCS) at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs." [3]
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Funding
• 2 People
o 2.1 Principals
o 2.2 Board of Directors
o 2.3 Staff
o 2.4 Advisors (1993-1999)
• 3 Former Directors (1990)
• 4 Contact information
• 5 Articles and Resources
o 5.1 Related SourceWatch Articles
o 5.2 References
o 5.3 External Articles

Celebrate Presidents' Day February 21?

What is Presidents' Day?
Presidents Day (or Presidents' Day), is the common name for the federal holiday officially designated as Washington's Birthday. As the first federal holiday to honor an American citizen, the holiday was celebrated on Washington's actual birthday in 1796 (the last full year of his presidency) on February 22.

While the holiday is still officially known as Washington's Birthday, it has become popularly known as "President's Day", honoring both Washington and Lincoln, as well as all the other men who have served as president.

ALL the other presidents? We wish to honor all the presidents equally with Washington and Lincoln? I doubt if Washington and Lincoln would like that.

Would make an interesting book. But let’s focus just on President Bush. George Washington helped craft a Constitution notable for its balance of powers among executive, judicial, and congressional. If any imbalance were considered, the Founders believed the Congress should be the leading branch. But modern U.S. history is equally signalized by the steadily increasing executive power at the expense of the other two. “The separation of powers,” writes Chalmers Johnson in Nemesis, “that the Founders wrote into our Constitution as the main bulwark against dictatorship increasingly appears to be a dead letter.” “Congress [is] no longer capable of asserting itself against presidential attempts to monopolize power.”

Let us forget Presidents’ Day February 21 therefore and return to a joyful commemoration of Washington’s Birthday February 22, for Washington and our other Founders, “envisioned a supreme legislative branch as the heart and soul of America’s central government….America’s modern presidency, with all its trappings, would be unimaginable to men like Madison, Washington, and Franklin.” The intent of the Founders was to prevent a recurrence of the tyranny they had endured under Britain’s King George III. The result was the US Constitution with its sophisticated scheme to balance power in a republic.

References
Berkin, Carol. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the Constitution. Johnson, Chalmers. Nemesis:The Last Days of the American Republic. 2006.

THOSE WHO KNOW

Gary Wills, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State. Penguin, 2010. Wills reveals how the atomic bomb transformed our nation down to its deepest constitutional roots by dramtically increasing the power of the modern presidency and redefining the government as a National Security State. He draws a direct line from the Manhattan Project to the usurpations of future presidents and particularly to George W. Bush.

Joe Conason, It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush. Dunne/St. Marti's, 2007. Presidential power has expanded in the direction of dictatorship. Take Pres. Nixon: he and the Republican Party had perverted the electoral process, the law enforcement system, and government itself in a manner the nation had not seen before. He dismissed congressional authority: by impounding funds appropriated for purposes he didn't approve,reorganizing the government without consulting the Congress that had created those departments, and by circumventing Congress in his conduct of war in Vietnam and Cambodia. Add wiretapping, burglaries, infiltrations of antiwar groups, espionage against Democratic campaigns, misue of the IRS and Justice Dept., dirty tricks of every description, bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury, and all financed by illegal corporate slush funds. (pp. 168-69). And later generations of Republicans have sought to vindicate Nixon by further expanding his authoritarian vision of executive power. And they were often enable by the Democrats.

Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals. Doubleday, 2008. President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, his adviser David Addington, and others used the post-9/11 crisis to further their long-held agenda to enhance presidential powers to a degree never known in U.S. history and to obliterate constitutional protections that define the very essence of the American experiment in constitutional government.

Jack Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgement INside the Bush Administration. Norton, 2007.

Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, Sorrows of Empire, Nemesis (the "Blowback" Trilogy). Esp. see

Robert Scheer, The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hjiacked 9/11 and Weakened America. Hachette, 2008. Esp. the final chapter, “Empire VS. Republic.”


February 17, 2011

“Democracy Uprising” in the U.S.A.?: Noam Chomsky on Wisconsin’s Resistance to Assault on Public Sector, the Obama-Sanctioned Crackdown on Activists, and the Distorted Legacy of Ronald ReaganShare8256
World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discusses several domestic issues in the United States, including the protests in defense of public sector employees and unions in Wisconsin, how the U.S. deification of former President Ronald Reagan resembles North Korea, and the crackdown on political activists with anti-terror laws and FBI raids.
To watch this Conversation google Democracy Now, Feb. 17, 2011.

And see Dick's Post on Ronald Reagan.


A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA and the PUBLIC
So let us speak out against these unconstitutional usurpations of power by the executive branch, and speak up to President Obama not to repeat them, but to reverse them, and return our government to one of separation of powers as our Founders had intended. But if Roger Hodge in The Mendacity of Hope: Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism is correct--that substantive reform was never on Obama's table, that behind Obama's election was a business-as-usual corporate machine, a bloc of political investors, campaign contributors, and lobbyists expecting big returns on their investments--then our only hope for reform is public revolt.

ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO PRESIDENTS' DAY February 21:

DAISY BATES DAY
Daisy Bates Holiday

Arkansas Honors a Remarkable Woman

Forty four years after Daisy Bates broke the color barrier by aiding nine Little Rock students in entering Central High, Governor Mike Huckabee honored her life by declaring the third Monday in February the Daisy Gatson Bates Holiday.

Daisy Bates was instrumental in organizing, inspiring and assisting the Little Rock nine in 1957 when Central High was integrated. Recently, the street that runs parallel to Central High was named in her honor.

On February 19, 2001, a state holiday was also named in her honor. The third Monday in February of every year (the same day as President's Day) will now also be Daisy Gatson Bates day in Arkansas.

Arkansas is the first state to honor an African American female with a state holiday. Daisy Bates would have been proud to again be the driving force behind one more small step for racial equality in Arkansas. However, as the Governor was quick to point out, we still have a long way to go.

On this day, the Governor also participated in the ceremonial ground breaking for the new Central High Commemorative Garden. This Garden will contain a monument to Central High. It is across the street from the Central High Museum & Central High.

World War Warming: Global Warming Genocide

WORLD WAR WARMING by Robert McAfee

I am preparing a keynote address for the 5th International Environmental Congress at Clarion University located in Clarion, PA (about 1 hour NE of Pittsburg). My focus will be on how the developed world is basically committing global warming genocide against the developing world (primarily Africa). It’s really a new imperialism like the European powers did in the 19th century. Tentatively I have titled this presentation: WWW: World War Warming (The CO2 Reduction Imperialism and Climate Change Genocide). We must reduce our carbon emissions to below 350PPM. But such ambitious goals must be closely related to environmental justice issues to avoid the industrial nations ‘colonization’ of the earth’s atmosphere: they taking the lion’s share of carbon allotments and leaving the rest of the world with very little.

