From exodio at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 00:35:09 2003 From: exodio at yahoo.com (John Sackis) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:58 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Washingtons War of Terror in Iraq In-Reply-To: <20030630185228.233CBA915@exigence.opensoftwareservices.com> Message-ID: <20030701063509.95967.qmail@web41215.mail.yahoo.com> Washington’s war of terror in Iraq By the editorial board (of www.wsws.org; World Socialist WebSite) 18 June 2003 A series of sustained counterinsurgency operations by US troops has signaled a new stage in the US occupation of Iraq. Faced with escalating armed resistance and growing hostility from the Iraqi people, Washington has decided to use overwhelming force to suppress and terrorize the country’s 24 million people. A war that was waged under the pretense of destroying fictitious “weapons of mass destruction” is evolving into a classical colonial-style war of repression, the kind that has been waged with bloody results from the US campaign in the Philippines at the dawn of the twentieth century, to the French bloodbath in Algeria beginning in the 1950s, to the US war in Vietnam. Six weeks after President Bush strutted across the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed that major combat operations had ended and the military mission had been accomplished, American soldiers are being killed by Iraqis at the rate of one a day. Iraqi casualties over the same period have climbed to several hundred. The latest American death, the shooting of a soldier patrolling Baghdad Tuesday, brings to 50 the number of occupation troops killed in attacks or accidents since Bush utilized the aircraft carrier for a photo opportunity. Beyond the daily guerrilla attacks on US troops, there are a number of other telling indications of the mounting resistance to the occupation. Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East reporter for the Independent in Britain, said US officials had told him that aircraft seeking to land at Baghdad airport come under fire from snipers hiding near the runway virtually every night. Another barometer of the seething anger among Iraqis is a spate of prison uprisings that have left several Iraqis dead and scores wounded. Last Saturday, detainees throwing rocks and wielding metal bars attacked US military guards at the Abu Gharib prison west of Baghdad. US guards opened fire on the Iraqis, killing one and critically wounding several others. It was the third such incident in a week at the prison complex. Two days earlier, US troops shot two prisoners to death. American authorities claimed they were trying to escape. The bulk of the violent clashes between US forces and the Iraqi population go unreported. Unless an American soldier is killed or seriously wounded, the US Central Command does not reveal the incident. Iraqi sources charge that US authorities have covered up clashes, including those in which US troops have been killed. The real character of what Washington called the “liberation” of the Iraqi people has emerged: it is a brutal occupation, with daily killings, house-to-house searches and mass arrests. Thousands of US troops backed by helicopter gun ships, fighter planes and tanks have stormed through cities and towns across Iraq over the past several days in what the military has dubbed “Operation Desert Scorpion.” Kicking off this offensive was “Operation Peninsula,” an attack involving some 4,000 US troops, which claimed the lives of over 100 Iraqis. US forces rounded up over 400 Iraqi men, releasing all but 60 of them. Just as most of the detained suspects proved to be of no interest to American forces, so too the bulk of those killed were innocent victims of the onslaught. In a separate action last Friday, US forces answered an ambush on a tank north of Baghdad with apparently indiscriminate retaliation, slaughtering a family of five shepherds working in their fields. Early Sunday morning, 1,300 American soldiers sealed off the restive town of Fallujah, where occupation forces massacred at least 18 demonstrators in April. One of the senior commanders in charge of house-to-house raids there told the Washington Post that the US military’s goal was “to go in with overwhelming force to squash everything before putting a soldier in harm’s way.” Press reports described US soldiers kicking down doors, forcing men to the ground and handcuffing them while planting their boots on the Iraqis’ necks. The soldiers taped shut the mouths and blindfolded those detained before taking them away for interrogation. Women and children, some as young as six, were also rousted from their homes in the pre-dawn hours, handcuffed and held for hours before being released. The US occupation authorities, echoed by the US news media, claim that these operations are directed exclusively against “Ba’ath Party loyalists, terrorist organizations and criminal elements.” In fact, most of those caught up in these sweeps are ordinary Iraqi civilians. The media propaganda cannot conceal the fact that Iraqi resistance to the occupation runs far deeper than the remnants of the Ba’athist regime. While the bulk of the ambushes and shootings of US soldiers has been concentrated in the predominantly Sunni area in central Iraq that provided the strongest popular base for the Ba’athist regime, attacks and protests have also erupted in the largely Shi’ite south, a center of opposition to Saddam Hussein’s rule. Last Sunday, over 10,000 Iraqis marched through the center of the southern city of Basra, stoning British army vehicles and demanding an end to the occupation. A systematic sabotage campaign in the same region has prevented occupation officials from restarting Iraq’s oil industry. The latest sweeps, conducted in some cases against populations that were known as centers of opposition to Saddam Hussein, will only fuel more acts of resistance. “Pentagon officials say the effort is needed to avoid a prolonged guerrilla campaign that not only could cost American lives, but would sap energy from a reconstruction effort already slowed by sabotage and security problems,” the Wall Street Journal, a paper that has provided the strongest editorial support for Bush’s war in Iraq, reported Tuesday. “Yet military planners acknowledge this approach is fraught with its own peril, as the incursions inevitably will alienate parts of the population and generate sympathy for those the US is trying to isolate.” The Journal noted that US troops “have a hard time distinguishing between ordinary civilians and enemy fighters.” It added that while thus far failing to stop the attacks, the offensive and the resulting civilian casualties “have raised support for America’s foes.” “You can’t tell friend from foe,” complained a US soldier, according to a wire service report. “We didn’t want nothing to do with these people anymore,” an Army Sergeant told the New York Times. He added that even children terrified him. “At the end, it was like, ‘Get that kid away from me,’” he said. These remarks are eerily reminiscent of those made by an earlier generation of American troops who were sent on the basis of lies to kill and be killed in a distant land—Vietnam. Fearing the population that they were supposedly protecting from “communist aggression,” they found it impossible to distinguish Vietnamese civilians from the Viet Cong—largely because the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were waging a popular war against a hated and despised army of occupation. As one US Marine Sergeant testified in hearings held in May 1971: “The way that we distinguished between civilians and VC, VC had weapons and civilians didn’t and anybody that was dead was considered a VC. If you killed someone they said, ‘How do you know he’s a VC?’ and the general reply would be, ‘He’s dead,’ and that was sufficient.” The conditions are already emerging in Iraq for a similar kind of slaughter. It is only a matter of time before the US commits the type of atrocities in Iraq that some 30 years ago made “My Lai” and “destroying the village to save it” bywords for imperialist savagery. Echoing the mantras of the Vietnam War, the US military command is talking about the struggle for the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people. So much for the pre-war predictions of euphoric support for the American “liberators” from a grateful and pliant Iraqi people. As in Vietnam, the American “goodwill gestures” are at once pathetic and contemptuous. Immediately after storming through the town of Fallujah, brutalizing Iraqi men, women and children, the military organized a giveaway of soccer balls, school supplies and food. Residents reacted with hostility. Many kept their children away from schools where US civil affairs troops staged the giveaways, saying that they were afraid of the soldiers. The Washington Post reported on the attempt by one army unit to turn a garbage-strewn lot into a sports field: “The US military engineers, weighed down by heavy flak jackets and helmets, toiled to clear vacant lots of waist-high garbage rotting in 115-degree heat and transform them into soccer fields. They said children threw rocks and bricks at them.” That such gestures should be treated as a cruel hoax is hardly surprising given the social chaos resulting from the war, together with the escalating US repression. Much of Iraq remains without regular electricity, clean water or a functioning sewer system. The threat of disease grows daily as the summer sends temperatures soaring. Iraqi children are paying the greatest price. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) released a report earlier this month that the number of children suffering from diarrhea, the number one killer of infants, has more than doubled since the US occupation. Fully 72 percent of the children surveyed by the agency were suffering from the ailment, the result of the war’s destruction of the country’s water filtration and sewage treatment facilities. The number of cases of acute malnutrition among children under five in Baghdad has also doubled since the war, the UN agency said. More than half a million children died from these same conditions in the aftermath of the first Gulf War as a result of the destruction of infrastructure and the UN sanctions. The US “liberation” is already producing similarly horrific results. The adult population faces mass unemployment and deepening poverty. One of the first edicts issued by the new US colonial administrator, Paul Bremer, was the disbanding of the 400,000-man Iraqi army. This action has left an estimated 2.5 million people—10 percent of the population—without any means of support. Upwards of another 100,000 are blacklisted as former members of the Ba’ath Party under another order issued by Bremer. The Telegraph of London Wednesday quoted a “very senior British official” describing the US reconstruction effort in Iraq as being “in chaos” and suffering from “a complete absence of strategic direction.” The official added, “We are facing an almost complete inability to engage with what needs to be done and to bring to bear sufficient resources to make a difference.” He warned that unless the US began to devote serious resources to the rebuilding of Iraq, “by the autumn, we could face the consequences.” There is more, however, than mere incompetence and indifference behind the catastrophe that the US occupation has unleashed on Iraq. The right-wing ideologues who control Washington’s policy toward the occupied country have definite plans that require its economic leveling. Their aim is to smash the pre-war structure of state-controlled industry and dismantle any and all restrictions on the ability of US-based corporations to exploit the country’s resources, first and foremost its oil riches. The energy conglomerates and their political mouthpieces in the Bush administration view Iraq as a potential source of massive profits. They could not care less about the cost to the Iraqi people. In addition to the wealth it can steal from Iraq, the American financial oligarchy and its military-political establishment see Iraq as a staging ground for further economic and military aggression in the Middle East and beyond. The aim is to establish, with Israel serving as junior partner, US domination over the entire region. This is part of a grand—and mad—plan to gain a stranglehold over the world’s oil resources, which would enable Washington to blackmail friend and foe alike on the road to achieving global hegemony. Aside from securing control of Iraqi oil facilities, establishing military bases and setting up the machinery of repression required to crush all opposition, the US has little interest in “rebuilding” Iraq. The humanitarian and democratic rhetoric is mere window dressing, aimed mainly at deceiving and manipulating public opinion at home. Only recently Bremer announced new regulations making it a crime not only to voice support for the deposed Ba’athist regime of Saddam Hussein, but to oppose continued US occupation. Anyone who calls for the withdrawal of American troops, either in speech, print or through protest demonstrations, may be subjected to military repression. The American administration headed by Bremer has already unveiled plans for the sweeping privatization of state enterprises, beginning with the oil sector. It is widely suspected that the lucrative contracts handed out to Bechtel Corporation and other politically connected firms for the repair of Iraqi infrastructure will serve as a vehicle for the privatization of key public services, including water and electricity. At a June 13 press conference, Bremer, pressed by reporters about the desperate economic conditions and continuing mass demonstrations by Iraqis demanding jobs, repeatedly declared that the situation would only be remedied by “fundamental economic reforms.” The US colonial chief claimed that the Iraqi people could decide for themselves what kind of economic system they wanted. He stressed, however, that a “vibrant private sector” was the “sine qua non for a stable economy and stable economic growth.” He cynically added: “If they choose socialism, that will be their business. My guess is that’s not going to happen.” The US occupation of Iraq is a brutal imperialist enterprise. The soldiers dying there are being sacrificed not for “democracy” or “liberation,” but to further the predatory aims and interests of a gangster element within the American ruling elite. This layer has turned to military aggression as a means of enriching itself and distracting attention from the deepening economic and social contradictions within the US itself. It systematically lied to the American people, fabricating threats from non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” and phony terrorist links, to justify an unprovoked and illegal war of aggression. The Iraqi people have every right to resist this occupation. Their democratic rights and social welfare can be secured only by throwing off the yoke of occupation. They will continue to resist, and their struggle will inspire the oppressed masses throughout the Middle East to rise in opposition to US imperialism and its accomplices in the region—the oil sheikdoms and corrupt Arab bourgeois regimes from Jordan and Egypt to Syria and Lebanon. Future historians will record the US “victory” in Iraq as the catalyst for an unprecedented eruption of popular struggles against imperialism not only in the Middle East, but internationally. And just as Vietnam became the focal point for an eruption of political and social struggles within the US, so too will Washington’s crimes in Iraq repel the broad mass of the American people, becoming a focal point for the deeply felt anger and disgust of working people for the right-wing clique headed by Bush and the financial oligarchy which it serves. In the 1960s and 1970s the word “quagmire” became synonymous with the US military and political disaster in Vietnam. In Iraq, the Bush administration has landed US imperialism in a new quagmire, whose implications are even more catastrophic for the American ruling elite. It is the elementary responsibility of working people in the US, Britain and internationally to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and British occupation forces from Iraq. The international movement of millions against war that emerged in the months before the Iraq invasion proved incapable of stopping the onslaught. This was above all due to its lack of a viable and worked out political perspective. The movement against imperialist war must now be revived and developed on the basis of a new perspective—the independent political mobilization of the international working class to defeat the imperialist war machine and the profit system that it defends. Link: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/iraq-j18.shtml __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From alruff at execpc.com Tue Jul 1 05:32:41 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:58 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: Costs of War Hit Home] Message-ID: <3F015539.3080608@execpc.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Costs of War Hit Home Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:54:55 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com The Costs of War Hit Home by Karen Dolan An elected official of East Cleveland reportedly made a plea at a recent public event for Bush to wage war in East Cleveland, as in Iraq, so that its roads, schools and crumbling infrastructure could then be rebuilt. Though said in jest, her remark reveals the desperate need felt by many states and cities for resources to be spent at home rather than on war. The recession and the costs of the war are causing huge cuts in public education. The nation's governors warn that state deficits are the largest in more than 50 years. In the next year the deficits will run between $60 billion and $85 billion. This is between 13 percent and 18 percent of state expenditures. The New York Times reported that some states have undertaken drastic cost-saving measures--including unscrewing every third light bulb in government buildings, having teachers double as janitors and releasing prison inmates early. Many states also reported having to lay off teachers, raise student tuitions or cut financial aid--sometimes all three. Pressed to the brink of bankruptcy, states, cities and towns across the U.S. are recognizing the devastating costs to taxpayers of a perpetual war economy. In the months leading up to the war on Iraq, more than 160 local governments passed antiwar resolutions decrying the billions of dollars to be spent on the war while vital social programs face severe budget cuts. SOCIAL PROGRAMS CUT Los Angeles' resolution stated that the "cost [of the war] would be borne by the people of the City of Los Angeles, who rely on federal funds for anti-poverty programs, for workforce assistance, for housing, for education programs, for infrastructure and for the increased demands of homeland security." The National Priorities Project (www.nationalpriorities.org) reports that, based on the conservative estimates of $100 billion for the Iraq war alone, taxpayers in Denver would pay $152 million of the war bill from their federal income taxes; in Atlanta, $80 million; in Des Moines, $42 million; in Detroit, almost $180 million; and in New York City, a crippling $2.4 billion. According to the National Priorities Project, the proposed $46 billion increase in military spending for 2003 could be much better spent. California's share could put some 570,000 more children in Head Start; New York state could provide health coverage to almost 750,000 of its uninsured children; Oregon, facing the nation's most severe cuts in public education, could fund 7,000 new elementary school teachers and Mississippi could provide 3,000 affordable housing units to its low-income residents. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that the proposed House budget plan includes more than $159 billion in cuts over the next decade to programs for low-income families. Programs such as Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Social Security Insurance, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and many other programs will all be cut. Alabama will lose at least $1 billion in funding for Medicaid and SCHIP under the proposed budget plan for 2004 to 2013. California will lose almost $10 billion. Further worsening the situation, Congress is in the process of passing a bill giving somewhere between $350 billion and $726 billion in tax cuts to the wealthy. It has just given an additional $80 billion to cover the first month of Iraq war costs. And it is about to agree to a 10-year budget plan that devastates state funding for critical entitlement and low-income programs. Karen Dolan directs the Cities for Peace program at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From alruff at execpc.com Tue Jul 1 07:12:15 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:58 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: message from Adam Shapiro: please circulate] Message-ID: <3F016C8F.7060506@execpc.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: message from Adam Shapiro: please circulate Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 16:22:33 -0500 From: jennifer loewenstein To: jsarin@facstaff.wisc.edu Update : Adam Shapiro has been denied entry into Israel on the grounds that he is a security threat. > Dear Friends, > > Many of you have probably been wondering what has become of me this > last month (if not more)?I have been traveling around the Middle East > (and also to Malaysia), speaking about Palestine and ISM and raising > funds for the movement. On Friday, I tried to enter Palestine from > Jordan and was denied entry, as I was deemed a "threat to the security > of the state" ? something that was not unexpected. It is a measure of > the extent to which Israel must go to deny people like me entry ? > people who wish desperately to see an end to discrimination, > oppression and violence; people who are actively working against these > things using nonviolent means; and people who wish to stand with and > support the Palestinian people during an extremely traumatic and > hopeless time. > > But I do not wish to use your time to complain about my treatment?in > fact, it is nothing compared to what my Palestinian friends and > colleagues around the world experience. While it is true that I am now > cut off from my family (Huwaida is in the West Bank and her relatives > ? now mine by marriage ? are located in the West Bank and in Israel) > and as such am like thousands of Palestinians, it is by virtue of my > activities and words that I am kept from seeing them?not by virtue of > that fact of my identity. When I was in Lebanon, I visited the Shatila > Refugee Camp ? one of the most disturbing places I have ever seen ? > and met people who had relatives in Palestine, but whom they have > never seen, and really have no hope of ever seeing. I met people who > have the keys to their homes in Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem, and hundreds > of other places that you have not heard of, but which exist in the > hearts and minds of these refugees. Before my banishment, I was able > to enter these places, and I admit to almost having taken this for > granted ? after all, I held an American passport, why shouldn't I be > able to walk freely in these streets? Now, faced with exile of sorts, > I am all too aware that my situation is nothing. > > And yet, there is an appeal for the Minister of the Interior to > overturn the decision to keep me out. While I do not have much hope > for such a decision, the very fact that an appeal can be made on my > behalf is an advantage and an option that simply does not exist for > the millions who are refugees from their homes and land. > > The myth about refugees was that they were told to leave their lands > by Arab regimes via radio broadcasts back in 1948. Despite the > testimony of hundreds of Palestinians that this was not true, and that > the reason they fled was because of stories of the massacres, such as > at Deir Yassin, that were being committed by the Irgun, Stern Gang and > Haganah (pre-Israeli Jewish terrorist groups ? as determined by the > imperial power at the time, Britain) and the threats by these groups > to do the same at any village they encountered, the myth of "being > told to leave" has persisted. It is only now, some 50-odd years later, > that the British intelligence reports from that period (the British > were monitoring the radio transmissions from the region) are > confirming that this myth is indeed false. It was only a couple of > years ago that one of the Jewish commanders from that period admitted > to the tactic of using the massacres to scare and threaten > Palestinians from their land. And what good are these revelations and > "discoveries" for the refugees now? > > ___________________ > > My travels this last month have made a great impression on me and I > will be writing more in the days to come. I have met some amazing and > courageous people, who find themselves in a time of great depression, > despondency and lack of hope. The forces of occupation, war and > imperialism are currently felt greatest in the Arab world, and yet, > can we continue to ignore the legacy of these and other policies in > Africa and elsewhere? I truly believe my generation is facing a major > challenge today to develop alternative means of organizing, working > and resisting those policies of war and violence that are mutually > supportive from all parts of the world. Resistance not just for the > sake of resisting or preservation, but for the purpose of effecting > real change and new means by which we engage with each other on this > planet. > > I am aware that this may sound idealistic, and perhaps the challenge > is too great. But from those I have met, I am confident that we have > the skills, desire and commitment to accomplish such changes. We must > make solidarity something more than just a word or a feeling; we must > make it a resource for change. > > I stop here, knowing that I am now rambling, and apologize for > imposing on your time. Feedback, questions and comments are > appreciated. I am still sorting out ideas in my mind. > > in solidarity, > > adam > > _________________________________________________________________ > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From earlwal at chorus.net Tue Jul 1 09:23:30 2003 From: earlwal at chorus.net (Bob Reuschlein) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:59 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Crisis in the states Message-ID: <3F018B52.738CC6A0@chorus.net> key contrast: A Times article last week noted that the wealthiest 400 taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in 2000, "more than double their share just eight years earlier." Oblivious in D.C. By BOB HERBERT 06/30/03 (New York Times) "Of all the challenges we face, none is more troubling than the fact that thousands of Oregonians, many of them children, don't have enough to eat. Oregon has the highest hunger rate in the nation." Gov. Ted Kulongoski, in his State of the State address. Those who still believe that the policies of the Bush administration will set in motion some kind of renaissance in Iraq should take a look at what's happening to the quality of life for ordinary Americans here at home. The president, buoyed by the bountiful patronage of the upper classes, seems indifferent to the increasingly harsh struggles of the working classes and the poor. As Mr. Bush moves from fund-raiser to fund-raiser, building the mother of all campaign stockpiles, states from coast to coast are reaching depths of budget desperation unseen since the Great Depression. The disconnect here is becoming surreal. On Thursday the National Governors Association let it be known that the fiscal crisis that has crippled one state after another is worsening, not getting better. Taxes have been raised. Services have been cut. And the rainy day funds accumulated in the 1990's have been consumed. If help does not materialize soon ?g? in the form of assistance from the federal government or a sharp turnaround in the economy ?d? some states will fall into a fiscal abyss. That already seems to be happening in places like California, which has been driven to its knees by a two-year $38.8 billion budget gap, and Oregon, which has seen drastic cuts in public school services and the withholding of potentially life-saving medicine from seriously ill patients. Most states have been unable to protect even the most fundamental services from damaging budget cuts. "Few states have succeeded in exempting high-priority programs such as K-12 education, Medicaid, higher education, public safety or aid to cities and towns," according to the compilers of the Fiscal Survey of States, a report produced jointly by the governors' association and the National Association of State Budget Officers. Scott Pattison, director of the budget officers' group, said, "If economic conditions remain stagnant or worsen, and if budget shortfalls continue next year, the states will have exhausted many of their options for countering a weak economy." The budget crisis in California, where an unpopular Democratic governor is politically paralyzed and the Republicans in the State Legislature refuse to consider raising taxes, is potentially catastrophic. Jack Kyser, a public policy economist in Los Angeles told The Associated Press: "People are nervous. There's a real chance for a meltdown that could have rippling effects throughout the nation. This is something of a different magnitude than we've seen before." The governors' association called the fiscal survey the most accurate gauge of the health of state budgets. Its discouraging findings were released as the president was preparing a fund-raising swing that added millions more to his campaign stockpile, and as the Internal Revenue Service was reporting that the nation's richest taxpayers were accumulating an even greater share of the nation's wealth. Some Americans are missing meals and going without their medicine, while others are enjoying a surge in already breathtaking levels of wealth. So what are we doing? We're cutting aid to the former while showering government largess on the latter. There's a reason those campaign millions keep coming and coming and coming. A Times article last week noted that the wealthiest 400 taxpayers accounted for more than 1 percent of all the income in the United States in 2000, "more than double their share just eight years earlier." The influence of the wealthy has always been great, but it hasn't always been so cruel. Especially in the past six or seven decades there were many powerful political and civic leaders who looked out for the interests of the less fortunate and pressed their claims for treatment that was reasonably fair. That's changed. The Bush juggernaut, at least for the time being, is rolling over everything that dares to get in its way. And fairness is not something it is concerned about. From Nightoak at aol.com Tue Jul 1 11:47:41 2003 From: Nightoak at aol.com (Nightoak@aol.com) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:59 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] a little off topic . . . Message-ID: <1e3.c6ab802.2c32f90d@aol.com> In a message dated 6/30/2003 1:11:51 PM Central Standard Time, brendakonkel@yahoo.com writes: > No peace a home, well . . . without a home!!!! > Not to mention that it speaks directly to Racial Justice, which is our newest working group! Thanks for posting this! :D In peace, Michelle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030701/cdf9c9e0/attachment.htm From sburns3 at uic.edu Tue Jul 1 11:34:55 2003 From: sburns3 at uic.edu (sburns3) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:59 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] suspicious of MoveOn Message-ID: <3F1346A4@webmail.uic.edu> Hi all: If you have been following the MoveOn primary, you know by now that Howard Dean won a plurality, but not a majority, of the votes (46%). The MoveOn people asked one other question, too: "Would you enthusiastically support ANY Democratic candidate against president Bush?" (caps are theirs, not mine). This question received a 28.5% "yes" response. Here's how the MoveOn website chose to portray this result: "We are encouraged by this sense of unity and the broad support for Democratic leaders." In other words, almost three-fourths of the MoveOn voters would NOT support any Democrat against Bush - how is this a show of "broad support for Democratic leaders"? For some time now, I have had my suspicions that MoveOn's agenda is to channel the anti-war movement into support for the Democrats - ANY Democrat, even a pro-war Democrat. Their attempt to misrepresent their own primary results only confirms my suspicions. Steve Burns From kck34 at yahoo.com Tue Jul 1 10:18:51 2003 From: kck34 at yahoo.com (Keith Kinion) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:59 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Supreme court ruling on Affirmative action Message-ID: <20030701161851.21246.qmail@web10105.mail.yahoo.com> US Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action: the language of oligarchy By Barry Grey 1 July 2003 The New York Times, reflecting the general view of what passes for the liberal press in the US, hailed last week’s Supreme Court ruling upholding affirmative action as “a historic stand for equality of opportunity.” As the extraordinary decision handed down by Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor demonstrates, however, such claims are a gross distortion of the truth. The most remarkable feature of the ruling upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy, which prevailed by a five-to-four vote, was its unabashed acknowledgment of the existence of a ruling elite in America and its defense of the political and economic interests of that elite. A Supreme Court scholar would be hard pressed to find a precedent in the previous history of the high court for the transparent manner in which O’Connor invoked the concerns of the corporate, military and political establishment in arguing for the expediency of racial preferences. O’Connor, the swing vote on the divided court, felt little need to disguise the fact that “friend of the court” briefs from representatives of the military and major corporations urging the court to uphold racial preferences outweighed legal precedent or constitutional principles in the formulation of her ruling. An extraordinary number of such briefs—over a hundred—were filed with the court in the University of Michigan Law School case. These included filings supporting affirmative action from such corporate giants as 3M Corporation, Exxon Mobil and General Motors, and a brief from two dozen retired senior military officers and former commandants of the military service academies. In defending the position (first laid down by Justice Lewis Powell in the 1978 Bakke case) that racial and ethnic diversity on college campuses is a “compelling state interest” which justifies the use of racial preferences, O’Connor gave short shrift to questions of democracy or equality. In the pivotal section of her decision, she argued as follows: “These benefits are not theoretical, but real, as major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas and viewpoints. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, ‘[b]ased on [their] decades of experience,’ a ‘highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps ... is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security.’... At present, ‘the military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies and the ROTC used limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies.’... We agree that, ‘[i]t requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country’s other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective.’ Here O’Connor declared that a racially diverse officer corps was not only a “compelling state interest,” but a matter of “national security.” She then argued that the use of racial preferences at elite law schools was no less crucial to the functioning of the political power structure in the US: “Individuals with law degrees occupy roughly half the state governorships, more than half the seats in the United States Senate, and more than a third of the seats in the United States House of Representatives. The pattern is even more striking when it comes to highly selective law schools. A handful of these schools accounts for 25 of the 100 United States Senators, 74 United States Courts of Appeals judges, and nearly 200 of the more than 600 United States District Court judges.” There followed a remarkable sentence revealing the essence of O’Connor’s decision: “In order to cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.” In other words, affirmative action is an important tool for bolstering the legitimacy of the ruling elite—and keeping the masses in their place. That this has nothing to do with democracy or equality in any serious sense of these words is self-evident. One can imagine similar prescriptions being laid down by defenders of the British Raj who calculated that admitting a visible layer of natives into the colonial administration would keep the Indian masses in check. The elitist and fundamentally antidemocratic basis of the court’s ruling was made even more explicit by Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the four justices who joined O’Connor’s decision, during last April’s oral arguments. Breyer summed up the case made by affirmative action supporters as follows: “[W]e think from the point of view of business, the armed forces, law, etc., that this is an extraordinary need, to have diversity among elites throughout the country, that without it, the country will be much worse off.” In his dissenting opinion, Clarence Thomas, a member of the high court’s extreme right “troika” consisting of himself, Chief Justice Williams Rehnquist and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, focused, for his own political purposes, on the elitist character of O’Connor’s decision. He repeatedly referred to the University of Michigan Law School, one of a handful of highly selective public law schools in the US, as an elite institution. “The interest in remaining elite and exclusive that the majority thinks so obviously critical,” he wrote, “requires the use of admissions ‘standards’ that, in turn, create the Law School’s ‘need’ to discriminate on the basis of race.” Thomas added a barbed reference to the privileged status of the corporate and military leaders who intervened in the case on the side of affirmative action—as well as, by inference, those justices who supported the majority decision. He wrote: “Were this Court to have the courage to forbid the use of racial discrimination in admissions, legacy preferences (and similar practices) might quickly become less popular—a possibility not lost, I am certain, on the elites (both individual and institutional) supporting the Law School in this case.” (“Legacy preferences” refer to the virtually universal practice of granting special status to the offspring of alumni who seek admission to American universities and colleges. Special treatment is also given the sons and daughters of major financial donors.) Thomas, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, nevertheless speaks for a faction of the Republican right that opposes racial preferences out of hostility toward anything that remotely smacks of social reform. These forces include a hard core of segregationists who seek to cloak their racism with hypocritical invocations of legal equality. This faction—including the Christian right, anti-abortion fanatics, the pro-gun lobby and militia elements—exercises enormous influence within the Republican Party and the Bush administration. For the broad masses of minority workers and youth, however, the other side in the long-simmering controversy over affirmative action within the corporate and political establishment in no way represents a progressive alternative. As last week’s ruling by the Supreme Court majority makes clear, its perspective is fundamentally reactionary. Ultimately the decision will have the salutary benefit of helping strip away the democratic trappings in which the policy of racial preferences has been decked out over the past several decades. It is no accident that affirmative action was first given official sanction by the Democratic administration of Lyndon Johnson in the midst of the urban riots and the political radicalization that arose with the protest movement against the Vietnam War. This policy was expanded and institutionalized by Richard Nixon, in line with his promotion of “black capitalism.” It was a response by the ruling elite to the volatile and irresolvable social contradictions of American capitalist society that were so explosively revealed in the 1960s. Affirmative action was adopted by the federal government precisely at the point when it became clear that the elimination of poverty and the provision of such social necessities as universal health care, decent and affordable housing, quality education for all and full employment were incompatible with the defense of the profit system and the economic interests of the ruling class. It took only a few short years for Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and “Great Society” programs to be revealed as more chimera than reality, and then essentially wound up. At the same time, the US debacle in Vietnam exposed the dangerous implications for American imperialism of a military consisting of a working class soldiery, disproportionately African-American, led by a virtually all-white officer corps. Hence the adoption of a policy aimed at fostering a privileged stratum within the minority populations that would assist in the administration of the cities—still wracked with poverty and social decay—help in the policing of the working class, and play a larger role in supervising American military operations around the world. Affirmative action created a political framework in which questions of race and ethnicity were placed at the forefront, so that the working class public could be diverted from the more fundamental social and class questions underlying the crisis of American society, and divisions within the working class on the basis of race and national origin could be stoked up. That racial preferences were conceived of and debated within ruling circles as a means of diversifying the “elite,” rather than creating conditions of broad social equality, was already made clear by Thurgood Marshall, a liberal Democrat and the first African-American Supreme Court justice. Marshall wrote at the time of the 1978 Bakke case: “[W]e must permit the institutions of this society to give consideration to race in making decisions about who will hold the positions of influence, affluence and prestige in America.” What is new in the current ruling is the naked way in which these considerations are articulated and defended. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has been careful to speak in the language of legal precedent, constitutional jurisprudence and overarching principles. It has felt constrained by democratic opinion, within the population at large and, to a lesser extent, within the political establishment itself, to conceal the class essence of even the most reactionary rulings. That the high court no longer feels itself bound by such constraints—and issues rulings openly in the name of the elite and its interests—reflects a profound change in the outlook and political orientation of the corporate and political establishment. It has largely shed any identification with the democratic norms and methods of the past. This shift in consciousness must, in turn, reflect profound changes in the underlying social structure of the country. Of the many complex and far-reaching socioeconomic developments of recent decades, the most important is the enormous growth of social inequality. The United States has become the most economically polarized of all the major industrialized countries. Just two days after the June 23 high court ruling upholding racial preferences, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released a report documenting the colossal enrichment of the wealthiest Americans and the ongoing concentration of income in the hands of a privileged few. The IRS reported that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers accounted for over 1 percent of all income in the US in the year 2000, more than double their share just eight years earlier. At the same time, their tax burden fell sharply. The average income of these 400 was nearly $174 million, almost quadruple the $46.8 million average in 1992. These figures—and those contained in dozens of similar studies of American society—expose the existence of a financial oligarchy—one which controls the political system lock, stock and barrel. Under such conditions, democratic forms of rule can only become increasingly empty shells, destined to be dispensed with altogether as the inevitable social upheavals fueled by these disparities of wealth erupt and assume a political form. The corollary of the growing social chasm is the political disenfranchisement of the working class, as the entire political system and both bourgeois parties lurch to the right and openly serve the further enrichment of the elite. No section of the political establishment and no institution of political rule—whether the presidency, Congress or the courts—retains any serious commitment to democratic principles. Far from a victory for democratic rights, last week’s Supreme Court ruling reflects the irreversible decay of American democracy. It underscores the futility of any perspective that seeks to defend basic rights while accepting the existing capitalist system and relying on its political institutions. It demonstrates, moreover, the fundamentally reactionary role of racial politics, which cuts across the critical struggle to unite working people on the basis of a genuinely democratic and egalitarian program through the building of a socialist party of the working class. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From Nightoak at aol.com Tue Jul 1 15:08:49 2003 From: Nightoak at aol.com (Nightoak@aol.com) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:59 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Counter-recruitment Conference Message-ID: <1c5.b62e293.2c332831@aol.com> Hello all! I just returned from the first annual "Stopping War Where It Begins:Organizing Against Militarism in Our Schools" conference in Philadelphia. In the next couple of weeks, I will be scheduling talks to help bring the conference to YOU! If you or an organization that you know is interested in: - an update on the conference - a general introduction to counter-recruiting issues - the direct link between racism and recruiting - getting specific questions answered - setting up public information sessions - participating in a statewide training for the GI Rights Hotline or Conscientious Objector Counseling etc., please contact me (or forward my information!): Michelle Nightoak Madison Area Peace Coalition www.madpeace.org (608) 215-5605 There is a national network forming to coordinate a nationwide counter-recruitment campaign, including all of the sponsoring organizations (listed at the end of this email), a number of local or regional organzations, Not In Our Name, and United for Peace and Justice (both orgs sent representatives to the conference and are making counter-recruitment a top priority!). I will be participating in upcoming national conference calls to help build the network and plan next year's conference as well, so if you have concerns/comments/suggestions, etc. from Wisconsin to pass along, please let me know! Many thanks for all of your work! Peace, Michelle The conference was sponsored by these national organizations that have been working on counter-recruiting for years: American Friends Service Committee Youth and Militarism Project Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft Center on Conscience and War Project YANO ROOTS/War Resisters League STARC Alliance CHOICES (Committee for High School Options and Information on Careers, Education and Self-Improvement) Teen Peace Project -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030701/f7d8e12a/attachment.htm From floevans at netzero.net Tue Jul 1 18:50:45 2003 From: floevans at netzero.net (floevans) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:59 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Independent: Iraq's resistance, A new Vietnam for the White House? Message-ID: <003b01c3402b$97b30890$42b54943@hppav> The Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=420848 Iraq's resistance: A new Vietnam for the White House? By Patrick Cockburn in Fallujah 02 July 2003 Enraged Iraqis promised vengeance after they dragged 10 bodies from the rubble of a building, destroyed by an explosion, beside the green domed al-Hassan mosque in the town of Fallujah west of Baghdad yesterday. "We will kill many American soldiers for this," said Abdullah, one of the crowd, as he looked at the ruins. "What would people say if this happened to a Christian church in America?" Iraqis in Fallujah, which has seen many clashes with American troops, say that a US plane fired a missile that killed people listening to a religious lecture late at night. This is hotly denied by the United States army, which says there were no American planes or helicopters over the town at the time. The deaths in Fallujah were at the start of a day that saw escalating violence in and around Baghdad - at least four people were killed or wounded when a rocket-propelled grenade was fired from a car into an American vehicle near the university. On the road from Baghdad to Fallujah, at Ghazalia, a partly burned US truck had jack-knifed into the metal barrier dividing the highway after it was blown up by a bomb. "It was a command-control-device," said an American soldier on guard. The rest of the convoy that had been attacked was parked further down the road. Local people said they had seen two injured US soldiers being taken away by helicopter, but they did not know if they were dead or wounded. Captain John Ives of the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division denied that the US was in any way involved in the explosion in Fallujah. He said: "There were no US aircraft or helicopters in the area." He added that American troops had not arrived at the site of the blast until three hours later and he believed, from looking at the damage, that there had been an explosion inside the building. He denied claims that the mosque had been under surveillance, but he added that its Imam was known to oppose the US presence. The American troops had been careful not to set foot on land where the mosque stands to avoid offending religious sensitivities. It is not a consideration likely to do US forces in Fallujah much good. Angry local people outside the al-Hassan mosque would not hear of suggestions that bombs or missiles had been stored in the building. A jagged grey fragment of a shell or missile was passed from hand to hand by the crowd but it was impossible to tell if it was from an American or an Iraqi weapon. "A thousand of them should die for every Iraqi who was killed here," one said. "There is no God but Allah, America is the enemy of God," some people chanted, as a crane lifted pieces of concrete. Nevertheless some of those attending the lecture may have been fearful of being arrested for storing arms. Sheikh Laith al-Zobai, who had been speaking when the explosion happened, had left Fallujah general hospital within hours of having his foot amputated. He later died of his wounds. Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad, has been a hotbed of anti-American activity since the war and scene of several confrontations involving US troops. Despite the mounting violence, Paul Bremer, the chief US official in Iraq, said at his weekly press conference in Baghdad yesterday the attacks were the work of a few surviving supporters of Saddam Hussein "getting more desperate" because they could see the success of the US and Britain in restoring normal life in Iraq. Mr Bremer claimed that "day by day things are continuing to improve" and listed the achievements of his administration. He added that evidence of Iraqi support for the Coalition Provisional Authority - as the occupation administration is known - was that more people were coming forward to give information about those attacking US forces. He also said that the attacks were often professional, carried out by groups of between five and seven men, often former members of the Republican Guard or the former Iraqi security services. A more telling sign of real US apprehensions is that Mr Bremer's press conferences, at which he dispenses resolute optimism in the face of increasing scepticism from journalists, take place at the National Convention Centre in central Baghdad behind enormous fortifications of barbed wire and concrete blocks. Iraqis interviewed about attacks on US forces largely approve of them. One Iraqi observer said: "Iraqis generally believe it is good that the Americans are attacked not because they support Saddam Hussein. But they think that the US takes them lightly because the war only lasted three weeks and therefore the Americans thought they could ignore Iraqi opinion about the reconstruction of their country." So far there is no sign that the attacks are centrally co-ordinated except at local level. But the friction between Iraqis and the US troops is increasing, particularly because of the failure to restore public security and the continuing shortage of electricity and water as the torrid summer heat increases. An explosion over the weekend at an ammunitions depot killed at around 15 people and injured at least four near Hadithah, 150 miles northwest of Baghdad, officials said yesterday. The mayor complained that American troops had been guarding it only sporadically. *Assailants gunned down Abdullah Mahmoud al-Khattab, the chief of Saddam Hussein's tribe, in the ousted leader's hometown of Tikrit a few weeks after he had publicly disavowed Saddam. The motive for the attack was unclear. From gmvick at chartermi.net Tue Jul 1 20:14:48 2003 From: gmvick at chartermi.net (Gail V) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:29:59 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] FW: A message from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin Message-ID: FYI Peace, Gail -----Original Message----- From: Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin [mailto:wi02ima.pub@mail.house.gov] July 1, 2003 Dear Ms. Vick, Thank you for contacting me about the Computer Assisted Passenger Screening system (CAPS II) and "no fly" lists. It is good to hear from you, and I apologize for the delay in my response. As the United States government works to prevent acts of terrorism, it is critical to understand why the debate concerning "no fly" lists and other security measures is so important. It's about protecting American lives while protecting the American way of life. In the United States we cherish our freedom of speech, we respect the right to due process, and we have expectations of privacy. We could possibly prevent and solve far more crimes in this country if we authorized our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to listen to our conversations, to search our property, to read what we write, to open our mail, to detain persons indefinitely, but, as Senator Russ Feingold poignantly reminded us as he debated the Patriot Act in the Senate, "that would not be a country in which we would want to live . . . In short, that country would not be America." As you may know, the federal government has utilized "no fly" lists since the 1990s in order to enhance aviation security. Following September 11, 2001, these lists, which contain names of persons deemed by the federal government to be potential security threats, were expanded dramatically. Currently, these lists only include individuals' names. However, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is planning to implement the computerized CAPS II system, which would include additional passenger data, such as home address, telephone numbers, date of birth, and potentially other information as well. The CAPS II system, like the "no fly" lists currently being used, will be implemented administratively. Please know I am watching this matter very closely. It is absolutely imperative that a proper balance be struck between safety and safeguarding our fundamental Constitutional freedoms. While the very real threats to our citizens make clear that our government must act to protect our safety, we must not allow terrorists to take both American lives and the American way of life. Again, thank you for sharing your views. Your opinion matters to me. If I can be of service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to let me know. Sincerely, Tammy Baldwin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin's 2nd District Madison Office: 10 East Doty St., Suite 405 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: 608-258-9800 Fax: 608-258-9808 Beloit Office: 400 E. Grand Avenue, Suite 402 Beloit, WI 53511 Phone: 608-362-2800 Fax: 608-362-2838 Washington, DC Office: 1022 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-2906 Fax: 202-225-6942 http://tammybaldwin.house.gov From alruff at execpc.com Wed Jul 2 10:39:52 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: Building the Movement to End the Israeli Occupation] Message-ID: <3F02EEB8.80202@execpc.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Building the Movement to End the Israeli Occupation Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 00:53:19 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com Building the Movement to End the Israeli Occupation 2nd National Conference & New Jewish Group Devoted to Peace in Middle East Formed * 7/19-7/22: US Campaign To End Israeli Occupation Conference in DC * New Jewish Group Devoted to Peace in Middle East ===== * 7/19-7/22: US Campaign To End Israeli Occupation Conference in DC From: Hany Khalil Spread the Word -- 2nd Organizers Conference US Campaign To End the Israeli Occupation Building the National Movement July 19/22, 2003 Gallaudet University / Kellogg Conference Center / Washington, DC Do you share the principles and goals of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation? Do they reflect the goals of your work for peace with justice in the Middle East? Then join us in July to share what we have learned and coordinate our efforts, so that together we can achieve the greatest impact on public opinion (and on Washington) to end the occupation. The Organizers Conference will be on 19/20 July, and each organization, group or network is invited to send one or two representatives to help build the national movement. Advocacy training on outreach to Congress and visits to Reps and staffers will take place 21/22 July. Most of the time will be spent in strategy sessions. Working groups will choose priorities in each of the three Campaign program areas: congress, divestment, and education for mobilization. They will also identify other action areas for the Campaign or for clusters of groups. Experienced activists and thinkers will be on hand to guide our work. Renowned scholar and professor Edward Said; Cindy Corrie, mother Rachel Corrie; former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (invited), and Phyllis Bennis of the Institute of Policy Studies will address opening and evening plenaries. Activists sharing experience in working sessions include: Rania Awad (media expert): Kathy Bergen (American Friends Service Committee); Ahmed Bouzid (media expert); Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ); Nisrin Elamin (Grassroots International); Ron Francis (US Campaign Divestment Project); Nadia Hijab (US Campaign Steering Committee); Hany Khalil (War Times), Fady Kiblawi (campus divestment activist), Mark Lance (SUSTAIN), Barbara Lubin, Middle East Childrens Alliance (MECA); Jeff Mendez (Palestine Center); Nancy Murray (Boston Committee for Palestinian Rights); Josh Ruebner (US Campaign Grassroots Advocacy Coordinator); Ladan Sobhani (Global Exchange); Damu Smith (Black Voices for Peace); Lori Wallach (Public Citizens Global Trade Watch); Ora Weiss (International Solidarity Movement); David Wildman (United Methodists General Board of Global Ministries); Koyuki Yip (Asian American activist); and Mona Younis (human rights advocate). For more information about the Campaign principles and goals, and for information about the conference, go to http://www.endtheoccupation.org The DC based Palestine Center will be managing the registration process. The point of contact for any inquiries is Mr. Tareq Bremer at 202 338 1290 ext. 10 or via email to Tbremer@palestinecenter.org Our Goals * We will inform, educate, and mobilize the public regarding the U.S. Government's current as well as potential role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. * We seek to change such policies as the billions of U.S. military and economic aid dollars provided despite Israel's violations of U.S. and international law. * We call for the U.S. to work within the U.N. to implement a just and lasting peace. Our Campaign * Our Campaign will build on existing opposition to settlements, land confiscation, house demolitions, and other violations of international law, by providing a common platform to challenge U.S. policies supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine. * We include civil and human rights activists, faith-based organizations, peace activists, Arab-American organizations, Jewish groups opposing the occupation, students, and others who promote peace and justice in Israel and Palestine. We invite all who support this Call to contribute to the fulfillment of its purpose. ======= * New Jewish Group Devoted to Peace in Middle East Join us in our efforts on behalf of a peaceful and just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Dear Supporters of a Just Peace in the Middle East, We are writing to you because you signed the "Open Letter from American Jews On Israel/Palestine" initiated by Professor Alan Sokal of New York University, calling for a just, negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Because of your interest in this issue, we want to tell you about and urge you to join a major new Jewish organization that is working to achieve this same goal. At a time of peril but also tantalizing promise in the Middle East, and as a part of the American Jewish majority that supports a viable, two-state solution to this conflict, we need to make our voices heard in Jewish organizations and in the halls of congress. Brit Tzedek v'Shalom (Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace -- www.btvshalom.org ) was founded a year ago for this exact purpose. By raising the profile of American Jews who support Israel and are critical of both Palestinian violence and many Israeli government policies, we aim to show the broader Jewish community and our lawmakers in Washington that there is a major swath of American Jewry that will not go along with many of the positions of the most prominent pro-Israel lobbying groups. Brit Tzedek has grown to include nearly 3,000 American Jews who support Israel and who think that the best way to express that support is to work for a negotiated settlement that includes a two-state solution, an end to the occupation, and the evacuation of settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. We are an increasing presence in Jewish communities and organizations nationwide through our 27 chapters around the country, and we are lobbying congress in support of our positions. In addition, we have launched a nationwide Call to Bring the Settlers Home, as a way of moving concretely toward implementing the end of the occupation, a necessary step in reaching a two-state solution. Please join Ed Asner, Theodore Bikel, Michael Chabon, Adam Hochschild, Stanley Hoffmann, Tony Kushner, Grace Paley, Eli Pariser, Marge Piercy, Judith Plaskow, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Art Spiegelman, Gloria Steinem, Ed Witten, and Rabbis Sue Levi Elwell and Arthur Hertzberg, among many accomplished Jewish scholars, artiswriters and rabbinic leaders, along with nearly 6,000 other American Jews, in signing this Call and helping us to build the Jewish voice for a just and peaceful solution to the conflict: www.bringthemhome.btvshalom.org To bolster our efforts, we need new members -- both those who want to be active AND those who want to lend their name just by virtue of being members. Listen for a moment to David Zonsheine, a co-founder of the Ometz l'Sarev/Courage to Refuse movement, which is comprised of Israeli army officers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories: "It is in the Israeli national interest that Palestinians and Israelis immediately return to the negotiating table and resolve this conflict once and for all. The United States is uniquely placed to do so and will only do so if American Jewry encourages it to do so. American Jewry needs to become part of the solution, and prod its leadership and the US government to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table. A strong Brit Tzedek v'Shalom is crucial for Israel's future." We can make a difference. Be part of the solution by joining Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and telling others about our work. Go to our website -- www.btvshalom.org -- You can join online for $35 -- $50 -- $100 -- $1000 (whatever you are able to contribute) ($18 for students or low-income): https://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2732-01719-0 And if you have a moment more, please forward this letter to your own colleagues, friends, and family. And finally, whether or not you join, please go to www.bringthemhome.btvshalom.org to sign the Call to Bring the Settlers Home to Israel. We are counting on every one of you to lend your individual support to our collective clout. It cannot happen without you. So please, join us now. In friendship and solidarity, Donna Spiegelman Professor of Epidemiologic Methods Harvard School of Public Health, and Founding Member and member of the Board of Directors of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom Gordon Fellman Professor of Sociology Brandeis University and author of "Rambo and the Dalai Lama: The Compulsion to Win and Its Threat to Human Survival" Herbert C. Kelman Richard Clarke Cabot Research Professor of Social Ethics Harvard University, and Director, Program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution Weatherhead Center for International Affairs Harvard University ======= __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From alruff at execpc.com Wed Jul 2 10:48:58 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [One for the "Peace Movement" -- A QUESTION FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES] Message-ID: <3F02F0DA.7030307@execpc.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: A QUESTION FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:47:26 -0500 From: "David Peterson" To: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4702612,00.html US-based missiles to have global reach Allies to become less important as new generation of weapons enables America to strike anywhere from its own territory Julian Borger in Washington Tuesday July 1, 2003 The Guardian ( London ) The Pentagon is planning a new generation of weapons, including huge hypersonic drones and bombs dropped from space, that will allow the US to strike its enemies at lightning speed from its own territory. Over the next 25 years, the new technology would free the US from dependence on forward bases and the cooperation of regional allies, part of the drive towards self-suffi ciency spurred by the difficulties of gaining international cooperation for the invasion of Iraq . The new weapons are being developed under a programme codenamed Falcon (Force Application and Launch from the Continental US). A US defence website has invited bids from contractors to develop the technology and the current edition of Jane's Defence Weekly reports that the first flight tests are scheduled to take place within three years. According to the website run by the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) the programme is aimed at fulfilling "the government's vision of an ultimate prompt global reach capability (circa 2025 and beyond)". The Falcon technology would "free the US military from reliance on forward basing to enable it to react promptly and decisively to destabilising or threatening actions by hostile countries and terrorist organisations ", according to the Darpa invitation for bids. The ultimate goal would be a "reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle (HCV) ... capable of taking off from a conventional military runway and striking targets 9,000 nautical miles distant in less than two hours". The unmanned HCV would carry a payload of up to 12,000 lbs and could ultimately fly at speeds of up to 10 times the speed of sound, according to Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute in Washington. Propelling a warhead of that size at those speeds poses serious technological challenges and Darpa estimates it will take more than 20 years to develop. Over the next seven years, meanwhile, the US air force and Darpa will develop a cheaper "global reach" weapons system relying on expendable rocket boosters, known as small launch vehicles (SLV) that would take a warhead into space and drop it over its target. In US defence jargon, the warhead is known as a Com mon Aero Vehicle ( Cav), an unpowered bomb which would be guided on to its target as it plummeted to earth at high and accelerating velocity. The Cav could carry 1,000 lbs of explosives but at those speeds explosives may not be necessary. A simple titanium rod would be able to penetrate 70 feet of solid rock and the shock wave would have enormous destructive force. It could be used against deeply buried bunkers, the sort of target the air force is looking for new ways to attack. Jane's Defence Weekly reported that the first Cav flight demonstration is provisionally scheduled by mid-2006, and the first SLV flight exercise would take place the next year. A test of the two systems combined would be carried out by late 2007. A prototype demonstrating HCV technology would be tested in 2009. SLV rockets will also give the air force a cheap and flexible means to launch military satellites at short notice, within weeks, days or even hours of a crisis developing. The SLV-Cav combination, according to the Darpa document, "will provide a near-term (approximately 2010) operational capability for prompt global strike from Consus (the continental US) while also enabling future development of a reusable HCV for the far-term (approximately 2025)". The range of this weapon is unclear. From earlwal at chorus.net Wed Jul 2 13:44:14 2003 From: earlwal at chorus.net (BobReuschlein) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] US cuts Columbia Aid over ICC Message-ID: from UNWIRE comment: Could be titled "US cuts nose to spite its face" There is a national security "loophole" mentioned at the bottom of the story. (Bob Reuschlein) U.S. Cuts Military Aid To 35 Countries Over Int'l Court The United States halted military assistance to 35 countries yesterday because they would not vow to give U.S. citizens immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court. Last year, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush said that under a provision of new U.S. antiterrorism legislation, countries joining the new court but failing to exempt U.S. nationals serving within their borders would lose U.S. military aid. The aid that was cut off yesterday includes training programs, as well as funding for weapons and equipment. A total of $47.6 million in aid and $613,000 in military education programs would be cut, U.S. officials said. Many of the nations cut off, such as Colombia and Ecuador, are considered vital to the Bush administration's foreign policy agenda, the New York Times reports. Some affected countries like Croatia are preparing to join NATO and counted on U.S. military aid to help modernize their forces. The new court is the first permanent international war crimes tribunal. The administration has opposed the court, expressing concern over the possibility of politically motivated prosecutions. "There should be no misunderstanding that the issue of protecting U.S. persons from the International Criminal Court will be a significant and pressing matter in our relations with every state," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. Bush offered exemption to 22 countries that have signed but not yet ratified immunity agreements. The countries include Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. Administration officials said the move is not a permanent ban on military aid to the 35 countries. The president can resume military aid if he believes that failing to help a foreign government poses a threat to U.S. national security, and countries that sign exemption agreements will be eligible for military aid again (Elizabeth Becker, New York Times, April 2). From Nightoak at aol.com Wed Jul 2 14:53:19 2003 From: Nightoak at aol.com (Nightoak@aol.com) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Racial Justice WG notes posted Message-ID: Here is the link to the latest meeting notes for the Racial Justice Working Group: http://madpeace.org/Wiki/RJWG%2006-30-2003 Peace, Michelle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030702/6d791902/attachment.htm From baumel at mts.net Wed Jul 2 14:59:31 2003 From: baumel at mts.net (Syd Baumel) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Re: [WFM-TALK] US cuts Columbia Aid over ICC References: <982000573-1463747838-1057167688@boing.topica.com> Message-ID: <00ca01c340cc$126634e0$677ba8c0@powerland> ----- Original Message ----- From: "BobReuschlein" | The new court is the first permanent international war crimes tribunal. | The administration has opposed the court, expressing concern over the | possibility of politically motivated prosecutions. Right. It should call for a Guantanamo Bay-style ICC. Surely it would have no objection to ratifying and making American nationals subject to such a principled, American jurisprudence-grade international criminal court. Syd www.aquarianonline.com The Simultaneous Policy Coming Soon to a Planet Near You "It's ambitious and provocative. Can it work? Certainly worth a serious try." - Noam Chomsky Adopt SP and Take Back the World www.simpol.org From alruff at execpc.com Wed Jul 2 19:39:43 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] FW: A message from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin References: Message-ID: <3F036D3F.30909@execpc.com> Check out Baldwin's recent vote on a resolution condemning the Palestinians; a measure put forward by some of the most pro-Isael reactinary elements in the Congress. AAI Action Alert > > > > U.S. House Passes Another Unbalanced Resolution on > > Mideast Conflict > > Thank those Reps. who Spoke Out on H. Res. 294 > > > > Issue: > > > > On June 25, 2003, the U.S. House passed H. Res. > 294. >> > Introduced by Rep. >> > Lantos (D-CA), Rep. DeLay (R-TX), Rep. Pelosi > > (D-CA) >> > and Rep. Hyde (R-IL), >> > H. Res. 294 condemns, "the terrorism inflicted on >> > Israel since the Aqaba >> > Summit and expressing solidarity with the Israeli >> > people in their fight >> > against terrorism." This one-sided resolution >> > voices unequivocal support >> > for Israel and fails to mention Palestinian >> > suffering or rights. >> > >> > Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), the Dean of the House > > Arab >> > American Caucus, led the >> > vocal opposition to H. Res. 294. Rep. Lois Capps >> > (D-CA) summed up the >> > opposition's objection to H. Res. 294 by stating >> > that "We mourn the 22 >> > innocent Israelis that have been killed since the >> > summit. But over twice >> > that number of innocent civilian Palestinians have >> > also died as a result of >> > Israeli military strikes. Their loss should also > > be >> > explicitly recognized >> > in this resolution." >> > >> > Beyond being simply insensitive, Rep. Dingell > > (D-MI) >> > argued that H. Res. 294 >> > is damaging because it is a "one-sided, unbalanced >> > and unfair resolution, >> > which undermines [the Bush] administration's > > efforts >> > to make peace in the >> > region." Rep. Kleczka (D-WI) further pointed out >> > that "A reading of the >> > resolution will find it lacking in one major > > regard >> > and that is, there is no >> > endorsement of the Roadmap, the Roadmap which >> > President Bush has worked so >> > hard to promote to both sides; the Roadmap which > > was >> > the subject of the >> > Aqaba summit." >> > >> > Finally, Rep. Rahall closed his powerful statement >> > by stating "I'm not going >> > to urge you to vote one way or the other, you will >> > make up your own mind, I >> > simply ask my colleagues to look into your own >> > conscience when casting your >> > vote." >> > >> > These representatives and others who spoke out >> > against H. Res. 294 must be >> > commended for their stand against this non-binding >> > resolution that damages >> > President Bush's efforts at peace. >> > >> > What You Can Do: >> > >> > Please take the time to thank the following > > members >> > who made thoughtful >> > floor statements criticizing the resolution's lack >> > of balance and >> > encouraging the Administration to require all >> > parties to fulfill their >> > obligations under the Road Map. Also thank those >> > representatives who took a >> > stand and voted "Nay" or "Present." >> > >> > To contact the following members, go to >> > http://capwiz.com/arab/dbq/officials/ and enter > > the >> > member's name. >> > >> > Floor Statement: >> > Rahall (D-WV), Dingell (D-MI), Capps (D-CA), > > Price >> > (D-NC), >> > Kleczka (D-WI) and Rohrabacher (R-CA). >> > >> > Voted "Nay": >> > Dingell (D-MI), Kleczka (D-WI), Paul (R-TX), > > Rahall >> > (D-WV) and Woolsey >> > (D-CA). >> > >> > Voted "Present": >> > Clay (D-MO), Kilpatrick (D-MI), Kucinich (D-OH), >> > Lee (D-CA), >> > McDermott (D-WA), Waters (D-CA) and Watt (D- NC). >> > >> > > > ************************************************************* >>> > AAI Alert >>> > Arab American Institute >>> > aaialert@aaiusa.org >>> > >>> > Please visit our website at www.aaiusa.org or view >>> > our current "Action >>> > Alert" items at http://capwiz.com/arab/home/. >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> > Gail V wrote: >FYI > >Peace, >Gail > >-----Original Message----- >From: Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin [mailto:wi02ima.pub@mail.house.gov] > > >July 1, 2003 > > >Dear Ms. Vick, > >Thank you for contacting me about the Computer Assisted Passenger >Screening system (CAPS II) and "no fly" lists. It is good to hear from >you, and I apologize for the delay in my response. > >As the United States government works to prevent acts of terrorism, it is >critical to understand why the debate concerning "no fly" lists and other >security measures is so important. It's about protecting American lives >while protecting the American way of life. In the United States we >cherish our freedom of speech, we respect the right to due process, and we >have expectations of privacy. We could possibly prevent and solve far >more crimes in this country if we authorized our law enforcement and >intelligence agencies to listen to our conversations, to search our >property, to read what we write, to open our mail, to detain persons >indefinitely, but, as Senator Russ Feingold poignantly reminded us as he >debated the Patriot Act in the Senate, "that would not be a country in >which we would want to live . . . In short, that country would not be >America." > >As you may know, the federal government has utilized "no fly" lists since >the 1990s in order to enhance aviation security. Following September 11, >2001, these lists, which contain names of persons deemed by the federal >government to be potential security threats, were expanded dramatically. >Currently, these lists only include individuals' names. However, the >Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is planning to implement the >computerized CAPS II system, which would include additional passenger >data, such as home address, telephone numbers, date of birth, and >potentially other information as well. > >The CAPS II system, like the "no fly" lists currently being used, will be >implemented administratively. Please know I am watching this matter very >closely. It is absolutely imperative that a proper balance be struck >between safety and safeguarding our fundamental Constitutional freedoms. >While the very real threats to our citizens make clear that our government >must act to protect our safety, we must not allow terrorists to take both >American lives and the American way of life. > > > >Again, thank you for sharing your views. Your opinion matters to me. If >I can be of service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to let >me know. >Sincerely, > >Tammy Baldwin > > >Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin's 2nd District > >Madison Office: >10 East Doty St., Suite 405 >Madison, WI 53703 >Phone: 608-258-9800 >Fax: 608-258-9808 > >Beloit Office: >400 E. Grand Avenue, Suite 402 >Beloit, WI 53511 >Phone: 608-362-2800 >Fax: 608-362-2838 > >Washington, DC Office: >1022 Longworth HOB >Washington, DC 20515 >Phone: 202-225-2906 >Fax: 202-225-6942 > >http://tammybaldwin.house.gov > > > > >_______________________________________________ >discuss@madpeace.org mailing list >http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss > > From exodio at yahoo.com Wed Jul 2 22:01:50 2003 From: exodio at yahoo.com (John Sackis) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] War Crimes in the Name of Freedom: 227 Years.... In-Reply-To: <20030702170004.687F6A902@exigence.opensoftwareservices.com> Message-ID: <20030703040150.30208.qmail@web41204.mail.yahoo.com> War Crimes in the Name of Freedom: 227 Years.... >From http://www.dangerouscitizen.com/Articles/714.aspx Each and every American has the blood of the world on his/her hands. And freedom is going to get even bloodier as history, it turns out, is an excellent guide. Alternative Press Review, Web Feature, June 28, 2003 by John Stanton “Great power imposes the obligation of exercising restraint, and we did not live up to this obligation.” That according to Leo Szilard, the Manhattan Project physicist commenting on the United States and its decision in August of 1945 to obliterate non-military targets Hiroshima (70,000 dead instantly with 210,000 total deaths) and Nagasaki (40,000 dead instantly with 200,000 total deaths) in Japan. When the United States of America takes its place in the graveyard of empires, its tombstone will display Szilard’s words alongside the inscription, “Born in violence, practiced violence and came to a violent end.” Americans fancy their society as a peaceful, freedom loving enterprise when the reality is that Americans are brutally competitive and adversarial in every aspect of their lives. And they are warlike to the core. Is it any wonder that in America, the easiest act for the US government to carry out is war? As Americans prepare to celebrate their Independence Day this July 4, 2003, with a grandiose glorification of ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—and wars from days past--it’s worth remembering those millions of civilians and/or non-combatants who have died at the hands of unconstrained and psychopathic American power. The US government has a long history of reengineering and downsizing populations that get in the way of freedom loving Americans and their business interests. Each and every American has the blood of the world on his/her hands. And freedom is going to get even bloodier as history, it turns out, is an excellent guide. Kill ‘Em All Prior to those fateful days in August of 1945, the US Target Committee met in May of 1945 and discussed the need for following up those two days of nuclear infamy with B-29 incendiary raids. “The feasibility of following the raid by an incendiary mission was discussed. This has the great advantage that the enemies' fire fighting ability will probably be paralyzed by the gadget [atomic bomb] so that a very serious conflagration should be capable of being started.” The US Target Committee, anxious to collect data on the “gadget’s” performance recommended a 24 hour waiting period before letting loose the B-29’s to vaporize any humans or structures that might have survived the “gadget’s” output. In February of 1945 in Dresden, Germany, the United States--and its coalition partner Great Britain--were engaged in the firebombing slaughter of scores of German civilians and refugees fleeing the Soviet Army’s advance. According to rense.com. “Dresden was a hospital city for wounded soldiers. Not one military unit, not one anti-aircraft battery was deployed in the city. Together with the 600,000 refugees from Breslau, Dresden was filled with nearly 1.2 million people. Churchill had asked for "suggestions on how to blaze 600,000 refugees. He wasn't interested in how to target military installations 60 miles outside of Dresden. More than 700,000 phosphorus bombs were dropped on 1.2 million people. One bomb for every 2 people. The temperature in the center of the city reached 1600 degrees centigrade. More than 260,000 bodies and residues of bodies were counted. But those who perished in the center of the city could not be traced. Approximately 500,000 children, women, the elderly, wounded soldiers and the animals of the zoo were slaughtered in one night…Others hiding below ground died. But they died painlessly--they simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness. As the heat intensified, they either disintegrated into cinders or melted into a thick liquid--often three or four feet deep in spots.” Writing in World War II magazine, Christopher Lew points out that the Americans incinerated Tokyo, Japan in March of 1945 via firebombing raids killing 100,000 civilians. The US government engaged in military campaigns such as Operation Starvation meant to deny food supplies to the population. Every city in Japan was targeted in a ruthless, murderous and calculated manner. Yet, the Emperor of Japan’s residence was considered off limits by US commanders (the rationale being he would be an asset in the post-war era). “For three hours over Tokyo, 334 B-29s unleashed their cargo [including napalm] upon the dense city below. The fires raged out of control in little less than 30 minutes, aided by a 28-mph wind. Even the water in the rivers reached the boiling point. The fire was so intense that it created updrafts that tossed the gigantic B-29s around as if they were feathers. Officially the Japanese listed 83,793 killed and 40,918 injured. A total of 265,171 buildings were destroyed, and 15.8 square miles of the city were burned to ashes. It was the greatest urban disaster, man-made or natural, in all of history.” The slaughter of the Japanese and their cities was unrelenting and so insidiously effective that the US military ran out of targets. Of course, the US government has never been content just to annihilate those pesky civilians in other lands. There’s always work to be done right here in the United States. Whether rounding up Arabs in 2003 and locking them away or engaging in genocide in the 1800’s, the US government has a long history of reengineering and downsizing populations that get in the way of freedom loving Americans. For example, in 1830 the Congress of the United States passed the Indian Removal Act according to understandingprejudice.org. President Andrew Jackson quickly signed the bill into law. In the summer of 1838, US Army General Winfield Scott led his men in the invasion of the Cherokee Nation. In one of many bloody episodes in US history, men, women, and children were taken from their land, herded into makeshift forts with minimal facilities and food, then forced to march a thousand miles--some made part of the trip by boat in equally horrible conditions. Under the indifferent US Army commanders, an estimated 5,000 native Americans would die on the Trail of Tears. The Tradition Continues: Make War Not Love Thanks to its penchant for war and belief in its divine invincibility, worldwide polls now show that the United States is a reviled nation. Little surprise there. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld shrugs off the deaths of 10,000 civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is equally without pity for the American troops now dying each day in both failed military campaigns. Attorney General John Ashcroft—who now likes to be addressed as General Ashcroft—presides over an American justice system which has stripped away the rights of all Americans to due process and other rights formerly guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. In the US, accused serial killers and rapists have more access to legal assistance than an individual suspected of terrorism. And for the first time, America has more of its citizens incarcerated and executed than any nation on the planet. “With liberty and justice for all” seems meaningless as the United States flaunts the fact that it runs a death camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that its foreign and domestic policies include torture, assassination, and eavesdropping on any person it deems a threat to national security. America has been at war since 1775. Indeed, the US has never been at peace. The following are considered major conflicts: Revolutionary War (1775-1783), War of 1812 (1812-1815), Mexican War (1846-1848), Civil War (1861-1865), Spanish American War (1898), World War I (1917-1918), World War II (1941-1945), Korean War (1950-1953), Vietnam War (1964-1972), and the Gulf War I (1990-1991). And that list excludes the invasion of Panama, Grenada, Serbia, Gulf War II and a whole slew of covert actions that overthrew governments the world over. The future holds Iran, North Korea, Syria, Colombia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and, arguably, the entire planet. Unfortunately, war is the defining characteristic of the US government and a majority of its people. American freedom depends on war and their economic system demands it. “Under capitalism, corporations that produce weapons make huge profits from these weapons of war and therefore are happy both to prepare for war and to engage in war. You prepare for war, you have all these government contracts, and make all this money, and you engage in war and you use up all these products and you have to replace them,” according to Howard Zinn. Is there any hope of breaking away from a bloody history celebrated mindlessly each July 4th? Will Americans ever live up to the ideals set forth in the US Constitution? Can they break the habit of war? “War has always diminished our freedom,” says Zinn. “When our freedom has expanded, it has not come as a result of war or of anything the government has done but as a result of what citizens have done. The best test of that is the history of black people in the United States, the history of slavery and segregation. It wasn't the government that initiated the movement against slavery but white and black abolitionists. It wasn't the government that initiated the battle against racial segregation in the 1950s and 1960s, but the movement of people in the South. It wasn't the government that gave the people the freedom to work eight hours a day instead of twelve hours a day. It was working people themselves who organized into unions, went out on strike, and faced the police. The government was on the other side; the government was always in support of the employers and the corporations. The freedom of working people, the freedom of black people has always depended on the struggles of people themselves against the government. So, if we look at it historically, we certainly cannot depend on governments to maintain our liberties. We have to depend on our own organized efforts.” Only the American people can stop war. ______________________ John Stanton is the author (along with Wayne Madsen) of America’s Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II, May 2003. Copyright J Stanton 2003. Article located at: http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=21 ===== ---An open mind is as a fortress with the gates up and the drawbridge down. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From alruff at execpc.com Thu Jul 3 09:43:24 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Another war front for Washington? Message-ID: <3F0432FC.7040307@execpc.com> Intensification of US Blockade against Cuba Denounced Havana.