(...and a small, well-trained army)
By Mickey Z.
07 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Warning: This article has not been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. Read at your own risk.
Thomas Jefferson sez: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
In his most recent book, a two-volume set called ³Endgame,² author Derrick Jensen tells of a discussion he had with a longtime activist. "She told me of a campaign she participated in a few years ago to try to stop the government and transnational timber corporations from spraying Agent Orange, a potent defoliant and teratogen, in the forests of Oregon," Jensen writes. All too predictably, the dedicated demonstrators assembled to protest the toxic spraying were, "like clockwork," ignored by the helicopter pilots. Both humans and landscape ended up thoroughly doused with Agent Orange-time and time again. The protest campaign obviously had no effect, so a different approach was taken. "A bunch of Vietnam vets lived in those hills," the activist told Jensen, "and they sent messages to the Bureau of Land Management and to Weyerhauser, Boise Cascade, and the other timber companies saying, 'We know the names of your helicopter pilots, and we know their addresses'
"You know what happened next?" she asked.
"I think I do," Jensen responded.
"Exactly," she said. "The spraying stopped."
******
To me, the following quote reads like poetry...so that's how I'll present it:
Whenever any form of
government
becomes destructive
to these ends,
it is the right of the people
to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government,
laying its foundation
on such principles
and organizing its powers
in such form,
as to them
shall seem
most likely
to effect
their safety
and happiness
(Thomas Jefferson)
******
In her excellent 1995 book, ³Bridge of Courage,² Jennifer Harbury quotes a Guatemalan freedom fighter named Gabriel, responding to a plea to embrace non-violent resistance: "In my country child malnutrition is close to 85 percent. Ten percent of all children will be dead before the age of five, and this is only the number actually reported to government agencies. Close to 70 percent of our people are functionally illiterate. There is almost no industry in our country-you need land to survive. Less than 3 percent of our landowners own over 65 percent of our lands. In the last fifteen years or so, there have been over 150,000 political murders and disappearances... Don't talk to me about Gandhi; he wouldn't have survived a week here. There was a peaceful movement for progress here, once. They were crushed. We were crushed. For Gandhi's method to work, there must be a government capable of shame. We lack that here."
Repeat after me: We lack that here.
******
Another "poem" of sorts:
You've got to learn
that when
you push people around,
some people push back.
As they should.
As they must.
And as they undoubtedly will.
There is justice
in such symmetry.
(Ward Churchill)
Love is the answer...but as in tennis, sometimes it means "nothing."
Mickey Z. can be found on the Web at: http://www.mickeyz.net.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Altered and censored report reveals extent of possible election fraud
REBECCA ABRAHAMS, BRAD BLOG - In September, 2003 Linda Lamone, the Administrator of Maryland's State Board of Elections and President of the National Association of State Election Directors hands over a critical study on the security of the Diebold Election Systems machines that count all of Maryland's votes. . . The original SAIC report, coming in at nearly 200 pages, was reduced, redacted and altered such that the only version the public — or even state officials including the Governor and the full State Board of Elections — would ever be allowed to see was a wholly sanitized 38-page version of the report.
Until now.
For the first time, we've been able to review the complete, much sought-after, unredacted version of the SAIC report which has been kept at bay from Maryland state officials. . . as well as the computer science and security community. . . as well as the election integrity community and public at large since it was originally completed in 2003.
It has been called "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting Systems" by some members of the computer science and security community. . .
Enter the world of electronic voting machines, the 2002 "cure" to 2000's hanging and dimpled chads. . . Diebold and the other manufacturers insist that their machines are safe and secure yet every single cyber security expert and computer scientist has, for years, been screaming into an empty wilderness of media attention, that. . .
- The machines can be hacked, by the implanting of malicious code, at the factory
- The machines can be hacked during transport from the factory
- The machines can be hacked while on "sleepovers" before the election
- The machines can be hacked (in 1 minute with a .50 cent mini bar key) during the election
- These machines can be hacked, at the tabulator, after the election.
What makes this SAIC report, "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting" as some computer experts have described it, so important is that:
It shows, in black and white, that what Diebold says to election officials and voters across the country is not the truth. It shows that there are virtually no security protocols in place for certain Diebold machines and that the recommended security protocols were purposely removed from the publicly released version of the report. It shows that the analyzed Diebold machines were not functional nor secure for use in elections and raises serious doubts that they are ready for the November 7, 2006 midterm elections. . .
Diebold, in return for allowing their super secret, proprietary machines to be examined by the independent laboratory, insisted on two huge concessions from the state of Maryland.
First, SAIC would not be allowed to even look at the source code, the heart and guts of electronic voting machines.
Second, they would be allowed to go through the SAIC Report, line by line, and redact anything and everything that they felt was proprietary, had a potential for security breaches or could provide a roadmap for anyone who wanted to compromise the system.
In other words, whatever they wanted to do with the publicly released version of the report they were allowed to do so.
468 federal seats and countless state and local contests are being decided by Diebold and other similar electronic voting machines. The outcome of these elections will set the direction of our country for at least the next two years.
The issue is whether or not Diebold has implemented the critical changes in its software and hardware called for by the full, genuine un-redacted SAIC Report
Much more, complete with links at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3719&print=1
Until now.
For the first time, we've been able to review the complete, much sought-after, unredacted version of the SAIC report which has been kept at bay from Maryland state officials. . . as well as the computer science and security community. . . as well as the election integrity community and public at large since it was originally completed in 2003.
It has been called "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting Systems" by some members of the computer science and security community. . .
Enter the world of electronic voting machines, the 2002 "cure" to 2000's hanging and dimpled chads. . . Diebold and the other manufacturers insist that their machines are safe and secure yet every single cyber security expert and computer scientist has, for years, been screaming into an empty wilderness of media attention, that. . .
- The machines can be hacked, by the implanting of malicious code, at the factory
- The machines can be hacked during transport from the factory
- The machines can be hacked while on "sleepovers" before the election
- The machines can be hacked (in 1 minute with a .50 cent mini bar key) during the election
- These machines can be hacked, at the tabulator, after the election.
What makes this SAIC report, "The Pentagon Papers of Electronic Voting" as some computer experts have described it, so important is that:
It shows, in black and white, that what Diebold says to election officials and voters across the country is not the truth. It shows that there are virtually no security protocols in place for certain Diebold machines and that the recommended security protocols were purposely removed from the publicly released version of the report. It shows that the analyzed Diebold machines were not functional nor secure for use in elections and raises serious doubts that they are ready for the November 7, 2006 midterm elections. . .
Diebold, in return for allowing their super secret, proprietary machines to be examined by the independent laboratory, insisted on two huge concessions from the state of Maryland.
First, SAIC would not be allowed to even look at the source code, the heart and guts of electronic voting machines.
Second, they would be allowed to go through the SAIC Report, line by line, and redact anything and everything that they felt was proprietary, had a potential for security breaches or could provide a roadmap for anyone who wanted to compromise the system.
In other words, whatever they wanted to do with the publicly released version of the report they were allowed to do so.
468 federal seats and countless state and local contests are being decided by Diebold and other similar electronic voting machines. The outcome of these elections will set the direction of our country for at least the next two years.
The issue is whether or not Diebold has implemented the critical changes in its software and hardware called for by the full, genuine un-redacted SAIC Report
Much more, complete with links at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3719&print=1
And Now, Some Documented Foreign Policy Wisdom From The Past...
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
--Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the US and Tripoli, 1796
--Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the US and Tripoli, 1796
Quote of the Day: Good News Department
"It's the worst political environment for Republican candidates since Watergate."
-GLEN BOLGER, a Republican pollster
In a related story from the NYT:
Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?th&emc=th
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
-GLEN BOLGER, a Republican pollster
In a related story from the NYT:
Editorial
The Difference Two Years Made
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/opinion/05sun1.html?th&emc=th
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has endorsed for election, we will include no Republican Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory. Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House. Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House — and for the most part, the Senate — during President Bush’s tenure has done a terrible job on the basics. Its tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically little about the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too long in power. They methodically shut the opposition — and even the more moderate members of their own party — out of any role in the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues like the environment, civil liberties and women’s rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans’ attempt to undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated themselves to removing restraints on the president’s ability to do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans feel you don’t need to have oversight hearings if your party is in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American contractors who have botched everything from construction work to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House, Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the president’s campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers used this bill to further Mr. Bush’s goal of stripping the powers of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush — and the Congressional majority’s insistence on protecting him from the consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004, he announced he now had real political capital and intended to spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on the House and Senate.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
U.S.-NATO warplanes raze Afghan village
Worst civilian death toll since 2002
By Robert Dobrow
Published Nov 4
The Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr is supposed to be a joyous event, marking the end of the month-long fasting of Ramadan. Literally the “Festival of Breaking the Fast,” it is a time where people dress in their finest clothes, adorn their homes with lights and decorations, give treats to children, and enjoy visits with family and friends.
But for the people of the Panjwayi district in southern Afghanistan, the celebrations turned into a nightmare last week as U.S.-NATO warplanes bombed their village, leaving as many as 85 civilians dead.
Witnesses told reporters that 25 homes were razed in four to five hours of bombing. Abdul Aye, a villager, said 22 members of his extended family were killed.
The civilian death toll, even by conservative estimates, is the largest in Afghanistan since July 2002 when U.S. planes attacked a wedding party, killing 46 and wounding 117.
Five years ago on the day of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, President George W. Bush, in his radio address to the nation, said: “The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we’ll also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.”
There were no reports amidst the bombed out wreckage of Panjwayi of any food, medicine or supplies having been dropped.
The day after the attack, the occupation forces issued their pro forma “apologies.” NATO Commander Gen. David Richards offered, “In the night, in the fog of war, mistakes were made.”
But to underscore the real message, NATO representative Mark Laity later said: “We have demonstrated that we are strong enough on the combat side to be the winners. After 30 years of fighting, people in the south are nervous of being on the wrong side.” (Our emphasis)
In the past weeks groups like the New York-based Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, and the U.K.-based Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict have condemned U.S.-NATO violence, which is increasingly targeting civilians.
Two days before the Panjwayi attack, more than 30 civilians were killed in a NATO bombing of the village of Zangi Abad. In the first weeks of October, at least 20 civilians were killed in Kandahar and Helmand Province. And on Oct. 23, a young Afghan girl was killed and two children injured when a NATO mortar test fell short of its target, hitting a residential home in the eastern province of Kunar. U.S.-NATO forces routinely test mortars in areas close to civilian populations.
This month marks five years of the Pentagon’s “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan. For media which love to mark anniversaries, this fifth anniversary was notably absent from the U.S. press.
In Canada and much of Europe, however, where there is more opposition to the war, media attention has focused on a new report by the Senlis Council, a prominent British-based think tank, on the U.S.-NATO occupation.
“Afghanistan’s people are starving to death,” the report states. “Afghanistan continues to rank at the bottom of most poverty indicators and the situation of women and children is particularly grave. One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five, and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world.”
More than 70 percent of the population is malnourished, according to the Senlis Council. Less than a quarter of the people have access to safe drinking water.
Under the guise of fighting the Taliban and bringing democracy and freedom to the people, the U.S. has installed into power a corrupt group of warlords, drug smugglers and gangsters. Human Rights Watch estimates that 60 percent of Afghani legislators have links to warlords. The country has reemerged as the world’s leading source for opium and heroin. “The government has become so full of drug smugglers,” said Abdul Karim Brahowie, Afghanistan’s minister of tribal and frontier affairs, “the cabinet meetings have become a farce.” (Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2005). Violence against women and girls is pervasive, and is worse than conditions under the old Taliban regime.
Like Iraq, the Afghan intervention was based on a lie. It had nothing to do with democracy and freedom and everything to do with economics—that is, neocolonial, imperialist economics. Afghanistan sits in the center of Central Asia, a region rich with vast gas and oil reserves. Even more importantly for the U.S., it is strategically poised between Russia, China and the Middle East.
At the beginning of the last century, the “Great Game” was the name given to the struggle between British imperialism and tsarist Russia for domination of Afghanistan and Central Asia.
But the “Great Game” ended in 1917 when the Russian Revolution threw out the tsar and put the workers and peasants in power. The Bolsheviks published and nullified the secret imperialist treaties and practiced self-determination for the republics of Central Asia.
Today, 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. military bases dot the region—in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and throughout Afghanistan. Many of these countries are now neocolonies, their natural resources at the mercy of U.S. energy monopolies, their governments some of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
This invasion of Central Asia has been in the works for years. The 9/11 attack gave Washington an easy justification for sending in its troops.
Today the world is witnessing the spectacle of the richest and most powerful nations on the planet trying to occupy and subdue the poorest and weakest. What is remarkable, and should give hope to people everywhere, is that they are failing miserably.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/afghanistan-1109/
By Robert Dobrow
Published Nov 4
The Islamic holiday of Eid al-Fitr is supposed to be a joyous event, marking the end of the month-long fasting of Ramadan. Literally the “Festival of Breaking the Fast,” it is a time where people dress in their finest clothes, adorn their homes with lights and decorations, give treats to children, and enjoy visits with family and friends.
But for the people of the Panjwayi district in southern Afghanistan, the celebrations turned into a nightmare last week as U.S.-NATO warplanes bombed their village, leaving as many as 85 civilians dead.
Witnesses told reporters that 25 homes were razed in four to five hours of bombing. Abdul Aye, a villager, said 22 members of his extended family were killed.
The civilian death toll, even by conservative estimates, is the largest in Afghanistan since July 2002 when U.S. planes attacked a wedding party, killing 46 and wounding 117.
Five years ago on the day of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, President George W. Bush, in his radio address to the nation, said: “The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we’ll also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan.”
There were no reports amidst the bombed out wreckage of Panjwayi of any food, medicine or supplies having been dropped.