Does this make any sense to you? I would be most grateful for your comments and suggestions.

Here’s an outline.

1. Introduction (basically lay out the message as I wrote about above)
2. Global Warming Overview – every presentation I give will have a basic discussion of how we know global warming is happening and that it is primarily caused by man’s activities. This must be said over and over and over – and the urgency of 350PPM or below.
3. Bearing the Burden of a Warming Planet & Global Warming Genocide. The increased warming and resulting climate changes come from the developed world and the majority of impacts affect the developing world.
4. CO2 Imperialism. The Western nations want all to make reductions in CO2 at the same rate. But these western nations have already gobbled up the lion’s share of the carbon dioxide emissions over the past 2 centuries. This is an immoral and unjust allocation.
5. Equitable Remedies. The western world must impose stringent rationing, rapidly become carbon neutral and share their wealth and knowledge to allow the developing nations the resources to create clean / renewable energy and sustainable economies.
6. Conclusion.
Thanks,
Robert

(The speech will appear in Robert's E-newsletter 350 PPM and here. Dick)

US Democracy: Roman or British Empire?

"If we choose to keep our empire, as the Roman Republic did, we will certainly lose our democracy....There is an alternative, however. We could, like the British Empire after World War II, keep our democracy by giving up our empire." Johnson, Nemesis

US DEMOCRACY: LOSSES AND GAINS

This compilation offerS but a glimpse of losses and gains. Eventually, sooner the better, a book should appear that assesses the entire record. Let me know if you see it.

LOSSES

Contents
US Dismantled: Examples
Paul Craig Roberts: US Becoming Fascist
Citizens United Case Corporate Victory
Public Citizen Resistance
Noam Chomsky

LTE ON US DEMOCRACY BECOMING/BECOME DICTATORSHIP
You too have wondered: Is our country becoming less democratic? Paul Craig Roberts recently described the US as an “incipient fascist state.” That bad? Or worse? So I have been gathering evidence to help me decide: Is our Constitution being deliberately dismantled? The following examples from politics from the last decade are a few of the many found in Johnson’s book, Nemesis. I am also collecting examples from economics, the power of money over a democracy. What do you think? Send me your examples, of gains as well as losses.

2000
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the election of 2000 naming George W. Bush the 43rd president and decisions that followed according to columnist George Will exhibited “a monarchical doctrine.” What were those decisions?

Post 9-11
The Supreme Court refused “even to consider whether the Bush Administration had the legal standing to round up well over a thousand foreigners in the United States in the wake of 9/11 and keep all details of their cases secret, including their names and the charges, if any, against them.” That is, “’the government arrested more than a thousand people in secret, and the courts let them get away with it….There is no accountability for the abuses, and secrecy allowed the abuses.’ Not one of those arrested turned out to have the slightest connection to the 9/11 attacks.”


October 12, 2001
“Attorney General John Ashcroft sent a memo to all federal agencies urging them to bring every excuse they could think of to bear in turning down Freedom of Information requests. He offered agency heads backing on the stance.”


November 1, 2001
President Bush issued Executive Order 13233 countermanding the Congressional Presidential Records Act of 1978 that had made the papers of a former president public property upon his leaving office. EO 13233 gave Bush and former presidents the right to veto requests to see his presidential records.

October 2002
Congress voted “to give the president unrestricted power to use any means, including military force and nuclear weapons, in a preventive strike against Iraq whenever he—and he alone—deemed it ‘appropriate.’”

Johnson, Chalmers. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. Metropolitan, 2006. 60, 244, 247, 248,
Roberts, Paul Craig. https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12d3fe91aa67ac5c


Paul Craig Roberts | Incipient Fascist State
Paul Craig Roberts, Reader Supported News
Intro: "Anyone who doesn't believe that the US is an incipient fascist state needs only to consult the latest assault on civil liberty by Fox News (sic). Instead of informing citizens, Fox News (sic) informs on citizens. Jason Ditz reports (antiwar.com Dec. 28) that Fox News (sic) 'no longer content to simply shill for a growing police state,' turned in a grandmother to the Department of Homeland Security for making 'anti-American comments.'"
READ MORE https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/12d3fe91aa67ac5c
See Roberts’ essay below.

CITIZENS UNITED CASE: SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS ELECTION CONSTRAINTS OVER MONEY
Supreme Court ruling overturns a century of law and paves the way for corporations to spend unlimited amounts on direct campaigns to elect or defeat federal candidates.

RESISTANCE
publiccitizen@mail.democracyinaction.org
an e-newsletter about the movement to curb corporate influence in politics and restore our democracy
Issue #38 • November 12, 2010
"Money and Democracy Update" is Public Citizen’s weekly e-newsletter about the intersection of money and politics. It is part of our ongoing campaign to track the results of—and ultimately overturn—the Supreme Court’s reckless decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows for-profit corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to support or attack political candidates. We’ll update you regularly with select news stories and blog posts, legislative developments and ways to get involved…..
Visit www.DontGetRolled.org to learn more!
To get regular e-alerts about opportunities for activism and other ways to help with Public Citizen's work, sign up for the Public Citizen Action Network. To unsubscribe, go to http://action.citizen.org/unsubscribe.jsp.
Contribute | © 2010 Public Citizen | Take Action



See NOAM CHOMSKY’S ESSAY BELOW


GAINS
Contents
Citizenship
Media Transparency I: Disclose Act
Media Transparency II: Wikileaks



WHAT IS A CITIZEN? A FREUDIAN ANALYSIS
We are all responsible for the quality of our political system.
That responsibility includes being informed and acting on your knowledge.
For a democracy to survive, its informed citizens must lead. But do they wish to? What forces hinder their engagement in the work of sustaining a democracy? Why are people drawn to Hitler and to all the other agents of collective intoxication?
In his late writings Sigmund Freud explored these questions. In books like Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego and Totem and Taboo, Freud analyzed the power of dominant leaders.
His model of the human mind is the first step toward understanding. We are not mentally unified beings. Rather, we are composed of diverse, conflicting energies, which he called id, superego, and ego (roughly emotional desires, religious beliefs/ conscience, and reason).
This conflicting inner world or psyche creates confusion and anxiety. Mature persons work to understand themselves and gain self-awareness by bringing their natures into a balance, a balance of tensions, personal and political. A dynamic inner and political life must involve continuing tensions—controversy, difference.

But many people seek to completely allay the pain of inner tensions and efforts to resolve them via various intoxicants. They seek the inner peace of wholeness through temporary shortcuts—wine, romantic love, fundamentalist religion. And strong, masterful leaders.