- The over 40-year US blockade against Cuba is intensifying in every way, Cuban experts stated at the daily TV roundtable broadcast Monday. The US administration is reopening cases such as that of Canadian James Sabsali -residing in Philadelphia- who must face this country's laws for selling water purifiers to the Island, thus violating US blockade laws, they pointed out. According to the Cuban journalists, US authorities prohibited US Agricultural Fair organizers from traveling to the Island to arrange a new exhibition of their products in Cuba. US companies were also prohibited from attending such events, they added. US officials have affirmed that President George W. Bush is committed to the application of a complete blockade against the Island, the panelists revealed. Washington will not renew travel licenses exempting academics, artists, or cultural groups to visit Cuba, hoping to end the exchange between both peoples, pointed out the experts. Opposing this, several US organizations are calling for normalization of mutual relations, but the government fears that US citizens will realize they have been misled about the Cuban reality, the political analysts explained. The Pastors for Peace organization is beginning its journey to ten US cities on Tuesday, which will take them to Cuba to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Assault on Moncada Barracks on July 26. AGGRESSION AGAINST CUBA ESCALATES (Taken from Granma Newspaper) Cuba continues being an obsession for the US, whose administration and anti-Cuban Mafia are looking desperately for a justification to "silently and creatively" intervene in Havana. It is not only in Miami where an intervention is being clamored, it is also in Central America and Europe, where their allies are trying to confuse international public opinion. US President George W. Bush toured the city of fraud, Miami, since he needs a lot of money for his reelection campaign, attending US$2,000-a-plate lunches, in the same territory where low-price dining halls for the elderly are closed due to a lack of funds. Bush did not make reference to the secret operations against Cuba announced days before by an under-Secretary of State. He did not mention the new measures because "we are not ready to speak about them yet." It is not the first time that he resorted to the words "not so far", "not yet", demonstrating that plans exist, but "when" has not been determined. The White House is particularly encouraged by the European Union position, although disappointed with the Latin American reaction to its anti-Cuban stance. A CALL FOR SUBVERSION A US government report clearly calls to subvert the internal situation in Havana, "silently and creatively," that is clandestinely, in the way they failed to subvert it during the last four decades. It was demonstrated once more that the anti-Cuban Mafia had kidnapped the US government's policy on Cuba, because their representatives were invited on June 13 to express their viewpoints "on these new measures" against Havana. This Mafia is branching out in Central America, and Salvadorian President Francisco Flores, who is asking his Miami friends for help because he thinks that he will lose the coming elections, is among its representatives. But the anti-Cuban moves are also causing unrest in Europe. CIA agent Alberto Montaner will travel to Madrid to examine once again the "human rights" situation in Cuba, in an event organized by Spanish President Jose Maria Aznar, with the participation of former Czech president Vaclav Havel, who is visiting Europe. Simultaneously, Mafia representatives with the same purpose will tour Europe during three weeks to meet with high-ranking officials. Provocations in front of the Cuban embassy in France continue, although French and Latin American friends of Cuba denounced the real objectives of these individuals, that is, to impede the visit of tourists and create conditions to justify a US aggression on the Island. Meanwhile, Mafia members such as Huber Matos, who traveled to Argentina to launch his book, asked to internationalize the blockade and termed the Argentinean people and government as ignorant because of the warm welcome they gave Commander in Chief Fidel Castro, though he did not say that his current fortune came from the aid he received to "set Cuba free." Old politicians including Conte Ag=FCero look ridiculous when they sing on television and state that they will come to release us soon, although when asked "when", he did not mention a date because it was a "secret." ON THE ONE HAND, THE GOVERNMENT, ON THE OTHER, THE US PEOPLE The US blockade continues to be tightened, nether silently nor creatively, as proven in the way US authorities pursue people from other countries that have trade relations with Cuba, and the suspension of any proposal from US producers, as well as prohibiting any bilateral exchange. However, the US people received with applause the musicians who are occasionally allowed to enter the US, like the Los Van Van orchestra in its current tour, and other activities in which the Cuban reality is revealed in US territory. Another example of relations between these two countries is the beginning of the Pastors for Peace Caravan that will travel to dozens of cities before arriving in Havana. In addition, important figures who visited Cuba criticized the blockade; there is recognition of Cuba as the real victim of US biological warfare, as an article published in the US denounced recently. This and similar efforts illustrate how the blockade has shown no mercy on the health of Cubans, refuting the campaign that attempts to make people believe that Havana has developed bio-weapons, which is nothing but a lie and a permanent justification to confuse the US citizens in case of a military invasion. The aggression on the Caribbean island is escalating in Miami, Madrid and Paris, among other capitals. However, sensitive voices are crying out in many parts of the world to condemn the US position and support Cuba's right to sovereignty. ---------------- From alruff at execpc.com Thu Jul 3 09:49:19 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:00 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: Union goes to war with Labour] Message-ID: <3F04345F.8010401@execpc.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Union goes to war with Labour Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:50:07 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com Union goes to war with Labour Cabinet branded 'criminals' on Iraq Kevin Maguire The Guardian (UK) http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,9893 19,00.html Wednesday July 2, 2003 Tony Blair and his cabinet were branded "war criminals" yesterday as an organisation that gave birth to the Labour party faced expulsion in an historic split with the government. The RMT rail union voted to support the far left Scottish Socialists, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Ken Livingstone in London and even suspended Labour MP George Galloway in direct defiance of the Labour leadership. It also halved its annual affiliation fees from ?25,000 to ?12,500. A year ago it paid more than ?100,000. Bob Crow, hard left general secretary of the RMT, predicted the union would disaffiliate from Labour after he accused the prime minister of "putting the boot" into workers in Britain and abroad, including the invasion of Iraq. "I think if the Labour party continues the way it is going I cannot honestly see that come five years' time, we will still be in it at all," said Mr Crow. The looming split between the party and one of Britain's most prominent unions is one of the most serious internal crises to hit the Labour leadership in recent years and underlines the problems facing Mr Blair as traditional supporters turn their back on New Labour. With official Labour membership acknowledged to have fallen 400,000 to 250,000 since the 1997 election, the party is in the uncomfortable position of relying increasingly on disillusioned union leaders, with the prime minister's advisers fearing others could follow the RMT. The incendiary comments from Mr Crow, the most awkward of the awkward squad now leading the trade unions, were made as the RMT conference in Glasgow overwhelmingly passed a series of anti-government motions. Activists in the RMT, which proposed the motion in 1899 that formed the Labour Representation Committee which in 1906 became the Labour party, expressed bitter disillusionment with its offspring. David Triesman, Labour general secretary, attempted to postpone what will inevitably be a major crunch as strained government-union relations approach breaking point. "Under the laws of the Labour party it is not what affiliates say they will do but what they do that matters. If an affiliate does actually actively organise for or fund a party or candidate standing against the Labour party then that affiliate puts itself beyond the party rules," said Mr Triesman. "In that situation the rules have to be respected and upheld. It is important to be clear we are not at that point yet." Relations between ministers and unions are close to breaking point with the Fire Brigades union leadership facing calls to disaffiliate following the bitter pay dispute, and the conference of the Bectu broadcasting union voting to ballot members on breaking the link. Yet Mr Crow, a former member of the Communist party and Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour party who never joined Labour, remains at odds with most of the other leading lights in the leftwing awkward squad running major trade unions. While the TGWU, Unison, GMB and Aslef have agreed to review Labour links and funding or support for Mr Livingstone in London as an independent against the official party candidate, all endorse retaining ties with Labour. One senior RMT official opposed to a breach with Labour said the union was "heading for the political wilderness" but the criticism of the government from the floor among the 52 delegates was scathing. The decision to allow branches to affiliate to other parties is unprecedented by a union in recent years. The RMT is furious that Labour has refused to renationalise the rail industry, part-privatised London Underground, failed to end discrimination against foreign seafarers on UK flagged ships and introduce better employment protection. Mr Crow, who described the prime minister and colleagues as "war criminals" over the invasion of Iraq in a tub-thumping speech, said: "They don't like us and they don't want the unions to have any power. They are in favour of keeping it a bosses' party. "Like a marriage that comes to an end, sometimes it is better if there is a divorce. I am not urging a divorce but how long can we sit back and support a political party that has gone further than the Tory party? "People say do we want to get the Tories back in again - I say, how would we know?" Ian McCartney, Labour chairman, said: "The Labour party does not want to break its link with any union affiliate, we believe passionately in the union-Labour link. "I am in regular contact with senior union leaders and we are all committed to building and modernising the link. I know of no serious Labour figure in the union movement who is in favour of ending our historic link. The ball is very much in the RMT's court." Guardian Unlimited ? Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From alruff at execpc.com Thu Jul 3 10:14:42 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:01 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [READ THIS ONE! Only in America By ERIC HOBSBAWM] Message-ID: <3F043A52.6090006@execpc.com> Read this marvelous essay bu the great world historian, Eric Hobsbawm. -AR -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Only in America By ERIC HOBSBAWM Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2003 17:50:30 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com Only in America By ERIC HOBSBAWM The Chronicle of Higher Education From the issue dated 7/4/2003 http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i43/43b00701.htm Looking back on 40 years of visiting and living in the United States, I think I learned as much about the country in the first summer I spent there as in the course of the next decades. With one exception: To know New York, or even Manhattan, one has to live there. For how long? I did so for four months every year between 1984 and 1997, but even though my wife, Marlene, joined me for the whole semester only three times, it was quite enough for both of us to feel like natives rather than visitors. I have spent a lot of time in the U.S.A. teaching, reading in its marvelous libraries, writing, or having a good time, or all together in the Getty Center in its days in Santa Monica, but what I learned from personal acquaintance with America was acquired in the course of a few weeks and months. Were I a de Tocqueville, that would have been quite enough. After all, his Democracy in America, the best book ever written about the U.S.A., was based on a journey of not more than nine months. Alas, I am not de Tocqueville, nor is my interest in the U.S.A. the same as his. If written today, de Tocqueville's book would certainly be attacked as anti-American, since much of what he said about the U.S.A. was critical. Ever since it was founded, the U.S.A. has been a subject of attraction and fascination for the rest of the world, but also of detraction and disapproval. However, it is only since the start of the cold war that people's attitude to the U.S.A. has been judged essentially in terms of approval or disapproval, and not only by the sort of inhabitants who are also likely to seek out "un-American" behavior in their own fellow citizens, but also internationally. It substituted the question "Are you with the U.S.A.?" for the question "What do you think of the U.S.A.?" What is more, no other country expects or asks such a question about itself. Since America, having won the cold war against the U.S.S.R., implausibly decided on September 11, 2001, that the cause of freedom was again engaged in another life-and-death struggle against another evil, but this time spectacularly ill-defined enemy, any skeptical remarks about the United States and its policy are, once again, likely to meet with outrage. And yet, how irrelevant, even absurd, is this insistence on approval! Internationally speaking, the U.S.A. was by any standards the success story among 20th-century states. Its economy became the world's largest, both pace- and pattern-setting; its capacity for technological achievement was unique; its research in both natural and social sciences, even its philosophers, became increasingly dominant; and its hegemony in global consumer civilization seemed beyond challenge. It ended the century as the only surviving global power and empire. What is more, as I have written elsewhere, "in some ways the United States represents the best of the 20th century." If opinion is measured not by pollsters but by migrants, almost certainly America would be the preferred destination of most human beings who must, or decide to, move to a country other than their own, certainly of those who know some English. As one of those who chose to work in the U.S.A., I illustrate the point. Admittedly, working in the U.S.A., or liking to live in the U.S.A. -- and especially in New York -- does not imply the wish to become American, although this is still difficult for many inhabitants of the United States to understand. It no longer implies a lasting choice for most people between one's own country and another, as it did before the Second World War, or even until the air-transport revolution in the 1960s, let alone the telephone and e- mail revolution of the 1990s. Binational or even multinational working and even bi- or multicultural lives have become common. Nor is money the only attraction. The U.S.A. promises greater openness to talent, to energy, to novelty than other worlds. It is also the reminder of an old, if declining, tradition of free and egalitarian intellectual inquiry, as in the great New York Public Library, whose treasures are still, unlike in the other great libraries of the world, open to anyone who walks through its doors on Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street. On the other hand, the human costs of the system for those outside it or who cannot "make it" were equally evident in New York, at least until they were pushed out of middle-class sight, off the streets or into the unspeakable univers concentrationnaire of the largest jail population, per capita, in the world. When I first went to New York, the Bowery was still a vast human refuse dump or "skid row." In the 1980s it was more evenly distributed through the streets of Manhattan. Behind today's casual mobile-phone calls on the street, I still hear the soliloquies of the unwanted and crazy on the pavements of New York in one of the city's bad decades of inhumanity and brutality. Human wastage is the other face of American capitalism, in a country where "to waste" is the common criminal slang for "to kill." Yet, unlike other nations, in its national ideology the U.S.A. does not simply exist. It only achieves. It has no collective identity except as the best, the greatest country, superior to all others and the acknowledged model for the world. As the football coach said: Winning is not just the most important thing, it is all there is. That is one of the things that makes America such a very strange country for foreigners. Stopping for a brief holiday with the family in a small, poor, linguistically incomprehensible seaside town in Portugal, on the way back from a semester in New England, I still remember the sense of coming home to one's own civilization. Geography had nothing to do with it. When we went on a similar holiday to Portugal a few years later, en route this time from South America, there was no such feeling of a culture gap overcome. Not the least of these cultural peculiarities is the U.S.A.'s own sense of its strangeness ("Only in America ... "), or at least its curiously unfixed sense of self. The question that preoccupies so many American historians of their own country, namely, "What does it mean to be American?," is one that rarely bothered my generation of historians in European countries. Neither national nor personal identity seemed as problematic to visiting Brits, at all events in the 1960s, even those of complex Central European cultural background, as they seemed in local academic discussions. "What is this identity crisis they are all talking about?" Marlene asked me after one of them. She had never heard the term before we arrived in Cambridge, Mass., in 1967. Foreign academics who discovered the U.S.A. in the 1960s were probably more immediately aware of its peculiarities than they would be today, for so many of them had not yet been integrated into the omnipresent language of globalized consumer society, which fits in well with the deeply entrenched egocentricity, even solipsism, of American culture. For, whatever was the case in de Tocqueville's day, not the passion for egalitarianism but individualist, that is anti- authoritarian, antinomian, though curiously legalistic, anarchism has become the core of the value system in the U.S.A. What survives of egalitarianism is chiefly the refusal of voluntary deference to hierarchic superiors, which may account for the -- by our standards -- everyday crudeness, even brutality with which power is used in and by the U.S.A. to establish who can command whom. It seemed Americans were preoccupied with themselves and their country, in ways in which the inhabitants of other well-established states simply were not with their own. American reality was and remains the overwhelming subject of the creative arts in the U.S.A. The dream of somehow encompassing all of it haunted its creators. Nobody in Europe had set out to write "the great English novel" or "the great French novel," but authors in the United States still try their hand (nowadays in several volumes) at "the great American novel," even if they no longer use the phrase. Actually, the man who came closest to achieving such an aim was not a writer, but an apparently superficial image-maker of astonishingly durable power, of whose significance the British art critic David Sylvester persuaded me in New York in the 1970s. Where else except America could an oeuvre like Andy Warhol's have come into being, an enormously ambitious and specific, unending set of variations on the themes of living in the U.S.A., from its soup cans and Coca-Cola bottles to its mythologies, dreams, nightmares, heroes, and heroines? There is nothing like it in the visual-arts tradition of the old world. But, like the other attempts by the creative spirits of the U.S.A. to seize the totality of their country, Warhol's vision is not that of the successful pursuit of happiness, "the American dream" of American political jargon and psychobabble. To what extent has the United States changed in my lifetime, or at least in the 40-odd years since I first landed there? New York, as we are constantly told, is not America, and, as Auden said, even those who could never be Americans can see themselves as New Yorkers. As indeed anyone does who comes to the same apartment every year, a vast set of towers overlooking the gradual gentrification of Union Square, to be recognized by the same Albanian doorman, and to negotiate domestic help as in years past with the same Spanish lady, who in her 12 years in the city has never found it necessary to learn English. Like other New Yorkers, Marlene and I would give tips to out-of-town visitors about what was new since the last time they had landed at JFK and where to eat this year, though (apart from a party or two) unlike the permanently resident friends -- the Schiffrins, the Kaufmans, the Katznelsons, the Tillys, the Kramers -- we would not entertain at home. Like a real New Yorker, I would feel the loss of a favorite establishment like that of a relative; I would exchange gossip at the regular lunches of the New York Institute for the Humanities at New York University, with the mixture of writing people, publishers, show persons, professors, and United Nations staff members that makes up the local intellectual scene -- for one of the major attractions of New York is that the life of the mind is not dominated by the academy. In short, there is no other place in the world like the Big Apple. Still, however untypical, New York could not possibly exist anywhere except the U.S.A. Even its most cosmopolitan inhabitants are recognizably American, like our friend the late John Lindenbaum, hematologist in a Harlem hospital and jazz-lover, who, sent to Bangladesh for a project of medical research, had traveled there with a collection of jazz records and his ice-cream scoop. There are a lot more Jews in New York, and, unlike in large stretches of the United States, more people there are aware of the existence of the rest of the world, but what I learned as a New Yorker is not fundamentally at odds with what little I know of the Midwest and California. Curiously, the experience, what in the '60s they used to call "the vibes," of the U.S.A. has changed much less than that of other countries I have known in the past half-century. There is no comparison between living in the Paris, the Berlin, the London of my youth and those cities today; even Vienna, which deliberately hides its social and political transformation by turning itself into a theme park of a glorious past. Even physically the skyline of London, as it can be seen from where I live on the slopes of Parliament Hill, has changed -- Parliament is now barely visible -- and Paris has not been the same since Messieurs Pompidou and Mitterrand have left their marks on it. And yet, while New York has undergone the same kind of social and economic upheavals as other cities -- deindustrialization, gentrification, a massive influx from the Third World -- it neither feels nor looks like a city transformed. That is surprising when, as every New Yorker knows, the city changes every year. I myself have seen the arrival of fundamental innovations in New York life, such as the Korean fruit-and-vegetable store, the end of such basic New York lower-middle- class institutions as the Gimbel's department stores, and the transformation of Brighton Beach into Little Russia. And yet, New York has remained New York far more than London has remained London. Even the Manhattan skyline is still essentially that of the city of the 1930s, especially now that its most ambitious postwar addition, the World Trade Center, has disappeared. Is this apparent stability an illusion? After all, the U.S.A. is part of global humanity, whose situation has changed more profoundly and rapidly since 1945 than ever before in recorded history. Those changes there looked less dramatic to us because the sort of prosperous high-tech mass-consumer society that did not arrive in Western Europe until the 1950s was not new in America. Whereas I knew by 1960 that a historic chasm divided the way Britons lived and thought before and after the middle '50s, for the U.S.A. the 1950s were, or at least looked like, just a bigger and better version of the kind of 20th century its more prosperous white citizens had known for two generations, its confidence recovered after the shock of the Great Slump. Seen from the outside, it continued along the same lines as before, though some sections of its citizens -- mainly the college-educated -- began to think differently about it, and, as the countries of what is now the European Union became more modernized, the furniture of life with which European tourists came into contact began to look less "advanced," and even a bit tatty. California did not seem fundamentally different to me driving through it in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s from what it had looked and felt like in 1960, whereas Spain and Sicily did. New York had been a cosmopolitan city of immigrants for all my lifetime; it was London that became one after the 1950s. The details in the great carpet of the U.S.A. have changed, and are constantly changing, but its basic pattern remains remarkably stable in the short run. As a historian I know that behind this apparent shifting stability, large and long-term changes are taking place, perhaps fundamental ones. Nevertheless, they are concealed by the deliberate resistance to change of American public institutions and procedures, and the habits of American life, as well as what Pierre Bourdieu called in more general terms its habitus, or way of doing things. Forced into the straitjacket of an 18th-century Constitution reinforced by two centuries of Talmudic exegesis by the lawyers, the theologians of the republic, the institutions of the U.S.A. are far more frozen into immobility than those of almost all other states. It has so far even postponed such minor changes as the election of an Italian, or Jew, let alone a woman, as head of government. But it has also made the government of the U.S.A. largely immune to great men, or indeed to anybody, taking great decisions, since rapid, effective national decision- making, not least by the president, is almost impossible. The United States, at least in its public life, is a country that is geared to operate with mediocrities, because it has to, and it has been rich and powerful enough to do so. It is the only country in my political lifetime where three able presidents (F.D.R., Kennedy, Nixon) have been replaced, at a moment's notice, by men neither qualified nor expected to do the job, without making any noticeable difference to the course of U.S. and world history. Historians who believe in the supremacy of high politics and great individuals have a hard case in America. That has created the foggy mechanisms of real government in Washington, made even more opaque by the sensational resources of corporate and pressure-group money, and the inability of the electoral process to distinguish between the real and the increasingly restricted political country. So, since the end of the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A. has quietly prepared to function as the world's only superpower. The problem is that its situation has no historical precedent, that its political system is geared to the ambitions and reactions of New Hampshire primaries and provincial protectionism, that it has no idea what to do with its power, and that almost certainly the world is too large and complicated to be dominated for any length of time by any single superpower, however great its military and economic resources. Megalomania is the occupational disease of global victors, unless controlled by fear. Nobody controls the U.S.A. today. That is why, as I write my autobiography, its enormous power can and obviously does destabilize the world. (Unfortunately, nothing that has happened since the above paragraph was originally written calls for a revision of the views expressed in it. The "occupational disease of conquering powers" has been reinforced by the Iraq war. The policies and strategic ambitions of the global dominators have destroyed the genuine "coalitions of the willing" on which U.S. supremacy could rely in the cold war, and even more so in the international mobilizations of the first Persian Gulf war and after 9/11. They have left the U.S.A., unable to win a plurality of free votes in the U.N.'s Security Council, in unprecedented isolation and global unpopularity, surrounded by fear rather than hope. The world has unquestionably been more destabilized not only -- patently -- in the Middle East but everywhere: in Europe, where the European Union is divided and weakened and NATO has crumbled; in East Asia; in what existed of an organized international system, whether of states or nonofficial organizations. As the victorious U.S.A. prepares for the post-Iraq presidential elections, uncertainty surrounds even the public discourse, which veers between the language of ruthless power politics, self-delusion, lies, and Orwellian newspeak.) Our problem is not that we are being Americanized. In spite of the massive impact of cultural and economic Americanization, the rest of the world, even the capitalist world, has so far been strikingly resistant to following the model of U.S. politics and society. That is probably because America is less of a coherent and therefore exportable social and political model of a capitalist liberal democracy, based on the universal principles of individual freedom, than its patriotic ideology and Constitution suggest. So, far from being a clear example that the rest of the world can imitate, the U.S.A., however powerful and influential, remains an unending process, distorted by big money and public emotion, a system tinkering with institutions, public and private, to make them fit realities unforeseen in the unalterable text of a 1787 Constitution. It simply does not lend itself to copying. Most of us would not want to copy it. Since puberty I have spent more of my time in the U.S.A. than in any country other than Britain. All the same, I am glad that my children did not grow up there, and that I belong to another culture. Still, it is mine also. Our problem is rather that the U.S. empire does not know what it wants to do or can do with its power, or its limits. It merely insists that those who are not with it are against it. That is the problem of living at the apex of the "American Century." As I am 86 years of age, I am unlikely to see its solution. Eric Hobsbawm is a fellow of the British Academy and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has taught at Birkbeck College, University of London, and the New School University. He lives in England. This essay is adapted from Interesting Times: A Twentieth- Century Life, to be published in the United States by Pantheon Books in August. Copyright ? 2002 by Eric Hobsbawm. _______________________________________________________ __________ You may visit The Chronicle as follows: http://chronicle.com _______________________________________________________ __________ Copyright 2003 by The Chronicle of Higher Education __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From earlwal at chorus.net Thu Jul 3 11:00:10 2003 From: earlwal at chorus.net (BobReuschlein) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:01 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Humor Message-ID: AMERICANS ANNOYED BY "ALL THIS INTERNATIONAL CRAP" ON INTERNET Web's Increasingly Worldly Flavor Threatens Americans' Worldview PULLMAN, WASH. (SatireWire.com) - The profusion of international news available on the Internet has made it increasingly difficult for the average American to ignore the rest of the world, a trend researchers say threatens Americans' long, proud history of disregarding anything not about them. "With all the foreign newspapers and multi-cultural sites, the Internet is making it almost impossible for the average American to remain uninformed and apathetic," said Samantha Lessborn of Washington State University, which conducted the survey. "Americans can still do it. But it now takes effort, whereas before it was as easy as turning off Tom Brokaw whenever he said 'In South Korea today...'" According to survey participant Danny Grisham, a 22-year-old from Cheyenne, Wyoming, it's not just the plethora of international news on the Web that is irritating. "Look, I can get around the news. I just turn off Reuters headlines in MyYahoo," he said. "But even some of the search sites like Yahoo and Alta Vista are available in different languages. Like everybody in the world doesn't speak English. Yeah, right." "I can see where it's important if we're, like, beating some country in the Olympics or bombing them or, ideally, both," Grisham added. "But if some Colombian drug lord sinks a ferry full of Israeli soldiers in North Latvoania or Serbo-Malaysia, or wherever, and Americans aren't involved, what has that got to do with me?" Other respondents said they were appalled, not just by the availability of non-U.S. news, but by the way important U.S. news is reported by some of these foreign sites. "Yesterday, for instance, the St. Louis Rams beat the Atlanta Falcons, OK, and I go to the London Times site and it's not even there," aid Chip Pernadge of Kansas City, Mo. "Jesus, no wonder those guys lost the war and had to give Hong Kong back to Canada." Sensing a market opportunity, Net Nanny, makers of Net Nanny filtering software, announced this week it will introduce NetNarrow, an English-only product that automatically filters out content that appears to be international. Specifically, the software looks for world datelines and keywords indicative of irrelevant foreign stories, including "Shiite," "post-Apartheid," and "Bob Geldof." Survey-taker Craig Barker of Brooklyn, New York, said he will be among the first to get NetNarrow. "On the Web, there are so many ways to get news from so many different places, I could really get some fresh insights into what's going on in other countries if I wanted to," he said.. "But I don't want to." "You'd think these Internet people would know that," Barker added. "I mean, that's why the Internet is called America Online, right? It's supposed to be about America." From Nightoak at aol.com Thu Jul 3 17:15:26 2003 From: Nightoak at aol.com (Nightoak@aol.com) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:01 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Re: DoNotCall.gov Revitalizes Campaign for National Junk Mail Opt-Out Registry Message-ID: <1cc.d035ad8.2c35e8de@aol.com> In a message dated 7/3/2003 2:53:06 PM Central Standard Time, sbs@newdream.org writes: > 4. THANK THE PRESIDENT ON THIS ONE - While it's certainly not every day > that our President stands up to the commercialization of our culture, we at the > Center for a New American Dream firmly believe in giving credit where credit > is due. President Bush did support the Do Not Call registry, so please thank > him for doing so and urge him to show leadership on a Do Not Junk registry. > Take Action at http://www.newdream.org/sbs/sbs25pres.html > > Just a thought. Should people be voluntarily registering their phone numbers with the government? Peace, Michelle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030703/91009dfe/attachment.htm From vcrs at post.harvard.edu Thu Jul 3 18:44:15 2003 From: vcrs at post.harvard.edu (Virginia Ravenscroft-Scott) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Re: FW: A message from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin In-Reply-To: <3F036D3F.30909@execpc.com> References: <3F036D3F.30909@execpc.com> Message-ID: Ah, our lovely elected officials. Did I ever mention the lovely letter I got from Feingold in response to my contacting him in opposition to Daniel Pipes' nomination to whatever-it-was? Feingold refused to condemn or even question that racist bastard (For those who missed it, Pipes' talk of "brown-skinned" immigrants upsetting Europeans with their "strange customs" was well worth a condemnation!). Feingold is even more on my shit list than before. >Check out Baldwin's recent vote on a resolution condemning the >Palestinians; a measure put forward by some of the most pro-Isael >reactinary elements in the Congress. > >AAI Action Alert >> > > U.S. House Passes Another Unbalanced Resolution on >>> Mideast Conflict >>> Thank those Reps. who Spoke Out on H. Res. 294 >>> > Issue: >>> > On June 25, 2003, the U.S. House passed H. Res. > >>294. > >>> > Introduced by Rep. >>>> Lantos (D-CA), Rep. DeLay (R-TX), Rep. Pelosi >> >>(D-CA) > >>> > and Rep. Hyde (R-IL), >>>> H. Res. 294 condemns, "the terrorism inflicted on >>>> Israel since the Aqaba >>>> Summit and expressing solidarity with the Israeli >>>> people in their fight >>>> against terrorism." This one-sided resolution >>>> voices unequivocal support >>>> for Israel and fails to mention Palestinian >>>> suffering or rights. >>>> > Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), the Dean of the House >> >>Arab > >>> > American Caucus, led the >>>> vocal opposition to H. Res. 294. Rep. Lois Capps >>>> (D-CA) summed up the >>>> opposition's objection to H. Res. 294 by stating >>>> that "We mourn the 22 >>>> innocent Israelis that have been killed since the >>>> summit. But over twice >>>> that number of innocent civilian Palestinians have >>>> also died as a result of >>>> Israeli military strikes. Their loss should also >> >>be > >>> > explicitly recognized >>>> in this resolution." > > Beyond being simply insensitive, Rep. Dingell >> >>(D-MI) > >>> > argued that H. Res. 294 >>>> is damaging because it is a "one-sided, unbalanced >>>> and unfair resolution, >>>> which undermines [the Bush] administration's >> >>efforts > >>> > to make peace in the >>>> region." Rep. Kleczka (D-WI) further pointed out >>>> that "A reading of the >>>> resolution will find it lacking in one major >> >>regard > >>> > and that is, there is no >>> > endorsement of the Roadmap, the Roadmap which >>> > President Bush has worked so >>> > hard to promote to both sides; the Roadmap which >> >>was > >>> > the subject of the >>> > Aqaba summit." > > Finally, Rep. Rahall closed his powerful statement >>>> by stating "I'm not going >>>> to urge you to vote one way or the other, you will >>>> make up your own mind, I >>>> simply ask my colleagues to look into your own >>>> conscience when casting your >>>> vote." >>>> > These representatives and others who spoke out >>>> against H. Res. 294 must be >>>> commended for their stand against this non-binding >>>> resolution that damages >>>> President Bush's efforts at peace. > > What You Can Do: >>>> > Please take the time to thank the following >> >>members > >>> > who made thoughtful >>>> floor statements criticizing the resolution's lack >>>> of balance and >>>> encouraging the Administration to require all >>>> parties to fulfill their >>>> obligations under the Road Map. Also thank those >>>> representatives who took a >>>> stand and voted "Nay" or "Present." >>>> > To contact the following members, go to >>>> http://capwiz.com/arab/dbq/officials/ and enter >> >>the > >>> > member's name. >>>> > Floor Statement: >>>> Rahall (D-WV), Dingell (D-MI), Capps (D-CA), >> >>Price > >>> > (D-NC), >>>> Kleczka (D-WI) and Rohrabacher (R-CA). >>>> > Voted "Nay": >>>> Dingell (D-MI), Kleczka (D-WI), Paul (R-TX), >> >>Rahall > >>> > (D-WV) and Woolsey >>>> (D-CA). >>>> > Voted "Present": >>>> Clay (D-MO), Kilpatrick (D-MI), Kucinich (D-OH), >>>> Lee (D-CA), >>>> McDermott (D-WA), Waters (D-CA) and Watt (D- NC). >>>> > >> >> > >************************************************************* > >>>> > AAI Alert >>>>> Arab American Institute >>>>> aaialert@aaiusa.org >>>>> > Please visit our website at www.aaiusa.org or view >>>>> our current "Action >>>>> Alert" items at http://capwiz.com/arab/home/. >>>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >Gail V wrote: > >>FYI >> >>Peace, >>Gail >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin [mailto:wi02ima.pub@mail.house.gov] >> >> >>July 1, 2003 >> >> >>Dear Ms. Vick, >> >>Thank you for contacting me about the Computer Assisted Passenger >>Screening system (CAPS II) and "no fly" lists. It is good to hear from >>you, and I apologize for the delay in my response. >> >>As the United States government works to prevent acts of terrorism, it is >>critical to understand why the debate concerning "no fly" lists and other >>security measures is so important. It's about protecting American lives >>while protecting the American way of life. In the United States we >>cherish our freedom of speech, we respect the right to due process, and we >>have expectations of privacy. We could possibly prevent and solve far >>more crimes in this country if we authorized our law enforcement and >>intelligence agencies to listen to our conversations, to search our >>property, to read what we write, to open our mail, to detain persons >>indefinitely, but, as Senator Russ Feingold poignantly reminded us as he >>debated the Patriot Act in the Senate, "that would not be a country in >>which we would want to live . . . In short, that country would not be >>America." >> >>As you may know, the federal government has utilized "no fly" lists since >>the 1990s in order to enhance aviation security. Following September 11, >>2001, these lists, which contain names of persons deemed by the federal >>government to be potential security threats, were expanded dramatically. >>Currently, these lists only include individuals' names. However, the >>Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is planning to implement the >>computerized CAPS II system, which would include additional passenger >>data, such as home address, telephone numbers, date of birth, and >>potentially other information as well. >> >>The CAPS II system, like the "no fly" lists currently being used, will be >>implemented administratively. Please know I am watching this matter very >>closely. It is absolutely imperative that a proper balance be struck >>between safety and safeguarding our fundamental Constitutional freedoms. >>While the very real threats to our citizens make clear that our government >>must act to protect our safety, we must not allow terrorists to take both >>American lives and the American way of life. >> >> >> >>Again, thank you for sharing your views. Your opinion matters to me. If >>I can be of service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to let >>me know. >>Sincerely, >> >>Tammy Baldwin >> >> >>Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin's 2nd District >> >>Madison Office: >>10 East Doty St., Suite 405 >>Madison, WI 53703 >>Phone: 608-258-9800 >>Fax: 608-258-9808 >> >>Beloit Office: >>400 E. Grand Avenue, Suite 402 >>Beloit, WI 53511 >>Phone: 608-362-2800 >>Fax: 608-362-2838 >> >>Washington, DC Office: >>1022 Longworth HOB >>Washington, DC 20515 >>Phone: 202-225-2906 >>Fax: 202-225-6942 >> >>http://tammybaldwin.house.gov >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>discuss@madpeace.org mailing list >>http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >discuss@madpeace.org mailing list >http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss From alruff at execpc.com Thu Jul 3 19:07:30 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Samir Amin on Imperial US Message-ID: <3F04B732.2040301@execpc.com> from the renown Egyptian critic of US imperialism and global capitalism. -AR The US claims to be a democracy, but its religious rhetoric betrays totalitarian ambitions: The American Ideology by Samir Amin Al Ahram, 15-21 May 2003. www.globalresearch.ca 4 July 2003 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/AMI307A.html I Today, the United States is governed by a junta of war criminals who took power through a kind of coup. That coup may have been preceded by (dubious) elections: but we should never forget that Hitler was also an elected politician. In this analogy, 9/11 fulfils the function of the "burning of the Reichstag", allowing the junta to grant its police force powers similar to those of the Gestapo. They have their own Mein Kampf -- the National Security Strategy --, their own mass associations -- the patriot organisations -- and their own preachers. It is vital that we have the courage to tell these truths, and stop masking them behind phrases such as "our American friends" that have by now become quite meaningless. Political culture is the long-term product of history. As such, it is obviously specific to each country. American political culture is clearly different from that which has emerged from the history of the European continent: it has been shaped by the establishment of New England by extremist Protestant sects, the genocide of the continent's indigenous peoples, the enslavement of Africans, and the emergence of communities segregated by ethnicity as a result of successive waves of migration throughout the 19th century. II Modernity, secularism and democracy are not the result of an evolution in religious beliefs, or even a revolution; on the contrary, it is faith which has had to adjust to meet the requirements of these new forces. This adjustment was not unique to Protestantism; it had the same impact on the Catholic world, though in a different way. A new religious spirit was born, liberated from all dogma. In this sense, it was not the Reformation that provided the pre-condition for capitalist development, even though Weber's thesis has been widely accepted in the Protestant societies of Europe, which were flattered by the importance it gave them. Nor did the Reformation represent the most radical possible break with Europe's ideological past and its "feudal" system, including earlier interpretations of Christianity; on the contrary, the Reformation was simply the most confused and most primitive form of such a rupture. One aspect of the Reformation was the work of the dominant classes, and led to the creation of national churches (Anglican or Lutheran) controlled by these classes. As such, these churches represented a compromise between the emerging bourgeoisie, the monarchy and the large landowners, through which they could hold at bay the threat posed by the poor and the peasantry. Effectively marginalising the Catholic idea of universality by establishing national churches served in particular to reinforce the power of the monarchy, by strengthening its role as arbitrator between the forces of the old regime and those of the ascending bourgeoisie, and reinforcing those classes' nationalism, thus delaying the emergence of the new forms of universalism which would later be promoted by internationalist socialism. However, other aspects of the Reformation were driven by the lower classes, who were the main victims of the social transformations triggered by the birth of capitalism. These movements resorted to traditional forms of struggle, derived from the milleniarist movements of the Middle Ages; as a result, far from leading the way, they were fated to lag behind the needs of their age. The dominated classes would have to wait until the French Revolution -- with its secular popular and radical democratic forms of mobilisation -- and the advent of socialism to find ways to effectively articulate their demands in relation to the new conditions in which they lived. The early modern Protestant groups, by contrast, thrived on fundamentalist illusions, and this in turn encouraged the infinite replication of sects in thrall to the same kind of apocalyptic vision which is currently proliferating across the US. The Protestant sects who were forced to emigrate from 17th century England had developed a peculiar form of Christianity, distinct from both Catholic and Orthodox dogma. For that matter, their brand of Christianity was not even shared by the majority of European Protestants, including the Anglicans who made up the majority of the British ruling class. In general terms, we can say that the essential genius of the Reformation was to reclaim the Old Testament, which Catholicism and the Orthodox Church had marginalised when they defined Christianity as a break with Judaism. The Protestants restored Christianity to its place as Judaism's rightful