The day after the attack, the occupation forces issued their pro forma “apologies.” NATO Commander Gen. David Richards offered, “In the night, in the fog of war, mistakes were made.”
But to underscore the real message, NATO representative Mark Laity later said: “We have demonstrated that we are strong enough on the combat side to be the winners. After 30 years of fighting, people in the south are nervous of being on the wrong side.” (Our emphasis)
In the past weeks groups like the New York-based Human Rights Watch, International Red Cross, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, and the U.K.-based Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict have condemned U.S.-NATO violence, which is increasingly targeting civilians.
Two days before the Panjwayi attack, more than 30 civilians were killed in a NATO bombing of the village of Zangi Abad. In the first weeks of October, at least 20 civilians were killed in Kandahar and Helmand Province. And on Oct. 23, a young Afghan girl was killed and two children injured when a NATO mortar test fell short of its target, hitting a residential home in the eastern province of Kunar. U.S.-NATO forces routinely test mortars in areas close to civilian populations.
This month marks five years of the Pentagon’s “Operation Enduring Freedom” in Afghanistan. For media which love to mark anniversaries, this fifth anniversary was notably absent from the U.S. press.
In Canada and much of Europe, however, where there is more opposition to the war, media attention has focused on a new report by the Senlis Council, a prominent British-based think tank, on the U.S.-NATO occupation.
“Afghanistan’s people are starving to death,” the report states. “Afghanistan continues to rank at the bottom of most poverty indicators and the situation of women and children is particularly grave. One in four children born in Afghanistan cannot expect to live beyond the age of five, and certain provinces of the country lay claim to the worst maternal mortality rates ever recorded in the world.”
More than 70 percent of the population is malnourished, according to the Senlis Council. Less than a quarter of the people have access to safe drinking water.
Under the guise of fighting the Taliban and bringing democracy and freedom to the people, the U.S. has installed into power a corrupt group of warlords, drug smugglers and gangsters. Human Rights Watch estimates that 60 percent of Afghani legislators have links to warlords. The country has reemerged as the world’s leading source for opium and heroin. “The government has become so full of drug smugglers,” said Abdul Karim Brahowie, Afghanistan’s minister of tribal and frontier affairs, “the cabinet meetings have become a farce.” (Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2005). Violence against women and girls is pervasive, and is worse than conditions under the old Taliban regime.
Like Iraq, the Afghan intervention was based on a lie. It had nothing to do with democracy and freedom and everything to do with economics—that is, neocolonial, imperialist economics. Afghanistan sits in the center of Central Asia, a region rich with vast gas and oil reserves. Even more importantly for the U.S., it is strategically poised between Russia, China and the Middle East.
At the beginning of the last century, the “Great Game” was the name given to the struggle between British imperialism and tsarist Russia for domination of Afghanistan and Central Asia.
But the “Great Game” ended in 1917 when the Russian Revolution threw out the tsar and put the workers and peasants in power. The Bolsheviks published and nullified the secret imperialist treaties and practiced self-determination for the republics of Central Asia.
Today, 15 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. military bases dot the region—in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and throughout Afghanistan. Many of these countries are now neocolonies, their natural resources at the mercy of U.S. energy monopolies, their governments some of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
This invasion of Central Asia has been in the works for years. The 9/11 attack gave Washington an easy justification for sending in its troops.
Today the world is witnessing the spectacle of the richest and most powerful nations on the planet trying to occupy and subdue the poorest and weakest. What is remarkable, and should give hope to people everywhere, is that they are failing miserably.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/world/afghanistan-1109/
Freeport, N.Y., targets Latin@ workers and community fights back
Published Nov 4
Romeo Pacheco parked his car in the Staples parking lot next to the Home Depot in Freeport, Long Island, on Oct. 16. Before shopping, he went over to talk to some friends standing on the sidewalk waiting for work. The police arrested him, put him in handcuffs, and confiscated his car.
A few days later, the police grabbed a young Latino man of 18 years by his neck and dragged him into a police car, manacled, while his father looked on in horror. Terrified, he pleaded with the cops to stop hurting him. A third man, Erasmo Sandoval, was arrested a few days later. He told Workers World that he knows of one or two others who were also arrested in the parking lot, all Latinos.
Carlos Canales, lead organizer of the Workplace Project, went to the parking lot on Oct. 24 to investigate these events, and was talking to two day laborers when the police told him to leave. He said he was not seeking work, and was just talking to his friends. The police went to a Staples security guard, asked him to request an arrest, and arrested Canales.
All those arrested must appear before a judge on Nov. 6.
On the same day Canales was arrested, Gustavo Flores, leader of United Day Laborers of Freeport, was roused from his bed at 6:00 a.m. when Freeport housing inspectors entered his home, demanding to know who lived there, and took pictures of the house and its residents. Flores later found out that other Latin@ homes had also been targeted in his neighborhood. This same type of pre-dawn raid caused New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to sue Freeport back in 2002.
History of anti-Latin@ racism
Officials in Freeport, located about 30 miles east of New York City, say the village is one-third Latin@, one-third Black and one-third white. But the percentage of Latin@s is actually larger. Ten years ago, Freeport was dying—stores closing, residents leaving—when Latin@s moved in and revitalized the local economy, buying houses and opening businesses. The local police responded to the influx of Latin@s rudely, harassing and arresting day laborers who congregated at the Home Depot and Dunkin Donuts.
Carlos Canales came to Freeport to protest this police brutality. He helped organize the workers and Freeport residents to demand a legal and protected “shape-up” site.
Freeport police arrested Canales and other workers in 2002. At the time, the village was facing the suit by Spitzer for discriminatory raids on Latin@ homeowners.
Forced into a corner, Freeport Mayor William Glacken agreed to a legal shape-up site: a dilapidated trailer, hidden from public view and administered by Catholic Charities.
Workplace Project and the United Day Laborers of Freeport worked with a support committee, Freeport Community Worklink Center, to make the trailer more visible and democratic. FCWC, a worker-run committee, briefly won the right to administer the shape-up site.
But when Mayor Glacken and several foundations announced that all day laborers in Freeport had to go to the trailer or face arrest, the workers and support committee said no. They were “fired” and Catholic Charities retook the site, ending the worker-run project.
Glacken bullied the Vornado Realty Trust, owner of the property where Home Depot and Staples are located, along with nearly $14 billion in other real estate assets, to put up “no trespassing” signs. The signs went up in September, giving Freeport police the right to arrest workers in the parking lot.
The village of Freeport has clearly mounted a calculated, racist attack on its Latin@ community. The FCWC and the UDLF have secured a lawyer, Fred Brewington, to take this case. They are organizing in the streets and in the churches, and will be protesting on Nov. 6, marching from Dunkin Donuts on Sunrise Highway to the Village Hall, where they will rally outside and then pack the court while the workers face the judge.
The community has been organizing for sanctuary for immigrants and to defend the day laborers. They are preparing to mount a case of discrimination against the village government. As UDLF leader Flores said, “We have had enough!”
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/freeport-1109/
Romeo Pacheco parked his car in the Staples parking lot next to the Home Depot in Freeport, Long Island, on Oct. 16. Before shopping, he went over to talk to some friends standing on the sidewalk waiting for work. The police arrested him, put him in handcuffs, and confiscated his car.
A few days later, the police grabbed a young Latino man of 18 years by his neck and dragged him into a police car, manacled, while his father looked on in horror. Terrified, he pleaded with the cops to stop hurting him. A third man, Erasmo Sandoval, was arrested a few days later. He told Workers World that he knows of one or two others who were also arrested in the parking lot, all Latinos.
Carlos Canales, lead organizer of the Workplace Project, went to the parking lot on Oct. 24 to investigate these events, and was talking to two day laborers when the police told him to leave. He said he was not seeking work, and was just talking to his friends. The police went to a Staples security guard, asked him to request an arrest, and arrested Canales.
All those arrested must appear before a judge on Nov. 6.
On the same day Canales was arrested, Gustavo Flores, leader of United Day Laborers of Freeport, was roused from his bed at 6:00 a.m. when Freeport housing inspectors entered his home, demanding to know who lived there, and took pictures of the house and its residents. Flores later found out that other Latin@ homes had also been targeted in his neighborhood. This same type of pre-dawn raid caused New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to sue Freeport back in 2002.
History of anti-Latin@ racism
Officials in Freeport, located about 30 miles east of New York City, say the village is one-third Latin@, one-third Black and one-third white. But the percentage of Latin@s is actually larger. Ten years ago, Freeport was dying—stores closing, residents leaving—when Latin@s moved in and revitalized the local economy, buying houses and opening businesses. The local police responded to the influx of Latin@s rudely, harassing and arresting day laborers who congregated at the Home Depot and Dunkin Donuts.
Carlos Canales came to Freeport to protest this police brutality. He helped organize the workers and Freeport residents to demand a legal and protected “shape-up” site.
Freeport police arrested Canales and other workers in 2002. At the time, the village was facing the suit by Spitzer for discriminatory raids on Latin@ homeowners.
Forced into a corner, Freeport Mayor William Glacken agreed to a legal shape-up site: a dilapidated trailer, hidden from public view and administered by Catholic Charities.
Workplace Project and the United Day Laborers of Freeport worked with a support committee, Freeport Community Worklink Center, to make the trailer more visible and democratic. FCWC, a worker-run committee, briefly won the right to administer the shape-up site.
But when Mayor Glacken and several foundations announced that all day laborers in Freeport had to go to the trailer or face arrest, the workers and support committee said no. They were “fired” and Catholic Charities retook the site, ending the worker-run project.
Glacken bullied the Vornado Realty Trust, owner of the property where Home Depot and Staples are located, along with nearly $14 billion in other real estate assets, to put up “no trespassing” signs. The signs went up in September, giving Freeport police the right to arrest workers in the parking lot.
The village of Freeport has clearly mounted a calculated, racist attack on its Latin@ community. The FCWC and the UDLF have secured a lawyer, Fred Brewington, to take this case. They are organizing in the streets and in the churches, and will be protesting on Nov. 6, marching from Dunkin Donuts on Sunrise Highway to the Village Hall, where they will rally outside and then pack the court while the workers face the judge.
The community has been organizing for sanctuary for immigrants and to defend the day laborers. They are preparing to mount a case of discrimination against the village government. As UDLF leader Flores said, “We have had enough!”
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/freeport-1109/
Friday, November 03, 2006
Hypocrisy Update: Another Gay Christian/Republican/Neo-Con
From Alternet
Oh, this is rich:
The Rev. Ted Haggard, who resigned as one of the nation's top evangelical leaders, admitted Friday he had contacted male prostitute Mike Jones for a massage and bought drugs from him.
Haggard said he never had sex with Jones and never used the methamphetamine drug he bought.
Haggard spoke to the Denver TV station from inside a car, with his wife, Gayle, in the passenger seat.
Yeah, that's the ticket. The hooker just gave me a massage. I bought the meth, but didn't use it. I didn't inhale!
The sad thing is that Haggard's followers will probably buy all that. After all, they throw millions of dollars at these "spiritual leaders" who are transparent con-men of the worst sort. They support Republicans who pay them lip service but ignore them until the next election rolls around. 'It's all political,' they're saying to themselves now -- part of the Grand Liberal Conspiracy® to tear down people of faith.
Eh, there's one born every minute.
Oh, this is rich:
The Rev. Ted Haggard, who resigned as one of the nation's top evangelical leaders, admitted Friday he had contacted male prostitute Mike Jones for a massage and bought drugs from him.
Haggard said he never had sex with Jones and never used the methamphetamine drug he bought.
He did not name the hotel. "I did call him," Haggard said. "I called him to buy some meth, but I threw it away."
Haggard spoke to the Denver TV station from inside a car, with his wife, Gayle, in the passenger seat.
"I was buying it for me, but I never used it. I was tempted. ...
"He told me about it. I went there for a massage."
Yeah, that's the ticket. The hooker just gave me a massage. I bought the meth, but didn't use it. I didn't inhale!
The sad thing is that Haggard's followers will probably buy all that. After all, they throw millions of dollars at these "spiritual leaders" who are transparent con-men of the worst sort. They support Republicans who pay them lip service but ignore them until the next election rolls around. 'It's all political,' they're saying to themselves now -- part of the Grand Liberal Conspiracy® to tear down people of faith.
Eh, there's one born every minute.
Post-Constitutional America: False Authority Syndrome
These anecdotal stories are indicative of the overall dysfunction in our burgeoning totalitarian security state. That certain "citizens", for lack of a word more descriptive than "consumers", would take an active role in this oppressive security against their fellow citizens chills me to the bone, when it isn't pissing me the fuck off!--Pete
DAVID GAGNE - "Good morning," I smiled at Alisha, handing her my California driver's license and printed-from-the-internet-but-ridiculously-easily-forged Southwest boarding pass.
She smiled at me, checked that the name on my license matched the name on my boarding pass, and used a yellow hi-liter to mark the boarding pass with what looked exactly like a one-inch line. As she handed "my papers" back to me, she paused. She looked me in the eyes. She smiled. And then she said, "I can't see your eyes."
I raised my hand to my face to remove my sunglasses and stopped. She wasn't smiling because she was nice. She was smiling because she was suffering from False Authority Syndrome. The poor child. In the most disarming, rational, peaceful, and kind voice at my command, I said, "You don't need to see my eyes."
"You have to remove your sunglasses, sir."
"No, actually, I don't."
"I can't let you past here with your sunglasses on."
"Yes, you can."
At this point she became obviously frustrated and confused. She looked at me as if I was a freshly-shaved Osama bin Laden in a sports coat and khakis. She became stern. "Take them off, please."
"There's no law that says I can't wear my sunglasses in the airport, ma'am"
"Yes, there is. It's a rule."