The Hitlers of the world make the struggle to bring our natures into mature balance unnecessary by providing a sense of wholeness and security. They become the new, improved super-ego at the expense of the other inner energies, offering to individuals simple, clear, consistent, absolute, unified values—one code, one fundamental way of being. The leader focuses our energies by resolving our doubts and identifying our enemies. And the immature populace, fleeing the tensions of self-awareness, respond gratefully by embracing tyrant and tyranny, loving the homeland, blaming scapegoats, and feeling enhanced by imperial ambitions and aggressions.

Our strongest and most lasting foundation against totalitarians or terrorists with the same goals, is not to seek reassurance through a powerful, external stand-in, but to continue our inner and outer struggle with complexity, which promises self-and political understanding and autonomy.

The best prevention of Hitlers on every level is the informed, mature citizen.


MEDIA TRANSPARENCY I
League’s Support of DISCLOSE Act Passage Elicits Great Media Coverage
Last week, the League hailed the passage of campaign finance legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives as the first step in achieving greater transparency in U.S. elections in this press release. In response to the League’s advocacy and outreach efforts, the New York Times, Baltimore Sun, and Business Week were among the media citing the League’s support of the DISCLOSE Act.


MEDIA TRANSPARENCY II: WIKILEAKS
JULIAN ASSANGE OF WIKILEAKS
Learning about the hero behind the Wikileaks helps us understand that a transparent government tends to be a just government. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now interviews Julian Assange, peace hero and founder of Wikileaks
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/28/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_transparent_government


LOSSES CONTINUED
Fascism Coming to a Court Near You
“The Rule Of Law Has Been Lost” By Paul Craig Roberts 1-21-10
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. His new book, How the Economy was Lost, will be published next month by AK Press / CounterPunch. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

What is the greatest human achievement? Many would answer in terms of some architectural or engineering feat: The Great Pyramids, skyscrapers, a bridge span, or sending men to the moon. Others might say the subduing of some deadly disease or Einstein's theory of relativity.
The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.
The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English speaking peoples the most free in the world.
In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.
As Lawrence Stratton and I show in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), the protective features of law in the U.S. were eroded in the twentieth century by prosecutorial abuse and by setting aside law in order to better pursue criminals. By the time of our second edition (2008), law as a shield of the people no longer existed. Respect for the Constitution and rule of law had given way to executive branch claims that during time of war government is not constrained by law or Constitution.
Government lawyers told President Bush that he did not have to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits the government from spying on citizens without a warrant, thus destroying the right to privacy. The U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the President did not have to obey U.S. law prohibiting torture or the Geneva Conventions. Habeas corpus protection, a Constitutional right, was stripped from U.S. citizens. Medieval dungeons, torture, and the windowless cells of Stalin's Lubyanka Prison reappeared under American government auspices.
The American people's elected representatives in Congress endorsed the executive branch's overthrow of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Law schools and bar associations were essentially silent in the face of this overthrow of mankind's greatest achievement. Some parts of the federal judiciary voted with the executive branch; other parts made a feeble resistance. Today in the name of "the war on terror," the executive branch does whatever it wants. There is no accountability.
The First Amendment has been abridged and may soon be criminalized. Protests against, and criticisms of, the U.S. government's illegal invasions of Muslim countries and war crimes against civilian populations have been construed by executive branch officials as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy." As American citizens have been imprisoned for giving aid to Muslim charities that the executive branch has decreed, without proof in a court of law, to be under the control of "terrorists," any form of opposition to the government's wars and criminal actions can also be construed as aiding terrorists and be cause for arrest and indefinite detention.
One Obama appointee, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, advocates that the U.S. government create a cadre of covert agents to infiltrate anti-war groups and groups opposed to U.S.government policies in order to provoke them into actions or statements for which they can be discredited and even arrested.
Sunstein defines those who criticize the government's increasingly lawless behavior as "extremists," which, to the general public, sounds much like "terrorists." In essence, Sunstein wants to generalize the F.B.I.'s practice of infiltrating dissidents and organizing them around a "terrorist plot" in order to arrest them. That this proposal comes from a Harvard Law School professor demonstrates the collapse of respect for law among American law professors themselves, ranging from John Yoo at Berkeley, the advocate of torture, to Sunstein at Harvard, a totalitarian who advocates war on the First Amendment.
The U.S. Department of State has taken up Sunstein's idea. Last month Eva Golinger reported in the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, that the State Department plans to organize youth in "Twitter Revolutions" to destabilize countries and bring about regime change in order to achieve more American puppet states, such as the ones in Egypt, Jordan, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Columbia, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic states, Britain, and Western and Eastern Europe.
The First Amendment is being closed down. Its place is being taken by propaganda in behalf of whatever government does. As Stratton and I wrote in the second edition of our book documenting the destruction of law in the United States:
"Never in its history have the American people faced such danger to their constitutional protections as they face today from those in the government who hold the reins of power and from elements of the legal profession and the federal judiciary that support 'energy in the executive.' An assertive executive backed by an aggressive U.S. Department of Justice (sic) and unobstructed by a supine Congress and an intimidated corporate media has demonstrated an ability to ignore statutory law and public opinion. The precedents that have been set during the opening years of the twenty-first century bode ill for the future of American liberty."
Similar assaults on the rule of law can be observed in England. However, the British have not completely given up on accountable government. The Chilcot Inquiry is looking into how Britain was deceived into participating in the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. President Obama, of course, has blocked any inquiry into how the U.S. was deceived into attacking Iraq in violation of law.
Much damning information has come out about Blair's deception of the British government and people. Sir David Manning, foreign policy advisor to Blair, told the Chilcot Inquiry that Blair had promised Bush support for the invasion almost a year in advance. Blair had told his country that it was a last minute call based on proof of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Sir William Patey told the inquiry that President Bush began talking about invading Iraq six or seven months prior to September 11, 2001. A devastating official memo has come to light from Lord Goldsmith, Prime Minister Blair's top law official, advising Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be in breach of international law.
Now a secret and personal letter to Prime Minister Blair from his Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has surfaced. In the letter, the Foreign Secretary warned the Prime Minister that his case for military invasion of Iraq was of dubious legality and was likely as false as the argument that removing Saddam Hussein would bring Iraqis a better life.
Blair himself must now testify. He has the reputation, whether deserved or not, as one of the slickest liars in the world. But some accountability seems to be heading his way. The Sunday Times (London) reported on January 17 that the latest poll indicates that 52 percent of the British people believe that Blair deliberately misled his country in order to take Britain to war for the Americans. About one quarter of the British people think Blair should be put on trial as a war criminal.
Unlike the U.S., which takes care to keep the government unaccountable to law, Britain is a member of the International Criminal Court, so Blair does stand some risk of being held accountable for the war crimes of President George W. Bush's regime and the U.S. Congress.
In contrast, insouciant Americans are content for their government to behave illegally. A majority supports torture despite its illegality, and a McClatchy-Ipsos poll found that 51 percent of Americans agree that "it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism."
As our Founding Fathers warned, fools who give up liberty for security will have neither.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. His new book, How the Economy was Lost, will be published next month by AK Press / CounterPunch. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com