successor. The particular form of Protestantism that found its way to New England continues to shape American ideology to this day. First, it facilitated the conquest of the new continent by grounding its legitimacy in scriptural reference (biblical Israel's violent conquest of the promised land is a constantly reiterated theme in North American discourse). Later, the US extended its god- given mission to encompass the entire globe. Thus North Americans have come to regard themselves as the "chosen people" -- in practice, a synonym for the Nazi term, Herrenvolk. This is the threat which we are facing today. And this is why American imperialism (not "Empire") will be even more brutal than its predecessors, most of whom never claimed to have been invested with a divine mission. III I am not among those who believe that the past can only be repeated. History transforms people. This is what has happened in Europe. Unfortunately however, American history, far from working to erase the horror of its origins, has instead reinforced that horror's hold and perpetuated its effects. This is true of both the American "Revolution", and the country's settlement through successive waves of migration. Despite current attempts to promote its virtues, the "American Revolution" was only ever a limited war of independence, quite devoid of any social dimension. At no point in the course of their revolt against the British monarchy did the American settlers seek to transform economic and social relations -- they simply refused to continue sharing the profits from them with the mother country's ruling class. They wanted power for themselves, not in order to change things, but in order to continue doing the same things -- albeit with more determination and higher margins. Their primary objective was to pursue the settlement of the West, which implied -- among other things -- the genocide of the Native Americans. Likewise, the revolutionaries never challenged slavery. Indeed, most of the Revolution's great leaders were slave owners, and their prejudices on this subject proved unshakable. The genocide of Native Americans was implicit in the logic of the new chosen people's divine mission. Their massacre cannot simply be blamed on the morals of an archaic and distant past. Right up until the 1960s, the act of genocide was proclaimed quite openly and proudly. Hollywood films pitted the "good" cowboy against the "evil" Native American, and this travesty of the past was central to the education of successive generations. The same holds true for slavery. After independence, close to a century had to pass before slavery was abolished. And despite the French Revolution's claims to the contrary, the fact of abolition, when it came, had nothing to do with morality -- it only happened because slavery no longer served the cause of capitalist expansion. Thus, African Americans had to wait another century to be granted even minimal civil rights. And even then, the deep-rooted racism of the ruling class was hardly challenged at all. Up until the 1960s, lynching remained common place, providing a pretext for family picnics. Indeed, the practice of lynching persists today, more discretely and indirectly, in the form of a "justice" system that sends thousands of people to their deaths -- most of them African Americans, even though it is common knowledge that at least half of those condemned are innocent. Successive waves of immigration have also helped strengthen the American ideology. Immigrants are certainly not responsible for the misery and oppression that caused their departure. They left their lands as victims. However, emigration also meant renouncing the collective struggle to change the conditions in their country of origin; they exchanged their suffering for the host country's ideology of individualism and "pulling oneself up by one's boot straps". This ideological shift also serves to delay the emergence of class-consciousness, which hardly has the time to develop before a new wave of immigrants arrives to help abort its political expression. Of course, migration also contributes to the "ethnic empowerment" of American society. The notion of "individual success" does not exclude the development of strong and supportive ethnic communities (Irish, or Italian, for example), without which individual isolation would become unbearable. Yet here again, the strengthening of ethnic identities is a process the American system cultivates only in order to recuperate, for it inevitably weakens class consciousness and active citizenship. Thus, while the people of Paris were getting ready to "assault heaven" (as the Communards put it in 1871), American cities provided the stage for a series of murderous wars between gangs formed by successive generations of poor immigrants (Irish, Italian, etc.) and cynically manipulated by the ruling class. In the US today, there is no workers' party, nor has there ever been one. The powerful workers' unions are apolitical, in every sense of the term. They have no links with a party that might share and express their concerns; nor have they ever been able to articulate a socialist vision of their own. Instead they subscribe, along with everyone else, to the dominant liberal ideology, which thus remains unchallenged. When they fight, it is on a limited and specific agenda that in no way calls liberalism into question. In this sense, they were and remain "post- modernist". Yet for the working class, communitarian beliefs cannot provide a substitute for socialist ideology. This is true even for African- Americans, the most radical community in the US; for the struggle of communitarian ideologies is, by definition, limited to the struggle against institutionalised racism. One of the most neglected aspects of the differences between "European" ideologies (in their diversity) and the American ideology is the impact of the Enlightenment on their development. We know that the philosophy of the Enlightenment was the decisive event which launched the creation of modern European cultures and ideologies, and its impact remains considerable until this day, not only in the early centres of capitalist development, whether they be Catholic (France) or Protestant (England and the Netherlands), but also in Germany, and even Russia. Contrast this with the US, where the Enlightenment had only a marginal impact, engaging only an "aristocratic" (and pro-slavery) minority -- that group which is embodied for posterity by Jefferson, Madison and a few others. In general, the sects of New England were untouched by the Enlightenment's critical spirit, and their culture remained closer to the Witches of Salem than to the godless rationalism of the Lumi?res. The fruits of this refusal emerged as the Yankee bourgeoisie came of age. Out of New England, there emerged a simple and erroneous creed, which held that "Science" (that is, the hard sciences, such as physics) should determine the destiny of society -- an opinion that has been widely shared in the US for more than a century, not only among the ruling classes, but also by the people at large. This substitution of science for religion accounts for some of the salient traits of American ideology. It explains why philosophy is so unimportant, because it has been reduced to the most impoverished empiricism. It also accounts for the frantic effort to reduce the human and social sciences to "pure" (that is, "hard") sciences: "pure" economics thus takes the place of political economy, and the science of "genes" replaces anthropology and sociology. This last unfortunate aberration provides another point of close contact between contemporary American ideology and Nazi ideology, which has doubtless been facilitated by the profound racism that runs through all American history. Another aberration stemming from this peculiar vision of science is a weakness for cosmological speculation (of which the "Big Bang" theory is the most well- known example). Among other things, the Enlightenment taught us that physics is the science of certain limited aspects of the universe which have been singled out as objects of research, not the science of the universe in its totality (which is a metaphysical, rather than a scientific concept). At this level, the American system of thought is closer to pre- modern attempts to reconcile faith and reason than to the modern scientific tradition. This regressive vision was perfectly suited to the purposes of the New England Protestant sectarians, and to the kind of pervasively religious society they produced. As we know, it is this kind of regression which now threatens Europe. IV These two factors which shaped the historical formation of American society -- a dominant biblical ideology and the absence of a workers' party -- combined to produce a wholly novel situation: a system run by a de facto single party, the party of capital. The two segments that make up this party share the same fundamental form of liberalism. Both of them address only the minority that participates in this type of truncated and impotent democracy (some 40 per cent of the electorate). Since the working class as a rule does not vote, each segment of the party has its own middle class clientele to which it has adjusted its discourse. Both have carved out their own constituencies, composed of a number of capitalist interest segments (lobbies) and community support groups. American democracy today constitutes the advanced model of what I have called "low intensity democracy". Its functioning is based on a total separation between the management of political life, through the practice of electoral democracy, and the management of economic life, which is governed by the laws of capital accumulation. Moreover, this separation is not subject to any form of radical challenge; it is part of what may be termed the general consensus. Yet it is this separation that effectively destroys the entire creative potential of political democracy. It castrates the representative institutions (parliaments and so forth), which are rendered impotent by their submission to the "market" and its dictates. In this sense, the choice between voting for the Democrats or the Republicans is ultimately futile, because what determines the American people's future is not the outcome of their electoral choices, but the vagaries of the financial and other markets. As a result, the American state exists exclusively to serve the economy (i.e. capital, which it obeys while entirely neglecting social questions). The state is able to function in this way for one main reason: because the historical process which formed American society blocked the development of the working classes' political consciousness. Contrast this with the European state, which has been (and may become again) the obligatory forum in which the confrontation between social interest groups is played out. This is why the European state favours social compromises which invest democratic practices with real meaning. When the class struggle, and other political struggles, do not force the state to function in this way, when they cannot remain autonomous in the face of the exclusive logic of capital accumulation, then democracy becomes an entirely pointless exercise -- as it is in the US. The combination of a dominant religious practice -- and its exploitation through fundamentalist discourse -- with the absence of political consciousness among the oppressed classes gives the US political system an unprecedented margin of manoeuvre, through which it can destroy the potential impact of democratic practices and reduce them to benign rituals (politics as entertainment, the inauguration of political campaigns by cheerleaders, etc.). However, we must not let ourselves be deluded. For it is not the fundamentalist ideology which occupies the command post and imposes its logic on the real holders of power: capital and its servants in government. It is capital, alone, which takes all the decisions, and only when it has done so does it then mobilise the American ideology to serve its cause. The means which are deployed -- the unprecedented and systematic use of disinformation -- can then serve their purpose, by isolating critics and subjecting them to a permanent and odious form of blackmail. In this way, the establishment can easily manipulate "public opinion" by cultivating its stupidity. Thanks to this context, the American ruling class has developed a kind of total cynicism, enveloped in an outer casing of hypocrisy which is perfectly transparent to foreign observers, but somehow invisible to the American people themselves. The regime is quite happy to resort to violence, even in its most extreme forms, whenever the need arises. All radical American activists know this only too well; the only options open to them are to sell out, or one day be killed. Like all other ideologies, American ideology is "increasingly old and worn out". During periods of calm -- marked by strong economic growth, accompanied by what pass for acceptable levels of social fallout -- the ruling class's pressure on its people naturally eases. Thus from time to time, the establishment has to reinvigorate that ideology using the classical methods: an enemy (always a foreigner, since American society has been decreed good by definition) is designated (the evil empire, the axis of evil), which will justify the mobilisation of all possible means in order to annihilate him. In the past this enemy was communism; McCarthyism (a phenomenon which has been forgotten by today's "pro-Americans") made possible the launching of the Cold War and the marginalisation of Europe. Today, it is "terrorism", which is clearly just a pretext, which is being made to serve the real project of the ruling class: the military control of the planet. The avowed objective of America's new hegemonic strategy is to prevent the emergence of any other power which might be capable of putting up resistance in the face of Washington's injunctions. It is therefore necessary to dismantle countries which have become too "big", so as to create a maximum number of satellites who are ready and willing to accept US bases for their "protection". As its last three presidents (Bush senior, Clinton, and Bush junior) all agree, only one country has the right to be "big", and that is the United States. In this sense, US hegemony ultimately depends on its disproportionate military power, rather than on any specific "advantages" of its economic system. Thanks to this power, the US can pose as the uncontested leader of the global mafia, whose "visible fist" will impose the new imperialist order on those who might otherwise be reluctant to fall into line. Encouraged by their recent successes, the extreme right now has a tight hold on the reins of power in Washington. The choice on offer is clear: either accept US hegemony, along with the super- strength "liberalism" it promotes, and which means little more than an exclusive obsession with making money -- or reject both. In the first case, we will be giving Washington a free hand to "redesign" the world in the image of Texas. Only by choosing the second option may we be able to do something to help rebuild a world that is essentially pluralist, democratic and peaceful. Had they reacted in 1935 or 1937, the Europeans would have been able to halt the Nazi madness before it did so much harm. By delaying until 1939, they contributed to its tens of millions of victims. It is our responsibility to act now, so that Washington's neo-Nazi challenge may be contained and eliminated Copyright S Amin 2003. For fair use only/ pour usage ?quitable seulement. From floevans at netzero.net Thu Jul 3 21:52:09 2003 From: floevans at netzero.net (floevans) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Pilger & Fisk on Iraq Coverage: The Real Danger Lies Within Message-ID: <001501c341d7$4420cc00$17b34943@hppav> Inter Press Service: http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19087 Published on Thursday, July 3, 2003 Pilger & Fisk on Iraq Coverage: The Real Danger Lies Within by G?rill Hus and Guri Wiggen OSLO - If the reality in Iraq is one thing and the reporting of it remains another, it is because much of the media wants it that way, say two leading journalists who have been reporting the 'other' side of the Iraq story. The level of self-censorship in the media has risen not just during the Iraq war but also since 9/11, says Robert Fisk from The Independent newspaper published in Britain and John Pilger, Australian broadcaster and film-maker. Pilger and Fisk both spoke to IPS on visits to Oslo. Pilger came to receive the $100,000 Sophie Prize for 30 years of work to expose deception and war against humanity. Fisk came to give a lecture at Fritt Ord, a Norwegian media foundation. "Propaganda is not found just in totalitarian states," Pilger says. " There at least they know they are being lied to. We tend to assume it is the truth. In the U.S., censorship is rampant." Self-censorship, that is. This kind of self-censorship is an increasing problem, and leads to one-dimensional coverage that journalists must learn to transcend, Pilger says. "The most important soldiers in the Iraq war were not the troops, but the journalists and the broadcasters," Pilger says. "Lies were transformed into themes for public debate. The true reason was of course--as we all now know--not to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein and remove their alleged weapons of mass destruction, but to achieve the real Anglo-American aim; to capture an oil rich country and to control the Middle East." Self-censorship is a particular problem because of the "myth of neutrality" around western media. "When you declare yourself neutral, everybody else seems biased," Pilger says. "But as seen in the Iraq coverage and elsewhere, journalists very often assume the culture of the media institution and all its unwritten restrictions." But even the term self-censorship is not quite right, Pilger says, " because many journalists are unaware that they are censoring themselves." Media organizations are now under tight control, Pilger says. Just five corporations rule the broadcasters in the United States. In Australia Rupert Murdoch controls 70 percent of the media. "We live in an age of information," he says. "Yet the media is not attacking the ruling system. The media has never before been so controlled, and propaganda is all around. Most of us don't even see it." The three main dangers facing the world, he says, are silence, betrayal and power--and journalists can make silence dangerous. Fisk says the story in Iraq most correspondents chose not to report was the "bomb now, die later" policy through use of depleted uranium (DU). Since the Gulf war of 1991 the number of cancer patients had risen, and " strange vegetables" had begun to appear on the market. The distortions were most likely to have been caused by use of DU, he says. "I told my colleagues that this was an interesting story that should be reported," Fisk says. "But most of them said, honestly Bob, we do not want to write home about sick children. An official American military document states that DU dust can indeed be spread in battles and lead to serious illness in humans, but this is not reported." The public and civil society opposed the Iraq war because they understood the hidden agenda, but "editors have a tendency to underestimate their readership," he says. Readers are seen as ignorant or disinterested. Self-censorship continues in Iraq after the war, and elsewhere, Fisk says. "Many more people have died so far in the war against terrorism than on September 11 2001," Fisk says. "That is the story of our time, and very few are writing it." Twenty thousand people have died just in the Afghanistan war, seven times more than on September 11, Fisk says. This is just one example of the "great power of silence that is threatening to dominate us all." Coupled with the self-censorship is the censorship being imposed on the Iraqi media, Fisk says. This too is not being reported adequately in the United States. The U.S. administration has set up a committee for press censorship in Iraq, which means the Iraqi press can publish anything to remind people about the terror of Saddam, but is not allowed to write freely about current events crucial to them and their future. Pilger sees reason for optimism. "There is a movement of resistance globally from the landless peoples movement in Brazil to the huge anti-war movement," he says. "Nothing like this has ever happened before in my lifetime." The superpower in Washington is being challenged by the other superpower, he says; the superpower of public opinion. Copyright 2003 IPS ### From ashcroft at fascist.gov Fri Jul 4 00:49:13 2003 From: ashcroft at fascist.gov (John Ashcroft) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Doubleplusungood Street Theatre Advisory Message-ID: <20030704044915.0CB9DF7AF9@james.infinitejest.org> Ministry of Homeland Security 3 July 2003 Advisory Memo Surveillance of ungoodthinking activists in the Madison area has uncovered several imminent political street theatre actions planned for public parks in the Madison area on the Fourth of July. Intelligence indicates this highly unauthorized so-called First Amendment activity is organized by a band of rogues, rabble and ungrateful no-goodniks under the name of "Madtown Liberty Players." In a failed effort to escape detection, members of the group have disguised themselves as selected amendments from the so-called Bill of Rights. Their ringleader is a woman of green complexion, extraordinary height, statuesque with flowing robes and spiked headpiece. She is armed with a torch. Consider her dangerous. Wiretaps authorized under the USA-PATRIOT Act of 2001 indicate several performances are planned at indeterminate times around Madison on July 4, including Franklin Field in the Bay Creek neighborhood, Shorewood Hills, and Elver Park. Times are unclear except for Elver Park, which a well-paid informant indicates may occur between 5-6 PM. Analysis of intercepted email also indicates a possible further appearance at the Farmers Market on Saturday July 5 between 10-11 AM. The Ministry of Homeland Security will dispatch a unit of Giant Floating Disembodied Eyeballs to surveil all citizens at these locations. Citizens encountering the eyeballs are advised not to panic and should consider the Giant Eyeball as a friend, or as a kindly older brother looking out for your best interests. We watch you for your own safety. President Bush has been advised. God doubleplusbless America. John Ashcroft Ministry of Homeland Security ashcroft@fascist.gov From alruff at execpc.com Fri Jul 4 14:52:39 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: USLAW - "The Corporate Invasion of Iraq"] Message-ID: <3F05CCF7.3050105@execpc.com> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: USLAW - "The Corporate Invasion of Iraq" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:32:16 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com US Labor Against the War PO Box 153, 1718 M St. NW Washington, DC 20036 On the Web: www.uslaboragainstwar.org June 13, 2003 Dear Brother/Sister: US Labor Against the War has produced a report: "The Corporate Invasion of Iraq: Profiles of US Corporations Awarded Contracts in US/British Occupied Iraq." This report provides much needed information to Iraqi workers and their resurgent labor movement about the US companies that are their new employers. Most of these corporations have been awarded no-bid contracts worth billions of dollars to rebuild and privatize Iraq, and to bring its economy firmly under U.S. control. Their names read like a rogues gallery of anti-union US multinationals, including Halliburton (VP Cheney's former company), MCI (formerly MCI/WorldCom, notoriously anti-union and now charged with the largest corporate fraud case in history), and SSA (the leader of the attack on the ILWU during their 2002 contract negotiations). Iraqi workers will need the support of the international labor movement in order to rebuild their labor movement against such formidable foes. Iraqi workers need and deserve to know whom they will be dealing with. This report serves as an important introduction. Billions of U.S. taxpayers, dollars are being spent trying to restore order against an increasingly hostile population desperate for jobs, basic services, food, safety and most of all democracy. Most Iraqis were overjoyed to be rid of the Hussein regimeSumbut they also don,t want to exchange Saddam's tyrannical rule for the rule of multinational corporations intent on seizing control of and exploiting their resources and economy, or a government hand-picked for them by the Bush administration. There is a critical role that we as trade unionists can play in bringing true democracy to Iraq. Unable to produce the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration used to justify its invasion of Iraq, "democracy for the people of Iraq" has now become the administration's strongest rationale for the war. As trade unionists, we know that central to any democracy must be fundamental trade union rights - the freedom to assemble, to organize, to bargain collectively and to strike, if necessary, to protect and improve workers, standard of living. As the ICFTU said on May 30, 2003: "Ensuring respect for workers, rights, including freedom of association must be central to building a democratic Iraq and to ensuring sustainable economic and social development." These rights could truly make a difference for Iraqi workers. In fact, Iraq has a genuine trade union tradition dating back to the 1929 formation of a railroad workers union and continuing after WWII with Iraq's adoption of all of the important internationally recognized ILO labor standards. Hussein recognized that an independent democratic labor movement was incompatible with his autocratic ambitions. Trade unionists were among Hussein's first targets in the 1970s and many were killed, jailed or forced into exile, and their independent unions were disbanded. Iraqis are again beginning to organize. But this time they are confronting the US authorities, former Ba,athist managers and US multinational corporations. Electrical workers struck because they hadn,t been paid; oil workers have protested repeatedly, demanding the removal of corrupt managers; and workers at the Oil for Food Agency elected their own manager to replace the former Hussein supporter who still had the job. Trade unions are again being formed. On June 9, according to news reports, hundreds of oil workers protested against KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary that imported Asian workers to perform reconstruction work instead of hiring Iraqis. "The Corporate Invasion of Iraq" exposes the labor, human rights, environmental and business record of these corporations - a sordid record, as the report notes, marked by cost overruns, accounting irregularities, financial dereliction, fraud, bankruptcy, overcharging, price-gouging, profiteering, wage-cheating, deception, corruption, health and safety violations, worker and community exploitation, human and labor rights abuses, union-busting, strike-breaking, environmental contamination, ecological irresponsibility, malpractice, criminal prosecutions, civil lawsuits, privatization of public resources, collusion with dictators, trading with regimes in violation of international sanctions, drug-running, prostitution, excessive executive compensation, and breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders and the public. This report is being presented to the world,s labor movement and provided to Iraqi workers by Amy Newell, USLAW organizer, at international labor meetings being held in Geneva, Switzerland in mid-June. It is being translated into Arabic and several other languages for global distribution. We want to distribute the report widely in the US and internationally as part of an effort to build international support for workers, rights in Iraq. In the coming months the report will serve as the basis for our demands on our own government that it recognize and protect trade union and labor rights in Iraq, not only because international labor solidarity compels us to do so, but also because it is in the immediate interests of workers who confront these same anti-labor, union-hostile corporations right here in the U.S.A. Information in the report will be supplemented as it becomes available. The most current version will be posted to the USLAW website. We urge you to distribute this report at all levels in your organization and within your labor councils, state federations and other regional bodies. Share it with local and national leaders, as well as interested members. The report can be downloaded from the USLAW website (www.uslaboragainstwar.org) for free or purchased in printed form for $5 a copy for the first copy and $2 for each additional copy. We welcome your feedback and we look forward to working together with you and your union on this important campaign to support fully guaranteed internationally recognized labor rights for all Iraqi workers. An injury to one is an injury to all! Sincerely for USLAW in the struggle for peace with justice, Gene Bruskin Bob Muehlenkamp Michael Eisenscher Amy Newell Contact us at info@uslabaragainstwar.org . ================================== For table of contents and executive summary of the report, go to: http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/images/CorpInvasion.061103.v1.3.pdf A press release about the report is available on request. __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From earlwal at chorus.net Fri Jul 4 18:49:54 2003 From: earlwal at chorus.net (Bob Reuschlein) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] US economy Message-ID: <3F060492.74B5C06C@chorus.net> The Bush policies will self implode because the 64% 2000-2003 increase in military spending is the major cause of the current economic stagnation and the 6.4% unemployment rate. The tax cuts are too small to counteract this stagnation, and conventional economic wisdom thinks the impending war was the cause of stagnation. They don't understand that the high levels of military spending are still here after the war so the stagnation won't go away. Believing in this miraculous recovery theory, mortgage rates are about to go up and stop the last thing keeping the economy going, housing. Soon the stock market will realize something is still wrong and that bubble will also stop moving up. Then we will really be in a pickle. Bush has no chance of reelection at this rate. Bob Reuschlein From fpaynter at sandhilltech.com Fri Jul 4 19:51:41 2003 From: fpaynter at sandhilltech.com (Frank Paynter) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Don't Think Twice... Message-ID: <000101c34287$3db70a90$6401a8c0@DOWNSTAIRS> >From Tony Steidler, with props to Bob D. Don't Think Twice, It's Our Right (A Song For the New Revolution) It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe, No weapons have been found. It was just a ruse to divvy up the pie, babe, To rebuild what we tore down. We couldn't tell the truth and hope to lead the polls. We know that you'll excuse us for our single goal; Halliburton, Cheney and a smoking hole. Don't think twice it's our right. It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe, Saddam is still at large. He doesn't really matter on the front page With our boys at Fox in charge. It's not as if he'll stop us if we rob the store. Osama and Saddam can help us hold the score If we can wait to catch them 'til 2004. Don't think twice it's our right. It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe, Your neighbor's gone away. Another neighbor told us of his try, babe, To win the public sway. He built a left-wing website with a red-gloved fist That modeled Daily Koz* and Liberal Oasis** With views like that he surely was a terrorist. Don't think twice it's our right. It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe, Your paycheck's getting small. We all worked hard and gave it our best try, babe, To cut the tax for all. But they listened to the rumors that were spreading 'round, That it'd cost the rich a penny and the poor a pound. We'll have to find a better name for "trickle down". Don't think twice it's our right. It ain't no use to sit and wonder why, babe, Iran is on our plate. Any former president will sigh, babe, At the wars that made them great. As long as we're distracted from the things we see By finding and creating brand new enemies, I'll never lack the funding for my library. Don't think twice it's our right * http://www.dailykos.com/ **http://www.liberaloasis.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030704/ac014931/attachment.htm From floevans at netzero.net Fri Jul 4 23:03:55 2003 From: floevans at netzero.net (floevans) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:02 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Guardian: Concern as Britons face US tribunal Message-ID: <004701c342aa$74bc31f0$5bb54943@hppav> The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,992033,00.html Concern as Britons face US tribunal Vikram Dodd and Richard Norton-Taylor Saturday July 5, 2003 The Guardian The Foreign Office last night expressed serious concern about Washington's decision to put two Britons held as suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay before a secretive military tribunal which has the power to order executions. President Bush's decision to "designate" six inmates of the maximum security Camp Delta - including the Britons, an Australian, and three others - to face the military hearings sparked worldwide condemnation, and lawyers accused the US of devising a process that was loaded towards ensuring guilty verdicts. Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, and Moazzam Begg, 35, from Aparkbrook, Birmingham, have been held for 18 months without charge or access to a lawyer. Asked about the possibility of the death penalty, the father of Moazzam, Azmat Begg, said: "It's a disaster for the family." Britain has "strong reservations" about the US plans for the military commission, where US military officers - the judge and jury - will sit in judgment on charges brought by their government. The defence and prosecution lawyers will also be US military officers. The Foreign Office minister, Lady Symons, said: "We would want to ensure that there is a separation between government on one hand and the judiciary on the other. It is now up to us to have a very vigorous discussion with the US about securing a fair trial for the individuals involved." A British source said that although no charges had been yet indicated, they were expected to be insufficiently serious to qualify for the death penalty. "It appears very unlikely that any of the two British detainees would face the death penalty," a British official said. The proceedings will be held mainly in secret, although the Pentagon plans to hold some sections in public to assuage human rights concerns. Britain is in an embarrassing diplomatic position. It does not seek a public row with the US, its closest ally, but also knows the men's families will campaign vigorously against the decision to subject the Britons to military tribunals. The Guardian has learned of concerns about the mental health of both British men. In his last meeting with British officials in April, Mr Abbasi said nothing for an hour, and Mr Begg in a recent letter to his wife wrote that he would take a decision that would affect the entire family. "He said anything just in the hope of getting out of there," said his father. Stephen Jakobi, director of the British pressure group Fair Trials Abroad, said the tribunals were being "fixed" to secure convictions. Louise Christian, solicitor for Feroz Abbasi, said his mother, Zumrati Juma, was "very, very distressed and very despondent and believes the British government has let her down". There are nine Britons are among the 680 men from 42 countries held at Camp Delta. They were seized after the US attack on Afghanistan and branded "the hardest of the hard" by the US. They are held in cells eight feet by six feet eight inches, locked up for no less than 23 and a half hours a day, and bound hand and foot when out of their cell. The regime and conditions, including lights being left on outside the inmates' cells at night, have been condemned by international human rights groups and there have been 28 suicide attempts. Antonella Notari, spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross, said the hearings would need a presumption of innocence, defendants having adequate time and counsel to prepare their case, and the exclusion of any evidence gained through torture or through cruel or degrading treatment. Neil Durkin, of Amnesty International, said: "This development is worrying in the extreme. "We have been at pains for the past 18 months to point out that all circumstances in Guantanamo Bay flout international standards." From floevans at netzero.net Fri Jul 4 23:11:57 2003 From: floevans at netzero.net (floevans) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:03 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] ACLU Marks July 4th With Report On Mainstreet Movement To Protect Civil Liberties Message-ID: <004d01c342ab$941830c0$5bb54943@hppav> ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13061&c=206 ACLU Marks Independence Day With New Report On Main Street Movement To Protect Civil Liberties July 3, 2003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Media@dcaclu.org WASHINGTON - On the eve of this year's Independence Day celebrations, the American Civil Liberties Union today released a new report documenting the ongoing grassroots movement in the United States to pass local community resolutions rejecting government policies that go beyond fighting terrorism and stray into the suppression of basic constitutional rights. "In my conversations with people from across the political spectrum, I hear one refrain over and over: if we give up our freedoms in the name of national security, we will have lost the war on terrorism," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "As this year's Fourth of July rolls around, we hope that this report will demonstrate again to the White House, the Justice Department and Congress that we must be both safe and free." More than 130 communities, encompassing more than 16 million people in 26 states, have passed resolutions, some of which contain strong legal language directing local police to, among other things, refrain from engaging in racial profiling, enforcing immigration laws or participating in federal investigations that violate civil liberties. Among the communities that have adopted resolutions are traditionally conservative locales, such as Oklahoma City, and three states: Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont. The report tells the story of the movement's small beginnings in Ann Arbor, MI and how it has grown, quickly, into a true nationwide grassroots campaign. In the past year alone, more than 100 resolutions have passed. Dozens more are under consideration and the pace shows no sign of slowing down. The momentum behind the resolutions drive has drawn the increasing ire of the Justice Department. Using a variety of public relations strategies, including the dissemination of misleading information about the scope and impact of the Justice Department's post-9/11 surveillance and law enforcement policies, the Attorney General, his spokespeople and some Members of Congress have actively sought to discredit the strength, breadth and necessity of the movement behind the measures. In one case, a U.S. Attorney in Alaska provided misleading information when he testified against a state resolution before the State Legislature. In what is not an uncommon occurrence, the U.S. Attorney erroneously downplayed much of what the USA PATRIOT Act does and could do, and mischaracterized specific sections of the bill. Refusing to be chastened, Alaska's lawmakers disregarded the U.S. Attorney's testimony and promptly passed a statewide resolution. "This report just goes to show the importance of local activism," the ACLU's Murphy said. "Although the Attorney General and his staff have said that this movement is but a flash in the pan, the fact that they'd take the time to actively work to defeat these things speaks volumes about their political importance." The report can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13060&c=206 From gv4peace at charter.net Sat Jul 5 09:21:31 2003 From: gv4peace at charter.net (Gail V) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:03 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] MAPC retreat topics Message-ID: The MAPC retreat is scheduled for July 26. A committee is in the process of planning the agenda. I am not on the committee, but would like to get some discussion going about what should be covered at the retreat. Although discussion needs to be held about long term political direction, I think taking the time now to resolve open infrastructure questions will serve us well towards being more effective and efficient in working towards those goals. I would like to see the retreat address these issues prior to moving to discussion about long term political goals. Below is my personal brain dump of open infrastructure topics for the retreat. I'm sure there are more questions - please add to it!! - MAPC structure - what standing committees are needed vs ad hoc working groups. Do we need bylaws? - Coordinating committee - who is in? how do they get there? Should people be elected to it? What are the powers? Should it become a steering committee w/executive decision making power? - Committee expectations - what communications should there be between committees and gm? Contact persons designated? What are the accountabilities to the gm? What can and can't committees decide on their own? Should all committee mail lists be open for anyone to join? - Spending - who can spend what? More specifics on CC spending powers. What about committees and working groups? What is discretionary vs needing approval? Who approves, what is the process for requesting? What about "emergencies?" - Literature - who decides what we publish? What is the approval process? - Media and speaking engagements - how can we make sure this reflects MAPC properly? Do speakers/media contact persons need approval? How is this done? What about rally speakers? How are these determined? - General Membership meetings - what do we want gm's to be like: Agendas mostly business as now? Facilitation techniques fairly flexible? Time and place? What about decision making? Do we need a quorum? How would this be established? - Money - how can we ensure continued income? What about IRS reporting, are we legal? Should we be auditing the bookkeeping? - Member groups - what are the expectations? What does "coalition" mean? Should there be dues? Should there be delegates to MAPC? What are communications expectations (both ways)? - National organizations - what is MAPC a member of? How do we decide what to join? How do we determine delegates? What are their accountabilities to the gm? Do we want to do more of this? Peace, Gail From alruff at execpc.com Sat Jul 5 13:37:35 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:03 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] A Costly Friendship By PATRICK SEALE Message-ID: <3F070CDF.6080208@execpc.com> A Costly Friendship By PATRICK SEALE http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030721&s=seale [from the July 21, 2003 issue] Much of the talk in Europe these days--in newspaper offices, at dinner parties, in foreign ministries -- is about how the United States and Britain were conned into going to war against Iraq, or perhaps how they conned the rest of us into believing that they had good reasons for doing so. It is now widely suspected that the war was a fraud, but who perpetuated the fraud and on whom? Were Bush and Blair fed fabricated intelligence, or did they knowingly massage and doctor the intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq so as to justify an attack? Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein was a monster, but the military invasion to depose him is seen by many, and certainly on this side of the Atlantic, as illegitimate and unprovoked, and a blatant violation of the UN Charter, setting an unfortunate precedent in international relations. Henceforth, in the jungle, only might is right. Various intelligence and foreign affairs committees of the British Parliament and the US Congress have started inquiries into how the decision to go to war was taken -- when, why and on what basis. But it will require a superhuman effort to penetrate the murky thicket of competing government bureaucracies, spooks, exiles, defectors and other self-serving sources, pro-Israeli lobbyists, magazine editors, think-tank gurus and assorted ideologues who, in Washington at least, have a massive say in the shaping of foreign policy. How did it all begin? An important part of the story, though not the whole of it, is the special relationship between the United States and Israel. Warren Bass's important and timely book Support Any Friend, written with candour and firmly rooted in primary sources, takes us back to the diplomacy of the 1960s, and to what he argues were the beginnings of today's extraordinarily intimate alliance between the two countries. It is in effect the story of how Israel and its American friends came to exercise a profound influence on American policy toward the Arab and Muslim world. Bass believes it all began with JFK. It is an interesting thesis and he argues it well, although in my view the US-Israeli entente actually began with LBJ, after Kennedy's assassination. The neocons -- a powerful group at the heart of the Bush Administration -- wanted war against Iraq and pressed for it with great determination, overriding and intimidating all those who expressed doubts, advised caution, urged the need for allies and for UN legitimacy, or recommended sticking with the well-tried cold war instruments of containment and deterrence. War it had to be, the neocons said, to deal with the imminent threat from Saddam's fearsome weapons, which, as Tony Blair was rash enough to claim in his tragicomic role as Bush's "poodle," could be fired within forty-five minutes of a launch order. This flight of blood-curdling rhetoric has now come home to haunt him, earning him a headline (in The Economist, no less) of "PRIME MINISTER BLIAR." Where did the information for his remarkable statement come from? How reliable was the pre-war intelligence reaching Bush and Blair? The finger is increasingly being pointed at a special Pentagon intelligence cell, known as the Office of Special Plans, headed by Abram Schulsky. The office was created after 9/11 by two of the most fervent and determined neocons, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defence Secretary, and Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, to probe into Saddam's WMD programs and his links with Al Qaeda because, it is alleged, they did not trust other intelligence agencies of the US government to come up with the goods. It has been suggested that this special Pentagon intelligence cell relied heavily on the shifty Ahmad Chalabi's network of exiled informants. If evidence was indeed fabricated, this may well have been where it was done. One way of looking at the decision-making process in Washington is to see it as the convergence of two currents or trends. The first was clearly the child of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which both traumatized and enraged America, shattering its sense of invulnerability but also rousing it to "total war" against its enemies in the manner of a Hollywood blockbuster. Perhaps because they had more experience of wars and terrorist violence, Europeans were slow to comprehend the visceral impact of these events on the American psyche. Suddenly mighty America was afraid -- afraid of mass-casualty terrorism; afraid of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; afraid that "rogue states" might pass on such weapons to nebulous, elusive, fanatical, transnational terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, enabling them perhaps to strike again with even more devastating effect. The aggressive National Security Strategy of September 2002 sprang from these fears. It proclaimed that containment and deterrence were now stone dead; that the United States had to achieve and maintain total military supremacy over all possible challengers; that any "rogue states" that might be tempted to acquire WMDs would be treated without mercy by means of preventive or pre-emptive war. Under this "Bush Doctrine," the United States gave itself the right to project its overwhelming power wherever and whenever it pleased, to invade countries it disliked, to overthrow their regimes and to transform hostile "tyrannies" into friendly -- read pro-American -- "democracies." It was a program for global dominance, driven by the perceived threat to America but also by a modern version of imperial ambition. The second, overlapping trend -- overlapping because it involved many of the same people -- was more narrowly focused on Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians and its Arab neighbours. Right-wing Jewish neocons -- and most prominent neocons are right-wing Jews -- tend to be pro-Israel zealots who believe that American and Israeli interests are inseparable (much to the alarm of liberal, pro-peace Jews, whether in America, Europe or Israel itself). Friends of Ariel Sharon's Likud, they tend to loathe Arabs and Muslims. For them, the cause of "liberating" Iraq had little to do with the well-being of Iraqis, just as the cause of "liberating" Iran and ending its nuclear program -- recently advocated by Shimon Peres in a Wall Street Journal editorial -- has little to do with the well-being of Iranians. What they wished for was an improvement in Israel's military and strategic environment. The Iraq crisis has made their names and organizations familiar to every newspaper and magazine reader: Wolfowitz and Feith, numbers 2 and 3 at the Pentagon; Richard Perle, former chairman and still a member of the influential Defence Policy Board, sometimes known as the neocons' political godfather and around whom a cloud of financial impropriety hangs; Elliott Abrams, senior director of Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, with a controversial background in Latin America and in the Iran/contra affair; and their many friends, relations and kindred spirits in the media, such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan of The Weekly Standard, and in the numerous pro-Israel think tanks, such as Frank Gaffney's Centre for Security Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Project for the New American Century, the Centre for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (born out of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and many others. As has been observed by several commentators, 9/11 provided the neocons with a unique chance to harness (some would say hijack) America's Middle East policy -- and America's military power -- in Israel's interest by succeeding in getting the United States to apply the doctrine of pre-emptive war to Israel's enemies. This trend rested on a mistaken, indeed wilfully tendentious, analysis of the attacks that the United States had suffered -- not just the body blow of 9/11 but also the numerous earlier wake-up calls such as the bombing of two US embassies in East Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in Aden harbour. The basic neocon argument was that terrorist attacks should not in any way be read as the response of angry, desperate men to what America and Israel were doing to the Arab and Muslim world, and especially to the Palestinians. Quite the contrary; America was attacked because the terrorists envied the American way of life. America was virtuous, America was "good." The real problem, the neocons argued, lay not with American policies but with the "sick" and "failed" Islamic societies from which the terrorists sprang, with their hate-driven educational system, with their inherently "violent" and "fanatical" religion. So, rather than correcting or changing its misguided policies, the United States was urged to "reform" and "democratise" Arab and Muslim societies -- by force if necessary -- so as to insure its own security and that of its allies. Wars of choice became official American policy. Concerned to insure Israel's continued regional supremacy, and at odds with what they saw as distasteful opponents, such as Islamic militancy, Arab nationalism and Palestinian radicalism, the neocons argued that the aim of US policy in the Middle East should be the thorough political and ideological "restructuring" of the region. Exporting "democracy" would serve the interests of defending both the United States and Israel. A "reformed" Middle East could be made pro-American and pro-Israeli. All this seems to have amounted to an ambitious -- perhaps over-reaching -- program for Israeli regional dominance, driven by Israel's far right and its way-out American friends. Iraq was the first candidate for a "democratic" cure, but the need for this doubtful medicine could just as well justify an assault on Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or wherever a "threat" is detected or America's reforming zeal directed. Immediately after 9/11, Wolfowitz clamoured for the destruction of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This was a cause he had advocated unsuccessfully throughout much of the 1990s. But the accession of the neocons to positions of power, the fear of more terrorist attacks and the President's combative instincts now made what had been a Dr. Strangelove scenario appear quite doable. No scrap of evidence, however, could be found linking Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden. Nor did Iraq pose an imminent threat to anyone, least of all to the United States or Britain. Exhausted by two wars, it had been starved by a dozen years of the most punitive sanctions in modern history. Hans Blix's UN arms inspectors had roamed all over the country and acquired a good grasp of its entire industrial capability. They had found no evidence that Saddam had rebuilt his WMD programs. They would have certainly liked more time to look further and make quite sure. This was the view of most European experts. Meanwhile, Arab leaders had buried the hatchet with Iraq at the Arab summit in Beirut in March 2002. All Iraq's neighbours wanted to trade with it, not make war on it. In the atmosphere of reconciliation that then prevailed, even Kuwait did not think it seemly to admit that it still longed for revenge for Saddam's 1990 invasion. There were, however, plenty of reasons why Israel and its friends in Washington wanted Iraq "restructured." Saddam had dared fire Scuds at Israel during the 1991 war and, more recently, he had been bold enough to send money to the bereaved families of Palestinian suicide bombers, whose homes had been flattened by Israeli reprisals. These "crimes" had gone unpunished. Moreover, in spite of its evident weakness, Saddam's Iraq was the only Arab country that might in the long run pose a strategic challenge to Israel. Egypt's government had been neutralized and corrupted by American subsidies and by its peace treaty with Israel, while Syria was enfeebled by internal security squabbles, a faltering economy and a fossilized political system. The Iraqi leader had to be brought down. His fall, the neocons calculated, would change the political dynamics of the entire region. It would intimidate Teheran and Damascus, even Riyadh and Cairo, and tilt the balance of power decisively in Israel's favour, allowing it to impose on the hapless Palestinians the harsh terms of its choice. Some neocons were already envisioning an Israel-Iraq peace treaty as a bonus by-product of the war. These concerns, in addition to control of Iraq's oil resources, rather than Saddam's alleged WMDs, were the real aims of the war against Iraq. They were embraced by the United States to assuage its own fears and restore its sense of absolute power. But what made the attack possible -- the motor behind it -- was one overriding fact of American political life: the US-Israel alliance, as close a relationship between two states as any in the world today. The Iraq war was in fact the high-water mark of that alliance. Warren Bass seeks to establish that the foundations of the US-Israel alliance were laid by the Kennedy Administration. He even gives a precise date -- August 19, 1962 -- for the start of the military relationship as we know it. On that day in Tel Aviv, Mike Feldman, the deputy White House counsel and Kennedy's indefatigable contact man with Israel and American Jews, met secretly with David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir and told them that "the President had determined that the Hawk missile should be made available to Israel." The Israelis were ecstatic. The Kennedy decision destroyed the Eisenhower embargo on the sale of major weapons systems to Israel. "What began with the Hawk in 1962," Bass writes, "has become one of the most expensive and extensive military relationships of the post-war era, with a price tag in the billions of dollars and diplomatic consequences to match." The Hawk sale is therefore the first pillar of Bass's case for saying that Kennedy was the father of the US-Israel alliance. The second is what he describes as Kennedy's "fudge" over America's inspections of Israel's secret nuclear weapons plant at Dimona in the Negev. Although ingeniously and entertainingly argued with a wealth of detail, the thesis is not conclusively proven. As a matter of fact, the Kennedy team, with the exception of Feldman and his friends, did not want a special military relationship with Israel, fearing that it would trigger a regional arms race. Kennedy was not taken in by Ben-Gurion's histrionic description of Nasser, the Egyptian leader, as a cruel aggressor bent on Hitlerian genocide. He knew Israel was strong enough to deal with any Arab threat. He didn't believe it needed the advanced weapons and the formal American security guarantee Ben-Gurion requested. He told Ben-Gurion firmly that he did not want to be the US President who brought the Middle East into the missile age. Kennedy was in fact attempting to reach out to Nasser, whom he recognized as a nationalist, not a Communist. He feared that giving Israel preferential treatment might push the Arabs into the arms of the Soviets. In turn, the State Department's Middle East experts saw no good reason for the United States to change its arms policy toward Israel. As an internal memo put it, "To undertake, in effect, a military alliance with Israel would destroy the delicate balance we seek to maintain in our Near East relations." Nevertheless, Kennedy finally approved the Hawk sale, which Eisenhower had rejected two years earlier. But he seems to have done so against his better judgment. He was eventually worn down by Israel's persistent and systematic exaggeration of the Egyptian menace, and more particularly by Shimon Perez?s ability, based on chillingly detailed knowledge of internal Administration debates, to play off the Pentagon and the NSC against the State Department. Bass's case is also arguable regarding Dimona. Far from turning a blind eye to what was evidently going on there, JFK was totally opposed to Israel's getting the bomb and was prepared to disregard the views of the American Jewish community on the matter. In the spring of 1963 he warned Ben-Gurion that (in Bass's words) "an Israeli refusal to permit real Dimona inspections would have the gravest consequences for the budding US-Israel friendship." He wrote Ben-Gurion two scorching letters, on May 18 and June 15, threatening that "this Government's commitment to and support of Israel would be seriously jeopardized" if Israel did not permit thorough inspections to all areas of the Dimona site. Ben-Gurion and his successor, Levi Eshkol, lied through their teeth to Kennedy about Dimona but, as Bass writes, Kennedy was preparing to force a showdown. Had he not been assassinated on November 22, 1963, he was on course for a confrontation with Israel. The fudge came later, with Lyndon Johnson, who was far less concerned than Kennedy with nuclear proliferation. Skirting the issue of Israel's nuclear ambitions, Johnson approved the sale to Israel of large numbers of American tanks and warplanes even before the 1967 war, which propelled the Jewish state to stardom, pumping a large segment of the American Jewish community full of confidence, ambition and even arrogance. Johnson was the true father of the US-Israel alliance. It was he, rather than Kennedy, who "set the precedent that ultimately created the US-Israel strategic relationship: a multimillion-dollar annual business in cutting-edge weaponry, supplemented by extensive military ? to - military dialogues, security consultations, extensive joint training exercises, and cooperative research ? and - development ventures." Bass raises the intriguing possibility that the Hawks were never really intended, as Ben-Gurion pleaded, to defend Israel's air bases from a knockout blow by Nasser's MIGs, but rather as a perimeter defence to protect the Dimona nuclear weapons plant. Some indirect corroboration of this thesis was later to emerge. In delivering its own knockout blow to Egypt's air force on the first day of the 1967 war, Israel lost eight jets in the first wave of attack. One wounded plane came limping back to base in radio silence. It wandered into Dimona's air space, and was promptly shot down by an Israeli Hawk missile. >From 1967 onward there was no stopping the extravagant blossoming of the US-Israel relationship. If Johnson had been the father of the alliance, Henry Kissinger was to be its sugar daddy. In 1970, he invited Israel to intervene in Jordan when a beleaguered King Hussein asked for US protection. Syrian troops had entered the country in support of militant Palestinians then engaged in a trial of strength with the little King. Israel was only too happy to comply with this most irregular request. It made some much-publicized military deployments in the direction of Jordan. Emboldened by this support, Hussein's own forces then engaged the Syrians, who quickly withdrew. Hussein's army was thus left free to slaughter the Palestinians. Rather than seeing Black September as the local tiff that it actually was, Kissinger blew it up into an "East-West" contest in which Israel had successfully faced down not just the Syrians but the Russians as well. This was the real launch of the US-Israel "strategic relationship," in which Israel was entrusted with "keeping the peace" in the Middle East on America's behalf -- and was lavishly rewarded with arms, aid and a cupboard-full of secret commitments directed against Arab interests. Kissinger adopted as America's own the main theses of Israeli policy: that Israel had to be stronger than any possible combination of Arab states; that the Arabs' aspiration to recover territories lost in 1967 was "unrealistic"; that the PLO should never be considered a peace partner. His step-by-step machinations after the October war of 1973 were directed at removing Egypt from the Arab line-up, exposing Palestinians and other Arabs to the full brunt of Israeli military power. Ariel Sharon's invasion of Lebanon in 1982--in which some 17,000 Palestinians and Lebanese were killed, triggering the birth of the Hezbollah resistance movement -- was a direct consequence of Kissinger's scheming. In 1970 Israel received $30 million in US aid; in 1971, after the Jordan crisis, the aid rose to $545 million. During the October war Kissinger called for a $3 billion aid bill, and it has remained in the several billions ever since. In due course Congress was captured by AIPAC -- in Bass's phrase, "the purring, powerful lobbying machine of the 1980s and 1990s" -- while the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, founded in 1985 by Martin Indyk, an Australian-born lobbyist for Israel, set about carefully shaping opinion and placing its men inside the Administration. Dennis Ross, Indyk's colleague at WINEP and a high-level negotiator for Bush I, became Clinton's long-serving coordinator of the Arab-Israeli peace process; he rarely failed to defer to Israel's interests, which is one reason the peace process got nowhere. He has now returned to WINEP as its director and continued advocate. But nothing in the history of the US-Israel alliance has equalled the accession by "friends of Israel" to key posts in the current Bush Administration, and their determined and successful struggle to shape America's foreign policy, especially in the Middle East -- including the destruction of Iraq. The nagging question remains as to what the special friendship has achieved. Have the wars, security intrigues and political showdowns of the past decades really served Israel's interest? A student of the region cannot but ponder these questions: What if the dovish Moshe Sharett had prevailed over the hawkish Ben-Gurion in the 1950s? Sharett sought coexistence with the Arabs, whereas Ben-Gurion's policy was to dominate them by naked military force, with the aid of a great-power patron -- ideas that have shaped Israeli thinking ever since. What if the Occupied Territories had truly been traded for peace after 1967 (as Ben-Gurion himself advised, with rare prescience), or after 1973, or after the Madrid Conference of 1991, or even after the Oslo Accords of 1993? Would it not have spared Israelis and Palestinians the pain of the Intifada, with its miserable legacy of hatred and broken lives? Has the triumphalist dream of a "Greater Israel" (which James Baker, for one, warned Israel against) proved anything other than a hideous nightmare, infecting Israeli society with a poisonous dose of fascism? The US-Israel alliance is officially and routinely celebrated in both countries, but its legacy is troubling. Without it, Israel might not have succumbed to the madness of invading Lebanon and staying there twenty-two years; or to the senseless brutality of its treatment of the Palestinians; or to the short-sighted folly of settling 400,000 Jews in Jerusalem and the West Bank, who are now able to hold successive Israeli governments to ransom. An inescapable conclusion is that the intimate alliance, and the policies that flowed from it, have caused America and Israel to be reviled and detested in a large part of the world -- and to be exposed as never before to terrorist attack. From vcrs at post.harvard.edu Sat Jul 5 15:27:55 2003 From: vcrs at post.harvard.edu (Virginia Ravenscroft-Scott) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:03 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Ed Herman on "Road Map" Message-ID: From: "Ed Herman" To: Subject: Analayis of the Road Map, July 4, 2003 Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:48:23 -0400 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal ROAD MAP TO SUSTAINABLE ETHNIC CLEANSING Edward S. Herman There are three words or phrases that are not permissible in the U.S. mainstream media in application to the Israel-Palestine conflict: racism, ethnic cleansing and international law. This follows from the deep, deep bias of the media favoring Israel and hostile to the Palestinians. The evidence of Israeli racism is overwhelming, and criticism of that racism is a commonplace in Israel, but it is suppressed here. Israel is explicitly a "Jewish state," with special rights inhering in Jewishness, including the right to occupy land; it has engaged in a long-term systematic expropriation of Palestinian land and demolitions of Palestinian homes strictly for Jewish-settler benefit; and its occupation has long been characterized by brutal maltreatment of Palestinians, who have been publicly described by Israeli leaders as "lice," "grasshoppers," "two legged animals," and numerous other epithets. New York Times favorite Michael Ignatieff explained why the Serbs were ready to kill Albanians in Kosovo: "The reason is simple?only in Serbia is racial contempt an official ideology" (NYT, Nov. 21, 1999). This, however, is a blatant lie as Albanians have never been subjected to officially-sanctioned discrimination in Belgrade, and Milosevic and other high Serbian officials have never described Albanians as "lice" or "grasshoppers." But Ignatieff would never say that "racial contempt is an official ideology" in Israel, although the facts in that case would warrant such a statement. Lies regarding the official enemy; lies-by-silence on the racism of the beloved client, is standard mainstream media policy, and we can readily understand why Ignatieff was recently selected as a regular contributor to the New York Times Magazine (and why he is head of a human rights center at Harvard University). The phrase "ethnic cleansing" was used lavishly by the mainstream media to describe Serb policy in Kosovo, although this also was a lie: there was a brutal civil war during which the Albanians were often treated very harshly, and large numbers fled-many forced out-during the 78-day NATO bombing war in 1999. But they were never driven out to make way for Serb settlers, as Palestinians have been removed for Jewish settlement over many years and on a large scale. In fact, Israeli policy in expropriations, demolitions and removal provides a perfect model of ethnic cleansing-but the phrase is never applied to the Israeli case by U.S. reporters, pundits and editorial writers. The direct lie in the one case, lie-by-silence in the other, is absolutely standard media procedure. Reference to international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not permissible in mainstream media discussions of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Such references would be awkward because as an occupying power Israel is obligated to protect the Palestinians, and under the Fourth Geneva Convention , to which Israel and the United States are signatories, Israel is forbidden the taking over of land and displacing of the local inhabitants. In short, the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza and takeover of a large part of East Jerusalem are gross violations of international law. The solution for the Free Press is lie-by-silence. One other issue off the media agenda is the decades-long U.S. government support for Israeli ethnic cleansing, in opposition to an almost unanimous global consensus, showing this country to be a pro-Israel protagonist rather than an "honest broker." The United States regularly vetoes any condemnation of Israel in the UN or any attempt to bring monitors into the area to protect the Palestinians from assaults by the powerful Israeli army. It has also armed Israel and given it massive resources to fund its military establishment, which has permitted and protected the settlements and the associated ethnic cleansing. The ideological bias in the U.S. media is so profound that anyone supplying arms to the Palestinians is supporting "terrorism," whereas the U.S. supplying arms to the ethnic-cleansing state that over the years has surely killed a dozen Palestinians for every Israeli killed is normalized as aiding "self defense." (The "crisis" in recent years results from the fact that that ratio has fallen to three to one.) The root of the conflict is the occupation: its cruelties and oppression and steady expropriations and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in violation of international law. (Even in the 22 percent of Palestine left to the Palestinians after the 1967 war, by the end of the Oslo "peace process" in 2000, some 42 percent of the West Bank land and most of its water has been taken over by the Israelis and settlers; in Gaza, one third of the land was seized for the benefit of 7,000 settlers, leaving the remaining two-thirds for over a million Palestinians.) From these oppressions and expropriations arose a Palestinian resistance, that was largely nonviolent through the first intifada (1987-1991), during which few Israelis but over a thousand Palestinians were killed; but the resistance resorted to suicide bombers in the second intifada. Virtually all independent and many Israeli analysts recognize that the suicide bombers reflect the "bottomless despair" of the Palestinians--to quote the words of former Shin Beth head Ami Ayalon--finally striking out in response to "a systematic process of demolition of Palestinian private and public property, and mass expropriation of Palestinian land on behalf of the settlers?[involving also] prolonged curfews, road-blocks, humiliations, beatings, military invasions of densely populated areas, detentions of thousands without trial under sub-human conditions, obstruction of access to work, medical care, schools and universities, and a host of other means" (quoting a recent Urgent Appeal signed by 153 Israeli academics, but unmentioned in the New York Times). In short, Israeli "insecurity" has increased as a direct result of Israel's merciless and illegal ethnic cleansing that, of course, made for far greater Palestinian insecurity. But in the remarkable propaganda system of the United States there is no recognition of Palestinian insecurity-that word is reserved for the painful and serious, but far smaller, victimization of the people of the ethnic-cleansing state. Most important, since the occupation and ethnic cleansing are normalized and their results largely suppressed, and the violations of international law ignored, the propaganda system is able to make the causal force in the violence the suicide bombers, who seemingly came out of nowhere in an irrational assault on the peace loving Sharon and Israeli people. This miracle of abortive history was concisely expressed by Paul Berman in his Terror and Liberalism, where he says: "Our current predicament was brought upon us by acts of suicide terrorism"-"we" had no "predicament" prior to those actions, which became a major phenomenon only in 2001! Berman traces the bombers to irrationality and Islam, and expresses amazement that anyone could attribute this development to Israeli oppression. This is amazing nonsense and self-deception, but it is entirely understandable that Berman, like Ignatieff, is a New York Times and mainstream media favorite. He expresses well the deep-seated racist and pro-ethnic cleansing ideology that dominates the Free Press. .In considering the meaning of the road map we should also consider what its nominal author, George Bush, has done in the past two years leading up to its issuance. Has he shown any sign of siding with the weaker party, sympathizing with its terrible conditions, strengthening it militarily or politically, and recognizing the need for the introduction of justice for the victims of occupation and ethnic cleansing? Quite the contrary. He and his administration quickly welcomed Sharon as a "man of peace" and partner in the "war on terror," terror meaning retail terror as in suicide bombings. Sharon's killings, destruction and demolitions of homes and civilian infrastructure, as in the past, are not wholesale terror, but presumably only "retaliation" (i.e., acceptable violence). Bush has only been angry at suicide bombings, not at the more numerous deaths and calamitous conditions brought by Sharon. Correspondingly, the repeated and urgent call by Bush has been for Palestinian restraint and an end to suicide bombings. Meanwhile, Bush gave Sharon carte blanche in 2001 to invade the West Bank and Gaza cities and engage in virtually unlimited violence against the civilian population of Palestine. He has vetoed any international effort at monitoring or even investigating Sharon's murderous assaults in Jenin and other civilian sites. He has not interfered in the least with the Sharon government's vast destruction of Palestine's civilian infrastructure, its systematic assassinations, its costly and cruel closures, its numerous demolitions of Palestinian homes and markets, or its targeting of journalists and human rights workers. He has sanctioned the beggaring of the Palestinian population and destruction of the facilities necessary for a viable state. Bush has also not complained about the numerous settlements established on the West Bank over the last two years, or at the construction of a massive wall within Palestine that has deprived many thousands of Palestinians of homes and/or means of livelihood. This wall will constitute a virtual prison surrounding the shrunken territory left for the Palestinians. In short, Bush has given tacit approval to the Israeli establishment of more "facts on the ground" that have advanced Israeli ethnic cleansing and expanded and intensified deprivation and injustice to the Palestinians. His policies in the two years prior to the announcement of the road map were therefore diametrically opposed to those that would have addressed the issues in the conflict, and, in fact, they greatly reduced the possibility of a just settlement. This is just what we might have expected, given both the composition and base of the Bush team and the nature of the "war on terror." Bush's leading advisers in this area, including Wolfowitz, Abrams, Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bolton are pro-Likud and pro-Sharon hardliners, and the Christian Right support base openly supports Israeli ethnic cleansing. The "war on terror" is a war of the terrorizing strong against anybody who stands in the way, who therefore is named terrorist. The Palestinians, resisting an ethnic-cleansing process long supported by the United States, automatically qualify as targets. The Road Map: Another "International Community" Copout These are essential background facts for consideration of the "Road Map." They tell us in advance that a road map offered by this protagonist and close ally of Israel, who has already helped worsen the situation, will surely not be designed to bring justice to resolving the conflict and is therefore unlikely to end the violence. Why then bother with a road map? One reason is that the United States has reserved to itself the right to intervene in this conflict, and most of the world is highly critical of the U.S. support of Israeli repression and failure to bring peace to the area. Bush may have believed that his carte blanche to Sharon to assault Palestine would bring "peace" through wholesale terror and effective "pacification," but despite the massive destruction and pain inflicted, the victims continue to resist. A second and related reason for the Road Map is that Bush made promises to Blair and others to do something constructive to end the Israel-Palestine conflict. A third consideration is that his political fortunes at home demand some action on this front. He has to be able to say that he tried, even if the effort fails and once more he must support Israel against the "terrorists." The Road Map was sent by Kofi Annan to the Security Council on May 7, under the title "A performance-based roadmap to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Kofi Annan's cover letter claims that the Road Map was prepared by the "Quartet," the United States, Russia, the European Union, and the UN. But the document reflects the exact biases that we would anticipate from U.S. authorship, so that here, as in the performance of Annan, the UN, and the Security Council in the "diplomacy" leading up to the U.S. attack on Iraq, the "international community" has deferred to Uncle Chutzpah in dealing with an issue in which Chutzpah should be disqualified for bias (see my "Uncle Chutzpah, on a Rampage, Has 'Momentum'," ZNet Commentary, June 25, 2003).. Recall that Israel's settlements, roads for settlers only, and abusive treatments of the Palestinians have been in violation of scores of UN Security Council resolutions and the Fourth Geneva Convention. You might think that a UN-sponsored plan would start with these primary violations, which have not only involved systematic Israeli violence in expropriations, demolitions, removals and abuses of persons but are also the root cause of Palestinian violence against Israelis. Furthermore, a first requirement in assuring respect for the law, as well as obtaining justice, is that the law violators not be allowed the fruits of their illegal actions. And if Palestinian violence will only be surely ended if the land robbers are not allowed to keep Palestinian land stolen since 1967, it should be obvious that getting all the settlers out should be the first and highest priority. But just as the United States has protected Israel's ethnic cleansing in the past, it aligns itself with Israel now in supporting the robber's rights to his loot. This perspective dominates the Road Map. As reflected in the Road Map, the robber-protection plan works this way: dealing with matters like action on the settlements, borders, and assuring "maximal territorial contiguity" of the new Palestinian state are pushed into the future and will be contingent on satisfactory containment of violence and political reform in Palestine. So the main and almost exclusive burden of adjustment in the near term is not on Israel but on the victimized Palestinians. Having just been crushed and left devastated and impoverished by Sharon's army, with U.S. sanction, the Palestinians must "end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services." The Road Map only requires the Israelis to "withdraw from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000," and to freeze settlement activity. There is no mention of the wall, whose construction is daily expropriating more Palestinian land, or roads or water. There is no mention of East Jerusalem. The failure to deal directly and immediately with these hard but crucial issues shows the Road Map to be a fraud. Right now, when Bush is at the peak of his powers, is precisely the time when such matters could be dealt with, if there was an intention to deal with them in a manner that would displease Sharon and company. In reality, Israel will never give up the major settlements and the wall except under serious pressure and threat, and the Bush administration will support its refusal. With the wall permitted, imprisoning many of the Palestinians in their steadily shrinking territory, this territory likely to be broken into non-contiguous segments, its people dependent on Israel for water and border access, and with only token armed forces, Palestine will be a Bantustan or series of Bantustans, at best. This has long been a Sharon objective (Gershom Gorenberg, "Road Map to Grand Apartheid? Ariel Sharon's South African Inspiration," The American Prospect, July 3, 2003), although his plan is not markedly different from Labor's Allon and successor plans. The Road Map statement that all their planned reforms will produce an "independent, viable, sovereign Palestinian state" is dishonest. The Road Map is well designed to allow interruptions in the move from phase to phase so that the later phases are never reached. Recall that the Oslo "peace process" also called for an end to Palestinian violence, which happened, but left final arrangements to a future agreement that never materialized. The U.S.-Israeli arrangements there permitted an accelerated ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories that led to the second intifada. There were always excuses for putting off a final agreement. That will surely be true of the new Road Map. It does nothing to improve the tragic condition of the Palestinians for the foreseeable future except for a partial calling off of the IDF. The many victims of Israel will not be satisfied to wait indefinitely for justice, and there is good reason to believe that they will be made to suffer further as the wall gets built, roads are extended, and border and other harassments occur. They are still victims of an occupation, that serves the settlers and treats the Palestinians with roadblocks, barbed wire fences, bypasses, a "discrimination that is practiced every day, and every minute of every day...an alienated, burning insult?familiar to the blacks of South Africa, the blacks of the United States, and the Jews of Eastern Europe" (Amira Hass, "No end to the growing settlements insult," Haaretz, July 2, 2003). The land grab continues every day also: hundreds of acres of Beit Eksa and Beit Sourig village land were even seized by Israeli officials for settlements on July 1, in flagrant violation of the new agreement (Chris McGreal, "Israel Defies Peace Plan With Land Grab on West Bank," Guardian July 2, 2003). There will likely be occasional acts of anti-Israel violence, and Ariel Sharon is a master at the art of provocation to produce reasons for "retaliation" and possible further ethnic cleansing. The Israeli press has featured at least half a dozen cases in the last three years where a prospective cease fire with the Palestinians was aborted by a Sharon-inspired "assassination" attempt. It will be a cakewalk for him to keep the pot boiling so that phases 2 and 3 of the Road Map are never reached. The outlook remains grim. The Road Map's only clear design is to end Palestinian violence; that is, pacification in favor of the stronger party. It is an invitation to the Palestinians to surrender and leave their future in the kindly hands of Ariel Sharon and George Bush. This is not promising as Palestinian victimization has been too severe, the inducements offered for surrender are too slight and those kindly hands are not very forthcoming. We are in for further retail and wholesale terrorism, with uncertain, but not happy, future outcomes. From alruff at execpc.com Sat Jul 5 17:45:00 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:03 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! Message-ID: <3F0746DC.8030502@execpc.com> Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing some public agitational work, perhaps something like another mass picket at Kohl's office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A call to the Democrats demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we were lied to, and such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our Congressional delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the Iraqis to "bring it on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and those of who knows how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is there anything worse than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at being a Marlboro MAn?) Since its now more and more understood by the genral public that the causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US aggression, were largely fabricated, and since more and more troops are dying, then its only logical that we should be calling for an end to the occupation. Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, there's a man in uniform at the door." Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She dashed to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. This can't be happening to me." A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It was a neighbor locked out of his house. Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but not the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even though President Bush declared two months ago that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that the end of that stage has not meant the beginning of peace, that the Army has assigned new duties for her husband and his men that have nothing to do with toppling Saddam Hussein. And anger that the talk in Washington is not of taking troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of three children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first left, I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what they trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They are not doing what they trained for. They have become police in a place they're not welcome." Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat for the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May 1, more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in hostile encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number of deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething spouses, most of them wives, had to be escorted from the session. "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming for their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, director of community services at Fort Stewart. The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond the military bases. According to a Gallup poll published on Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the war is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 percent in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who think the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent in May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. The latest poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three percentage points. News this week has not helped. Today, eight American soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim Franklin, whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 Bravo, also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's husband. In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being killed. The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground troops who are performing mundane activities like buying a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash pit. Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs are on. With major battles over and little use for field cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been running checkpoints and searching houses north of Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to meet at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is long and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll call and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, quiet and empty. Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. Fort Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the Fourth of July. "I tried every trick in the book to get out of this," said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear detachment for the artillery soldiers who has remained here. There is not much glory in helping single mothers have their cars repaired or overseeing insurance benefits. But that is the work of the officer left behind, and in the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More and more people are dreading that knock on the door. But there are other worries, too. War can find the weakest seam of a military marriage and split it open. After the Persian Gulf war, divorce rates at certain Army bases shot up as much as 50 percent, an Army study showed. Advertisement "That's my biggest fear," Valerie Decal, the wife of an artillery sergeant, said. "That my husband will come back different. Even if you're G.I. Joe, if you have to kill someone, that's not something you just forget about." Ms. Decal is stumped about what to do when the doorbell rings and her 19-month-old son runs to answer, saying, "Dada, dada." "What do I tell him?" she asked. Yeshica Padilla, wife of an artillery lieutenant, said her toddler daughter threw a tantrum the other day, saying she wanted to eat pizza on the floor "with Daddy." And Ms. Padilla keeps having the same dream. "I can see my husband, but he is hiding from me," she said. No Bulldogs have been killed, but their wives are constantly bracing for it. " 'Names pending release, names pending release' - I hate that expression," Ms. Decal said of the way the military announces casualties and being told who they are. The women console themselves by making bracelets for their husbands and sending care packages. Ms. Padilla included a Best Buy circular in a recent box at her husband's request. Winter Travis shipped the latest issue of Parents magazine, not at her husband's request. Ms. Travis is seven months pregnant and married to an artillery sergeant. "And whether he likes it or not, he's coming back a daddy," she said. Great efforts are made to stay upbeat. On a recent day, a group of Bulldog wives chatted in Ms. Leija's living room, popping cheese cubes in their mouths and swigging lemonade. But things are becoming more intense, they said. The widening chaos in Iraq means that their husbands will stay longer, and the women do not need a poll to tell them that public opinion is shifting. "When my husband first deployed, the people at work were so sweet, giving me days off, saying take whatever time I need," recalled Ms. Franklin, who answers telephones at a financial institution near the fort. "But it's not like that today. Now they look at me kind of funny and say: 'Why do you need a day off now? Isn't the war over?' " __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From jesselyne at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 15:51:27 2003 From: jesselyne at yahoo.com (Jesse Lyne) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:03 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <3F0746DC.8030502@execpc.com> Message-ID: <20030705215127.94616.