"It's not a rule."
"It is. I can't let you pass."
"Yes, you can."
She took my boarding pass and used her yellow hi-liter to turn the line into an X. An X of shame and potential threat. She called to the top-of-the-stairs officer, "Threat alert!"
No, I'm not kidding. Then she let me go up the stairs. At this point I expected to get into an argument with the top-of-the-stairs woman. I didn't care. I had two hours to kill and I wasn't in the mood to be pushed around by the TSA. But surprisingly LeVonda did nothing even remotely antagonistic. In fact she let me get into the extra short special security line. This was a bonus. Instead of standing in the "general" line with the hundreds of non-sunglasses wearing rubes, I got to get into the fast lane.
The fast lane was occupied by a mother and her three children, a very, very tall black man, and a guy that looked like the most average, generic businessman possible. I didn't feel like any of them could in any way be as much of a threat as I was, but I guess you can't judge a book by its cover. We merrily zipped through the metal detector and had our carry-on bags x-rayed. . .
But now a wrinkle. I wasn't allowed to get my bags. A tremendously grumpy guy grabbed my bag, my laptop, my jacket, and my shoes and gave me the double-ultra shakedown. He went through every pocket of my briefcase. He went through my jacket. He looked in my shoes. (He did not, I should note, ask me to remove my sunglasses.) He never smiled. He was a serious TSA. There was a uniformed LAPD officer standing nearby as well, but he looked like he just enjoyed standing there and flexing and wasn't very interested in all of the potential threats to national security that were being given the what-for by the TSA.
The TSA double-security checker was not about to let me get past him. He knew I was a bad guy. I had a water bottle. I wasn't hiding it or anything, I just honestly forgot that liquids are dangerous nowadays. He held it in front of my face like it was a Nazi membership card that he'd found in my blazer. "You know you can't have this, right?"
I almost - almost - said something snarky about how it was cool that he didn't care about my Swiss Army knife or my Leatherman tool. Instead my reply was, "Oh, yeah, right. Sorry about that." I reached for the water bottle, saying, "I'll just chug that now."
You would have thought I pulled an UZI out of my ass at this point. He literally jumped backwards and told me, "Don't come any closer!"
I laughed. I did. I couldn't help it. It was absurd. I looked at the LAPD officer and said, "Is he serious?" The policeman looked at me as if he was very sorry and trying to not laugh himself. He walked a little bit closer towards us but said nothing.
"Dude. It's water. I'll drink it right now."
"I can't let you do that. You have to throw it away."
"What? Why? I'm going to drink it. I'll drink the whole thing. Right
now. Right in front of you."
"You can't do that."
"Why not?"
"It's against the law."
"What law?"
"You can't drink in the security area at the airport."
Now this is where I got mad. "There is no law that says I can't drink water in the security area of the airport." I looked at the cop, "Is there?" The cop said, "I have no jurisdiction where you are. You're not on LA property."
This seemed pretty silly to me. What the hell was he doing there if he wasn't allowed to do anything? But whatever. He was a cool cop and I didn't have any beef with him. I looked back at the TSA guy and said, "Show me the law."
He stared bolts of fire into my skull and said, "I don't have to show it to you. It's the law."
"Uh."
Yes, I really did say, "Uh."
"There's no law, man," I said.
He said - and I swear I am not making any of this up - "It's an SSI and I am not required to show it to you."
"What is an SSI? Are you kidding? This is America. You can't enforce a law without showing it to me. I never voted on any law about drinking water in the security area of the airport. There is no such law." I really, really wanted to ask him if SSI stood for Super Secret Information, but I forgot.
"I can't let you drink this water."
"Fine. Throw it away. I don't care. It's an unopened bottle of water that I am willing to drink right in front of you. But whatever."
"I can't throw it away. You have to throw it away."
I picked up my bags and walked away.
For quite some time I noticed that the person who I assumed to be the top TSA guy was following me around Brookstone. I had a tail I had a pretty good time making him think I was trying to "lose him" for a little while. Then my girlfriend called and I forgot about him and he was gone.
http://www.davidgagne.net/?p=6200
DAVID GAGNE - "Good morning," I smiled at Alisha, handing her my California driver's license and printed-from-the-internet-but-ridiculously-easily-forged Southwest boarding pass.
She smiled at me, checked that the name on my license matched the name on my boarding pass, and used a yellow hi-liter to mark the boarding pass with what looked exactly like a one-inch line. As she handed "my papers" back to me, she paused. She looked me in the eyes. She smiled. And then she said, "I can't see your eyes."
I raised my hand to my face to remove my sunglasses and stopped. She wasn't smiling because she was nice. She was smiling because she was suffering from False Authority Syndrome. The poor child. In the most disarming, rational, peaceful, and kind voice at my command, I said, "You don't need to see my eyes."
"You have to remove your sunglasses, sir."
"No, actually, I don't."
"I can't let you past here with your sunglasses on."
"Yes, you can."
At this point she became obviously frustrated and confused. She looked at me as if I was a freshly-shaved Osama bin Laden in a sports coat and khakis. She became stern. "Take them off, please."
"There's no law that says I can't wear my sunglasses in the airport, ma'am"
"Yes, there is. It's a rule."
"It's not a rule."
"It is. I can't let you pass."
"Yes, you can."
She took my boarding pass and used her yellow hi-liter to turn the line into an X. An X of shame and potential threat. She called to the top-of-the-stairs officer, "Threat alert!"
No, I'm not kidding. Then she let me go up the stairs. At this point I expected to get into an argument with the top-of-the-stairs woman. I didn't care. I had two hours to kill and I wasn't in the mood to be pushed around by the TSA. But surprisingly LeVonda did nothing even remotely antagonistic. In fact she let me get into the extra short special security line. This was a bonus. Instead of standing in the "general" line with the hundreds of non-sunglasses wearing rubes, I got to get into the fast lane.
The fast lane was occupied by a mother and her three children, a very, very tall black man, and a guy that looked like the most average, generic businessman possible. I didn't feel like any of them could in any way be as much of a threat as I was, but I guess you can't judge a book by its cover. We merrily zipped through the metal detector and had our carry-on bags x-rayed. . .
But now a wrinkle. I wasn't allowed to get my bags. A tremendously grumpy guy grabbed my bag, my laptop, my jacket, and my shoes and gave me the double-ultra shakedown. He went through every pocket of my briefcase. He went through my jacket. He looked in my shoes. (He did not, I should note, ask me to remove my sunglasses.) He never smiled. He was a serious TSA. There was a uniformed LAPD officer standing nearby as well, but he looked like he just enjoyed standing there and flexing and wasn't very interested in all of the potential threats to national security that were being given the what-for by the TSA.
The TSA double-security checker was not about to let me get past him. He knew I was a bad guy. I had a water bottle. I wasn't hiding it or anything, I just honestly forgot that liquids are dangerous nowadays. He held it in front of my face like it was a Nazi membership card that he'd found in my blazer. "You know you can't have this, right?"
I almost - almost - said something snarky about how it was cool that he didn't care about my Swiss Army knife or my Leatherman tool. Instead my reply was, "Oh, yeah, right. Sorry about that." I reached for the water bottle, saying, "I'll just chug that now."
You would have thought I pulled an UZI out of my ass at this point. He literally jumped backwards and told me, "Don't come any closer!"
I laughed. I did. I couldn't help it. It was absurd. I looked at the LAPD officer and said, "Is he serious?" The policeman looked at me as if he was very sorry and trying to not laugh himself. He walked a little bit closer towards us but said nothing.
"Dude. It's water. I'll drink it right now."
"I can't let you do that. You have to throw it away."
"What? Why? I'm going to drink it. I'll drink the whole thing. Right
now. Right in front of you."
"You can't do that."
"Why not?"
"It's against the law."
"What law?"
"You can't drink in the security area at the airport."
Now this is where I got mad. "There is no law that says I can't drink water in the security area of the airport." I looked at the cop, "Is there?" The cop said, "I have no jurisdiction where you are. You're not on LA property."
This seemed pretty silly to me. What the hell was he doing there if he wasn't allowed to do anything? But whatever. He was a cool cop and I didn't have any beef with him. I looked back at the TSA guy and said, "Show me the law."
He stared bolts of fire into my skull and said, "I don't have to show it to you. It's the law."
"Uh."
Yes, I really did say, "Uh."
"There's no law, man," I said.
He said - and I swear I am not making any of this up - "It's an SSI and I am not required to show it to you."
"What is an SSI? Are you kidding? This is America. You can't enforce a law without showing it to me. I never voted on any law about drinking water in the security area of the airport. There is no such law." I really, really wanted to ask him if SSI stood for Super Secret Information, but I forgot.
"I can't let you drink this water."
"Fine. Throw it away. I don't care. It's an unopened bottle of water that I am willing to drink right in front of you. But whatever."
"I can't throw it away. You have to throw it away."
I picked up my bags and walked away.
For quite some time I noticed that the person who I assumed to be the top TSA guy was following me around Brookstone. I had a tail I had a pretty good time making him think I was trying to "lose him" for a little while. Then my girlfriend called and I forgot about him and he was gone.
http://www.davidgagne.net/?p=6200
GREAT MOMENTS IN FATUOUS JOURNALISM
Lifted wholesale from Sam Smith's Undernews
Howard Kurtz would have you believe that the big problem with our elections is not ballot boxes that can be rigged but bad exit polling -- SS
HOWARD KURTZ, WASHINGTON POST - If the Democrats capture the House, television anchors won't be able to project that until they are sure the party has locked in a 15-seat gain. . . In the Senate, with fewer seats in play, the math is simpler. If one or two of the most vulnerable Republicans -- in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Missouri -- win decisively, the networks will know fairly early that the Democrats won't be able to reach their magic number of six needed to take control. But even if the Democrats sweep those races -- and hold New Jersey, which is in doubt -- the networks still won't be able to forecast a Democratic takeover until enough votes are counted in Montana, where polls close at 10 p.m. Eastern. . .
The biggest behind-the-scenes change in network coverage involves what has been dubbed the Quarantine Room. Determined to avoid a rerun of recent years, when its exit polls leaked out by early afternoon to the Drudge Report, Slate and other Web sites, a media consortium is allowing two people from each of the networks and the Associated Press entree to a windowless room in New York. All cell phones, laptops and Blackberrys will be confiscated. The designated staffers will pore over the exit polls but will not be allowed to communicate with their offices until 5 p.m.
The consortium, called the National Election Pool, is conducting no surveys for House races. The exit polling will take place for Senate and gubernatorial contests in 32 states with competitive races.
The recent track record with such polling has been pockmarked with failure. There was, of course, the debacle of election night 2000, when the networks used polling data from Florida to prematurely award the presidency, twice, within hours. In 2002, the network consortium's predecessor, Voter News Service, suffered a computer meltdown and pulled the plug on its exit polls. Two years ago, its sample was so skewed that the group's surveys showed Sen. John Kerry beating President Bush well into the night.
WaPo Article...
Howard Kurtz would have you believe that the big problem with our elections is not ballot boxes that can be rigged but bad exit polling -- SS
HOWARD KURTZ, WASHINGTON POST - If the Democrats capture the House, television anchors won't be able to project that until they are sure the party has locked in a 15-seat gain. . . In the Senate, with fewer seats in play, the math is simpler. If one or two of the most vulnerable Republicans -- in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Missouri -- win decisively, the networks will know fairly early that the Democrats won't be able to reach their magic number of six needed to take control. But even if the Democrats sweep those races -- and hold New Jersey, which is in doubt -- the networks still won't be able to forecast a Democratic takeover until enough votes are counted in Montana, where polls close at 10 p.m. Eastern. . .
The biggest behind-the-scenes change in network coverage involves what has been dubbed the Quarantine Room. Determined to avoid a rerun of recent years, when its exit polls leaked out by early afternoon to the Drudge Report, Slate and other Web sites, a media consortium is allowing two people from each of the networks and the Associated Press entree to a windowless room in New York. All cell phones, laptops and Blackberrys will be confiscated. The designated staffers will pore over the exit polls but will not be allowed to communicate with their offices until 5 p.m.
The consortium, called the National Election Pool, is conducting no surveys for House races. The exit polling will take place for Senate and gubernatorial contests in 32 states with competitive races.
The recent track record with such polling has been pockmarked with failure. There was, of course, the debacle of election night 2000, when the networks used polling data from Florida to prematurely award the presidency, twice, within hours. In 2002, the network consortium's predecessor, Voter News Service, suffered a computer meltdown and pulled the plug on its exit polls. Two years ago, its sample was so skewed that the group's surveys showed Sen. John Kerry beating President Bush well into the night.
WaPo Article...
Thursday, November 02, 2006
SamGram: Why is the Military Sacred?
http://prorev.com/2006/11/samgram-why-is-military-sacred.htm
ONE OF THE MOST costly and immoral lies of our culture is that the military is a sacred institution. John Kerry recently bumped into this lie while telling a truth, albeit that, as a practical matter, one shouldn't mention a week before the election, namely that the military has always been a haven for those who couldn't hack it in the civilian economy. "Education. . . if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well," said Kerry "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
You need only watch the military's own recruiting ads to know the importance of the economic harbor. Which is why these ads promise to train you so you'll be able make it in the 'free market' when you go back.
The military is America's largest religion. If in public office, you may no more take its name in vain than those of the lesser gods revered by more modest religions like Christianity.
In fact, the military has a permanent exemption from the strictures of Christianity. Otherwise, instead of going after cohabiting gays, the church's rightwing would be attacking the Pentagon for violating such strictures as:
"The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. 'But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
But none of that matters to the Christian apostates who control the discussion of both religion and the military in our political debates. These frauds have blasphemed their own purported religion and betrayed its fundamental principles. And nowhere is this more apparent than their allegiance to the military, the most un-Christian public institution of our world.