CHOMSKY’S LECTURE ON US DEMOCRACY AT RIVERSIDE CHURCH, JUNE 12, 2009, excerpted by Amy Goodman, Democracy Now, June 13 on CAT. Google Democracy Now
Noam Chomsky on “Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours”

Noam Chomsky, the MIT professor, author and dissident intellectual, just turned eighty years old this past December. He has written over 100 books, but despite being called “the most important intellectual alive” by the New York Times, he is rarely heard in the corporate media. We spend the hour with Noam Chomsky. He spoke recently here in New York at an event sponsored by the Brecht Forum. More than 2,000 people packed into Riverside Church in Harlem to hear his address, titled “Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours.” In his talk, Chomsky discussed the global economic crisis, the environment, wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, resistance to American empire and much more.
LISTEN
WATCH
Real Video Stream
Real Audio Stream
MP3 Download
More…

Noam Chomsky, speaking at Riverside Church in Harlem on June 12, 2009.
AMY GOODMAN: Today, a Democracy Now! special with one of the most important dissident intellectuals of our time, Noam Chomsky.
Born December 7th, 1928, in Philadelphia, by the age of ten he was writing an extended essay against fascism and about the Spanish Civil War. At fourteen, he was in New York, getting his education, as he tells it, in the back of the 72nd Street subway station, where his uncle ran a newspaper stand. The front of the subway station, that’s where people ran in and out buying newspapers quickly. But at the back, a little less trafficked, that’s where people stopped and had political discussions about the news in the papers they did or didn’t buy.
At sixteen, he was at the University of Pennsylvania, where he got his doctorate. He became a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the age of twenty-six. He remained there for more than half a century and continues to teach there today.
While Professor Chomsky broke new ground as a world-renowned linguist, shattering all previous paradigms, he was also taking on the war in Vietnam. Throughout his life, he spoke out against US imperialism, from Vietnam to the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, from the death squads in Latin America to the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and now to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Noam Chomsky turned eighty years old this past December. He has written over a hundred books. But despite being called "the most important intellectual alive today” by the New York Times, he is rarely heard or quoted in the mainstream media.
Today we spend the hour with Noam Chomsky. He spoke recently here in New York at an event sponsored by the Brecht Forum. More than 2,000 people packed into the Riverside Church in Harlem to hear his address. The title of his talk, “Crisis and Hope: Theirs and Ours.” This is Noam Chomsky.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, let me say a couple of words about the title, which, as always, is shorthand. There’s too much nuance and variety to make any sharp distinction between us and them. And, of course, neither I nor anyone else can presume to speak for us. But I’ll pretend it’s possible…….

SEEKING HOPE IN A RENEWED DEMOCRACY by Dick Bennett
Self-examination as an important and even essential value for individual and political understanding goes way back to 4th century Greece, and is justifiably respected today. In fact, the Quakers themselves are varying their statements. A letter from the AFSC dated May 1, 2008, begins with these words: “I want to live in a better world. I want to live in a society where ‘peace’ means more than the absence of violence. Where it means financial and cultural security….” We all recognize at once the tactic sometimes today called “framing.” In Greek and Roman rhetorical education (and continuing today), it was part of the training in how to speak and write persuasively: you must consider your audience, especially your opponent. An ancient rhetorical tactic is to employ the terms of your opponent as a bridge (or tunnel) into your opponent’s position. Today the US is obsessed with security, thanks to the constant enemy-creating fear-mongering of our National Security State. Hence in the letter the General Secretary of the AFSC, Mary Ellen McNish, in addition to defining “peace” in traditional Quaker language of “human rights and dignity,” adds “financial and cultural security.” “This [human rights/dignity and security] is the vision and goal” of the AFSC, declares her third sentence (my emphasis).
But the values-experimenting by the Quakers in 2008 doesn’t end there. In a card sent to contributors, the FCNL inside quoted lines quoted above but changing “liberty” to “equity”: “equity and justice for all.” And on the outer page of the card is written: “Let us then try what love can do to mend a broken world.” Dignity, security, equity, love--the Quakers are revising and inventing, trying out alternative concepts. Let us follow their lead.

Another important value is that of democracy. In Democracy’s Edge Frances Moore Lappe describes movements “that not only seek to restore the long arc of justice but are potentially extending it to democracy’s next historical stage—a more inclusive, pervasive, vibrant democracy.” She draws hope from the growth of truthful information gradually enlarging the informed citizenry. People know (she is writing in 2005) that eleven million children in the world’s richest nation face hunger and that wages are so low that one in four working families face financial hardship. Part of this new, alert electorate is the growing awareness (not with cynicism but with realism) of the incompetence and greed of many leaders. “The 1980s savings and loan scandal and the 1990s implosion of corporate giants like Enron and Tyco revealed shocking arrogance and ethical blindness.” And going to war on worthless and fabricated intelligence, without planning to secure the peace, bringing about the deaths of thousands of our own troops and of perhaps a million Iraqis, ”have forced Americans to face up to bad faith at the highest levels.”

A momentous consequence of these failures at the top (a recognition that began before the U.S. and French Revolutions) is the demystification of authority and the empowering of the rest of us. Could we—everyday people using our ability to become informed and to act on our knowledge and moral standards—do better? With this question, the revolution of the people began, eventually producing citizen organizations like OMNI, and the insistence on life-giving-and-sharing values.

Out of this confidence in ourselves that We, the People might create a better world, comes the recognition of life-affirming values: nonviolence, world peace, liberty, justice, rights, love, stewardship (from faith peace traditions, The Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Earth Charter). We have lived through a darkening eight years that opposed these values. We now anticipate their rebirth, but if we are to have a living democracy, we must be its instrument.

OK, now it’s your turn.