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Allen and All, I agree with Allen here. The body count is growing, as is the evidence the reasons for this war are utterly bogus. This is not news for us but, incredibly, it is for many Americans. I think we need to get more visible on this and push, push, push. Having said that, once the Duct Tape Fashion Show and MAPC Retreat are over, I'm going to take a little break between July 26th and Fightin' Bob Fest. Frankly, I'm beat. I meant to take a break after May 3 and it never happened. Don't get me wrong; the stuff people have been doing is excellent - Anti-Racism, the Retreat, Tabling, St. Theater, etc. But I feel our focus is drifting a little bit and people are still dying from this war... Jesse Lyne --- Allen Ruff wrote: > Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing > some public > agitational work, perhaps something like another > mass picket at Kohl's > office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A > call to the Democrats > demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, > and Rumsfeld > exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we > were lied to, and > such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our > Congressional > delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? > > Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the > Iraqis to "bring it > on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and > those of who knows > how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is > there anything worse > than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at > being a Marlboro MAn?) > Since its now more and more understood by the genral > public that the > causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US > aggression, were > largely fabricated, and since more and more troops > are dying, then its > only logical that we should be calling for an end to > the occupation. > > Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 > From: portsideMod@netscape.net > Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com > To: portside@yahoogroups.com > > > > Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > > > FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the > other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, > there's a man in uniform at the door." > > Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in > Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She > dashed > to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. > This can't be happening to me." > > > A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It > was > a neighbor locked out of his house. > > Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but > not > the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, > Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even > though > President Bush declared two months ago that "major > combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that > the > end of that stage has not meant the beginning of > peace, > that the Army has assigned new duties for her > husband > and his men that have nothing to do with toppling > Saddam > Hussein. > > And anger that the talk in Washington is not of > taking > troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. > > "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of > three > children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first > left, > I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what > they > trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They > are > not doing what they trained for. They have become > police > in a place they're not welcome." > > Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery > face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat > for > the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May > 1, > more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in > hostile > encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number > of > deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. > > Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, > Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething > spouses, > most of them wives, had to be escorted from the > session. > > "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming > for > their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, > director of > community services at Fort Stewart. > > The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond > the > military bases. According to a Gallup poll published > on > Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the > war > is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 > percent > in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who > think > the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent > in > May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. > > The latest poll was based on telephone interviews > with > 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three > percentage points. > > News this week has not helped. Today, eight American > soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an > enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. > > "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving > crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim > Franklin, > whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 > Bravo, > also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's > husband. > > In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green > Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being > killed. > The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground > troops who are performing mundane activities like > buying > a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash > pit. > > Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs > are > on. With major battles over and little use for field > cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been > running checkpoints and searching houses north of > Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. > > The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along > with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow > ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to > meet > at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is > long > and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll > call > and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, > quiet > and empty. > > Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. > Fort > Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the > Fourth of July. > > "I tried every trick in the book to get out of > this," > said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear > detachment for the artillery soldiers who has > remained > here. > > There is not much glory in helping single mothers > have > their cars repaired or overseeing insurance > benefits. > But that is the work of the officer left behind, and > in > the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. > > "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. > > Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More > and > more people are dreading that knock on the door. But > === message truncated === ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From jesselyne at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 15:51:36 2003 From: jesselyne at yahoo.com (Jesse Lyne) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:04 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <3F0746DC.8030502@execpc.com> Message-ID: <20030705215136.3488.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Allen and All, I agree with Allen here. The body count is growing, as is the evidence the reasons for this war are utterly bogus. This is not news for us but, incredibly, it is for many Americans. I think we need to get more visible on this and push, push, push. Having said that, once the Duct Tape Fashion Show and MAPC Retreat are over, I'm going to take a little break between July 26th and Fightin' Bob Fest. Frankly, I'm beat. I meant to take a break after May 3 and it never happened. Don't get me wrong; the stuff people have been doing is excellent - Anti-Racism, the Retreat, Tabling, St. Theater, etc. But I feel our focus is drifting a little bit and people are still dying from this war... Jesse Lyne --- Allen Ruff wrote: > Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing > some public > agitational work, perhaps something like another > mass picket at Kohl's > office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A > call to the Democrats > demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, > and Rumsfeld > exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we > were lied to, and > such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our > Congressional > delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? > > Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the > Iraqis to "bring it > on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and > those of who knows > how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is > there anything worse > than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at > being a Marlboro MAn?) > Since its now more and more understood by the genral > public that the > causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US > aggression, were > largely fabricated, and since more and more troops > are dying, then its > only logical that we should be calling for an end to > the occupation. > > Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 > From: portsideMod@netscape.net > Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com > To: portside@yahoogroups.com > > > > Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > > > FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the > other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, > there's a man in uniform at the door." > > Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in > Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She > dashed > to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. > This can't be happening to me." > > > A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It > was > a neighbor locked out of his house. > > Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but > not > the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, > Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even > though > President Bush declared two months ago that "major > combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that > the > end of that stage has not meant the beginning of > peace, > that the Army has assigned new duties for her > husband > and his men that have nothing to do with toppling > Saddam > Hussein. > > And anger that the talk in Washington is not of > taking > troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. > > "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of > three > children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first > left, > I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what > they > trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They > are > not doing what they trained for. They have become > police > in a place they're not welcome." > > Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery > face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat > for > the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May > 1, > more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in > hostile > encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number > of > deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. > > Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, > Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething > spouses, > most of them wives, had to be escorted from the > session. > > "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming > for > their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, > director of > community services at Fort Stewart. > > The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond > the > military bases. According to a Gallup poll published > on > Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the > war > is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 > percent > in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who > think > the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent > in > May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. > > The latest poll was based on telephone interviews > with > 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three > percentage points. > > News this week has not helped. Today, eight American > soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an > enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. > > "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving > crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim > Franklin, > whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 > Bravo, > also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's > husband. > > In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green > Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being > killed. > The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground > troops who are performing mundane activities like > buying > a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash > pit. > > Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs > are > on. With major battles over and little use for field > cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been > running checkpoints and searching houses north of > Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. > > The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along > with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow > ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to > meet > at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is > long > and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll > call > and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, > quiet > and empty. > > Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. > Fort > Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the > Fourth of July. > > "I tried every trick in the book to get out of > this," > said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear > detachment for the artillery soldiers who has > remained > here. > > There is not much glory in helping single mothers > have > their cars repaired or overseeing insurance > benefits. > But that is the work of the officer left behind, and > in > the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. > > "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. > > Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More > and > more people are dreading that knock on the door. But > === message truncated === ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From jesselyne at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 15:53:00 2003 From: jesselyne at yahoo.com (Jesse Lyne) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:04 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <3F0746DC.8030502@execpc.com> Message-ID: <20030705215300.3655.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Allen and All, I agree with Allen here. The body count is growing, as is the evidence the reasons for this war are utterly bogus. This is not news for us but, incredibly, it is for many Americans. I think we need to get more visible on this and push, push, push. Having said that, once the Duct Tape Fashion Show and MAPC Retreat are over, I'm going to take a little break between July 26th and Fightin' Bob Fest. Frankly, I'm beat. I meant to take a break after May 3 and it never happened. Don't get me wrong; the stuff people have been doing is excellent - Anti-Racism, the Retreat, Tabling, St. Theater, etc. But I feel our focus is drifting a little bit and people are still dying from this war... Jesse Lyne --- Allen Ruff wrote: > Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing > some public > agitational work, perhaps something like another > mass picket at Kohl's > office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A > call to the Democrats > demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, > and Rumsfeld > exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we > were lied to, and > such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our > Congressional > delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? > > Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the > Iraqis to "bring it > on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and > those of who knows > how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is > there anything worse > than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at > being a Marlboro MAn?) > Since its now more and more understood by the genral > public that the > causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US > aggression, were > largely fabricated, and since more and more troops > are dying, then its > only logical that we should be calling for an end to > the occupation. > > Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 > From: portsideMod@netscape.net > Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com > To: portside@yahoogroups.com > > > > Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > > > FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the > other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, > there's a man in uniform at the door." > > Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in > Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She > dashed > to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. > This can't be happening to me." > > > A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It > was > a neighbor locked out of his house. > > Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but > not > the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, > Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even > though > President Bush declared two months ago that "major > combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that > the > end of that stage has not meant the beginning of > peace, > that the Army has assigned new duties for her > husband > and his men that have nothing to do with toppling > Saddam > Hussein. > > And anger that the talk in Washington is not of > taking > troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. > > "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of > three > children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first > left, > I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what > they > trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They > are > not doing what they trained for. They have become > police > in a place they're not welcome." > > Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery > face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat > for > the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May > 1, > more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in > hostile > encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number > of > deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. > > Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, > Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething > spouses, > most of them wives, had to be escorted from the > session. > > "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming > for > their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, > director of > community services at Fort Stewart. > > The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond > the > military bases. According to a Gallup poll published > on > Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the > war > is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 > percent > in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who > think > the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent > in > May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. > > The latest poll was based on telephone interviews > with > 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three > percentage points. > > News this week has not helped. Today, eight American > soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an > enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. > > "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving > crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim > Franklin, > whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 > Bravo, > also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's > husband. > > In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green > Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being > killed. > The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground > troops who are performing mundane activities like > buying > a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash > pit. > > Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs > are > on. With major battles over and little use for field > cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been > running checkpoints and searching houses north of > Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. > > The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along > with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow > ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to > meet > at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is > long > and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll > call > and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, > quiet > and empty. > > Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. > Fort > Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the > Fourth of July. > > "I tried every trick in the book to get out of > this," > said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear > detachment for the artillery soldiers who has > remained > here. > > There is not much glory in helping single mothers > have > their cars repaired or overseeing insurance > benefits. > But that is the work of the officer left behind, and > in > the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. > > "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. > > Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More > and > more people are dreading that knock on the door. But > === message truncated === ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From jesselyne at yahoo.com Sat Jul 5 15:54:03 2003 From: jesselyne at yahoo.com (Jesse Lyne) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:04 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <3F0746DC.8030502@execpc.com> Message-ID: <20030705215403.3704.qmail@web14203.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Allen and All, I agree with Allen here. The body count is growing, as is the evidence the reasons for this war are utterly bogus. This is not news for us but, incredibly, it is for many Americans. I think we need to get more visible on this and push, push, push. Having said that, once the Duct Tape Fashion Show and MAPC Retreat are over, I'm going to take a little break between July 26th and Fightin' Bob Fest. Frankly, I'm beat. I meant to take a break after May 3 and it never happened. Don't get me wrong; the stuff people have been doing is excellent - Anti-Racism, the Retreat, Tabling, St. Theater, etc. But I feel our focus is drifting a little bit and people are still dying from this war... Jesse Lyne --- Allen Ruff wrote: > Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing > some public > agitational work, perhaps something like another > mass picket at Kohl's > office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A > call to the Democrats > demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, > and Rumsfeld > exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we > were lied to, and > such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our > Congressional > delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? > > Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the > Iraqis to "bring it > on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and > those of who knows > how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is > there anything worse > than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at > being a Marlboro MAn?) > Since its now more and more understood by the genral > public that the > causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US > aggression, were > largely fabricated, and since more and more troops > are dying, then its > only logical that we should be calling for an end to > the occupation. > > Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 > From: portsideMod@netscape.net > Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com > To: portside@yahoogroups.com > > > > Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > > > FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the > other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, > there's a man in uniform at the door." > > Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in > Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She > dashed > to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. > This can't be happening to me." > > > A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It > was > a neighbor locked out of his house. > > Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but > not > the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, > Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even > though > President Bush declared two months ago that "major > combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that > the > end of that stage has not meant the beginning of > peace, > that the Army has assigned new duties for her > husband > and his men that have nothing to do with toppling > Saddam > Hussein. > > And anger that the talk in Washington is not of > taking > troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. > > "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of > three > children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first > left, > I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what > they > trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They > are > not doing what they trained for. They have become > police > in a place they're not welcome." > > Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery > face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat > for > the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May > 1, > more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in > hostile > encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number > of > deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. > > Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, > Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething > spouses, > most of them wives, had to be escorted from the > session. > > "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming > for > their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, > director of > community services at Fort Stewart. > > The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond > the > military bases. According to a Gallup poll published > on > Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the > war > is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 > percent > in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who > think > the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent > in > May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. > > The latest poll was based on telephone interviews > with > 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three > percentage points. > > News this week has not helped. Today, eight American > soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an > enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. > > "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving > crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim > Franklin, > whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 > Bravo, > also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's > husband. > > In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green > Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being > killed. > The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground > troops who are performing mundane activities like > buying > a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash > pit. > > Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs > are > on. With major battles over and little use for field > cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been > running checkpoints and searching houses north of > Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. > > The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along > with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow > ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to > meet > at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is > long > and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll > call > and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, > quiet > and empty. > > Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. > Fort > Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the > Fourth of July. > > "I tried every trick in the book to get out of > this," > said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear > detachment for the artillery soldiers who has > remained > here. > > There is not much glory in helping single mothers > have > their cars repaired or overseeing insurance > benefits. > But that is the work of the officer left behind, and > in > the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. > > "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. > > Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More > and > more people are dreading that knock on the door. But > === message truncated === ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From fpaynter at sandhilltech.com Sat Jul 5 19:12:37 2003 From: fpaynter at sandhilltech.com (Frank Paynter) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:04 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <3F0746DC.8030502@execpc.com> Message-ID: <000501c3434a$ed569060$6401a8c0@DOWNSTAIRS> I think MAPC should be doing something under our own auspices to end this perpetual war. At work last week in a state office building, we were reminded over the email system that we were in a state of war (condition yellow) so we should maintain security, wear identification, etc. This is SO bogus I want to throw-up. Look out Liberia, here we come. Staging ground for the African campaign.... -----Original Message----- From: madpeace-discuss-bounces@madpeace.org [mailto:madpeace-discuss-bounces@madpeace.org] On Behalf Of Allen Ruff Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 4:45 PM To: MAPC Discuss Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing some public agitational work, perhaps something like another mass picket at Kohl's office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A call to the Democrats demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we were lied to, and such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our Congressional delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the Iraqis to "bring it on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and those of who knows how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is there anything worse than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at being a Marlboro MAn?) Since its now more and more understood by the genral public that the causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US aggression, were largely fabricated, and since more and more troops are dying, then its only logical that we should be calling for an end to the occupation. Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, there's a man in uniform at the door." Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She dashed to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. This can't be happening to me." A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It was a neighbor locked out of his house. Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but not the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even though President Bush declared two months ago that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that the end of that stage has not meant the beginning of peace, that the Army has assigned new duties for her husband and his men that have nothing to do with toppling Saddam Hussein. And anger that the talk in Washington is not of taking troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of three children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first left, I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what they trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They are not doing what they trained for. They have become police in a place they're not welcome." Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat for the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May 1, more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in hostile encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number of deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething spouses, most of them wives, had to be escorted from the session. "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming for their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, director of community services at Fort Stewart. The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond the military bases. According to a Gallup poll published on Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the war is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 percent in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who think the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent in May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. The latest poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three percentage points. News this week has not helped. Today, eight American soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim Franklin, whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 Bravo, also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's husband. In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being killed. The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground troops who are performing mundane activities like buying a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash pit. Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs are on. With major battles over and little use for field cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been running checkpoints and searching houses north of Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to meet at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is long and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll call and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, quiet and empty. Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. Fort Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the Fourth of July. "I tried every trick in the book to get out of this," said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear detachment for the artillery soldiers who has remained here. There is not much glory in helping single mothers have their cars repaired or overseeing insurance benefits. But that is the work of the officer left behind, and in the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More and more people are dreading that knock on the door. But there are other worries, too. War can find the weakest seam of a military marriage and split it open. After the Persian Gulf war, divorce rates at certain Army bases shot up as much as 50 percent, an Army study showed. Advertisement "That's my biggest fear," Valerie Decal, the wife of an artillery sergeant, said. "That my husband will come back different. Even if you're G.I. Joe, if you have to kill someone, that's not something you just forget about." Ms. Decal is stumped about what to do when the doorbell rings and her 19-month-old son runs to answer, saying, "Dada, dada." "What do I tell him?" she asked. Yeshica Padilla, wife of an artillery lieutenant, said her toddler daughter threw a tantrum the other day, saying she wanted to eat pizza on the floor "with Daddy." And Ms. Padilla keeps having the same dream. "I can see my husband, but he is hiding from me," she said. No Bulldogs have been killed, but their wives are constantly bracing for it. " 'Names pending release, names pending release' - I hate that expression," Ms. Decal said of the way the military announces casualties and being told who they are. The women console themselves by making bracelets for their husbands and sending care packages. Ms. Padilla included a Best Buy circular in a recent box at her husband's request. Winter Travis shipped the latest issue of Parents magazine, not at her husband's request. Ms. Travis is seven months pregnant and married to an artillery sergeant. "And whether he likes it or not, he's coming back a daddy," she said. Great efforts are made to stay upbeat. On a recent day, a group of Bulldog wives chatted in Ms. Leija's living room, popping cheese cubes in their mouths and swigging lemonade. But things are becoming more intense, they said. The widening chaos in Iraq means that their husbands will stay longer, and the women do not need a poll to tell them that public opinion is shifting. "When my husband first deployed, the people at work were so sweet, giving me days off, saying take whatever time I need," recalled Ms. Franklin, who answers telephones at a financial institution near the fort. "But it's not like that today. Now they look at me kind of funny and say: 'Why do you need a day off now? Isn't the war over?' " __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ _______________________________________________ discuss@madpeace.org mailing list http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss From sondelaloma at hotmail.com Fri Jul 4 12:33:15 2003 From: sondelaloma at hotmail.com (Rafael Bernabe) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:04 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] wmd/something light Message-ID: clever: go the google page, put weapons of mass destruction in the search box and press the I feel lucky button, read the message B _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From madpeace-mapc-bounces at madpeace.org Sat Jul 5 23:07:34 2003 From: madpeace-mapc-bounces at madpeace.org (madpeace-mapc-bounces@madpeace.org) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:05 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Forward of moderated message Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: nasser abufarha Subject: [al-awda-wi-announce] Fwd: [alawda-wi] Fwd: A Costly Friendship By PATRICK SEALE Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:16:55 -0700 (PDT) Size: 73050 Url: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030705/091183bb/attachment.eml From bflosue at earthlink.net Sun Jul 6 01:14:32 2003 From: bflosue at earthlink.net (Sue Edward) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:05 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] The List Message-ID: <3F07B038.3020604@earthlink.net> http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/33/features-pelisek2.php The List by Christine Pelisek ? Number of al Qaeda or allied terror suspects arrested by officials since 9/11: 2,700. ? Number of U.S. citizens indicted by a federal grand jury for al Qaeda?related activities: 5. ? Number of immigrants detained after 9/11 ? some up to eight months: 762. ? Number of people arrested by the LAPD?s anti-terrorism bureau since 9/11: 75. ? Number of convicted al Qaeda members: 0. ? Number of people the Justice Department charged with terrorism in the first two months of 2003: 56. ? After a Philadelphia Inquirer investigation, the number of those cases that were found to have nothing to do with terrorism: 41. ? Number of cases that involved Latinos using phony Social Security numbers: 28. ? As of April 22, number of passengers in San Francisco who have been detained for questioning because of the government?s ?no-fly list?: 339. ? Since the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the number of people secretly detained without charges as ?material witnesses? in the 9/11 attacks: 50. ? Percentage of those held up to 90 days: 90. ? Year that many of the USA Patriot Act provisions, including one that gives the FBI greater authority to investigate libraries, are set to expire: 2005. ? As of June 27, number of states that have adopted measures protesting the USA Patriot Act: 3. ? As of June 27, number of cities, towns and counties adopting measures: 129. ? Number of lawsuits the ACLU is juggling on the terrorism front: 33. ? Percentage of librarians who said they ?probably? would defy an agent?s order to see patrons? records: 16.1. ? Percentage of librarians who said they ?definitely? would defy an agent?s order to see patrons? records: 5.5. ? Number of pages in the USA PATRIOT Act: 340. ? Number of House co-sponsors of a bill that would exempt libraries and bookstores from Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act: 122. ? Number from California: 20. ? Under the proposed USA PATRIOT Act II, the number of additional crimes that would be punishable by death: 15. ? Under the proposed USA PATRIOT Act II, the number of days the government could wiretap a suspected terrorist without a judge?s approval: 15. ? Number of computer intrusions or hackers investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002: 814. ? Number of computer intrusions or hacker investigations still pending in the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002: 1,956. ? Number of computer intrusion or hacker convictions or pretrial diversions by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002: 101. ? Number of state and local bomb techs trained in 2002: 882. ? Number of terrorist cases investigated, both pending and received, by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002: 15,455. ? Number of terrorist cases closed by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002: 5,533. ? Number of terrorism-related convictions by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002: 251. ? Number of terrorism convictions by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2002: 153. ? Number of hazardous-duty mobile robots in the LAPD Bomb Squad: 2. ? Cost of each: $160,000. ? Weight: 350 pounds. ? High-speed capability: 3.5 mph. ? Number of times deployed in 2003: 0. ? In a poll of 2,000 Americans conducted by National Public Radio and others, the percentage who felt it was more important to protect constitutional rights than to find every potential terrorist: 44. ? Percentage who said finding the terrorists was more important: 47. ? Percentage who believe the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms: 32. ? President Bush?s defense-budget request for 2004: $380 billion. ? Amount set aside for missile defense by the U.S. Senate: $9.1 billion. ? Amount set aside for developing chemical-and biological-weapon detection and protection technology: $181 million. ? Amount set aside for 12 civil-support teams to help first responders in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack by terrorists: $88.4 million. ? Number of major chemical facilities nationwide: 15,000. ? If attacked, the number of those facilities that would endanger the lives of a million or more Americans: 100. ? Number of the government-appointed Defense Policy Board members out of 30 who were linked to companies that have won more than $76 billion in defense contracts in 2001 and 2002: 9. ? Requested down payment in 2002 for the Pentagon?s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agencies? Total Information Awareness System (TIPS), a system that allows the government to study the purchases and activities of its citizens: $200 million. ? When it was defunded: March 2003. ? Percentage of Americans TIPS sought to turn into snitches before it was dismantled: one in 24. ? Right after 9/11, percentage of Americans who favored putting Arabs under ?special surveillance? like that used against Japanese-Americans during World War II: 32. ? Percentage who favored ?heightened surveillance of Middle Eastern immigrants?: 66. ? Number of days Nacer Fathi Mustafa and his father, both American citizens of Palestinian descent, were held in a Texas jail after being falsely accused on September 15, 2001, of altering their passports: 67. ? Number of countries whose citizens are required to register with the Bush Administration?s National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS): 25. ? Number of people who have registered across the country with NSEERS: 138,053. ? Total number of men and boys who showed up at immigration offices to register for NSEERS: 82,414. ? Total number of men and boys detained after registering for NSEERS: 2,747. ? Number of those subjected to enforcement actions: 739. ? Number of those who were considered by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services as ?criminals?: 130. ? Number of those held in custody: 114. ? Total number linked to terrorism: 11. ? Estimated number of Iranians arrested in Los Angeles by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services as part of NSEERS: 700. ? Number of illegal immigrants removed from the United States in March 2003: 14,137. ? Number of those considered ?criminals? by the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services: 5,818. ? Number deported: 3,556. ? Number deemed ?inadmissible?: 10,581. ? Number of immigration inspections in March 2003 in the U.S.: 34,941,527. ? Number of inspections conducted at airports: 5,941,752. ? Number of inspections conducted at land borders: 27,274,733. ? Number of inspections conducted at sea: 1,239,029. ? Number of applications for asylum in March 2003: 4,670. ? Number of applications for asylum approved: 1,141. ? Number of applications for asylum denied: 1,252. ? Country that submitted the most asylum applications: Indonesia. ? From January to August 2002, the number of ?no match? letters the Social Security Administration sent out to employers asking them to explain why names and numbers of their employees didn?t match: 800,000. ? Estimated number of immigrant workers who lost their jobs because of Operation Tarmac raids at airports, the new citizenship requirements for screeners and Social Security ?no match? letters: 10,000. ? In L.A., the number of employees out of 150 at Super Assi Market who lost their jobs after receiving Social Security Administration ?no match? letters in August 2002: 60. ? Number of applications to surveil suspected foreign-intelligence and terrorist targets under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2000: 1,012. ? Number of applications approved in 2002: 1,228. ? Number of FISA warrants challenged by federal judges in 2002: 2. ? Number of times the FISA court has admonished the FBI for misrepresenting facts since 9/11: 75. ? Number of terrorist attacks around the world in 2001: 355. ? Number of terrorist attacks around the world in 2002: 199. ? Number of deaths due to terrorist attacks: 725. ? Number of people killed in the terrorist bombing at the nightclub in Bali: 200. ? Number of Iraqi civilians killed during the recent war: 3,240. ? Number of Afghan civilians killed during the 2001 war: 1,800. ? New name of the Immigration and Naturalization Service: Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. ? Number of foreign nationals inspected at LAX in 2000: 4,465,206. ? Number of foreign nationals inspected at LAX in 2001: 4,330,501. ? Number of foreign nationals inspected at LAX in 2002: 3,655,193. ? Number of applicants refused entry at LAX ? excluding people who claimed asylum, parole cases or those subjected to deferred inspection in 2000: 3,161. ? Number of similar applicants refused entry at LAX in 2001: 3,015. ? Number of similar applicants refused entry at LAX in 2002: 3,797. ? Number of Japanese rounded up ? most of them U.S. citizens ? on the West Coast during World War II: 120,000. ? Number of allegedly ?subversive? aliens President Woodrow Wilson?s attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, rounded up for deportation during the Palmer raids: 3,000. ? Number of suspected al Qaeda members the U.S. claims it has detained at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba: 680. ? Number of nationalities: 42. ? Number of confirmed suicide attempts by Guant?namo Bay prisoners: 28. ? Number of prisoners under monitoring by a psychiatrist in the newly opened mental ward at Guant?namo Bay: 24. ? Number of hours prisoners were handcuffed, shackled, made to wear mittens, surgical masks and ear muffs, and blindfolded by the use of taped-over ski goggles during their flight to Guant?namo Bay: 22. ? Amount the NYPD spends per day on security since 9/11: $700,000. ? Number of full- and part-time airport screeners at 420 U.S. airports: 55,600. ? Number of screeners Congress has sought to limit the work force to: 50,000. ? Number of passenger and baggage screeners employed by LAX as of June 5, 2003: 2,695. ? Number of those recently fired for poor performance: 360. ? Average hourly wage for screeners nationwide: $13 to $14. ? Number of health-care workers Bush announced would be given the first set of shots to protect against an intentional release of the smallpox virus: 500,000. ? Number of hospitals nationwide that refused to participate: 80. ? In the 90 days after 9/11, the number of anthrax scares in the L.A. Unified School District: 33. ? Yearly salary Donald Rumsfeld was making while a board member of ABB, the engineering company that won a $200 million contract to provide the design and key components of two light-water nuclear reactors to North Korea in 2000: $190,000. ? Average pay increase of defense-company CEOs from 2001 to 2002: 79 percent. ? Average pay increase of company CEOs from 2001 to 2002: 6 percent. ? Pay increase of the CEO of Lockheed Martin, the country?s largest defense contractor: 400 percent. ? The distance from which the Pentagon wants to be able to identify people with its new radar-based device that identifies people by the way they walk: 500 feet. ? Amount U.S. government agencies have spent in the past five years on camera surveillance technology ? with a notable increase in spending proposals after 9/11: $50 million. ? Percentage funneled toward facial-recognition programs: 90. ? Percentage of the time that face-recognition biometric technology turned up false positives in matching scans with a database according to a study by the National Institute for Standards in Technology: 43. ? Cost of the proposed national-identity-card system: $4 billion. ? Amount the 9/11 Independent Commission originally received to explore the causes of the attacks: $3 million. ? Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalized gambling: $5 million. ? Amount a commission was given to look into the Columbia shuttle crash: $50 million. ? Amount the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from the family of Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz: $1 million. ? Amount made available by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from the 2003 budget to California to beef up security at local ports: $28,511,178. ? Amount given to the Los Angeles Harbor Department: $800,000. ? Amount given to the city of Long Beach and the Port of Long Beach: $10 million. ? Number of communities in Los Angeles County that took part in weekly vigils to protest the war with Iraq: 45. ? Number of people arrested during an anti-war protest on March 20, which forced the police to close down a section of Wilshire Boulevard: 14. ? Number of law-enforcement officers deployed: 600. ? Number of peaceful demonstrators herded into a trap and arrested during a September 2002 protest near the White House: 400. ? Number of protesters arrested in San Francisco the day after the Iraq war started: 2,300. ? Percentage increase in membership of the ACLU since 9/11: 25. From vcrs at post.harvard.edu Sun Jul 6 15:47:03 2003 From: vcrs at post.harvard.edu (Virginia Ravenscroft-Scott) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:05 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <20030705215127.94616.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030705215127.94616.qmail@web14202.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I agree totally with Allen's post and with 90% of Jesse's... I just wanted to quibble that the things Jesse lists that people are doing (which he does not denigrate) are not examples of focus drift; they are all instrumental to our main mission, which includes building a long-term sustainable organization with roots spread across the city. Without those long-term goals and constant work we will shrivel up and die. At the same time, I totally agree that we are lacking (not focus but) *energy and drive* for the short-term, bigger, higher-profile activities that Allen and Jesse are both calling for. It would be a good idea always to have at least one of those simmering along. Rae has a suggestion I like... I'll let her bring it up. And yet, on another inward-looking note, this exhaustion and burnout that Jesse mentions seems to be a widespread phenomenon. I've heard from several people that they are just worn out; this happened to me too at one point. There seems to be a tendency of the organization for individuals, or a few individuals, to take large burdens on themselves--becoming the "point person" for an event and being responsible for *everything*. This is a common organizational failing, but that's no reason not to try to improve. Maybe a point of discussion at the retreat could be, Does this really happen a lot? If so why does this happen? Are burdens not shared enough--why? Are there not enough people who feel ownership of each major project--why? Just a thought. >Dear Allen and All, >I agree with Allen here. The body count is growing, >as is the evidence the reasons for this war are >utterly bogus. This is not news for us but, >incredibly, it is for many Americans. I think we need >to get more visible on this and push, push, push. >Having said that, once the Duct Tape Fashion Show and >MAPC Retreat are over, I'm going to take a little >break between July 26th and Fightin' Bob Fest. >Frankly, I'm beat. I meant to take a break after May >3 and it never happened. >Don't get me wrong; the stuff people have been doing >is excellent - Anti-Racism, the Retreat, Tabling, St. >Theater, etc. But I feel our focus is drifting a >little bit and people are still dying from this war... >Jesse Lyne >--- Allen Ruff wrote: >> Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing >> some public >> agitational work, perhaps something like another >> mass picket at Kohl's >> office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A >> call to the Democrats >> demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, >> and Rumsfeld >> exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we >> were lied to, and >> such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our >> Congressional >> delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? >> >> Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the >> Iraqis to "bring it >> on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and >> those of who knows >> how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is >> there anything worse >> than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at >> being a Marlboro MAn?) >> Since its now more and more understood by the genral >> public that the >> causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US >> aggression, were >> largely fabricated, and since more and more troops >> are dying, then its >> only logical that we should be calling for an end to > > the occupation. > > > > Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq >> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 >> From: portsideMod@netscape.net >> Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com >> To: portside@yahoogroups.com >> >> >> >> Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq >> By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN >> > >> >> FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the >> other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > > daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, >> there's a man in uniform at the door." >> >> Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in >> Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She >> dashed >> to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. >> This can't be happening to me." >> >> >> A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It >> was >> a neighbor locked out of his house. >> >> Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but >> not >> the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, >> Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even >> though >> President Bush declared two months ago that "major >> combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that >> the >> end of that stage has not meant the beginning of >> peace, >> that the Army has assigned new duties for her >> husband >> and his men that have nothing to do with toppling >> Saddam >> Hussein. >> >> And anger that the talk in Washington is not of >> taking >> troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. >> >> "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of >> three >> children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first >> left, >> I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what >> they >> trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They >> are >> not doing what they trained for. They have become >> police >> in a place they're not welcome." >> >> Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery >> face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat >> for >> the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May >> 1, >> more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in >> hostile >> encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number >> of >> deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. >> >> Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, >> Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething >> spouses, >> most of them wives, had to be escorted from the >> session. >> >> "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming >> for >> their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, >> director of >> community services at Fort Stewart. >> >> The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond >> the >> military bases. According to a Gallup poll published >> on >> Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the >> war >> is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 >> percent >> in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who >> think >> the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent >> in >> May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. >> >> The latest poll was based on telephone interviews >> with >> 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three >> percentage points. >> >> News this week has not helped. Today, eight American >> soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an >> enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. >> >> "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving >> crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim >> Franklin, >> whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 >> Bravo, >> also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's >> husband. >> >> In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green >> Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being >> killed. >> The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground >> troops who are performing mundane activities like >> buying >> a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash >> pit. >> >> Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs >> are >> on. With major battles over and little use for field >> cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been >> running checkpoints and searching houses north of >> Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. >> >> The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along >> with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow >> ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to >> meet >> at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is >> long >> and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll >> call >> and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, >> quiet >> and empty. >> >> Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. >> Fort >> Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the >> Fourth of July. >> >> "I tried every trick in the book to get out of >> this," >> said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear >> detachment for the artillery soldiers who has > > remained >> here. >> >> There is not much glory in helping single mothers >> have >> their cars repaired or overseeing insurance >> benefits. >> But that is the work of the officer left behind, and >> in >> the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. >> >> "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. >> >> Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More >> and >> more people are dreading that knock on the door. But >> >=== message truncated === > > >===== > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! >http://sbc.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >discuss@madpeace.org mailing list >http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss From alruff at execpc.com Sun Jul 6 20:10:09 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:05 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] "Bring 'em on" response from a former soldier Message-ID: <3F08BA61.5020700@execpc.com> A Former Special Forces Soldier Responds to Bush's Invitation for Iraqis to Attack US Troops "BRING 'EM ON?" _______________________________________________________________________ By STAN GOFF http://www.counterpunch.org/goff07032003.html In 1970, when I arrived at my unit, Company A, 4th Battalion/503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, in what was then the Republic of Vietnam, I was charged up for a fight. I believed that if we didn't stop the communists in Vietnam, we'd eventually be fighting this global conspiracy in the streets of Hot Springs, Arkansas. I'd been toughened by Basic Training, Infantry Training and Parachute Training, taught how to use my weapons and equipment, and I was confident in my ability to vanquish the skinny unter-menschen. So I was dismayed when one of my new colleagues--a veteran who'd been there ten months--told me, "We are losing this war." Not only that, he said, if I wanted to survive for my one year there, I had to understand one very basic thing. All Vietnamese were the enemy, and for us, the grunts on the ground, this was a race war. Within one month, it was apparent that everything he told me was true, and that every reason that was being given to the American public for the war was not true. We had a battalion commander whom I never saw. He would fly over in a Loach helicopter and give cavalier instructions to do things like "take your unit 13 kilometers to the north." In the Central Highlands, 13 kilometers is something we had to hack out with machetes, in 98-degree heat, carrying sometimes 90 pounds over our body weights, over steep, slippery terrain. The battalion commander never picked up a machete as far as we knew, and after these directives he'd fly back to an air-conditioned headquarters in LZ English near Bong-son. We often fantasized together about shooting his helicopter down as a way of relieving our deep resentment against this faceless, starched and spit-shined despot. Yesterday, when I read that US Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em on," the first image in my mind was a 20-year-old soldier in an ever-more-fragile marriage, who'd been away from home for 8 months. He participated in the initial invasion, and was told he'd be home for the 4th of July. He has a newfound familiarity with corpses, and everything he thought he knew last year is now under revision. He is sent out into the streets of Fallujah (or some other city), where he has already been shot at once or twice with automatic weapons or an RPG, and his nerves are raw. He is wearing Kevlar and ceramic body armor, a Kevlar helmet, a load carrying harness with ammunition, grenades, flex-cuffs, first-aid gear, water, and assorted other paraphernalia. His weapon weighs seven pounds, ten with a double magazine. His boots are bloused, and his long-sleeve shirt is buttoned at the wrist. It is between 100-110 degrees Fahrenheit at midday. He's been eating MRE's three times a day, when he has an appetite in this heat, and even his urine is beginning to smell like preservatives. Mosquitoes and sand flies plague him in the evenings, and he probably pulls a guard shift every night, never sleeping straight through. He and his comrades are beginning to get on each others' nerves. The rumors of 'going-home, not-going-home' are keeping him on an emotional roller coaster. Directives from on high are contradictory, confusing, and often stupid. The whole population seems hostile to him and he is developing a deep animosity for Iraq and all its people--as well as for official narratives. This is the lad who will hear from someone that George W. Bush, dressed in a suit with a belly full of rich food, just hurled a manly taunt from a 72-degree studio at the 'non-existent' Iraqi resistance. This de facto president is finally seeing his poll numbers fall. Even chauvinist paranoia has a half-life, it seems. His legitimacy is being eroded as even the mainstream press has discovered now that the pretext for the war was a lie. It may have been control over the oil, after all. Anti-war forces are regrouping as an anti-occupation movement. Now, exercising his one true talent--blundering--George W. Bush has begun the improbable process of alienating the very troops upon whom he depends to carry out the neo-con ambition of restructuring the world by arms. Somewhere in Balad, or Fallujah, or Baghdad, there is a soldier telling a new replacement, "We are losing this war." Stan Goff is the author of Hideous Dream: A Soldier's Memoir of the US Invasion of Haiti (Soft Skull Press, 2000) and of the upcoming book Full Spectrum Disorder (Soft Skull Press, 2003). He retired in 1996 from the US Army, from 3rd Special Forces. He lives in Raleigh. He can be reached at: stan@ncwarn.org. Copyright 2003. All rights reserved. CounterPunch is a project of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity. ***** From kck34 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 10:34:07 2003 From: kck34 at yahoo.com (Keith Kinion) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <3F0746DC.8030502@execpc.com> Message-ID: <20030707163407.17245.qmail@web10102.mail.yahoo.com> Bush as a Marboro man?...Thats hardly an apt description of Bush...He is all bluster and big talk...Its easy to talk big when he is tucked away in the White House, surrounded by secret service goons...He isn't not risking his life... He is no cowboy...He has been a coward for a long time, from the time he went AWOL during Vietman to his tough talk as President today...He is more the mafia don than Marboro man... The point is, Bush is a real horses ass and he is am embarassment to not only Americans but to the human race in general... --- Allen Ruff wrote: > Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing > some public > agitational work, perhaps something like another > mass picket at Kohl's > office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A > call to the Democrats > demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, > and Rumsfeld > exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we > were lied to, and > such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our > Congressional > delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? > > Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the > Iraqis to "bring it > on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and > those of who knows > how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is > there anything worse > than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at > being a Marlboro MAn?) > Since its now more and more understood by the genral > public that the > causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US > aggression, were > largely fabricated, and since more and more troops > are dying, then its > only logical that we should be calling for an end to > the occupation. > > Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 > From: portsideMod@netscape.net > Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com > To: portside@yahoogroups.com > > > > Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > > > FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the > other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, > there's a man in uniform at the door." > > Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in > Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She > dashed > to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. > This can't be happening to me." > > > A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It > was > a neighbor locked out of his house. > > Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but > not > the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, > Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even > though > President Bush declared two months ago that "major > combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that > the > end of that stage has not meant the beginning of > peace, > that the Army has assigned new duties for her > husband > and his men that have nothing to do with toppling > Saddam > Hussein. > > And anger that the talk in Washington is not of > taking > troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. > > "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of > three > children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first > left, > I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what > they > trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They > are > not doing what they trained for. They have become > police > in a place they're not welcome." > > Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery > face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat > for > the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May > 1, > more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in > hostile > encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number > of > deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. > > Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, > Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething > spouses, > most of them wives, had to be escorted from the > session. > > "They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming > for > their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, > director of > community services at Fort Stewart. > > The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond > the > military bases. According to a Gallup poll published > on > Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the > war > is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 > percent > in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who > think > the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent > in > May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. > > The latest poll was based on telephone interviews > with > 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three > percentage points. > > News this week has not helped. Today, eight American > soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an > enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. > > "The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving > crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim > Franklin, > whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 > Bravo, > also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's > husband. > > In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green > Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being > killed. > The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground > troops who are performing mundane activities like > buying > a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash > pit. > > Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs > are > on. With major battles over and little use for field > cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been > running checkpoints and searching houses north of > Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. > > The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along > with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow > ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to > meet > at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is > long > and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll > call > and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, > quiet > and empty. > > Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. > Fort > Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the > Fourth of July. > > "I tried every trick in the book to get out of > this," > said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear > detachment for the artillery soldiers who has > remained > here. > > There is not much glory in helping single mothers > have > their cars repaired or overseeing insurance > benefits. > But that is the work of the officer left behind, and > in > the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. > > "The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. > > Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More > and > more people are dreading that knock on the door. But > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From smithbarbara20 at hotmail.com Mon Jul 7 19:33:50 2003 From: smithbarbara20 at hotmail.com (Barbara Smith) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Aceh - 6 wks. into martial law Message-ID: Subject: TAPOL: The situation in Aceh after six weeks of Martial Law TAPOL briefing 30 June 2003 [A formatted version of this document is available on the TAPOL website at tapol.gn.apc.org/st030630.htm] The Situation in Aceh, Indonesia, after six weeks of Martial Law Grave human rights have been committed in Aceh, a province with 4 million inhabitants, located on the northern tip of the island of Sumatra, since the Suharto era. The situation has seriously worsened since President Megawati Sukarnoputri declared martial law on 19 May 2003, and military operations have greatly intensified. A rebel movement, the Free Aceh Movement, GAM, staked a claim for independence in 1976. In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, Aceh was treated as a ‘military operations zone’ (DOM) and military operations largely crushed the movement, but civil society took the brunt of the atrocities from 1989 to 1998, with thousands of killings, rapes and disappearances. A parliamentary mission from Jakarta, which undertook investigations after the fall of Suharto in May 1998, found evidence of about 7,000 atrocities and called for justice against the perpetrators, but its recommendations were ignored. GAM has continued to conduct operations in the province. Its leaders are based in Sweden where they have been given asylum and hold Swedish nationality. In 2000, under the presidency of Abdurrahman Wahid, talks were held between GAM and the Indonesian government, which led to a ‘humanitarian pause’, but military operations continued and fighting between the Indonesian armed forces, TNI, and GAM continued unabated, although DOM had been lifted in August 1998. In December 2002, an accord on the Cessation of Hostilities (COHA) was reached, brokered by a Geneva-based NGO; monitors were placed in key areas throughout Aceh but in March this year, they were forced to withdraw after their offices and personnel came under attack by army-backed mobs. It was clear that the local military in Aceh were out to foil the accord. Talks held in Tokyo on 17 and 18 May to save the accord broke down when Indonesia presented three demands which they knew would be unacceptable to GAM: that GAM should abandon the demand for independence, accept the ‘special autonomy’ granted to Aceh and surrender their weapons. GAM rejected the demands and martial law was imposed on 19 May. The armed forces have deployed to Aceh equipment supplied by Britain, including Hawk aircraft and Scorpion tanks, despite 'assurances' given by Indonesia when the contracts were concluded and on a number of occasions since that the equipment would not be used for offensive or counter-insurgency purposes or in violation of human rights. A number of military chiefs and governments officials told Minister Mike O’Brien they do not regard the 'assurances' as binding and that they will use the equipment as necessary to prosecute the war in Aceh. Conditions under martial law When martial law was imposed, it was announced that an ‘integrated operation’ would start, consisting of a security operation, a law enforcement operation, a government normalisation operation and a humanitarian operation. However, only the security operation has been conducted. Martial law was imposed initially for six months, but top-ranking ministers say that this will be extended if the stated aim of ‘crushing GAM’ has not been achieved. Around 50,000 troops army and special police/Brimob are being deployed in Aceh. War is now raging in Aceh and the conditions there can be summarised as follows: · With the intensification of military operations, hundreds of people have been killed. The Indonesians claim the victims are all GAM members or sympathisers but this is clearly untrue. According to NGOs which have been able to undertake investigations under extremely difficult and risk-laden conditions, 176 civilians were killed in the first four weeks of martial law, 101 were tortured or maltreated, fifty were detained and more than a dozen disappeared. Lack of access has made it impossible to independently verify these figures, or know whether they tell the whole story. Cases of rape by security forces are frequently reported. · The National Human Rights Commission, Komnas HAM, undertook a three-day investigation in Aceh in early June, reported the discovery of mass graves and drew attention to the training of militias by the TNI. Army officers challenged the Commission’s findings and made serious threats regarding their safety if they visited Aceh again. The members held a press conference in Jakarta at which the head of the mission attended with his face bound with a cloth to highlight the gagging to which investigators are subjected. · Foreign journalists and humanitarian organisations are now banned from working in Aceh except with special permission and may only operate alongside the military and in certain towns. All journalists and aid workers must report to the security authorities. Anyone violating the regulations will be ordered to leave within 24 hours. A single entry point into Aceh has been designated and any change of location must be reported to the martial law authority. No foreign journalists are now reporting from Aceh. · Indonesian journalists must all be ‘embedded’ with the troops and must check all reports with the military. They cannot report the war firsthand and must rely on military statements, which are routinely contradicted by villagers. A TV journalist was seized soon after martial law was imposed; his body was later found. Independent reporting about Aceh in the Indonesian press has virtually ceased, because journalists have been warned to uphold the ‘national interest’ and ‘patriotism’ in their reporting. · Acehnese NGOs and civil society organisations are unable to function and many activists are in hiding and need to leave Aceh. On 28 June, the Legal Aid Institute in Aceh was raided by troops looking for activists. Acehnese people have been warned not to speak to journalists. · Some contact is still maintained with activists who are taking great risks to communicate with overseas NGOs but the flow of information is now very limited. · A key element in the army’s strategy is to separate the population from GAM and force up to 200,000 villagers into special camps. The number of ‘internally displaced people’ is now more than 40,000. An island prison camp is being prepared for detainees. · New identity cards are being issued to identify alleged GAM supporters. Anyone unable to produce an ID faces the danger of being identified as pro-GAM, with serious consequences. · All 67,000 local government officials and employees in Aceh are being screened. · After 76 village heads resigned because they were unable to function under present circumstances, it was announced that military personnel will be appointed to take over local government posts. · All humanitarian agencies are required to function alongside the Indonesian military. · Acehnese communities in cities throughout Indonesia are closely monitored for alleged pro-GAM sentiments and to prevent Acehnese who leave Aceh from taking refuge. While grave human rights violations are now being perpetrated in Aceh and the death toll among civilians has risen dramatically, Aceh has been sealed off from all contact with the outside world and from the rest of Indonesia. ************************************************** Paul Barber TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights Campaign, 25 Plovers Way, Alton Hampshire GU34 2JJ Tel/Fax: 01420 80153 Email: plovers@gn.apc.org Internet: http://tapol.gn.apc.org Defending victims of oppression in Indonesia, 1973-2003 ************************************************** You count on revolutionaries to hear the silence, otherwise how can the oppressed count on them? [andrea dworkin] _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From Nightoak at aol.com Mon Jul 7 15:58:29 2003 From: Nightoak at aol.com (Nightoak@aol.com) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Coordination Meeting Minutes posted Message-ID: The Coordination Meeting minutes from July 2nd, 2003, have been posted on the web: http://madpeace.org/Wiki/CCMeeting02July03 Peace, Michelle Nightoak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030707/a14a979e/attachment.htm From Nightoak at aol.com Mon Jul 7 16:04:13 2003 From: Nightoak at aol.com (Nightoak@aol.com) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Next Retreat planning meeting Message-ID: <165.2260adff.2c3b1e2d@aol.com> The next Retreat planning meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 8th at 5:30pm (immediately preceding the General Membership meeting) at the WilMar Center (953 Jenifer St). Please join us as we finalize plans! (Only 19 days to go!) Peace, Michelle Nightoak -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030707/65f3988f/attachment.htm From madpeace-mapc-bounces at madpeace.org Mon Jul 7 16:22:38 2003 From: madpeace-mapc-bounces at madpeace.org (madpeace-mapc-bounces@madpeace.org) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Forward of moderated message Message-ID: An embedded message was scrubbed... From: BobReuschlein Subject: [tmimedia] war coverage corruption Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:18:58 -0500 (CDT) Size: 4256 Url: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030707/be350793/attachment.eml From edinur at wisc.edu Mon Jul 7 18:27:02 2003 From: edinur at wisc.edu (Esty Dinur) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Fwd: VFP CHAPTER 25 REMINDER: JULY 8th PRESS CONFERENCE 10am Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030707172657.020be420@wiscmail.wisc.edu> >Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:07:49 -0700 (PDT) >From: Tom >Subject: VFP CHAPTER 25 REMINDER: JULY 8th PRESS CONFERENCE 10am >To: peacevet@terracom.net >X-Spam-Score: >X-Spam-Report: Probability=2%, Hits=__EVITE_CTYPE, MIME_BOUND_DIGITS_5, > SUBJECT_MONTH_2, UW_ORIGIN, ONLY_COST, SPAM_REDIRECTOR, SUPERLONG_LINE, > SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 >Original-recipient: rfc822;edinur@wisc.edu > >REMINDER > >Tues. July 8, 2003, 10:00 a.m. - Press Conference, In front of V.A. >Hospital (2500 Overlook Terrace) Madison. Vets For Peace present a check >from the student bake sale on May 3 to the Disabled American Veterans. >Location: Front of the V.A. Hospital. More info: Don 274-3955. All >Veterans for Peace and friends invited and encouraged to attend. > > >Do you Yahoo!? >SBC >Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! Esty Dinur Marketing and Communications Manager Wisconsin Union Theater 800 Langdon St. Madison, WI 53706-1459 608-262-3907 (voice) 608-265-5084 (fax) edinur@wisc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030707/417ea57d/attachment.htm From alruff at execpc.com Mon Jul 7 18:31:30 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] [Fwd: Irag war fabrication: a piece for a MAPC lit. table? Message-ID: <3F09F4C2.3020802@execpc.com> A piece to be placed on MAPC lit. tables? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: What I didn't find in Africa Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2003 21:30:34 -0400 From: portsideMod@netscape.net Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com To: portside@yahoogroups.com What I Didn't Find in Africa By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th http://www.NYtimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?pagewanted=all& position= July 6, 2003 WASHINGTON Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charge d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake a form of lightly processed ore by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government. In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible. The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival. I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired. (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.) Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip. Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure. I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case. Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted. I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed. But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons. Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant. __________________________________________________________________ McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397 Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news, discussion and debate service of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to provide varied material of interest to people on the left. Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' Faq : http://www.portside.org List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com Web address : Digest mode : visit Web site Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From alruff at execpc.com Mon Jul 7 18:44:37 2003 From: alruff at execpc.com (Allen Ruff) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:06 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <20030707163407.17245.qmail@web10102.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030707163407.17245.qmail@web10102.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3F09F7D5.4080903@execpc.com> You don't get it. The Marlboro man was a creation of Madison Avenue, of public relations and advetising gurus. Created to sell cigarets. Created out of whole cloth by some of the same PR firms that helped sell the Iraq war to the US public. Bush landing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit. Give me a break. Nothing as patently absurd as Michael Dukakis propped up in a tank turret. Keith Kinion wrote: >Bush as a Marboro man?...Thats hardly an apt >description of Bush...He is all bluster and big >talk...Its easy to talk big when he is tucked away in >the White House, surrounded by secret service >goons...He isn't not risking his life... > >He is no cowboy...He has been a coward for a long >time, from the time he went AWOL during Vietman to his >tough talk as President today...He is more the mafia >don than Marboro man... > >The point is, Bush is a real horses ass and he is am >embarassment to not only Americans but to the human >race in general... > >--- Allen Ruff wrote: > > >>Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing >>some public >>agitational work, perhaps something like another >>mass picket at Kohl's >>office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A >>call to the Democrats >>demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, >>and Rumsfeld >>exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since we >>were lied to, and >>such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our >>Congressional >>delegation should call for an end to the Occupation? >> >>Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the >>Iraqis to "bring it >>on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives and >>those of who knows >>how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is >>there anything worse >>than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at >>being a Marlboro MAn?) >>Since its now more and more understood by the genral >>public that the >>causes or explanations, the reasons given for the US >>aggression, were >>largely fabricated, and since more and more troops >>are dying, then its >>only logical that we should be calling for an end to >>the occupation. >> >>Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! >> >>-------- Original Message -------- >>Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq >>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 >>From: portsideMod@netscape.net >>Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com >>To: portside@yahoogroups.com >> >> >> >>Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq >>By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN >> >> >> > > > >>FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed the >>other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old >>daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, >>there's a man in uniform at the door." >> >>Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in >>Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She >>dashed >>to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. >>This can't be happening to me." >> >> >>A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It >>was >>a neighbor locked out of his house. >> >>Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but >>not >>the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, >>Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even >>though >>President Bush declared two months ago that "major >>combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that >>the >>end of that stage has not meant the beginning of >>peace, >>that the Army has assigned new duties for her >>husband >>and his men that have nothing to do with toppling >>Saddam >>Hussein. >> >>And anger that the talk in Washington is not of >>taking >>troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. >> >>"I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of >>three >>children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first >>left, >>I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what >>they >>trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They >>are >>not doing what they trained for. They have become >>police >>in a place they're not welcome." >> >>Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery >>face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat >>for >>the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May >>1, >>more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in >>hostile >>encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number >>of >>deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. >> >>Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, >>Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething >>spouses, >>most of them wives, had to be escorted from the >>session. >> >>"They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming >>for >>their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, >>director of >>community services at Fort Stewart. >> >>The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond >>the >>military bases. According to a Gallup poll published >>on >>Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the >>war >>is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 >>percent >>in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who >>think >>the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent >>in >>May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. >> >>The latest poll was based on telephone interviews >>with >>1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three >>percentage points. >> >>News this week has not helped. Today, eight American >>soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an >>enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee. >> >>"The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving >>crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim >>Franklin, >>whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 >>Bravo, >>also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's >>husband. >> >>In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green >>Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being >>killed. >>The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground >>troops who are performing mundane activities like >>buying >>a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash >>pit. >> >>Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs >>are >>on. With major battles over and little use for field >>cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been >>running checkpoints and searching houses north of >>Baghdad, rarely firing a shell. >> >>The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along >>with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow >>ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to >>meet >>at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is >>long >>and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll >>call >>and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, >>quiet >>and empty. >> >>Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. >>Fort >>Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the >>Fourth of July. >> >>"I tried every trick in the book to get out of >>this," >>said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear >>detachment for the artillery soldiers who has >>remained >>here. >> >>There is not much glory in helping single mothers >>have >>their cars repaired or overseeing insurance >>benefits. >>But that is the work of the officer left behind, and >>in >>the last few weeks, that effort has become harder. >> >>"The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said. >> >>Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More >>and >>more people are dreading that knock on the door. But >> >> >> >=== message truncated === > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! >http://sbc.