Of course, if you're a Seventh Day Agnostic like your editor, you can get away with saying such things. It is those who seek power but can't quite get the hypocritical rhetoric down who end up in trouble.
Like John Kerry who was taken to the reamers for violating the first law of heroism - let someone else do the talking about what you did - and who now is in trouble for not seeing the military as heroic enough. It's often like that; it's the errant priests who get into real trouble, not the outlanders, the unsalvageable.
And the reason he is in trouble is because not just the GOP spin machine but everyone in public office and the bulk of the media believe one should speak no evil of the military. On no single issue is the media's pretension of objectivity more regularly violated. Its true purpose in this matter is to perpetuate the myth of the sacred role of the warrior.
In fact, as Joseph Conrad noted, the hero and the coward are those who, for one brief moment, do something out of the ordinary. At least the ones we honor, that is. The career firefighter, the inner city grandmother raising six grandchildren whose father is in jail and mother has a lousy job, or the teacher year after year helping to save those who society has preemptively discarded are not treated as sacred, as heroes, or as worthy of special honor during political campaigns and or on the evening news. But killing some Iraqis, or being killed by them: that's the real thing.
That's why you won't hear any politician or commentator quoting Eugene Debs: "I would no more teach children military training than I would teach them arson, robbery, or assassination."
There is also the little problem of winning. If you're going to justify war without concern for its morality, you still are left with the practical problem of victory. Since World War II, America has had no victories save against minor military enemies such as Granada. Even if we were to declare victory against Iraq it would be the military equivalent of Notre Dame defeating St Joseph's Junior High School.
I sometimes fantasize that war will be the slavery of the 21st century, which is to say a concept once widely accepted is turned into the pariah practice it should always have been. For this to happen abolitionism will have to replace pacifism; it is not the good of the resister that is important but rather the evil of the practitioner. We need to demystify the military, pointing out not just its moral weaknesses but its logical fallacies. We should sensibly regard people who walk around with pins on their chests celebrating their life as, at best, somewhat unstable. And we need to remind the media that it can not call itself objective and repeatedly rebuff the voices of peace.
ONE OF THE MOST costly and immoral lies of our culture is that the military is a sacred institution. John Kerry recently bumped into this lie while telling a truth, albeit that, as a practical matter, one shouldn't mention a week before the election, namely that the military has always been a haven for those who couldn't hack it in the civilian economy. "Education. . . if you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well," said Kerry "If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
You need only watch the military's own recruiting ads to know the importance of the economic harbor. Which is why these ads promise to train you so you'll be able make it in the 'free market' when you go back.
The military is America's largest religion. If in public office, you may no more take its name in vain than those of the lesser gods revered by more modest religions like Christianity.
In fact, the military has a permanent exemption from the strictures of Christianity. Otherwise, instead of going after cohabiting gays, the church's rightwing would be attacking the Pentagon for violating such strictures as:
"The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."
"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
"Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. 'But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
But none of that matters to the Christian apostates who control the discussion of both religion and the military in our political debates. These frauds have blasphemed their own purported religion and betrayed its fundamental principles. And nowhere is this more apparent than their allegiance to the military, the most un-Christian public institution of our world.
Of course, if you're a Seventh Day Agnostic like your editor, you can get away with saying such things. It is those who seek power but can't quite get the hypocritical rhetoric down who end up in trouble.
Like John Kerry who was taken to the reamers for violating the first law of heroism - let someone else do the talking about what you did - and who now is in trouble for not seeing the military as heroic enough. It's often like that; it's the errant priests who get into real trouble, not the outlanders, the unsalvageable.
And the reason he is in trouble is because not just the GOP spin machine but everyone in public office and the bulk of the media believe one should speak no evil of the military. On no single issue is the media's pretension of objectivity more regularly violated. Its true purpose in this matter is to perpetuate the myth of the sacred role of the warrior.
In fact, as Joseph Conrad noted, the hero and the coward are those who, for one brief moment, do something out of the ordinary. At least the ones we honor, that is. The career firefighter, the inner city grandmother raising six grandchildren whose father is in jail and mother has a lousy job, or the teacher year after year helping to save those who society has preemptively discarded are not treated as sacred, as heroes, or as worthy of special honor during political campaigns and or on the evening news. But killing some Iraqis, or being killed by them: that's the real thing.
That's why you won't hear any politician or commentator quoting Eugene Debs: "I would no more teach children military training than I would teach them arson, robbery, or assassination."
There is also the little problem of winning. If you're going to justify war without concern for its morality, you still are left with the practical problem of victory. Since World War II, America has had no victories save against minor military enemies such as Granada. Even if we were to declare victory against Iraq it would be the military equivalent of Notre Dame defeating St Joseph's Junior High School.
I sometimes fantasize that war will be the slavery of the 21st century, which is to say a concept once widely accepted is turned into the pariah practice it should always have been. For this to happen abolitionism will have to replace pacifism; it is not the good of the resister that is important but rather the evil of the practitioner. We need to demystify the military, pointing out not just its moral weaknesses but its logical fallacies. We should sensibly regard people who walk around with pins on their chests celebrating their life as, at best, somewhat unstable. And we need to remind the media that it can not call itself objective and repeatedly rebuff the voices of peace.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Post-Constitutional America: New Law
The dismantling of the republic is nearly complete. In the last few weeks the Bush administration has passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which allows the president to arrest and torture whomever he chooses without charging him with a crime. Also, unbeknownst to most Americans, Bush signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy, will allow the president to unilaterally declare martial law. By changing The Insurrection Act, Bush has essentially overturned the Posse Comitatus Act which bars the president from deploying troops with the United States. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (as it is called) also allows Bush to take control of the National Guard which has always been under the purview of the state governors. Bush now has absolute power over all armed troops within the country, a state of affairs which the constitution purposely tried to prevent. The administration’s dream of militarizing the country under the sole authority of the executive has now been achieved although the public still has no idea that a coup has taken place. --Pete (with an assist from Information Clearinghouse)
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h5122:
SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.
(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law
`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:h5122:
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Wal-Mart workers win $78.5 million lawsuit
By Betsey Piette
Philadelphia
Published Oct 25, 2006
A Philadelphia jury found Oct. 13 that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and Pennsylvania’s largest private employer, knowingly benefited from not paying employees for all the time they worked. The jury awarded $78.5 million to current and former employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s Pennsylvania stores. The ruling involves nearly 187,000 workers.
After a five-week trial, the Common Pleas Court jury found that Wal-Mart failed to pay workers for their rest breaks, forcing employees to work off the clock. The jury found that the mega-chain knowingly received an unfair benefit from not paying the employees.
Wal-Mart could be forced to pay more damages in the case.
“I would say Wal-Mart was stealing our time, because we weren’t getting our breaks,” former employee Delores Killingsworth Barber of North Philadelphia testified to the jury. Another Philadelphia area employee, Michelle Braun, told of being locked inside the store and forced to work without pay after she had clocked out when her shift ended.
Wal-Mart attorney Neal Manne argued that the lead plaintiffs were just a small group of disgruntled employees. However, the fact that at least seven other class-action lawsuits and more than 50 smaller lawsuits are pending against Wal-Mart on wage and hour issues proves otherwise.
In December, California jurors awarded $172.3 million to a class of 115,919 current and former Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club workers who were made to miss meal breaks.
In the Pennsylvania case, jurors found that workers at Wal-Mart were forced to work more than 33 million rest breaks between 1998 and 2001 because company management were under pressure to cut costs. Store managers received bonuses that sometimes doubled their pay if they reached the profit goal.
While clearly a victory for the workers involved, the class-action finding fails to address the ongoing problem that the world’s largest retailer continues to make mega-profits off the back of its seriously underpaid work force.
In 2004, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Officer Lee Scott received a salary of $1.2 million and $22 million in bonuses, stock awards and stock options. In 2005, Wal-Mart’s average sales “associate” earned $17,114 a year–that’s more than $10,000 under the poverty level of a two-person family to meet basic needs. In addition, Wal-Mart’s health insurance policy only covers 43 percent of its 1.39 million employees. And those covered end up paying a high proportion of their incomes to cover premiums and deductibles.
A 2005 study, “The Effect of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets” by David Neumark, also found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces wages per person by 5 percent for all workers in the county in which it operates.
While Wal-Mart clearly profits from underpaying workers at stores in the United States, its biggest profit margin comes from exploiting workers in Wal-Mart factories abroad. Workers from Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Swaziland brought a class- action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in September 2005, asserting that they were often paid less than the legal minimum wage. Some said they were beaten by managers and were locked in their factories.
Wal-Mart workers need more than lawsuits. They need a company-wide union that can fight for workers’ rights at home and abroad.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/wal-mart-1102/
Philadelphia
Published Oct 25, 2006
A Philadelphia jury found Oct. 13 that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and Pennsylvania’s largest private employer, knowingly benefited from not paying employees for all the time they worked. The jury awarded $78.5 million to current and former employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s Pennsylvania stores. The ruling involves nearly 187,000 workers.
After a five-week trial, the Common Pleas Court jury found that Wal-Mart failed to pay workers for their rest breaks, forcing employees to work off the clock. The jury found that the mega-chain knowingly received an unfair benefit from not paying the employees.
Wal-Mart could be forced to pay more damages in the case.
“I would say Wal-Mart was stealing our time, because we weren’t getting our breaks,” former employee Delores Killingsworth Barber of North Philadelphia testified to the jury. Another Philadelphia area employee, Michelle Braun, told of being locked inside the store and forced to work without pay after she had clocked out when her shift ended.
Wal-Mart attorney Neal Manne argued that the lead plaintiffs were just a small group of disgruntled employees. However, the fact that at least seven other class-action lawsuits and more than 50 smaller lawsuits are pending against Wal-Mart on wage and hour issues proves otherwise.
In December, California jurors awarded $172.3 million to a class of 115,919 current and former Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club workers who were made to miss meal breaks.
In the Pennsylvania case, jurors found that workers at Wal-Mart were forced to work more than 33 million rest breaks between 1998 and 2001 because company management were under pressure to cut costs. Store managers received bonuses that sometimes doubled their pay if they reached the profit goal.
While clearly a victory for the workers involved, the class-action finding fails to address the ongoing problem that the world’s largest retailer continues to make mega-profits off the back of its seriously underpaid work force.
In 2004, Wal-Mart Chief Executive Officer Lee Scott received a salary of $1.2 million and $22 million in bonuses, stock awards and stock options. In 2005, Wal-Mart’s average sales “associate” earned $17,114 a year–that’s more than $10,000 under the poverty level of a two-person family to meet basic needs. In addition, Wal-Mart’s health insurance policy only covers 43 percent of its 1.39 million employees. And those covered end up paying a high proportion of their incomes to cover premiums and deductibles.
A 2005 study, “The Effect of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets” by David Neumark, also found that the average Wal-Mart store reduces wages per person by 5 percent for all workers in the county in which it operates.
While Wal-Mart clearly profits from underpaying workers at stores in the United States, its biggest profit margin comes from exploiting workers in Wal-Mart factories abroad. Workers from Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Nicaragua and Swaziland brought a class- action lawsuit against Wal-Mart in September 2005, asserting that they were often paid less than the legal minimum wage. Some said they were beaten by managers and were locked in their factories.
Wal-Mart workers need more than lawsuits. They need a company-wide union that can fight for workers’ rights at home and abroad.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/wal-mart-1102/
Protesters dog Bush in North Carolina
By David Dixon
Greensboro, N.C.
Published Oct 25, 2006
When President George Bush came to North Carolina on Oct. 18, he was met by protesters all through the day.
He came to the predominantly African-American Waldo C. Falkener Elementary School to tout the supposed success of his No Child Left Behind Act. Some 45 people showed up to demonstrate against his policies of endless war, torture, neglect of Rita/Katrina victims, and dishonesty. One protester held a sign that said, “No child left a dime!” to highlight the Bush administration’s tax cuts for the wealthy and gutting of social programs for working and poor people.
Afterwards, Bush was greeted by a group of protesters in Randleman, N.C., when he went to the Victory Junction Gang Camp, a camp for children with health care needs.
Then came the real-life nightmare on Elm Street, when Bush returned to Greensboro to attend a private Republican fundraiser in a wealthy enclave near Elm Street and Sunset Drive, where he raised over $900,000. People are so disgusted with Bush and his policies that even some people in the neighborhood joined the protest.
Some 130 people rallied, demanding Bush be jailed for his war crimes and subversion of constitutional rights. It was a lively protest with drummers keeping everyone’s spirits and energy up. People chanted to the beat of the drums saying, “There’s a killer in the White House, time to drive his ass out,” “End the occupation,” and “Bush is bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s. This war is bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s.”
When protesters attempted to march into the neighborhood to demonstrate in front of the fundraiser, a line of cops formed. Progressive attorney Louis Pitts, after speaking with police, informed the crowd that their rights were being violated. Police claimed the area was a “secure area” but were allowing cars to drive in, and Bush supporters were visibly on the sidewalk ahead. Demonstrators held an impromptu street meeting to decide what to do next.
Before the discussion ended, police had closed off the entire street, but the rally continued as people marched around the busy intersection. There was a makeshift jail with Bush inside, a towering orange arrest warrant, a hula-hooper for peace, a coffin with “Roe v Wade” painted on the side, and a large pink banner saying “Impeach to support our troops.” Several people were able to sneak around the block and protest at the fundraiser.
Almost all the protesters wore an orange ribbon and some dressed in orange to show their opposition to the recently passed Military Commissions Act of 2006, which legalizes torture. The act also strips away the right of habeas corpus to anyone Bush declares an enemy combatant, among many other unconstitutional aspects.