DISMANTLING DEMOCRACY, REBUILDING DEMOCRACY
OMNI BOOK FORUM, FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 2009, Nightbird Books, 6:30.
Elections alone do not make a democracy. In the first place, President Obama has no intention of changing the existing institutions, but only to improve some of them. The US National Security State will remain unchallenged, just as it was by the major party candidates (except for Cong. Kucinich) during the recent presidential campaign. And in those areas of power that Pres. Obama has challenged, the same powerful, wealthy interests that hijacked our government during the past eight years are still entrenched in Washington, DC., as we have seen during the first two months of his presidency. Therefore, OMNI is still needed to advance alternatives to the Corporate (money)-Pentagon (money, patriotism)-White House-Congress-Mainstream Media-Education Complex (which is what Pres. Eisenhower would write in his Farewell Address today). OMNI engages our fellow citizens as truthfully as it can regarding the realities of power in our country, and we call upon an informed citizenry to resist the established power of the complex. Our Book Forums are only one of numerous actions we have constructed to challenge the corporate/military USA by engaging the public to become real citizens, as President Obama said during his election victory speech, by embracing “a new spirit of patriotism of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.” For eight years OMNI has not only called for such change, but we have provided concrete programs and service for accomplishing it.
And our call has been to the people—We, the People—to build a constitutional nation of, by, and for the people. We stand with Frances Moore Lappe. This is a “development essential to Living Democracy—a deepening appreciation of the capacities of those at the ‘bottom.’ With ‘regular’ people stepping out in their communities—becoming knowledgeable in arcane matters from banking to federal communications policy—our expectations grow as to the legitimate role of those without official authority” ( Democracy’s Edge). And with Paul Loeb, who in Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time (1999) introduced us to many ordinary citizens who have found fulfillment in social involvement.
The purpose of this panel is to identify specifically the major causes and features of the disintegration of our representative government and the major requirements for its rebuilding. Two panelists will discuss books about the dismantling, and two will present books that set forth the needed restorations.
OMNI BOOK FORUM ON DEMOCRACY
FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 6:30, NIGHTBIRD BOOKS
Panelists and Books:
DEMOCRACY DISMANTLED
Claire Detels: Johnson, Chalmers. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. 2006.
Amjad Faur: Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals. 2008.
DEMOCRACY REBUILT
Lindsley Smith: Ann Fagan Ginger, The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is the Law: A Guide to U.D.H.R. Articles in Treaties Ratified by the U.S. 2008. (Other books by Ginger: Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11. 2005. Undoing the Bush-Cheney Legacy: A Took Kit for Congress & Activists. 2008. )
Thomas Markham. Susan Rosenthal, Power and Powerlessness. 2006.

Dick will draw attention to these books:
Frances Moore Lappe, Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life. 2006. Democracy must be of, BY, and for the People.
Tavis Smiley, Accountable: Making America As Good As Its Promise. 2009. A compendium of Pres. Obama’s promises.

BOOKS
Following: See a sampling of the rich exposes of the dismantling, and of the rebuilding.
RECENT BOOKS on LOSSES AND GAINS
--Cochran, Augustus III. Democracy Heading South.
--Herbst, Susan. Rude Democracy: Civility and Incivility in American Politics. Temple UP, 2010.
--Judt, Tony. Ill Fares the Land. Penguin, 2010. Rev. Harper’s Magazine (June 2010). Surveys the social calamities of the last 2 decades of lost collective action for social justice, and makes an appeal for a return to social-democratic ideals.
--Posner, Richard. The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy. Harvard UP, 2010. Follow-up on his A Failure of Capitalism.
--Williams, Terry Tempest. Finding Beauty in a Broken World and the Open Space of Democracy. Inter. Democracy Now (10-21-10).





DISMANTLING
Bennett, Control of Information in the United States (1987) and Control of the Media in the United States (1992). Annotated bibliographies.

Bennett, James R. Political Prisoners and Trials…Bibliography, 1900 through 1993. Pp. 267-304 on US. Although US leaders have proclaimed their support for human rights in all nations, they are themselves guilty of massive human rights violations against people around the world and have embraced as allies countries guilty of similar crimes. Furthermore, US officials have imprisoned thousands of their own citizens for their beliefs—not only communists and socialists, but trade unionists, suffragettes, conscientious objectors, civil rights protestors, and on and on.

Brightman, Carol. Total Insecurity: The Myth of American Omnipotence. Unchecked corporate and executive political power and obsession with security has created a permanent state of war and war economy.

Brock, David. The Republican Noise Machine: Right Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy. 2004.

Buchanan, Patrick. Where the Right Went Wrong. Indictment of GOP leaders and Bush White House for abandoning principles in the pursuit of power.

Byrd, Robert, Sen. Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency. 2004. (Subject of an earlier Forum.)

Carroll, James. House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power. 2006. (Subject of an earlier Forum.)

Carter, Jimmy.Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis. Strong defense of separation of church and state.

Chomsky, Noam. Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9-11 World. Interviews on Iraq, preemptive strikes, US vs. peace of the world, etc.

Cohn, Marjorie. Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. 2007. (Earlier Forum).
Conason, Joe. It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush. 2007.
Dowd, Maureen. Bushworld: Enter at Your Own Risk. Bush admin.’s fractured adventures in empire-building.
House Democratic Judiciary Committee Staff. The Constitution in Crisis: The High Crimes of the Bush Administration and a Blueprint for Impeachment.
Giroux, Henry. The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex. 2007. On the “anti-democratic forces of militarization, corporatism, and patriotic correctness” that now dominate US universities. The book fits just as well under Resistance/Rebuilding, for it is a “defense of the university as a democratic public sphere.”
Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. How an increasingly bellicose fundamentalism is gaining traction throughout our national life through right-wing evangelical culture and the Republican party.
Hedges, Chris. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. 2006.
Hightower, Jim. If the Gods Had Meant Us To Vote They Would Have Given Us Candidates.
Holtzman, Elizabeth with Cynthia Cooper. The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens. 2006.
Johnson, Chalmers. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. 2006.
Johnston, David Cay. Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themsleves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill). 2007. (Discussed at US Capitalism Forum).
Kaiser, Robert. “So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government.” 2008.
Kennedy, Robert F., Jr. Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy. Bush and his corporate cronies threaten our health, national security, and democracy.
Krugman, Paul. The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century. Norton, 2003.

Lerner, Michael. The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country from the Religious Right. The destructive alliance of the Religious Right and the Political Right.

Lindorff, Dave and Barbara Olshansky. The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing Presieent George W. Bush from Office. 2006.

Loo, Dennis & Peter Phillips, eds. Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush and Cheney. 2006.
Mailer, Norman. Why Are We at War? Analyzes George W. Bush’s quest for empire. Norman Mailer, one of the greatest authors of our time, lays bare the White House’s position on why war in Iraq is necessary and justified. By scrutinizing the administration’s words and actions leading up to the current crisis, Mailer carefully builds his case that Bush is pursuing war not in the name of security or anti-terrorism or human rights but in an undeclared yet fully realized ambition of global empire.

Mann, James. The Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet. 2004.
*Jane Mayer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of how the War on Terror Turned i nto a War on American Ideals (2008). (Amjad Faur). An account of how US leaders made ruinous decisions in the pursuit of terrorists around the world—decisions that not only violated the Constitution but also hampered the pursuit of Al Qaeda.
Moyers, Bill. Moyers on America: A Journalist and His times. Democracy has been replaced by government of, by, and for the corporate ruling class.
Palast, Greg. Armed Madhouse. BBC reporter reveals Bush’s plans for seizing Iraq’s oil, exams War on Terror, Kerry won 2002 election, and more.
Rampton, Sheldon and John Stauber. Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning America into a One-Party State. Penguin, 2004.

Rasmus, Jack. The War at Home: The Corporate Offensive from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. 2006.

Rich, Frank. The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth in Bush’s America. A step by step chronicle of how the White House built its souse of cards, and how the institutions that should have exposed these fictions, esp. the mainstream news media, failed.

Risen, James. State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. The scandals show how power works in Bush’s presidency.

Ritter, Scott. Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change. A sound US-Iranian relationship based on mutual respect, non-aggression, and economic interaction is in the best interest for both countries.

Rossi, Melissa. What Every American Should Know About Who’s Really Running America, And What You Can Do About It. 2007. Includes a good biblio. mainly on dismantling.

Scheer, Robert. The Pornorgraphy of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America. 2008.

Standaert, Michael. Skipping Towards Armageddon: The Politics and Propaganda of the “Left Behind” Novels and the LaHaye Empire. A religious right-wing and neo-conservative conspiracy whose agenda of intolerance is furthered in works of fiction.

Sunstein, Cass. Radicals in Robes. Supreme Court’s right-ward shift may further endanger environmental regulations, campaign finance reform, right to privacy, etc.

Sweig, Julia. Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century. US sowed the seeds of its decline in the eyes of the world in South America.

Whitney, Craig, ed. The WMD Mirage: Iraq’s Decade of Deception and America’s False Premise for War. The false intelligence and misinformation explains how Bush justified the need for war.

Willis, Clint, ed. The I Hate Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condit Rice Reader: Behind the Bush Cabal’s War on America. Expose of what the editor feels is the most vicious, destructive, and immoral group ever to run the country.
Wolf, Naomi. The End of America. 2007. US fascist shift under Bush.

RESISTANCE, REBUILDING
“A just world is possible. Human beings create society, and we can change it.” Rosenthal, Power and Powerlessness. “It is the job of politicians to make promises, but it is the job of the people who elect them to make sure they keep them.” Tavis Smiley, Accountable
Alterman, Eric. Why We’re Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America. Counterattack on right-wing spin and misinformation.
Boulding, Elise. Cultures of Peace: The Hidden Side of History. Syracuse, 2000.
Brown, Peter, and Geoffrey Garver. Right Relationship:Bbuilding a Whole Earth Economy. 2009.
Garey, Diane. Defending Everybody: A History of the American Civil Liberties Union. 1998.
Ginger, Ann Fagan, ed. Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11. 2005.
Ginger, Ann. Undoing the Bush-Cheney Legacy: A Took Kit for Congress & Activists. 2008.
*Ginger, Ann Fagan. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is the Law: A Guide to U.D.H.R. Articles in Treaties Ratified by the U.S. 2008. Just in time for the 60th Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights! (Lindsley Smith)
Hartmann, Thom. What Would Jefferson Do? A Return to Democracy. US has departed from vision of Founding Fathers. Democracy is not an aberration in human history but the oldest, most resilient, and most universal form of government.
Hayden, Tom. The Port Huron Statement: The Visionary Call of the 1960s Revollution. Historic document of US radicalism, a gernational call for direct participatory democracy.
Korten, David. Agenda for a New Economy. 2009.
*Lappe, Frances Moore. Democracy's Edge: Choosing to Save Our Country by Bringing Democracy to Life. 2006. (Dick Bennett)
Lardner and Loewentheil, eds. Thinking Big: Progressive Ideas for a New Era. 2009.
McChesney, Robert. The Problem of the Media: U.S. Communication Politics in the 21st Century. 2004. (probably more on Dismantling)
Morgan, Robin. Fighting Words: A Toolkit for Combating the Religious Right. Ideas and arguments from the Founding Fathers and others.
Polner, Murray and Thomas Woods, Jr., eds. We Who Dared to Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now. Basic, 2008.
Poundstone, William. Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren’t Fair (And What We Can Do About It.). 2008. On “range” voting.
The Power of Nonviolence: Writings by Advocates of Peace. Beacon, 2002.
*Rosenthal, Susan. Power and Powerlessness. Trafford, 2006. This is the most challenging, think out-of-the-box book in this biblio. Its picture of the US is that of a nation divided between “a few who wield immense power and the rest who feel varying degrees of powerlessness..” This imbalance is no accident, but is the direct result of the few grabbing power from the many. “Part One explains that society does not arise from human nature. On the contrary, current social arrangements violate human nature. Part Two shows how power is divided by class. Part Three investigates how power and powerlessness are perpetuated. Part Four reveals how powerlessness can be transformed into power.” “The need for change is urgent. Everywhere, there is injustice, anguish, and anger. This book explains how society shapes people, how people shape society, and how powerlessness can be converted into the power to transform the world.” (Tom Markham).
--Smiley, Tavis, with Stephanie Robinson. Accountable: Making America As Good As Its Promise. Atria, 2009. Chapters on 6 major areas of policy, each followed by an “Accountable Assessment Checklist”: Obama’s campaign promises, questions to Obama, questions to Congresspeople, and to community leaders. The final and most lengthy chapter is “The Accountable Report Card,” in which Obama is quoted on issue after issue, and then readers are asked to evaluate his performance. The book expresses Smiley’s strong belief in the importance of We, the People, and a nation of, by, and for the people. “It is the job of politicians to make promises, but it is the job of the people who elect them to make sure they keep them.” He calls upon the citizenry to “track the progress of the president’s vision for our future. Presidents alone do not shape our future….citizens must always be prepared to hold the president accountable on what he (perhaps one day, she!) promised he’d fight for. Never forget, we, the people, are accountable for making sure that promises made are promises kept.” (171).

True, Michael. To Construct Peace: 30 More Justice Seekers, Peace Makers. Twenty-Third, 1992.
Wittner, Lawrence. Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1941-1960. Columbia UP, 1969.
Wolf, Naomi. Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries. 2008 (Earlier Forum).
Zirin, Dave. A People’s History of Sports in the United States.

CIVILIAN VICTIMS OF US WARS, NEWSLETTER/ANTHOLOGY #4

 

OMNI

CIVILIAN VICTIMS OF US WARS, February 15, 2012.

NEWSLETTER/ANTHOLOGY #4

Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace and Justice.

(#1 Sept. 6, 2007; #2 Jan. 14, 2011; #3 March 10, 2011; #4 Feb. 15, 2012).