The protest was organized by Greensboro World Can’t Wait with the support of Action Center For Justice and Char-Meck Code Pink. People from around North Carolina participated, including the cities of Charlotte, Reidsville, Kernersville, Burlington, Wilmington, Winston-Salem, and Chapel Hill.
The protest was covered by a couple of local news stations and Greensboro’s News and Record. As usual, they underreported the number of people and ignored many of the most significant statements and details of this incredible display of opposition to the Bush administration.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/bush-1102/
Greensboro, N.C.
Published Oct 25, 2006
When President George Bush came to North Carolina on Oct. 18, he was met by protesters all through the day.
He came to the predominantly African-American Waldo C. Falkener Elementary School to tout the supposed success of his No Child Left Behind Act. Some 45 people showed up to demonstrate against his policies of endless war, torture, neglect of Rita/Katrina victims, and dishonesty. One protester held a sign that said, “No child left a dime!” to highlight the Bush administration’s tax cuts for the wealthy and gutting of social programs for working and poor people.
Afterwards, Bush was greeted by a group of protesters in Randleman, N.C., when he went to the Victory Junction Gang Camp, a camp for children with health care needs.
Then came the real-life nightmare on Elm Street, when Bush returned to Greensboro to attend a private Republican fundraiser in a wealthy enclave near Elm Street and Sunset Drive, where he raised over $900,000. People are so disgusted with Bush and his policies that even some people in the neighborhood joined the protest.
Some 130 people rallied, demanding Bush be jailed for his war crimes and subversion of constitutional rights. It was a lively protest with drummers keeping everyone’s spirits and energy up. People chanted to the beat of the drums saying, “There’s a killer in the White House, time to drive his ass out,” “End the occupation,” and “Bush is bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s. This war is bananas, b-a-n-a-n-a-s.”
When protesters attempted to march into the neighborhood to demonstrate in front of the fundraiser, a line of cops formed. Progressive attorney Louis Pitts, after speaking with police, informed the crowd that their rights were being violated. Police claimed the area was a “secure area” but were allowing cars to drive in, and Bush supporters were visibly on the sidewalk ahead. Demonstrators held an impromptu street meeting to decide what to do next.
Before the discussion ended, police had closed off the entire street, but the rally continued as people marched around the busy intersection. There was a makeshift jail with Bush inside, a towering orange arrest warrant, a hula-hooper for peace, a coffin with “Roe v Wade” painted on the side, and a large pink banner saying “Impeach to support our troops.” Several people were able to sneak around the block and protest at the fundraiser.
Almost all the protesters wore an orange ribbon and some dressed in orange to show their opposition to the recently passed Military Commissions Act of 2006, which legalizes torture. The act also strips away the right of habeas corpus to anyone Bush declares an enemy combatant, among many other unconstitutional aspects.
The protest was organized by Greensboro World Can’t Wait with the support of Action Center For Justice and Char-Meck Code Pink. People from around North Carolina participated, including the cities of Charlotte, Reidsville, Kernersville, Burlington, Wilmington, Winston-Salem, and Chapel Hill.
The protest was covered by a couple of local news stations and Greensboro’s News and Record. As usual, they underreported the number of people and ignored many of the most significant statements and details of this incredible display of opposition to the Bush administration.
This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2006/us/bush-1102/
Friday, October 20, 2006
BUSH REPORTED TO HAVE PURCHASED 99,000 ACRES IN PARAGUAY
Why might the president and his family need a 98,840-acre ranch in Paraguay protected by a semi-secret U.S. military base manned by American troops who have been exempted from war-crimes prosecution by the Paraguayan government? - Wonkette
PRENSA LATINA - The land grab project of US President George W. Bush in Chaco, Paraguay, has generated considerable discomfort both politically and environmentally. The news circulating the continent about plans to buy 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay) is the talk of the town in these countries.
Although official sources have not confirmed the information that is already public, the land is reportedly located in Paso de Patria, near Bolivian gas reserves and the Guarani indigenous water region, within the Triple Border. . .
Concern increased last week with the arrival of Bush" daughter, Jenna, and a source from the Physical Planning Department saying that most of the Chaco region belongs to private companies.
Luis D'Elia, Argentina´s undersecretary for Land for Social Habitat, says the matter raises regional concern because it threatens local natural resources.
Article...
STEVE O - It has been reported that George W. Bush has recently purchased a 98,842 acre farm in Northern Paraguay. What on earth does the President of the United States need a 98,000+ acre farm in Northern Paraguay for?
On the surface it looks all very innocent, but let's add the very quiet trip that Jenna Bush made to the country earlier this month in which she met Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte and his family at their official residence. She also met with U.S. Ambassador James Cason. Could it be that our little drunken Jenna is all grown up and playing diplomacy?
This all still seems very innocent on the surface, but now let's add the five hundred U.S. troops that arrived in Paraguay with planes, weapons and ammunition in July 2005, shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court jurisdiction. Neighboring countries and human rights organizations are concerned the massive air base at Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay is potential real estate for the U.S. military.
Does Bush plan on being charged with something in the future? Does Bush foresee a collapse of the United States and feels a strong need to have a place to cut and run to, or does Bush just need a nice secret little place other than Gitmo where he can send people he doesn't like?
Article...
BRING IT ON - Jenna Bush paid a secret diplomatic visit to Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte and U.S. Ambassador James Cason. There were no press conferences, no public sightings and no official confirmation of her 10-day trip which apparently ended this week. . .
And Jenna's down there having secret meetings with the president and America's ambassador to Paraguay, James Cason. Bush posted Cason in Havana in 2002, but last year moved him to Paraguay. Cason apparently gets around. A former "political adviser" to the U.S. Atlantic Command and ATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, Cason has been stationed in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama … basically everywhere the U.S. has run secret and not-so-secret wars over the past 30 years.
Here's a fun question for Tony Snow: Why might the president and his family need a 98,840-acre ranch in Paraguay protected by a semi-secret U.S. military base manned by American troops who have been exempted from war-crimes prosecution by the Paraguayan government?
WONKETTE - Here's a little background on the base itself, which Rumsfeld secretly visited in late 2005: U.S. Special Forces began arriving this past summer at Paraguay's Mariscal Estigarribia air base, a sprawling complex built in 1982 during the reign of dictator Alfredo Stroessner.
Argentinean journalists who got a peek at the place say the airfield can handle B-52 bombers and Galaxy C-5 cargo planes. It also has a huge radar system, vast hangers, and can house up to 16,000 troops. The air base is larger than the international airport at the capital city, Asuncion.
Article...
Related brief commentary...
From my undergraduate history of the Cold War, I seem to recall that after the Allied victory in World War Two, the northern reaches of Paraguay provided a refuge for Nazi war criminals – including Dr. Josef Mengele. A rogue Nazi, a rogue president – a refuge for rogues in the mists of Paraguay - is that a coincidence – or not?
Michael Carmichael , GlobalResearch.ca, 2006
PRENSA LATINA - The land grab project of US President George W. Bush in Chaco, Paraguay, has generated considerable discomfort both politically and environmentally. The news circulating the continent about plans to buy 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay) is the talk of the town in these countries.
Although official sources have not confirmed the information that is already public, the land is reportedly located in Paso de Patria, near Bolivian gas reserves and the Guarani indigenous water region, within the Triple Border. . .
Concern increased last week with the arrival of Bush" daughter, Jenna, and a source from the Physical Planning Department saying that most of the Chaco region belongs to private companies.
Luis D'Elia, Argentina´s undersecretary for Land for Social Habitat, says the matter raises regional concern because it threatens local natural resources.
Article...
STEVE O - It has been reported that George W. Bush has recently purchased a 98,842 acre farm in Northern Paraguay. What on earth does the President of the United States need a 98,000+ acre farm in Northern Paraguay for?
On the surface it looks all very innocent, but let's add the very quiet trip that Jenna Bush made to the country earlier this month in which she met Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte and his family at their official residence. She also met with U.S. Ambassador James Cason. Could it be that our little drunken Jenna is all grown up and playing diplomacy?
This all still seems very innocent on the surface, but now let's add the five hundred U.S. troops that arrived in Paraguay with planes, weapons and ammunition in July 2005, shortly after the Paraguayan Senate granted U.S. troops immunity from national and International Criminal Court jurisdiction. Neighboring countries and human rights organizations are concerned the massive air base at Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay is potential real estate for the U.S. military.
Does Bush plan on being charged with something in the future? Does Bush foresee a collapse of the United States and feels a strong need to have a place to cut and run to, or does Bush just need a nice secret little place other than Gitmo where he can send people he doesn't like?
Article...
BRING IT ON - Jenna Bush paid a secret diplomatic visit to Paraguayan President Nicanor Duarte and U.S. Ambassador James Cason. There were no press conferences, no public sightings and no official confirmation of her 10-day trip which apparently ended this week. . .
And Jenna's down there having secret meetings with the president and America's ambassador to Paraguay, James Cason. Bush posted Cason in Havana in 2002, but last year moved him to Paraguay. Cason apparently gets around. A former "political adviser" to the U.S. Atlantic Command and ATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, Cason has been stationed in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama … basically everywhere the U.S. has run secret and not-so-secret wars over the past 30 years.
Here's a fun question for Tony Snow: Why might the president and his family need a 98,840-acre ranch in Paraguay protected by a semi-secret U.S. military base manned by American troops who have been exempted from war-crimes prosecution by the Paraguayan government?
WONKETTE - Here's a little background on the base itself, which Rumsfeld secretly visited in late 2005: U.S. Special Forces began arriving this past summer at Paraguay's Mariscal Estigarribia air base, a sprawling complex built in 1982 during the reign of dictator Alfredo Stroessner.
Argentinean journalists who got a peek at the place say the airfield can handle B-52 bombers and Galaxy C-5 cargo planes. It also has a huge radar system, vast hangers, and can house up to 16,000 troops. The air base is larger than the international airport at the capital city, Asuncion.
Article...
Related brief commentary...
From my undergraduate history of the Cold War, I seem to recall that after the Allied victory in World War Two, the northern reaches of Paraguay provided a refuge for Nazi war criminals – including Dr. Josef Mengele. A rogue Nazi, a rogue president – a refuge for rogues in the mists of Paraguay - is that a coincidence – or not?
Michael Carmichael , GlobalResearch.ca, 2006
Fnord! Bob is forever grateful!
A quick word on Robert Anton Wilson and the general state of generosity and human kindness. The word went out on the web early this month that Bob was in a financial pickel due to his need for 24 hour care. In about 5 days, more than $50,000 was donated to Bob Wilson by has fans and readers! He was flabbergasted and humbled beyond measure. This kindly swarm of donations has fully enabled Bob to receive the care he (and everyone!) deserves. More details at his site. Praise Bob! Hail Eris!
http://www.rawilson.com
http://www.rawilson.com
Thursday, October 19, 2006
California Letter Investigated for Warning to Immigrants
October 18, 2006
By JESSE McKINLEY
NYT Article Here...
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 17 — Federal and state authorities are trying to determine who sent a letter to some Latinos in Southern California that falsely suggested that it would be a crime for immigrants to vote in the coming election.
The letter, written in formal, sometimes clumsy Spanish and signed “Sergio Ramirez,” was mailed last week to an undetermined number of people with Spanish surnames in Orange County, the authorities said. It advised recipients that “if you’re an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration,” or deportation.
While illegal immigrants are barred from voting, legal immigrants who have become citizens are permitted to do so.
The letter also stated that the federal government had installed a computer system to verify the names of new registered voters who vote in October and November and that anti-immigration groups would be able to access that information. Election Day is Nov. 7, but early voting is allowed Oct. 20-29 in Orange County.
Cynthia Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which along with the California attorney general’s office is investigating the letter’s source, said there was no such database.
“The letter contains false information,” Ms. Magnuson said.
The letter was printed on stationery labeled with the name of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, a strident anti-illegal-immigration group whose Web site features a video on how illegal immigrants bring disease to the United States.
But Barbara Coe, the group’s leader, told The Los Angeles Times, which first reported the letter on Tuesday, that her group had not sent or authorized it, and that she did not know a Sergio Ramirez. On Tuesday, Ms. Coe did not return repeated phone calls and e-mail seeking comment.
Some Latino leaders expressed doubts on Tuesday about Ms. Coe’s denial and said they suspected the letter was part of a concerted, long-term effort on the part of groups like hers to intimidate voters.
“They’re taking as much action as they can to make the lives of Latinos as miserable as possible,” said Brent Wilkes, the national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the letter racist and urged Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general, to prosecute those responsible with a hate crime. A collection of other civil rights groups also called on Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to investigate the letter as a violation of federal voting laws.
Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Mr. Lockyer, said his office had been alerted to the letter on Monday morning, after a weekend in which Latino leaders fielded calls from outraged constituents.
“They could be naturalized citizens or they could be fourth-generation Californians,” Mr. Barankin said of the recipients. “What we do know is that some of the recipients of this letter are legal and longtime registered voters in California.”
Mr. Barankin said the letter could have violated two California laws. One bans the use of coercion or intimidation in an effort to prevent someone from voting; the other makes it illegal to knowingly challenge a person’s right to vote on fraudulent and spurious grounds.
It was unclear, Mr. Barankin said, how many of the letters were distributed, but his office expected more complaints.
“We’re going to determine who sent it, and why they sent it and then from that, if there’s enough evidence to prosecute,” Mr. Barankin said.
Orange County, between Los Angeles and San Diego, has seen a substantial increase in its Latino population over the last two decades. A 2005 estimate by the Census Bureau reported that nearly one in three Orange County residents was of Latino or Hispanic origin.
Representative Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat from Garden Grove, in northern Orange County, said that she had heard from a handful of constituents in her district who received a letter, and that she feared it could scare off first-time voters.