 

 

Contents of #1, Sept. 6, 2007

Dick: Introduction

Two Books on Terror Air War

Iraq and Afghanistan:  Against the Rules of War

Pakistan and Other Countries

 

Contents of #2, Jan. 14, 2011

AFGHANISTAN

Afghan Body Count 2010

Afghan 2002, 2007, 2009

Newspaper Articles

Geneva Conventions

IRAQ

Iraq Body Count 2010

Book:   Al-Arian and Hedges, Collateral Damage

USA Today False Reporting

Newscasters and a Million civilians killed

Google and Body Count

Wikipedia Search

Contractors

Kucinich

Geneva Conventions

PAKISTAN

 

Contents of #3, March 10, 2011

Tokyo March 10, 1945

Japanese Civilians Killed WWII

 

Contents of #4 Feb. 15, 2012

New Book, John Tirman, The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America’s Wars

Hedges and Al Arian, Iraqi Civilians

US Air War

Grosscup, Terror Bombing

Ross, Decision to Bomb

Afghanistan

Carrington and Griffin, Transforming Violence

 

The Progressive VOL. 43

Book Rev.  “Invisible Victims”

The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America’s Wars

By John Tirman  Oxford UP, 2011.    416 pages.

 

“…indifference to the suffering of the

natives,” Tirman writes.

Tirman goes on to critique strategic

bombing in the “Good War,”

echoing the criticisms of Howard

Zinn and John Kenneth Galbraith.

And he then provides a detailed dissection

of the Korean War. According

to Tirman, the U.S. intervention in

Korea was mainly a product of anticommunist

fervor made even more

intense by Mao’s triumph in China

(and linked by Tirman to America’s

gunslinger frontier mentality).

“The intellectual discourse about

the Korean War’s meaning, apart

from predictable lamentations about

the limits of U.S. power, never grappled

with the magnitude of loss,” he

writes about a war that was among

the bloodiest in the post-World War

II era. “This, too, is the apparent fate

of the failed venture in Iraq.”

The Korean toll would have been

far worse if General MacArthur and

President Eisenhower had made good

on their repeated threats to use nuclear

weapons against China and North

Korea. They chose not to, Tirman

reveals, out of a fear that the Soviets

would retaliate.

Racism played a major part then,

as it has done in more recent times.

“At times of national stress,” Tirman

writes, America reverts to “the malevolent

stereotyping of outsiders.”

Astrength of the book is the

way Tirman goes through

each war and analyzes the

many ways that U.S. tactics

brought about death and destruc-

By Amitabh Pal

The Deaths of Others is an

incredibly important venture.

I know of no other book that

so comprehensively catalogues the

victims of U.S. wars.

Tirman opens with an arresting

image: He walks to the Vietnam and

Korean War memorials in Washington,

D.C., and becomes conscious of

a gaping hole in both places: There

isn’t a single mention of the millions

of non-American civilians who were

killed in these conflicts.

“One of the most remarkable

aspects of American wars is how little

we discuss the victims who are not

Americans,” Tirman writes. “As a

nation that has long thought of itself

as built on Christian ethics, even as

an exceptionally compassionate people,

this coldness is a puzzle.”

The book is an attempt to solve

that puzzle.

Tirman begins his analysis in

earnest with the U.S. conquest of the

Philippines during the Spanish-

American War, which set the tone for

every war since then. “The pattern of

the American public’s response to the

war was repeated in every subsequent

conflict abroad—the righteous cause,

the brave American soldiers, the

brutish enemy, and in the consequent

horror of the war, the deep mourning

for fallen Americans, and the cold

Amitabh Pal, the managing editor of

The Progressive, is the author of the

new book “ ‘Islam’ Means Peace:

Understanding the Muslim Principle

of Nonviolence Today” (Praeger).

ERIK RUIN - JUSTSEEDS.ORG

tion. This makes horrifying reading,

such as for Vietnam. “When

we went out, I would say about 50

percent of the villages we passed

through would be burned to the

ground,” he quotes one Marine.

But all of this astonishingly did not

make any difference to Americans,

with one survey cited by Tirman

showing statistically 0 percent of

the U.S. population motivated in

their opposition to the war due to

Vietnamese casualties alone.

Tirman has a number of perceptive

things to say even on the Iraq

War, a conflict I thought I had read

almost too much about.

For one, he shrewdly recognizes

the enormous toll taken by the sanctions

placed on Iraq in between the

1991 Gulf War and the Iraq War. He

combines all three into what he calls

a “twenty-year foreign venture for the

United States and a devastating reality

for the Iraqis.”

For another, he points out that the

U.S. culpability in the aftermath of

the 2003 invasion should not be limited

to the direct toll U.S. forces

exacted; instead, the United States

deserves a good deal of the blame for

overall fatalities due to its failure to

provide adequate security.

Tirman tallies the different ways

that Iraqis were killed, maimed, and

made refugees during the U.S. occupation.

And, yet, among the American

public, there was no recognition

of the bloodbath that had been

wrought.

“When in February 2007, the

American people were asked, for the

first and only time, how many Iraqis

they thought had died in the war, the

response was both disheartening and

unsurprising: 9,890 was the median

answer, a figure that was likely low by

several hundred thousands,” Tirman

writes. “The lack of knowledge or

concern about the war’s victims was

an outcome of several reinforcing

tendencies in American political culture:

news media that only occasionally

reported the costs of the war to

Iraqis, the Bush Administration’s

insistence on how the war effort was

benefitting Iraq, a general avoidance

of the war’s consequences apart from

the U.S. casualty rate, and the longstanding

tendency to view the

‘enemy’ population as a dispensable

side effect of the American global

mission.”

Tirman devotes a chapter to the

Afghanistan intervention, too.

“Based on reports of the U.N.,

Human Rights Watch, and a few others,

the total for civilian deaths ranges

from 15,000 to 35,000, including

nonviolent, ‘excess’ deaths, with about

9,000 directly from U.S. military

action, through the first half of 2010,”

writes Tirman. “The number of

deaths of those not considered civilians

or official Afghan soldiers is unknown

but is likely to be three or four times

higher.” (Emphasis in the original.)

The Bush Administration’s response

was sheer callousness. “We did not

start this war,” exclaimed Donald

Rumsfeld. “So understand, responsibility

for every single casualty in this

war, whether they’re innocent civilians

or innocent Americans, rests at the feet

of the Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

Tirman has an insightfully detailed

analysis toward the end of the book of

three major U.S. war atrocities: No

Gun Ri during the Korean War, My

Lai in the Vietnam War, and Haditha

during the Iraq War. They reveal

underlying similarities.

“The Haditha massacre followed

the pattern from the earlier wars—

initial shock at the revelations, military

lying and cover-up, investigations

in response to the media

coverage, rightwing backlash against

prosecuting or blaming soldiers, very

little legal culpability achieved, and

ultimate public indifference,” Tirman

writes.

Why such indifference? Tirman

offers a number of reasons:

racism, the frontier

mentality, and something he calls “just

world theory”—the delusional denial

that everything is right with the world.

“The combination of these three

explanations forms a structure, an

architecture of indifference, accounting

for the silence and the animus the

American public displays toward the

civilian victims of U.S. wars,” Tirman

writes. “It is a sturdy forbidding

structure, a fortress that protects its

denizens from the chaos outside.”

This indifference leads to the

absence of necessary checks on U.S.

atrocities. An added consequence is

the anti-American sentiment this attitude

inflames in the rest of the world.

Where Tirman ventures into dubious

territory is in his assertion that

the constant American penchant for

wars (and its perfervid anti-communism)

is in good part a result of a

frontier mentality deeply embedded

in the American psyche.

“Especially after 1945, the ‘Indians’

were Soviet communists and

their allies,” writes Tirman. “The

‘wilderness’ was any country under

the sway of Marxism-Leninism and

the global south generally, just then

released from European colonialism

and hence reverting to a kind of

political and moral wildness to match

its physical and demographic

attributes. The ‘bonanza’ of the frontier

was domination of the world economic

system itself.”

All through the book, Tirman

hammers this thesis home, which

imbues his analysis of every conflict

from Korea to Iraq (with even the

Arab Muslim, according to him, acting

as a modern stand-in for the

Native American).

To me, the analogy seems a bit of

a stretch. Is the cowboy-and-Indian

mentality a part of the American psyche?

Yes. But is it a significant determinant

of U.S. foreign policy?

The other place where the book

doesn’t quite work is that it becomes

too statistically rigorous for a lay audience.

Regardless, Tirman has given us

the definitive study of an extremely

important but neglected subject. It’s a

must-read for anyone concerned with

the lethal impact of U.S. policy on

people in all corners of the world.

 

 

REVIEW IN THE CATHOLIC WORKER BY Bill Griffin (Jan.-Feb. 2012).   High praise for this book on the “poison” of “America’s vast indifference” toward the millions killed by the many illegal, unnecessary, brutal US invasions, occupations, and interventions.  (Dick)

 

 

--Hedges, Chris and Laila Al-Arian.   Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians. http://thebloodycrossroads.com/tag/chris-hedges/ 

Chris Hedges - Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi ...
► 64:55► 64:55	www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHqYOuK84iA You +1'd this publicly. Undo Apr 24, 2011 - 65 min - Uploaded by pdxjustice Independent journalist and author, Chris Hedges, talks about his latest book, co- authored with Laila Al-Arian ...

1.      

Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian on "Collateral Damage: America's ...
►►	www.democracynow.org/.../chris_hedges_and_laila_al... You +1'd this publicly. Undo Jun 10, 2008 In their new book, journalists Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian bring us the voices of fifty American combat ...

2.      

Hedges - Collateral Damage: America's War on Iraqi Civilians ...
► 9:59► 9:59	www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL3ToWgtfDA You +1'd this publicly. Undo Jul 1, 2008 - 10 min - Uploaded by pdxjustice Hedges - Collateral Damage: America's War on Iraqi Civilians ... Program Description: Independent ...

3.     More videos for Chris Hedges Collateral Damage »

4.    Tomgram: Chris Hedges, War and Occupation, American-style ...

www.tomdispatch.com/post/174939/chris_hedges_collateral_damageCached

You +1'd this publicly. Undo

Jun 3, 2008 – Collateral Damage What It Really Means When America Goes to War By Chris Hedges. Troops, when they battle insurgent forces, as in Iraq, ...

 

 

 

Strategic terror: the politics and ethics of aerial bombardment

 By Beau Grosscup

 

HISTORY OF US BOMBING CIVILIANS

Sherwood Ross.   “How the United States Reversed Its Policy on Bombing Civilians.”    Ross runs Anti-War News Service.  sherwoodrl@yahoo.com    The War Crimes Times (Summer 2011).  Veterans for Peace, WarCrimesTimes.org   (This is an outstanding anti-war newspaper.)

May Is Deadliest Month for Afghan Civilians Since 2007: U.N.

By BBC News    10 June 11

The UN says May was the deadliest month for civilians in Afghanistan since 2007, when the organisation started recording civilian casualties. The UN said "anti - government elements" were responsible for 82% of the 368 "conflict - related civilian deaths".

"Pro - government forces", including Nato, caused 45 of the deaths. The news came as several deadly insurgent attacks killed at least 18 people, most of them civilians, in the volatile south and east of the country.

Fifteen people, including eight children and four women, were killed when a bomb blast hit their vehicle in the southern province of Kandahar, the Interior Ministry said. READ MORE http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/330-131/4961-rocking-the-cradle

 

 

Afghan Civilians Dying in Record Numbers

Laura King, Los Angeles Times

Intro: "Buried bombs killed 30 Afghan civilians in a 48-hour span in the latest grim illustration of the dangers faced by noncombatants as the season's fighting heats up. Insurgents routinely seed roads and pathways with IEDs, or improvised explosive devices - their favored weapon against Western troops. But most often, those killed and injured by the hidden bombs are civilians."

READ MORE  http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/309-13/6471-afghan-civilians-dying-in-record-numbers

 

“May Is Deadliest Month for Afghan Civilians Since 2007: U.N.”

By BBC News    10 June 11

The UN says May was the deadliest month for civilians in Afghanistan since 2007, when the organisation started recording civilian casualties. The UN said "anti - government elements" were responsible for 82% of the 368 "conflict - related civilian deaths".

"Pro - government forces", including Nato, caused 45 of the deaths. The news came as several deadly insurgent attacks killed at least 18 people, most of them civilians, in the volatile south and east of the country.

Fifteen people, including eight children and four women, were killed when a bomb blast hit their vehicle in the southern province of Kandahar, the Interior Ministry said. READ MORE http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/330-131/4961-rocking-the-cradle

 

 

 

Transforming Terror:

Remembering the Soul of the World

Karin Lofthus Carrington and Susan Griffin, eds.

• Read an Excerpt (PDF)

---

Paperback, 392 pages  June 2011

From the publisher:   This inspired collection offers a new paradigm for moving the world beyond violence as the first, and often only, response to violence. Through essays and poetry, prayers and mediations, Transforming Terror powerfully demonstrates that terrorist violence—defined here as any attack on unarmed civilians—can never be stopped by a return to the thinking that created it. A diverse array of contributors—writers, healers, spiritual and political leaders, scientists, and activists, including Desmond Tutu, Huston Smith, Riane Eisler, Daniel Ellsberg, Amos Oz, Fatema Mernissi, Fritjof Capra, George Lakoff, Mahmoud Darwish, Terry Tempest Williams, and Jack Kornfield—considers how we might transform the conditions that produce terrorist acts and bring true healing to the victims of these acts. Broadly encompassing both the Islamic and Western worlds, the book explores the nature of consciousness and offers a blueprint for change that makes peace possible. From unforgettable firsthand accounts of terrorism, the book draws us into awareness of our ecological and economic interdependence, the need for connectedness, and the innate human capacity for compassion

 

 

END CIVILIAN VICTIMS #4