“Santa Ana and Anaheim are the new Ellis Island of the United States,” Ms. Sanchez said, mentioning two Orange County cities with large Latino populations. “New people are becoming citizens every day, and who knows the sophistication level when they get a letter like this?”
But others thought the letter would have little effect.
“I think Latino voters are astute enough not to be intimidated,” said John Trasviña, the interim president and general counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles. “And they’ve seen the same tactics used against them in the recent past as well as the farther ago past. And they won’t take it.”
By JESSE McKINLEY
NYT Article Here...
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 17 — Federal and state authorities are trying to determine who sent a letter to some Latinos in Southern California that falsely suggested that it would be a crime for immigrants to vote in the coming election.
The letter, written in formal, sometimes clumsy Spanish and signed “Sergio Ramirez,” was mailed last week to an undetermined number of people with Spanish surnames in Orange County, the authorities said. It advised recipients that “if you’re an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in incarceration,” or deportation.
While illegal immigrants are barred from voting, legal immigrants who have become citizens are permitted to do so.
The letter also stated that the federal government had installed a computer system to verify the names of new registered voters who vote in October and November and that anti-immigration groups would be able to access that information. Election Day is Nov. 7, but early voting is allowed Oct. 20-29 in Orange County.
Cynthia Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, which along with the California attorney general’s office is investigating the letter’s source, said there was no such database.
“The letter contains false information,” Ms. Magnuson said.
The letter was printed on stationery labeled with the name of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, a strident anti-illegal-immigration group whose Web site features a video on how illegal immigrants bring disease to the United States.
But Barbara Coe, the group’s leader, told The Los Angeles Times, which first reported the letter on Tuesday, that her group had not sent or authorized it, and that she did not know a Sergio Ramirez. On Tuesday, Ms. Coe did not return repeated phone calls and e-mail seeking comment.
Some Latino leaders expressed doubts on Tuesday about Ms. Coe’s denial and said they suspected the letter was part of a concerted, long-term effort on the part of groups like hers to intimidate voters.
“They’re taking as much action as they can to make the lives of Latinos as miserable as possible,” said Brent Wilkes, the national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, a civil rights group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the letter racist and urged Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general, to prosecute those responsible with a hate crime. A collection of other civil rights groups also called on Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to investigate the letter as a violation of federal voting laws.
Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Mr. Lockyer, said his office had been alerted to the letter on Monday morning, after a weekend in which Latino leaders fielded calls from outraged constituents.
“They could be naturalized citizens or they could be fourth-generation Californians,” Mr. Barankin said of the recipients. “What we do know is that some of the recipients of this letter are legal and longtime registered voters in California.”
Mr. Barankin said the letter could have violated two California laws. One bans the use of coercion or intimidation in an effort to prevent someone from voting; the other makes it illegal to knowingly challenge a person’s right to vote on fraudulent and spurious grounds.
It was unclear, Mr. Barankin said, how many of the letters were distributed, but his office expected more complaints.
“We’re going to determine who sent it, and why they sent it and then from that, if there’s enough evidence to prosecute,” Mr. Barankin said.
Orange County, between Los Angeles and San Diego, has seen a substantial increase in its Latino population over the last two decades. A 2005 estimate by the Census Bureau reported that nearly one in three Orange County residents was of Latino or Hispanic origin.
Representative Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat from Garden Grove, in northern Orange County, said that she had heard from a handful of constituents in her district who received a letter, and that she feared it could scare off first-time voters.
“Santa Ana and Anaheim are the new Ellis Island of the United States,” Ms. Sanchez said, mentioning two Orange County cities with large Latino populations. “New people are becoming citizens every day, and who knows the sophistication level when they get a letter like this?”
But others thought the letter would have little effect.
“I think Latino voters are astute enough not to be intimidated,” said John Trasviña, the interim president and general counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Los Angeles. “And they’ve seen the same tactics used against them in the recent past as well as the farther ago past. And they won’t take it.”
Pentagon Monitoring Peace Activists' E-Mails
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive
Posted on October 19, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/43085/
More information keeps coming out, thanks to the ACLU, about the Bush Administration's equation of protest with terrorism -- and the snooping it then engages in.
Homeland Security is monitoring peace groups and even peering at their e-mails. "This information is being provided only to alert commanders and staff to potential terrorist activity or apprise them of other force protection issues."
It then shares that information with Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which include the FBI and state and local law enforcement, as well as with the Pentagon's notorious Talon (Threat and Local Observation Notice) program.
For instance, an April 12, 2005, Talon document, just released by the ACLU, shows that the Pentagon was concerned about "suspicious activity" at an upcoming event sponsored by the Broward Anti-War Coalition in Florida.
This peace group, according to the document, was planning -- hold your breath here -- "guerrilla theater and other forms of subversive propaganda" at the Fort Lauderdale Air and Sea Show.
The source of the information was the Miami-Dade Police Department, and members of Army Recruiting and the Miami Joint Terrorism Task Force were briefed on it, the document states.
Another Talon document, dated March 1, 2005, released by the ACLU, reveals that Homeland Security agents are monitoring e-mails of such scary groups as the Quakers.
"The source received an e-mail on 25 Feb 05, subject: upcoming peace/anti-war events. The e-mail was from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) in Northeast Ohio," the document states. And that source is identified as "a special agent of the Federal Protective Service, US Department of Homeland Security." The document adds, "Source is reliable."
The Joint Terrorism Task Force of Dayton, Ohio, was briefed on this one.
The planned activity of the Quakers that so concerned the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force was this: "On 19 Mar 05, there will be a 'Stop the War NOW!' rally in commemoration of the second anniversary of the U.S. Invasion/Occupation of Iraq. The Akron rally will have a march and reading of names of war dead. ... The Akron march begins at noon and goes past a local military recruiting station and the FBI office. The march will end at the Federal Building in Akron, for a rally, followed by reading of names of U.S. and Iraqi war dead."
A third Talon document, dated March 7, 2005, also relies on an e-mail from the Quakers. "Source received an e-mail from the American Friends Service Committee" about "actions at military recruitment offices with the goals to include: raising awareness, education, visibility." The source is again identified as "a special agent of the Federal Protective Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Source is reliable."
All three Talon documents state at the top: "This information is being provided only to alert commanders and staff to potential terrorist activity or apprise them of other force protection issues."
"Potential terrorist activity." Isn't that delightful?
Word to the wise: If you're a peace activist, the government may be watching you and reading your e-mails.
Something just to keep in mind.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/43085/
Posted on October 19, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/43085/
More information keeps coming out, thanks to the ACLU, about the Bush Administration's equation of protest with terrorism -- and the snooping it then engages in.
Homeland Security is monitoring peace groups and even peering at their e-mails. "This information is being provided only to alert commanders and staff to potential terrorist activity or apprise them of other force protection issues."
It then shares that information with Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which include the FBI and state and local law enforcement, as well as with the Pentagon's notorious Talon (Threat and Local Observation Notice) program.
For instance, an April 12, 2005, Talon document, just released by the ACLU, shows that the Pentagon was concerned about "suspicious activity" at an upcoming event sponsored by the Broward Anti-War Coalition in Florida.
This peace group, according to the document, was planning -- hold your breath here -- "guerrilla theater and other forms of subversive propaganda" at the Fort Lauderdale Air and Sea Show.
The source of the information was the Miami-Dade Police Department, and members of Army Recruiting and the Miami Joint Terrorism Task Force were briefed on it, the document states.
Another Talon document, dated March 1, 2005, released by the ACLU, reveals that Homeland Security agents are monitoring e-mails of such scary groups as the Quakers.
"The source received an e-mail on 25 Feb 05, subject: upcoming peace/anti-war events. The e-mail was from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) in Northeast Ohio," the document states. And that source is identified as "a special agent of the Federal Protective Service, US Department of Homeland Security." The document adds, "Source is reliable."
The Joint Terrorism Task Force of Dayton, Ohio, was briefed on this one.
The planned activity of the Quakers that so concerned the Pentagon, Homeland Security, and the Joint Terrorism Task Force was this: "On 19 Mar 05, there will be a 'Stop the War NOW!' rally in commemoration of the second anniversary of the U.S. Invasion/Occupation of Iraq. The Akron rally will have a march and reading of names of war dead. ... The Akron march begins at noon and goes past a local military recruiting station and the FBI office. The march will end at the Federal Building in Akron, for a rally, followed by reading of names of U.S. and Iraqi war dead."
A third Talon document, dated March 7, 2005, also relies on an e-mail from the Quakers. "Source received an e-mail from the American Friends Service Committee" about "actions at military recruitment offices with the goals to include: raising awareness, education, visibility." The source is again identified as "a special agent of the Federal Protective Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Source is reliable."
All three Talon documents state at the top: "This information is being provided only to alert commanders and staff to potential terrorist activity or apprise them of other force protection issues."
"Potential terrorist activity." Isn't that delightful?
Word to the wise: If you're a peace activist, the government may be watching you and reading your e-mails.
Something just to keep in mind.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/43085/
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Memory Hole Fixit...
Just to be clear - please remember that habeas corpus is (was?) the legal right of anyone who is thrown into prison to ask,
BushCo. has just done away with such bothersome niceties, the signing into law being portrayed as necessary to the War On Terra.
Can I Get A "Heil"?
--Pete
When fascism comes to the United States it will be draped in the American flag.
~~Huey Long
"Hey, why am I in prison"?
BushCo. has just done away with such bothersome niceties, the signing into law being portrayed as necessary to the War On Terra.
Can I Get A "Heil"?
--Pete
When fascism comes to the United States it will be draped in the American flag.
~~Huey Long
Police state round-up
Fascism on the march in the ol' US of A!
By Joshua Holland
Posted on October 18, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43159/
Let's see...
In CounterPunch, Stephen Pearcy details a frightening visit paid by the Secret Service to a 14 year-old honors' student who had some art on her MySpace page that scared the preznit's minders.
On the bright side, Julia was not declared an enemy combatant nor was she stripped of citizenship. Whew!
***
Bush signed the Torture Bill today. In a sure sign that Orwell was born in the wrong era, we learn that this was going on at the same time:
Tell your grandkids that there was a time in this country when people were guaranteed the right to assemble peaceably and seek redress from the government for whatever grievances they may have had. Good times.
Here's Bruce Ackerman's take on the bill. I've long been a fan.
And Froomkin:
On that note, let me say that I understand entirely why Sherrod Brown, a favorite legislator and a very, very good guy, felt compelled to vote for it. He's in a tight race with Mike DeWine for an Ohio Senate seat, DeWine's played the national security angle to the hilt and the bill had enough support to pass with or without his vote. Brown will do so much good in the Senate on issues like trade, on economic justice and on limiting corporate abuse and will be a reliable vote to withdrawal from Iraq.
And yet, I don't care about all that. It's simply unacceptable. I don't mind pragmatism, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and, in my mind, torture is the place. I still support Brown's candidacy, but I weep for a political culture in which opposing torture makes a person look "soft."
***
There's a debate about Arlen Spectre's role in the passage of the bill. Read about it here. I don't know which side has it right, but it has long been clear that when it comes to executive power and the rules guiding the War on Terrr, the "moderate" and "independent" Republicans can be expected to fold -- every time -- when the chips are down. Shame on those Dems that fool themselves into believing otherwise.
Sign the "People's Signing Statement" rejecting torture in America, sponsored by the Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture, here.
***
Lynne Stewart, referred to in virtually every account as a "radical attorney," was sentenced to prison for transmitting communications from her client, The Blind Sheikh, to the outside world. But she got off light, and viewed the day as a "victory."
(Bias alert: a good friend did some legal work on Stewart's behalf and got me drunk and talked my ear off about everything that was wrong with the case, in her view.)
Stewart's admitted to passing messages from Sheikh Omar-Abdel Rahman, convicted of planning a series of attacks in the New York area in 1995, to supporters outside. She claims she didn't know what one crucial message contained: a note withdrawing the Sheikh's support for a cease-fire between his followers and the Egyptian government. My friend said she thought it was inhuman to deprive the Sheikh of all communication with the outside world, saying "we don't throw people down a well in this country." Actually, if they're terrorists, the evidence is that we do. Frankly, I'm not sure there aren't cases when it's appropriate.
Anyway, she admits to screwing up, but the issue at hand is that DOJ, under John Ashcroft, over-charged the case for purely political reasons. Stewart, who faces breast cancer, was looking at 30 years (as was her translator) on a raft of terrorism charges.
She got 28 months. The translator got 20 months. A postal worker who relayed the messages to Egyptian militants was given 20 years.
At TomPaine, Jennifer Van Bergen writes:
The righties are flipping out (when aren't they in a huff over something?), and the prosecution may appeal the sentence.
***
Quickly:
This:
Oh, that's just charming.
And our friends up North get into the act:
Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43159/
By Joshua Holland
Posted on October 18, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43159/
Let's see...
In CounterPunch, Stephen Pearcy details a frightening visit paid by the Secret Service to a 14 year-old honors' student who had some art on her MySpace page that scared the preznit's minders.
The agents told [Julia's Mom] that since the art included the words, "Kill Bush," and since it was accessible to anyone on the Internet, there was a very strong likelihood that someone-possibly a terrorist from a foreign country-might see the image and be inspired to act upon it. Thus, they reasoned, even if Julia only meant to be funny, the art put the President in grave danger.
The S.S. agents left and made a beeline directly to Julia's school, C.K. McClatchy High School, the alma mater of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ('54) (and my mother ('52)).
Notwithstanding that Julia posted the artwork on MySpace when she was 13 and removed it last summer, and that the President had come to Sacramento twice while Julia's art remained inconsequential, the agents had suddenly determined that time was of the essence. They ordered school officials to have Julia promptly removed from class and brought to the school office, where they proceeded to grill her about her art.
Many critics of the S.S.' creation of a "sense of urgency" to contact Julia believe that it was tactically intended to send a chilling message to other students. Many lawyers, activists and free speech advocates believe that the goal of the S.S. was to generally deter young people from being too critical of the President. And what better way to send a chilling message to students than for the S.S. to pull a student out of class at a large public school?
In the school's office, the S.S. agents interrogated Julia, reducing her to tears at many points. They demanded to know whether she or her parents belonged to any subversive organizations, and they often raised their voices, especially when they detected that Julia was either scared or didn't understand their ambiguous questions.
On the bright side, Julia was not declared an enemy combatant nor was she stripped of citizenship. Whew!
***
Bush signed the Torture Bill today. In a sure sign that Orwell was born in the wrong era, we learn that this was going on at the same time:
While Bush was signing the terror detainee bill, some opponents were being arrested outside.
Authorities say 16 people are charged with impeding access to a White House entrance. They were hauled away from a sidewalk.
The demonstrators come from a coalition of religious groups and had been shouting slogans like "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime."
Tell your grandkids that there was a time in this country when people were guaranteed the right to assemble peaceably and seek redress from the government for whatever grievances they may have had. Good times.
Here's Bruce Ackerman's take on the bill. I've long been a fan.
And Froomkin:
The new law vaguely bans torture -- but makes the administration the arbiter of what is torture and what isn't. It allows the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant. It suspends the Great Writ of habeas corpus for detainees. It allows coerced testimony at trial. It immunizes retroactively interrogators who may have engaged in torture.
Here's what Bush had to say at his signing ceremony in the East Room: "The bill I sign today helps secure this country, and it sends a clear message: This nation is patient and decent and fair, and we will never back down from the threats to our freedom."
But that may not be the "clear message" the new law sends most people.
Here's the clear message the law sends to the world: America makes its own rules. The law would apparently subject terror suspects to some of the same sorts of brutal interrogation tactics that have historically been prosecuted as war crimes when committed against Americans.
Here's the clear message to the voters: This Congress is willing to rubberstamp pretty much any White House initiative it sees as being in its short-term political interests. (And I don't just mean the Republicans; 12 Senate Democrats and 32 House Democrats voted for the bill as well.)
On that note, let me say that I understand entirely why Sherrod Brown, a favorite legislator and a very, very good guy, felt compelled to vote for it. He's in a tight race with Mike DeWine for an Ohio Senate seat, DeWine's played the national security angle to the hilt and the bill had enough support to pass with or without his vote. Brown will do so much good in the Senate on issues like trade, on economic justice and on limiting corporate abuse and will be a reliable vote to withdrawal from Iraq.
And yet, I don't care about all that. It's simply unacceptable. I don't mind pragmatism, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and, in my mind, torture is the place. I still support Brown's candidacy, but I weep for a political culture in which opposing torture makes a person look "soft."
***
There's a debate about Arlen Spectre's role in the passage of the bill. Read about it here. I don't know which side has it right, but it has long been clear that when it comes to executive power and the rules guiding the War on Terrr, the "moderate" and "independent" Republicans can be expected to fold -- every time -- when the chips are down. Shame on those Dems that fool themselves into believing otherwise.
Sign the "People's Signing Statement" rejecting torture in America, sponsored by the Washington Region Religious Campaign Against Torture, here.
***
Lynne Stewart, referred to in virtually every account as a "radical attorney," was sentenced to prison for transmitting communications from her client, The Blind Sheikh, to the outside world. But she got off light, and viewed the day as a "victory."
(Bias alert: a good friend did some legal work on Stewart's behalf and got me drunk and talked my ear off about everything that was wrong with the case, in her view.)
Stewart's admitted to passing messages from Sheikh Omar-Abdel Rahman, convicted of planning a series of attacks in the New York area in 1995, to supporters outside. She claims she didn't know what one crucial message contained: a note withdrawing the Sheikh's support for a cease-fire between his followers and the Egyptian government. My friend said she thought it was inhuman to deprive the Sheikh of all communication with the outside world, saying "we don't throw people down a well in this country." Actually, if they're terrorists, the evidence is that we do. Frankly, I'm not sure there aren't cases when it's appropriate.
Anyway, she admits to screwing up, but the issue at hand is that DOJ, under John Ashcroft, over-charged the case for purely political reasons. Stewart, who faces breast cancer, was looking at 30 years (as was her translator) on a raft of terrorism charges.
She got 28 months. The translator got 20 months. A postal worker who relayed the messages to Egyptian militants was given 20 years.
[Judge] Koeltl noted … that neither Stewart's actions nor those of her co-defendants, translator Mohammed Yousry and legal assistant Ahmed Sattar, resulted in violence here or overseas. Having lashed Stewart for her criminal conduct, the judge pivoted, commending her for leading an otherwise exemplary life as a legal advocate for the poor, despised and dispossessed.
"Ms. Stewart performed a public service, not only to her clients but to the nation," Koeltl said. "She's made an extraordinary contribution."
Taken as a whole, the judge argued, her accomplishments amounted to a strong argument for departing from nonbinding federal guidelines that could have led him to impose a 30-year sentence.
Koeltl's decision to mete out a comparatively mild sentence amounted to a slap at federal prosecutors in a case that former Attorney General John Ashcroft repeatedly had hailed as a nationwide model.
But more than a few legal observers divined a message in the judge's sentences.
"There's no doubt the government has tried to use this case to chill effective advocacy in terror cases," said Neal Sonnett, a former federal prosecutor and past chair of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section and current chair of the task force on treatment of enemy combatants. "I'm delighted the judge was not swayed by the frenzy over terrorism."
At TomPaine, Jennifer Van Bergen writes:
The sentence reduction is important not just to Stewart but to all of us because it illustrates distinctions that the Justice Department seems incapable of making these days: the distinction between someone who violates a regulation (not a criminal offense) and someone who engages in terrorist acts or intentionally promotes such ends. The distinction, in the end, between bad judgment and criminal intent, or even between innocence and guilt.
The righties are flipping out (when aren't they in a huff over something?), and the prosecution may appeal the sentence.
***
Quickly:
This:
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado on Tuesday accused law enforcement officers of wrongly arresting a Thornton woman with no criminal record while she was nursing her baby and then strip-searching her at the jail because she was named in a botched warrant.
Oh, that's just charming.
And our friends up North get into the act:
B.C. Solicitor General John Les says he backs the federal government's controversial "three strikes" legislation that will make it easier to impose indefinite prison sentences on violent criminals.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has called the bill "sophomoric" and "offensive to the principle of innocent until proven guilty."
Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43159/
Why Washington Wanted Warner
WHY is the Washington establishment so upset over Mark Warner's decision not to run for president? Not because he had showed up well in any polls - he hardly showed up at all.
No, it's just that the establishment really thinks it should pick our presidents and not risk leaving the matter to mere voters. After all that's what happened with Bill Clinton.
And Mark Warner was meant to be the Bill Clinton of 2008, someone who looks like a Democrat but frequently enough acts like a Republican in order, as the following sycophantic report says, "to provide solutions."
CHRIS CILLIZZA, WASHINGTON POST - Warner's anticipated campaign was to be built around the notion that in an age of polarized politics, many voters are eager for a leader focused on reaching across partisan barriers for solutions to big problems. . . On paper, Bayh most closely resembles Warner in both ideological profile and governing style. Both are former governors of Republican-leaning states who have spent much of their time in office working with members of the rival party to provide
solutions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201675.html
No, it's just that the establishment really thinks it should pick our presidents and not risk leaving the matter to mere voters. After all that's what happened with Bill Clinton.
And Mark Warner was meant to be the Bill Clinton of 2008, someone who looks like a Democrat but frequently enough acts like a Republican in order, as the following sycophantic report says, "to provide solutions."
CHRIS CILLIZZA, WASHINGTON POST - Warner's anticipated campaign was to be built around the notion that in an age of polarized politics, many voters are eager for a leader focused on reaching across partisan barriers for solutions to big problems. . . On paper, Bayh most closely resembles Warner in both ideological profile and governing style. Both are former governors of Republican-leaning states who have spent much of their time in office working with members of the rival party to provide
solutions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201675.html
Quarter of Americans say they or family put off medical treatment due to cost
KAISER FOUNDATION - One in four Americans say that they or a family member in their household had problems paying medical bills during the past 12 months, according to a new poll conducted jointly by ABC News, the Kaiser Family Foundation and USA Today. That's the highest share of Americans reporting a problem paying medical bills in a series of Kaiser surveys taken since 1997. Among those reporting a problem this year, nearly seven in 10 have health insurance.
- About one in four (28%) Americans say that in the past year they or a family member have put off medical treatment because of its cost. Of those who delayed treatment, seven in 10 (70%) say that the care was for a serious medical condition.
- Among those with health insurance, most (60%) are worried about not being able to afford coverage over the next few years, with 27% saying they are very worried.
- More than half (54%) of those without health coverage say the main reason is because they can't afford it, while another 15% say they can't get it due to poor health, illness or age. In comparison, just 4% say the main reason they lack health insurance is because they think they don't need it.
- Eight in 10 Americans (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the overall cost of health care to the nation. When asked about their own concerns about the health care system, cost comes out far ahead of quality. Four in 10 say that they are dissatisfied with their personal health care costs, compared with one in 10 who say they are dissatisfied with the quality of their health care.
JULIE APPLEBY, USA TODAY - Fifty-six percent say they would prefer universal coverage to the current system. . . In the survey, 68% said providing coverage for everyone is more important than keeping taxes down. . .
When survey respondents were asked about possible trade-offs that might come with a universal program, positive responses plummeted. The poll found:
76% would oppose universal coverage if it meant some medical treatments currently covered by insurance would no longer be covered.
68% would be against it if it led to limits on the choice of doctors.
Article Here...
DEAN BAKER, PROSPECT - USA Today had an article this morning on rising U.S. health care costs. It never mentions the fact that the United States pays more than twice as much per person as the average among other wealthy countries, yet has shorter life expectancies.
SURVEY RESULTS
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr101606pkg.cfm
- About one in four (28%) Americans say that in the past year they or a family member have put off medical treatment because of its cost. Of those who delayed treatment, seven in 10 (70%) say that the care was for a serious medical condition.
- Among those with health insurance, most (60%) are worried about not being able to afford coverage over the next few years, with 27% saying they are very worried.
- More than half (54%) of those without health coverage say the main reason is because they can't afford it, while another 15% say they can't get it due to poor health, illness or age. In comparison, just 4% say the main reason they lack health insurance is because they think they don't need it.
- Eight in 10 Americans (80%) say they are dissatisfied with the overall cost of health care to the nation. When asked about their own concerns about the health care system, cost comes out far ahead of quality. Four in 10 say that they are dissatisfied with their personal health care costs, compared with one in 10 who say they are dissatisfied with the quality of their health care.
JULIE APPLEBY, USA TODAY - Fifty-six percent say they would prefer universal coverage to the current system. . . In the survey, 68% said providing coverage for everyone is more important than keeping taxes down. . .
When survey respondents were asked about possible trade-offs that might come with a universal program, positive responses plummeted. The poll found:
76% would oppose universal coverage if it meant some medical treatments currently covered by insurance would no longer be covered.
68% would be against it if it led to limits on the choice of doctors.
Article Here...
DEAN BAKER, PROSPECT - USA Today had an article this morning on rising U.S. health care costs. It never mentions the fact that the United States pays more than twice as much per person as the average among other wealthy countries, yet has shorter life expectancies.
SURVEY RESULTS
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr101606pkg.cfm
Monday, October 16, 2006
I won't allow Bush's crimes to disappear down the memory-hole ...
By Joshua Holland
Posted on October 15, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43065/
As I reviewed some of the reports that the UN weapons inspectors submitted to the Security Council in early 2003, my thoughts turned to the Johns Hopkins-MIT study estimating that as many as 950,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion for nothing at all.
Yes, I am "re-hashing" old events and "re-litigating" the debate over the war. I have to because there are, today, liberal hawks (and hawks-hawks, of course) running around defending their support for this insanity because of their deluded notion that everything would have gone swimmingly if not for the bunglers in the White House.
That facile evasion -- the "incompetence dodge" -- must not stand. So humor me for a moment while I recall the most crucial junction, in my view, in the lead-up to the war.
It was March 7, 2003, when Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, briefed the Security Council on the progress of the inspections regime:
He then listed a bunch of specifics about Al Samoud missiles having been destroyed and the Iraqis proposing methods of verifying whether Anthrax stocks had been neutralized as they claimed.
It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
Blix' counterpart at the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, also briefed that same day. He was more blunt than Blix. After thoroughly discounting Colin Powell's assertion that some aluminum tubes detected by surveillance were part of a nuclear centrifuge, he went on to destroy the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program:
The process of confirming the rest was well underway. The Iraqis, having dragged their feet at first, were staring at a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops just over the border in Kuwait and were coming into full compliance -- the regime could, on March 7, "be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive,'" Blix said. Cooperation was, at that point, "immediate."
Those who lusted for blood and war and dead Arabs following 9/11 said at the time that we couldn't keep our troops in the desert -- in air-conditioned tents in Kuwait without IEDs going off around them every day -- for months longer waiting for the inspections to finish.
Ask the troops if they were right. Ask the mothers and fathers of the dead ones who can't answer for themselves.
Colin Powell offered the administration's response:
SECRETARY POWELL: We know what full compliance should look like and we know what it does not look like, and it does not look like full compliance now …
QUESTION: When you say you know --
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah, I know.
QUESTION: We've just heard a different interpretation this morning about --
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, there are different interpretations. There are some people who simply, in my judgment, don't want to see the facts clearly.
Let that last sentence sink in. "There are some people who simply, in my judgment, don't want to see the facts clearly." Swirl it around in your head. Because he was right; Powell himself was taking the word of some brain-dead ideologues in Cheney's office over these professional inspectors returning from Iraq with first-hand knowledge of the progress being made.
I never accepted the premise that some old chemical or biological weapons left over from the 1980s and secreted away in some spider-hole were a legitimate cause for war (and certainly the idea that violating UN resolutions was itself a casus beli was silly on its face), but those who accepted those terms are guilty, too, for not opposing the invasion when it was clear that the threat of war alone was sufficient to confirm that Iraq had no proscribed weapons. Yes, it was strong-arm diplomacy at the barrel of a gun that made Iraq comply, but there was no reason to pull that trigger when they did.
Nine days later, the U.S. ordered all American personnel from the region. The day after that, the administration ordered the inspectors to stop working and leave Iraq. Two days after that, Shock and Awe began.
In these documents resides the world's greatest crime against humanity: waging a war of aggression. We can't forget that and, I'm sorry, I for one can't forgive those who went along for the ride. Far, far too many have died and too many more have had their lives ruined for that.
**Note: this post was inspired in part by watching video, here, of Jonathan Chait, L.A. Times columnist and an editor at an obscure political mag, defend his support of the war to Matt Yglesias.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43065/
Posted on October 15, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43065/
As I reviewed some of the reports that the UN weapons inspectors submitted to the Security Council in early 2003, my thoughts turned to the Johns Hopkins-MIT study estimating that as many as 950,000 Iraqis have died since the invasion for nothing at all.
Yes, I am "re-hashing" old events and "re-litigating" the debate over the war. I have to because there are, today, liberal hawks (and hawks-hawks, of course) running around defending their support for this insanity because of their deluded notion that everything would have gone swimmingly if not for the bunglers in the White House.
That facile evasion -- the "incompetence dodge" -- must not stand. So humor me for a moment while I recall the most crucial junction, in my view, in the lead-up to the war.
It was March 7, 2003, when Hans Blix, the UN's chief weapons inspector, briefed the Security Council on the progress of the inspections regime:
In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.
Some practical matters … have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance. […]
It was a disappointment that Iraq's Declaration of 7 December did not bring new documentary evidence... When proscribed items are deemed unaccounted for it is above all credible accounts that is needed - or the proscribed items, if they exist.
Where authentic documents do not become available, interviews with persons, who may have relevant knowledge and experience, may be another way of obtaining evidence. UNMOVIC has names of such persons in its records and they are among the people whom we seek to interview. In the last month, Iraq has provided us with the names of many persons, who may be relevant sources of information, in particular, persons who took part in various phases of the unilateral destruction of biological and chemical weapons, and proscribed missiles in 1991. […]
… with relevant witnesses available it becomes even more important to be able to conduct interviews in modes and locations, which allow us to be confident that the testimony is given without outside influence. While the Iraqi side seems to have encouraged interviewees not to request the presence of Iraqi officials (so-called minders) or the taping of the interviews, conditions ensuring the absence of undue influences are difficult to attain inside Iraq. Interviews outside the country might provide such assurance. It is our intention to request such interviews shortly. Nevertheless, despite remaining shortcomings, interviews are useful.
… intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist. Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found…
On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you.
As of today, there is more…
He then listed a bunch of specifics about Al Samoud missiles having been destroyed and the Iraqis proposing methods of verifying whether Anthrax stocks had been neutralized as they claimed.
What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.
This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear. [...]
The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues. […]
How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.
Blix' counterpart at the IAEA, Mohammed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, also briefed that same day. He was more blunt than Blix. After thoroughly discounting Colin Powell's assertion that some aluminum tubes detected by surveillance were part of a nuclear centrifuge, he went on to destroy the charge that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program:
After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq… I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern.
The process of confirming the rest was well underway. The Iraqis, having dragged their feet at first, were staring at a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops just over the border in Kuwait and were coming into full compliance -- the regime could, on March 7, "be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive,'" Blix said. Cooperation was, at that point, "immediate."
Those who lusted for blood and war and dead Arabs following 9/11 said at the time that we couldn't keep our troops in the desert -- in air-conditioned tents in Kuwait without IEDs going off around them every day -- for months longer waiting for the inspections to finish.
Ask the troops if they were right. Ask the mothers and fathers of the dead ones who can't answer for themselves.
Colin Powell offered the administration's response:
SECRETARY POWELL: We know what full compliance should look like and we know what it does not look like, and it does not look like full compliance now …
QUESTION: When you say you know --
SECRETARY POWELL: Yeah, I know.
QUESTION: We've just heard a different interpretation this morning about --
SECRETARY POWELL: Well, there are different interpretations. There are some people who simply, in my judgment, don't want to see the facts clearly.
Let that last sentence sink in. "There are some people who simply, in my judgment, don't want to see the facts clearly." Swirl it around in your head. Because he was right; Powell himself was taking the word of some brain-dead ideologues in Cheney's office over these professional inspectors returning from Iraq with first-hand knowledge of the progress being made.
I never accepted the premise that some old chemical or biological weapons left over from the 1980s and secreted away in some spider-hole were a legitimate cause for war (and certainly the idea that violating UN resolutions was itself a casus beli was silly on its face), but those who accepted those terms are guilty, too, for not opposing the invasion when it was clear that the threat of war alone was sufficient to confirm that Iraq had no proscribed weapons. Yes, it was strong-arm diplomacy at the barrel of a gun that made Iraq comply, but there was no reason to pull that trigger when they did.
Nine days later, the U.S. ordered all American personnel from the region. The day after that, the administration ordered the inspectors to stop working and leave Iraq. Two days after that, Shock and Awe began.
In these documents resides the world's greatest crime against humanity: waging a war of aggression. We can't forget that and, I'm sorry, I for one can't forgive those who went along for the ride. Far, far too many have died and too many more have had their lives ruined for that.
**Note: this post was inspired in part by watching video, here, of Jonathan Chait, L.A. Times columnist and an editor at an obscure political mag, defend his support of the war to Matt Yglesias.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/joshua/43065/
HUNDREDS OF ECONOMISTS CALL FOR HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE
REUTERS - Hundreds of leading economists urged Congress on Wednesday to boost the U.S. minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for a decade. The group recommended a $1 to $2.50 hourly increase and argued that future boosts should be indexed to inflation to protect workers purchasing power from rising prices. Dismissing the argument that better pay would burden employers and stifle job creation, these experts said a higher minimum wage was necessary to ensure a decent standard of living for low-income Americans. . . Some states have made some headway in ensuring better pay for low-income workers, by circumventing national legislation and passing increases of their own. California lifted the minimum wage to $8 an hour this summer, the highest level in the nation.
Article Here...
Article Here...
Israel Made Big Bucks Out Of Lebanon Invasion
GLOBES, ISRAEL - The recent Lebanon war has sharply boosted sales of Development Corporation for Israel - State of Israel Bonds in the US and Canada. Ministry of Finance representative in New York Zvi Halamish told Globes. "A comparison with bonds sales before the war with the corresponding period in 2005 shows that there has been a 20% rise in sales in the US and a 15% increase in Canada." . . . The increase in sales is especially noticeable given that the bonds' margins are lower today than in previous years. . .
Article Here...
Article Here...
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
What the Amish Are Teaching America
By Sally Kohn, AlterNet
Posted on October 10, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
On Oct. 2, Charles Carl Roberts entered a one-room schoolhouse in the Amish community of Nickel Mines, Penn. He lined up 11 young girls from the class and shot them each at point blank range. The gruesome depths of this crime are hard for any community to grasp, but certainly for the Amish -- who live such a secluded and peaceful life, removed even from the everyday depictions of violence on TV. When the Amish were suddenly pierced by violence, how did they respond?
The evening of the shooting, Amish neighbors from the Nickel Mines community gathered to process their grief with each other and mental health counselors. As of that evening, three little girls were dead. Eight were hospitalized in critical condition. (One more girl has died since.) According to reports by counselors who attended the grief session, the Amish family members grappled with a number of questions: Do we send our kids to school tomorrow? What if they want to sleep in our beds tonight, is that OK? But one question they asked might surprise us outsiders. What, they wondered, can we do to help the family of the shooter? Plans were already underway for a horse-and-buggy caravan to visit Charles Carl Roberts' family with offers of food and condolences. The Amish, it seems, don't automatically translate their grieving into revenge. Rather, they believe in redemption.
Meanwhile, the United States culture from which the Amish are isolated is moving in the other direction -- increasingly exacting revenge for crimes and punishing violence with more violence. In 26 states and at the federal level, there are "three strikes" laws in place. Conviction for three felonies in a row now warrants a life sentence, even for the most minor crimes. For instance, Leandro Andrade is serving a life sentence, his final crime involving the theft of nine children's videos -- including "Cinderella" and "Free Willy" -- from a Kmart. Similarly, in many states and at the federal level, possession of even small amounts of drugs trigger mandatory minimum sentences of extreme duration. In New York, Elaine Bartlett was just released from prison, serving a 20-year sentence for possessing only four ounces of cocaine. This is in addition to the 60 people who were executed in the United States in 2005, among the more than a thousand killed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. And the president of the United States is still actively seeking authority to torture and abuse alleged terrorists, whom he consistently dehumanizes as rats to be "smoked from their holes," even without evidence of their guilt.
Our patterns of punishment and revenge are fundamentally at odds with the deeper values of common humanity that the tragic experience of the Amish are helping to reveal. Each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done in life. Someone who cheats is not only a cheater. Someone who steals something is not only a thief. And someone who commits a murder is not only a murderer. The same is true of Charles Carl Roberts. We don't yet know the details of the episode in his past for which, in his suicide note, he said he was seeking revenge. It may be a sad and sympathetic tale. It may not. Either way, there's no excusing his actions. Whatever happened to Roberts in the past, taking the lives of others is never justified. But nothing Roberts has done changes the fact that he was a human being, like all of us. We all make mistakes. Roberts' were considerably and egregiously larger than most. But the Amish in Nickel Mines seem to have been able to see past Roberts' actions and recognize his humanity, sympathize with his family for their loss, and move forward with compassion, not vengeful hate.
We've come to think that "an eye for an eye" is a natural, human reaction to violence. The Amish, who live a truly natural life apart from the influences of our violence-infused culture, are proving otherwise. If, as Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," then the Amish are providing the rest of us with an eye-opening lesson.
Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Project of the Center for Community Change, which is interviewing hundreds of activists across the country to determine the progressive vision for the future of the United States.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
Posted on October 10, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
On Oct. 2, Charles Carl Roberts entered a one-room schoolhouse in the Amish community of Nickel Mines, Penn. He lined up 11 young girls from the class and shot them each at point blank range. The gruesome depths of this crime are hard for any community to grasp, but certainly for the Amish -- who live such a secluded and peaceful life, removed even from the everyday depictions of violence on TV. When the Amish were suddenly pierced by violence, how did they respond?
The evening of the shooting, Amish neighbors from the Nickel Mines community gathered to process their grief with each other and mental health counselors. As of that evening, three little girls were dead. Eight were hospitalized in critical condition. (One more girl has died since.) According to reports by counselors who attended the grief session, the Amish family members grappled with a number of questions: Do we send our kids to school tomorrow? What if they want to sleep in our beds tonight, is that OK? But one question they asked might surprise us outsiders. What, they wondered, can we do to help the family of the shooter? Plans were already underway for a horse-and-buggy caravan to visit Charles Carl Roberts' family with offers of food and condolences. The Amish, it seems, don't automatically translate their grieving into revenge. Rather, they believe in redemption.
Meanwhile, the United States culture from which the Amish are isolated is moving in the other direction -- increasingly exacting revenge for crimes and punishing violence with more violence. In 26 states and at the federal level, there are "three strikes" laws in place. Conviction for three felonies in a row now warrants a life sentence, even for the most minor crimes. For instance, Leandro Andrade is serving a life sentence, his final crime involving the theft of nine children's videos -- including "Cinderella" and "Free Willy" -- from a Kmart. Similarly, in many states and at the federal level, possession of even small amounts of drugs trigger mandatory minimum sentences of extreme duration. In New York, Elaine Bartlett was just released from prison, serving a 20-year sentence for possessing only four ounces of cocaine. This is in addition to the 60 people who were executed in the United States in 2005, among the more than a thousand killed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. And the president of the United States is still actively seeking authority to torture and abuse alleged terrorists, whom he consistently dehumanizes as rats to be "smoked from their holes," even without evidence of their guilt.
Our patterns of punishment and revenge are fundamentally at odds with the deeper values of common humanity that the tragic experience of the Amish are helping to reveal. Each of us is more than the worst thing we've ever done in life. Someone who cheats is not only a cheater. Someone who steals something is not only a thief. And someone who commits a murder is not only a murderer. The same is true of Charles Carl Roberts. We don't yet know the details of the episode in his past for which, in his suicide note, he said he was seeking revenge. It may be a sad and sympathetic tale. It may not. Either way, there's no excusing his actions. Whatever happened to Roberts in the past, taking the lives of others is never justified. But nothing Roberts has done changes the fact that he was a human being, like all of us. We all make mistakes. Roberts' were considerably and egregiously larger than most. But the Amish in Nickel Mines seem to have been able to see past Roberts' actions and recognize his humanity, sympathize with his family for their loss, and move forward with compassion, not vengeful hate.
We've come to think that "an eye for an eye" is a natural, human reaction to violence. The Amish, who live a truly natural life apart from the influences of our violence-infused culture, are proving otherwise. If, as Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," then the Amish are providing the rest of us with an eye-opening lesson.
Sally Kohn is the director of the Movement Vision Project of the Center for Community Change, which is interviewing hundreds of activists across the country to determine the progressive vision for the future of the United States.
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/42773/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)