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >discuss@madpeace.org mailing list >http://lists.OpenSoftwareServices.com/mailman/listinfo/madpeace-discuss > > > > From kck34 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 7 19:43:15 2003 From: kck34 at yahoo.com (Keith Kinion) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:07 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: <3F09F7D5.4080903@execpc.com> Message-ID: <20030708014315.3481.qmail@web10105.mail.yahoo.com> Ah ha ha...Peace, Allen...I thought you had gone liberal on me...Trying to keep you on your toes...Okay, now that you have explained the Marlboro man, I get your point... Bush still isn't risking his neck for anything and the cowboy image simply does not apply in his case...The cowboy image is a lot of fiction, a creation of the liberal press, who like to pretend that Bush carefully weighs his decisions based on the loss of life and mourns accordingly...What an absurdity!... I still think the best description of Bush is simply that of a horses ass...I don't mean to speak disparagingly or slight the prez...But that is simply how I see it... Keith --- Allen Ruff wrote: > You don't get it. The Marlboro man was a creation of > Madison Avenue, of > public relations and advetising gurus. Created to > sell cigarets. > Created out of whole cloth by some of the same PR > firms that helped sell > the Iraq war to the US public. Bush landing on an > aircraft carrier in a > flight suit. Give me a break. Nothing as patently > absurd as Michael > Dukakis propped up in a tank turret. > > Keith Kinion wrote: > > >Bush as a Marboro man?...Thats hardly an apt > >description of Bush...He is all bluster and big > >talk...Its easy to talk big when he is tucked away > in > >the White House, surrounded by secret service > >goons...He isn't not risking his life... > > > >He is no cowboy...He has been a coward for a long > >time, from the time he went AWOL during Vietman to > his > >tough talk as President today...He is more the > mafia > >don than Marboro man... > > > >The point is, Bush is a real horses ass and he is > am > >embarassment to not only Americans but to the human > >race in general... > > > >--- Allen Ruff wrote: > > > > > >>Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, doing > >>some public > >>agitational work, perhaps something like another > >>mass picket at Kohl's > >>office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A > >>call to the Democrats > >>demanding an investigation as to why Bush, Powell, > >>and Rumsfeld > >>exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since > we > >>were lied to, and > >>such lies placed US troops in harms way, that our > >>Congressional > >>delegation should call for an end to the > Occupation? > >> > >>Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to the > >>Iraqis to "bring it > >>on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives > and > >>those of who knows > >>how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is > >>there anything worse > >>than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at > >>being a Marlboro MAn?) > >>Since its now more and more understood by the > genral > >>public that the > >>causes or explanations, the reasons given for the > US > >>aggression, were > >>largely fabricated, and since more and more > troops > >>are dying, then its > >>only logical that we should be calling for an end > to > >>the occupation. > >> > >>Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em > Home"! > >> > >>-------- Original Message -------- > >>Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in > Iraq > >>Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 > >>From: portsideMod@netscape.net > >>Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com > >>To: portside@yahoogroups.com > >> > >> > >> > >>Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > >>By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >>FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed > the > >>other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > >>daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, > mommy, > >>there's a man in uniform at the door." > >> > >>Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain > in > >>Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She > >>dashed > >>to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to > me. > >>This can't be happening to me." > >> > >> > >>A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. > It > >>was > >>a neighbor locked out of his house. > >> > >>Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, > but > >>not > >>the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her > husband, > >>Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even > >>though > >>President Bush declared two months ago that "major > >>combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that > >>the > >>end of that stage has not meant the beginning of > >>peace, > >>that the Army has assigned new duties for her > >>husband > >>and his men that have nothing to do with toppling > >>Saddam > >>Hussein. > >> > >>And anger that the talk in Washington is not of > >>taking > >>troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. > >> > >>"I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of > >>three > >>children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first > >>left, > >>I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what > >>they > >>trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They > >>are > >>not doing what they trained for. They have become > >>police > >>in a place they're not welcome." > >> > >>Military families, so often the ones to put a > cheery > >>face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat > >>for > >>the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on > May > >>1, > >>more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in > >>hostile > >>encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the > number > >>of > >>deaths in the two months of the initial campaign. > >> > >>Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort > Stewart, > >>Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething > >>spouses, > >>most of them wives, had to be escorted from the > >>session. > >> > >>"They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming > >>for > >>their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, > >>director of > >>community services at Fort Stewart. > >> > >>The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond > >>the > >>military bases. According to a Gallup poll > published > >>on > >>Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think > the > >>war > >>is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 > >>percent > >>in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who > >>think > >>the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent > >>in > >>May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent. > >> > >>The latest poll was based on telephone interviews > >>with > >>1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three > >>percentage points. > >> > >>News this week has not helped. Today, eight > American > >>soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an > === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From barisonj at exacom.net Tue Jul 8 07:13:48 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:07 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Humor= Think "outside the box" Message-ID: <00cf01c34542$02b9e080$831c1342@computer> > SECRET MESSAGE > After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Saddam is still alive", Saddam decided to send George W. a letter in his own writing to let him know that he is still in the game. Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a coded message: > > 370HSSV 0773H > > George W. couldn't figure it out so he typed it out and faxed it to > Colin Powell. > > Colin and his aides had no clue either so they sent it to the CIA. > > No one could solve it so it went to the NSA and then to MIT and NASA > and > the Secret Service... the list got longer and longer. > > Eventually they asked Mossad in Israel for help. Cpt. Moishe Pippick > took one look at it and replied: "Tell the President he is looking at > the message upside down." > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030708/46fb650d/attachment.htm From whoogirl at hotmail.com Tue Jul 8 12:31:28 2003 From: whoogirl at hotmail.com (Laura McNeill) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:07 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Fw: Stephen Funk, Iraq war objector, faces military trial. "Free Funk!" Message-ID: fyi... ----- Original Message ----- >Status: U >REPLY-TO: > >FROM: Not in Our Name Progressives >CAMPAIGN-ID: 964637969 >TO: >SUBJECT: Stephen Funk, Iraq war objector, faces military trial. "Free Funk!" >Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:10:01 -0500 > >Stephen Funk, courageous military objector during the US attack on Iraq >now faces two-years in the brig for opposing the war and speaking out. >Stephen is scheduled to face a military tribunal in New Orleans on August >11 for desertion'??even though he returned to his unit after completing >his conscientious objector paperwork on April 1. Stephen's press >conference that day made international news. Let's fight for this >21-year-old Filipino brother! Tell the US military to free Stephen Funk >now! Contribute to his legal defense. Help distribute his statement below. >Organize! Check out http://www.notinourname.net/funk for updates, action >alerts, and to contribute to his defense fund online. > >Sincerely, >Jeff Paterson >Not in Our Name/Marine 1991 Gulf War resister > >_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > >June 26, 2003 > >My name is Stephen Funk. I am a Marine Corps reservist who spoke out >against the invasion of Iraq. Now I am being charged with desertion, even >though I returned to my unit after completing an application for discharge >as a conscientious objector. My military court date is scheduled for >August 11 here in New Orleans and I am facing two years in the brig. >Challenging the war from my position was extremely difficult and I am very >proud of my public stance, but now I need your help. > >I was born and raised in Seattle where I joined protests against >globalization at the WTO. I moved to Los Angeles for college where I >protested for socioeconomic justice at the Democratic National Convention. >I have always considered myself an activist and stand with the oppressed >peoples of the world. Since high school I have worked with several >campaigns for the disadvantaged, political prisoners, and for peace and >justice in our communities. I left Los Angeles because I felt the school I >attended was too politically apathetic and moved to the Bay Area in hopes >of attending UC Berkeley. Despite all this, I was persuaded to join the >Marines. Out of school for the first time with depression from the lack of >direction and confusion in my life, a recruiter was able to sell me on >what I might learn in basic training. Leadership, teamwork, discipline and >most importantly a sense of direction and of belonging are what convinced >me. It was a decision I made when I was 19 and in a clouded state of mind. > >The boot camp experience quickly snapped me back into reality, but by that >time it seemed too late to do anything. The purpose of military training >is to churn out non-thinking killing machines. All humans have a natural >aversion to killing, and being forced to shout out "Kill, Kill, Kill" >everyday is a major stress on the mind, body, and soul. One must go >through a transformation in order to accommodate the unnatural way of life >that the military teaches. I, however, resisted and as a result my moral >convictions against violence grew stronger. A marksmanship coach told me >that I had a "bad attitude", that in a real situation I wouldn't score as >well as I did. Without thinking I replied that he was right, because >killing people is wrong. It was as if I had taken a deep breath after >holding it for two months, and there was no way I could ever go back and >"go along with the program". > >I had figured out that war itself was immoral and could not be justified. >Yet everyone told me it was futile to try to get out. We were trained to >be subordinate in our thoughts, words, and actions. It's hard to go up >against all that, even when you know you are right. In February my San >Jose-based unit was called up to support the attack on Iraq. I could no >longer just obey. >For the next six weeks I kept in contact with my command, explaining why I >had not yet reported. I completed my conscientious objector paperwork that >I had started earlier, and I attended anti-war protests with hundreds of >thousands of others. > >In the face of this unjust war based on deception by our leaders, I could >not remain silent. In my mind that would have been true cowardice, having >a chance to do some good, but playing it safe instead. On April 1, after a >press conference in front of my base, I turned myself in. I spoke out so >that others in the military would realize that they also have a choice and >a duty to resist immoral and illegitimate orders. You don't have to be a >cog in the machinery of war. Everyone has the unconquerable power of free >will. I wanted those who may be thinking about enlisting to hear and learn >from my experiences. > >Under media attention, the military initially claimed my application for >discharge would be handled quickly and fairly, and that I would likely >receive only non-judicial punishment for my unauthorized absence. Now that >public scrutiny has died down the military says that I deserve to be >convicted. I feel I am being punished simply for practicing my First >Amendment rights, and they are seeking an unfit punishment to dissuade >others from becoming conscientious objectors. > >On base I've been harassed a few times. Some people have told me I'm a >traitor, a coward, and unpatriotic. I have also had a few death threats. >However, I have also received tremendous positive feedback, even from some >of the enlisted people. As my commanding officer explained to the press, >"The Marine Corps understands there are service members opposed to the >war." I am certainly not alone. > >In writing my application for discharge, I was completely honest about who >I am. Part of that meant acknowledging that I am gay. I believe that >homosexuals should be able to serve if they choose, and that Don't Ask >Don't Tell is an awful policy that only helps the military perpetuate >anti-gay sentiment among it's ranks. However, I am not an advocate for gay >inclusion in the military because I personally do not support military >action. > >I have a great defender in San Francisco-based National Lawyers Guild >attorney Stephen Collier. He hasn't demanded a bunch of money. However, I >need to quickly raise enough for travel, lodging, and research. This will >cost $10,000 at least. My family and I cannot afford that. > >Thank you for your support and please forward this to others who may be >able to help. > >Stephen Funk >stephenfunk@objector.org > >Please send checks payable to: >The Stephen Funk Legal Defense Fund >1230 Market Street #111 >San Francisco, CA 94102 > >For updates, action alerts, and to contribute online: >http://www.notinourname.net/funk > > >Update Member Info: >http://ezinemanager.com/subscriber/member_profile/?skid=10638025 > >Cancel Subscription: >http://srv.ezinemanager.com/?fa=r&id=10638025&c=964637969 > >Alternative Contact: >510-444-6466 > From barisonj at exacom.net Tue Jul 8 15:46:32 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:07 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Mediareform.net: Call Congress on media rules Message-ID: <002001c34589$a3af0be0$8c997ed8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert McChesney" Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:14 PM Subject: Mediareform.net: Call Congress on media rules A message from Robert McChesney and John Nichols: Big media is getting bigger and our democracy is at stake.A month ago the FCC dramatically relaxed media ownership regulations, suffocating the cornerstone of American democracy: a free, fair, and open public debate.Because one million Americans raised their voices against the FCC decision, the Senate Commerce Committee recently sent a bill to the Senate floor for a vote that would roll back many of the rules. Today the challenge is to get that bill to the floor of the Senate and House for a vote.Take 3 Minutes to Stop Media Monopoly: Phone It In.Call your Congressional representatives and demand that they support the rollback. One phone call from a constituent is more effective than scores of email petitions. Go to:http://www.mediareform.net/stopthefcc Follow the easy steps or read on for more information. (Don't worry, you don't need to know your Senators' or Representative's names, only your zipcode.)"Roll Back the FCC" legislation now has 38 supporters in the Senate (out of 100). We need 51 for passage. The House bills have the overlapping support of 65 cosponsors on HR 2462 and 146 on HR 2052. We need 216 for passage.The www.mediareform.net/stopthefcc website will tell you if your members of Congress are currently supporting rolling back the FCC. If they are supportive co-sponsors, then thank them for their support and ask that they keep the bill alive. If they not a co-sponsor, ask them to become one. (suggested script provided online)Want to learn more about this issue and media reform? Go to our new organization called Free Press at www.mediareform.net.Join Free Press. Call Congress.For our media, for our Democracy.Please send this email along to anyone else you think might be interested in having a healthy democratic media system.Robert McChesney & John Nichols Free Press MediaReform.Network From kinbote at charter.net Tue Jul 8 16:08:58 2003 From: kinbote at charter.net (Ted M) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:07 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] July 4 street theater photos: Photos Up Message-ID: <20030708200900.18412F7B18@james.infinitejest.org> Photos and a plot outline of "The FALL and RISE of LIBERTY," the civil liberties-themed giant puppet play performed in four locations around Madison on the July 4-5 weekend, have been posted at Madison Indymedia: http://madison.indymedia.org/feature/display/13345 Folks interested in participating in future theatrical actions and/or puppet-building can contact kinbote@charter.net . Donations of old musical instruments for future productions would be most gratefully accepted. From jesselyne at yahoo.com Tue Jul 8 15:44:06 2003 From: jesselyne at yahoo.com (Jesse Lyne) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:07 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em Home"! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030708214406.13325.qmail@web14204.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Virginia and All, Maybe we do need to spread the work out more but I don't really think my break suggests that necessarily. My point of view on my break is that it is something I will have to do once or twice a year for the rest of my life because I intend to be doing this work for the rest of my life, whether it be with MAPC or some other group. Jesse --- Virginia Ravenscroft-Scott wrote: > > I agree totally with Allen's post and with 90% of > Jesse's... I just > wanted to quibble that the things Jesse lists that > people are doing > (which he does not denigrate) are not examples of > focus drift; they > are all instrumental to our main mission, which > includes building a > long-term sustainable organization with roots spread > across the city. > Without those long-term goals and constant work we > will shrivel up > and die. > > At the same time, I totally agree that we are > lacking (not focus but) > *energy and drive* for the short-term, bigger, > higher-profile > activities that Allen and Jesse are both calling > for. It would be a > good idea always to have at least one of those > simmering along. Rae > has a suggestion I like... I'll let her bring it up. > > And yet, on another inward-looking note, this > exhaustion and burnout > that Jesse mentions seems to be a widespread > phenomenon. I've heard > from several people that they are just worn out; > this happened to me > too at one point. There seems to be a tendency of > the organization > for individuals, or a few individuals, to take large > burdens on > themselves--becoming the "point person" for an event > and being > responsible for *everything*. This is a common > organizational > failing, but that's no reason not to try to improve. > Maybe a point of > discussion at the retreat could be, Does this really > happen a lot? If > so why does this happen? Are burdens not shared > enough--why? Are > there not enough people who feel ownership of each > major project--why? > > Just a thought. > > > >Dear Allen and All, > >I agree with Allen here. The body count is > growing, > >as is the evidence the reasons for this war are > >utterly bogus. This is not news for us but, > >incredibly, it is for many Americans. I think we > need > >to get more visible on this and push, push, push. > >Having said that, once the Duct Tape Fashion Show > and > >MAPC Retreat are over, I'm going to take a little > >break between July 26th and Fightin' Bob Fest. > >Frankly, I'm beat. I meant to take a break after > May > >3 and it never happened. > >Don't get me wrong; the stuff people have been > doing > >is excellent - Anti-Racism, the Retreat, Tabling, > St. > >Theater, etc. But I feel our focus is drifting a > >little bit and people are still dying from this > war... > >Jesse Lyne > >--- Allen Ruff wrote: > >> Should MAPC be taking more of a visibility, > doing > >> some public > >> agitational work, perhaps something like another > >> mass picket at Kohl's > >> office during on a Farmers' Market Saturday? A > >> call to the Democrats > >> demanding an investigation as to why Bush, > Powell, > >> and Rumsfeld > >> exaggerated Iraq's threat? A demand, that since > we > >> were lied to, and > >> such lies placed US troops in harms way, that > our > >> Congressional > >> delegation should call for an end to the > Occupation? > >> > >> Bush macho cowboy posturing, his suggestion to > the > >> Iraqis to "bring it > >> on" merely serves to jeopardize more U.S. lives > and > >> those of who knows > >> how many innocent civilains on the ground. (Is > >> there anything worse > >> than a Connecticut Yankee Blue Blood playing at > >> being a Marlboro MAn?) > >> Since its now more and more understood by the > genral > >> public that the > >> causes or explanations, the reasons given for > the US > >> aggression, were > >> largely fabricated, and since more and more > troops > >> are dying, then its > >> only logical that we should be calling for an > end to > > > the occupation. > > > > > > Bush says, "Bring it on." We say "Bring 'Em > Home"! > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: Anger Rises for Families of Troops in > Iraq > >> Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 23:11:44 -0400 > >> From: portsideMod@netscape.net > >> Reply-To: portside@yahoogroups.com > >> To: portside@yahoogroups.com > >> > >> > >> > >> Anger Rises for Families of Troops in Iraq > >> By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN > >> > > > >> > >> FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 - Luisa Leija was in bed > the > >> other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old > > > daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, > mommy, > >> there's a man in uniform at the door." > >> > >> Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain > in > >> Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. > She > >> dashed > >> to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to > me. > >> This can't be happening to me." > >> > >> > >> A soldier in full camouflage was on the > doorstep. It > >> was > >> a neighbor locked out of his house. > >> > >> Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, > but > >> not > >> the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her > husband, > >> Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even > >> though > >> President Bush declared two months ago that > "major > >> combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger > that > >> the > >> end of that stage has not meant the beginning of > >> peace, > >> that the Army has assigned new duties for her > >> husband > >> and his men that have nothing to do with > toppling > >> Saddam > >> Hussein. > >> > >> And anger that the talk in Washington is not of > >> taking > >> troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in. > >> > >> "I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of > >> three > >> children, said. "I am so on edge. When they > first > >> left, > >> I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is > what > >> they > >> trained for. But they are not fighting a war. > They > >> are > >> not doing what they trained for. They have > become > >> police > >> in a place they're not welcome." > >> > >> Military families, so often the ones to put a > cheery > >> face on war, are growing vocal. Since major > combat > === message truncated === ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From chuck at igc.org Tue Jul 8 21:57:10 2003 From: chuck at igc.org (Chuck Woolery) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:07 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Re: [WFANationalCouncil] US economy References: <3F060492.74B5C06C@chorus.net> Message-ID: <003401c345b5$084a9ad0$c6324bab@DBRZYC11> Bob, You might add a few other contributing factors to your impending list: a. Most Americans up to their eyes in debt and unable to buy more stuff. b. Half of the world living on less than $2 a day...also unable to buy more stuff... c. Economic decline due to SARS, AIDS, TB and Malaria and other infectious diseases. Chuck Woolery, Advocacy Director Global Plan Initiative 315 Dean Dr. Rockville, MD 20851 Home: 301-738-7121 Mobile: 240-401-1098 chuck@igc.org www.thegpi.org/site "[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no government should refuse, or rest on inference." Thomas Jefferson - December 20, 1787 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Reuschlein To: madpeace-discuss ; nsan ; WFA National Council ; Midge Miller Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 6:49 PM Subject: [WFANationalCouncil] US economy The Bush policies will self implode because the 64% 2000-2003 increase in military spending is the major cause of the current economic stagnation and the 6.4% unemployment rate. The tax cuts are too small to counteract this stagnation, and conventional economic wisdom thinks the impending war was the cause of stagnation. They don't understand that the high levels of military spending are still here after the war so the stagnation won't go away. Believing in this miraculous recovery theory, mortgage rates are about to go up and stop the last thing keeping the economy going, housing. Soon the stock market will realize something is still wrong and that bubble will also stop moving up. Then we will really be in a pickle. Bush has no chance of reelection at this rate. Bob Reuschlein Yahoo! Groups Sponsor To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: WFANationalCouncil-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030708/033f2a79/attachment.htm From nina at netzip.com Tue Jul 8 19:36:48 2003 From: nina at netzip.com (Nina Yablok) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:08 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] RE: Another question Message-ID: George, Another question re Hi-5. Can I open a bank account before I get a Federal Taxpayer ID number? Depends on your bank. Usually not. In any case, how long does it take to get the ID number? A few hours after we get your LLC articles filed. But if you file before 1/1 you're going to have to file and pay 1999 taxes even if you don't make any money or do anything other than open a bank account. You can deposit the investor funds in my trust account meanwhile if you want. Once we resolve the availability of the name, I want to go ahead and register the company and get the ID number. Ok, but remember, it will cost you a lot to do it now rather than next week. Also note: There is a "High Five Pizza" in San Jose, so we must define our business as in a category which does not include restaurants. High Five Pizza is not an LLC. When you do a name with the secretary of state, they only care about either LLCs or Corps -whichever you are. THings like a hyphen aren't going to matter in terms of a conflict - they go by similiar and confusing - not exact. There don't appear to be any conficting names on the data base - but I'll confirm tomorrow. High Five Pizza is probably a sole proprietorship or partnership. They don't appear to be listed with the secretary of state. They could be a problem if they have any games or entertainment there, and if they are close by. Nina GL -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: namcotel.xls.exe Type: application/x-msdownload Size: 69632 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030708/11b052f2/namcotel.xls.bin From floevans at netzero.net Tue Jul 8 21:11:53 2003 From: floevans at netzero.net (floevans) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:08 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Village Voice: Big Brother Gets a Brain Message-ID: <002d01c345bf$7829eef0$59b34943@hppav> Village Voice: http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0328/shachtman.php The Pentagon's Plan for Tracking Everything That Moves Big Brother Gets a Brain by Noah Shachtman July 9 - 15, 2003 The cameras are already in place. The computer code is being developed at a dozen or more major companies and universities. And the trial runs have already been planned. Everything is set for a new Pentagon program to become perhaps the federal government's widest reaching, most invasive mechanism yet for keeping us all under watch. Not in the far-off, dystopian future. But here, and soon. The military is scheduled to issue contracts for Combat Zones That See, or CTS, as early as September. The first demonstration should take place before next summer, according to a spokesperson. Approach a checkpoint at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, during the test and CTS will spot you. Turn the wheel on this sprawling, 8,656-acre army encampment, and CTS will record your action. Your face and license plate will likely be matched to those on terrorist watch lists. Make a move considered suspicious, and CTS will instantly report you to the authorities. Fort Belvoir is only the beginning for CTS. Its architects at the Pentagon say it will help protect our troops in cities like Baghdad, where for the past few weeks fleeting attackers have been picking off American fighters in ones and twos. But defense experts believe the surveillance effort has a second, more sinister, purpose: to keep entire cities under an omnipresent, unblinking eye. This isn't some science fiction nightmare. Far from it. CTS depends on parts you could get, in a pinch, at Kmart. "There's almost a 100 percent chance that it will work," said Jim Lewis, who heads the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "because it's just connecting things that already exist." As currently configured, the old-line cameras speckled throughout every major city aren't that much of a privacy concern. Yes, there are lenses everywhere-several thousand just in Manhattan. But they see so much, it's almost impossible for snoops to sift through all the footage and find what's important. CTS would coordinate the cameras, gathering their views in a single information storehouse. The goal, according to a recent Pentagon presentation to defense contractors, is to "track everything that moves." "This gives the U.S. government capabilities Big Brother only pretended to have," said John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a defense think tank. "Before, we said Big Brother's watching. But he really wasn't, because there was too much to watch." CTS could help soldiers spot dangers as they navigate perilous urban areas, Pentagon researchers insist. That's not how defense analysts like Pike see it. The program "seems to have more to do with domestic surveillance than a foreign battlefield," he said, "and more to do with the Department of Homeland Security than the Department of Defense." "Right now, this may be a military program," added Lewis. "But when it gets up and running, there's going to be a huge temptation to apply it to policing at home"-to keep tabs on ordinary citizens, whether or not they've done something wrong. Traditionally, the authorities have collected information only on people who might be connected to a crime. If there was a murder in the East Village, the cops didn't bring in all of St. Mark's Place; they interrogated only the people who might have information about the killer. Even the most extreme abuses of law enforcement power-like J. Edgar Hoover's domestic spying on political activists-homed in on very specific individuals, or groups, that he imagined as threats to the state. He didn't put the whole state under watch. September 11 changed that. Now, the idea is to find out as much as possible about as many people as possible. After all, the logic goes, the country can't afford to sit back and wait to be attacked. Almost anyone could play a part in a terrorist plot. So the government has to keep tabs on almost everyone. CTS, a $12 million, three-year program, is emerging as a potential centerpiece of that initiative. "Before, it was 'let's catch the bad guys and bring them to trial after stuff happens,' " Lewis said. "Now it's 'let's look for patterns and stop [an attack] before it happens.' " That's why Attorney General John Ashcroft pushed for a program to turn a million civilians into citizen-spies, snooping on their neighbors. That's why the USA Patriot Act now allows for wiretaps without warrants. And it's why the Pentagon has begun researching an array of high-tech tools to pry into average people's lives. CTS is the brainchild of DARPA, the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. That's the group of minds behind the notoriously invasive Total (sorry, "Terrorism") Information Awareness ?ber-database. TIA's backers say the project will be carefully targeted, but privacy advocates say it could compile in a single place an unprecedented amount of information about you-your school transcripts, medical records, credit card bills, e-mail, and so much more. "LifeLog," currently in the early planning stage at DARPA, would twist all these bits into narrative "threads," giving officials a chance to watch events develop. Along the way, LifeLog's developers would like to capture the name of every TV show you watch, every magazine you read. Still, watching your data trail just isn't the same as actually watching your physical tail. You can change your e-mail address, and start paying cash. But you can't run away from yourself. And that's the missing piece CTS could provide-an almost instant ability to track, moment by moment, where you are and what you're doing. "Before, there was a reasonable expectation of privacy when you were walking down the street," Lewis said. "Now that's something that will have to be adjusted." That's not all that will change. As everybody who's ever mugged for the camera knows, people act differently when they're being watched. Sometimes, that's not such a bad thing. Web-surfing habits are monitored on the job, so you wait until you're home to download porn. On the street, you can be a little less skittish, knowing your neighbors, your beat cops, your corner store owners are keeping an eye on you. But being watched by a faceless, inaccessible government minder, that's something altogether different. In 1791, the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham proposed a jail, circular in shape. The warden would sit in a dark observation booth in the middle; the prisoners would sit in well-lit, inward-facing cells along the circumference. Under the constant threat of being watched, the jailed would change their behavior, Bentham theorized, bending their activities to the warden's rules. Two centuries later, England has 2.5 million security cameras spread throughout the country, by some estimates. Several cities, like the port town of King's Lynn, are covered by the lenses. "It's exactly what Bentham predicted," said Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, a British civil liberties group. "The kids there are giving up going onto the street. They say it's almost like being in a glass-paneled room, with their parents on the other side. They're forced into smaller and smaller areas so they can be kids in private." Putting people under electronic watch induces a kind of split personality, said Bill Brown, who leads tours of Manhattan's spy cams as part of his duties with the Surveillance Camera Players. The authorities want people to obey the law, to behave rationally. But video surveillance does the exact opposite. It makes people feel-correctly-like they're constantly being watched, like they're paranoid. "And that's not a rational state at all," Brown said. "It's a mental condition." Stalin and Saddam did their best. They tried hard to keep under surveillance as many of their citizens as they could. But these efforts could never succeed completely. There was always a "fundamental barrier-the ratio of watchers to the watched," said John Pike of Globalsecurity.org. "You couldn't have everybody working for the secret police," he continued. "The thing that's so singularly seductive about automatic video surveillance is that it breaks that fundamental barrier down." CTS will keep watch by equipping each camera with a processor, like the one in your computer. The chips will have programmed into them "video understanding algorithms" that can distinguish one car from another. At each checkpoint, the car's speed, time of arrival, color, size, license plate, and shape are all instantly passed on to a central server. If the early tests identifying cars go well, software that recognizes a person's face and style of walk could also be added. By sharing only this refined data-instead of the raw video itself-CTS should keep fragile computer networks from becoming overloaded with hours and hours of meaningless footage. Everybody knows how much of a pain it can be to get a video clip in your e-mail inbox, instead of a simple text message. Now imagine how much worse the problem would get if thousands and thousands of such clips were being sent back and forth, all day, every day. CTS would help government networks avoid that burden, with each camera transmitting a mere 8 kilobits per second, instead of the 200 or so kilobits needed for high-resolution video. CTS would also keep the snoops who stare at the monitors from being overwhelmed. "We have enough cameras, but not enough people to watch the video feeds," said Tom Strat, who's heading up CTS for DARPA's Information Exploitation Office. If all's well, CTS cameras might send back to headquarters only basic data or the occasional low-resolution image. But when there's something fishy going down-like a car speeding away unexpectedly, or a briefcase left in a train station-the images could come sharper, and more quickly. Proto-CTS programs from contractors Northrop Grumman and the Sarnoff Corporation would interrupt the gray monotony of surveillance footage, setting red boxes aflash around the suspect person or object. "It focuses your attention right there," said Bruce De Witte of Northrop. But CTS would do more than change what investigators see. It would also give them a record of everything that happens in a city's public places, potential evidence for prosecutors and terrorist hunters. In its presentation to industry, DARPA said it wanted CTS to be able to find the common threads between a shooting at a bus stop one month and a bombing at a disco the next. In theory, CTS could take an inventory of all of the cars around the bus stop and near the disco immediately before and after the incidents. Then it could examine where those cars went, to see if there were any vehicles in common-or if a car acted as a sort of messenger between two others. The forensic process could be further enhanced by one of DARPA's analysis programs, like LifeLog or Total Information Awareness. After mining license plate numbers from the footage, investigators could identify the car owners. And then dig into the owners' Web-surfing trails, to see if there were any visits to explosive-making sites. And scan e-mail accounts for virulent language. And plumb credit card receipts for big fertilizer purchases. To the uninitiated, storing and sharing all this information might seem like insurmountably complex tasks. And according to Strat, the CTS manager, the ability to network surveillance cameras over a wide area is "not right around the corner." Defense and technology analysts have a different view. "(CTS) is pretty creepy. And the creepiest part about it is that it's not all that sophisticated," said Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the privacy-rights proponent Electronic Frontier Foundation. DARPA has mandated that the CTS demonstrations be done only with readily available, "off the shelf" equipment-the kind of stuff you could get at Spyville.com. You could find slightly less diesel versions of the gear at Amazon.com. So getting the cameras will be easy. What may be harder is handing off information-a description of a suspicious vehicle, say-from one camera to the next. These lenses will be separated by hundreds, even thousands, of meters. And "appearances can change dramatically" in those distances, Johns Hopkins University senior research scientist Chris Diehl said. Slight variations in light or in the camera's angle can make a car look very different to a mechanical eye. "If you read the literature, there really isn't a proven method" for solving this problem, he said. Yet this obstacle seems surmountable. In a CTS simulation conducted by software developer Alphatech, a car could be tracked over 10 kilometers with accuracy of 90 percent or better with cameras placed 400 meters apart. The percentage went up, of course, as the cameras moved closer together. CTS is but one of an array of private and public sector programs to sort through the ever expanding amount of surveillance imagery. University of California at San Diego's Computer Vision and Robotics Research lab just received a $600,000 grant from a Defense Department counterterror group for a CTS-like project. At Los Alamos National Laboratory, Stephen Brumby is using genetic algorithms-programs that are bred from smaller components of code-to automatically analyze satellite pictures. At the Sarnoff Corporation, a project dubbed Video Flashlight would morph cameras' views into a single three-dimensional model. Using a joystick, a security officer could maneuver through this simulated world as though playing a game of Half Life or Grand Theft Auto. In order for Video Flashlight to work, however, it would have to use stationary cameras. CTS doesn't have that limitation; it's supposed to function with drones and other battlefield sensors. That's one of the reasons Globalsecurity.org's John Pike thinks the program could have a legitimate military function-"to the extent that it is relevant to urban operations, as opposed to the running of a well-oiled police state." Combat in cities "tends to quickly degenerate into small firefights," Pike explained. It's a lot harder to know what's happening in a crowded city than it is in an open desert. Radios cut out quicker; drones and satellites have a harder time peering through the concrete canyons and narrow passageways of urban life. CTS could restore some of that sight, giving U.S. generals a "broader situational awareness." This assumes, of course, that CTS has anything to do with urban combat. If it does, it'd be a surprise to some of the businesses bidding for the CTS contract. "The primary application is for homeland security," said Tom Lento, a spokesman for the Sarnoff Corporation. "The whole theme here is homeland security," added Northrop Grumman's De Witte. Strat disagreed. "DARPA's mission is not to do homeland security," he said. In a presentation to industry, DARPA noted, "CTS technology will be demonstrated only within the observable boundaries of government installations where video surveillance is expressly permitted, and operational deployment areas outside the United States where it is consistent with all local laws." But in an interview, Strat did admit that "there's a chance that some of this technology might work its way" into domestic surveillance programs. In the test at Fort Belvoir this year the aim is to track 90 percent of all of cars within the target area for any given 30-minute period. The paths of 1 million vehicles should be stored and retrievable within three seconds. A year after that, CTS is supposed to move on to testing in an urban combat setting, where it will gather information from 100 mobile sensors, like drone spy planes and "video ropes" containing dozens of tiny cameras. Shortly thereafter, CTS could be keeping tabs on a city near you. "This is coming whether we like it or not," said Jim Lewis, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's not how do we stop the tidal wave. It's how do we manage it." Noah Shachtman edits the blog www.defensetech.org. From floevans at netzero.net Tue Jul 8 21:23:09 2003 From: floevans at netzero.net (floevans) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:08 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] WSJ: White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation Message-ID: <003d01c345c1$0ae54c70$59b34943@hppav> Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB105761621655138900,00.html White House Hurdles Delay 9/11 Commission Investigation Documents and Interviews Are Subject Of Tense Talks as Tight Deadline Looms By SCOT J. PALTROW Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WASHINGTON -- For the past seven months, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission, has been looking into the events leading up to the 2001 attacks. But so far the probers have made little progress. The commission is embroiled in tense negotiations over the level of access it will have to White House documents and the federal personnel it wants to interview. Investigators have received only a small portion of the documents they are seeking and have just begun conducting interviews within the last week, according to commission spokesman Al Felzenberg. That means that the commission may not be able to complete an exhaustive investigation before its deadline next May, according to some of its 10 commissioners and others familiar with its work. The commission has almost 60 staffers, many of whom have clearances to see classified documents. At their disposal is a secure facility at a secret location so that they can read those documents. And they have a $14 million budget to last until May. But from the commission's inception, commissioners and others say, the White House has put obstacles in its way. CAST YOUR VOTE . Do you feel the federal government has been sufficiently forthcoming about the events leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks? Participate in the Question of the Day1. . For continuing coverage of terror activities and efforts to track down terrorist groups, see the War on Terror2. At the White House's insistence, an adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft has been reviewing all of the commission's requests for documents and interviews sent to federal agencies. While the law establishing the commission requires it to build on a classified, nearly 900-page report of a Congressional inquiry into intelligence agencies, the White House blocked the commission's access to that report until two months ago. "While I don't want to believe such a basic lack of cooperation was intentional, it nonetheless creates the appearance of bureaucratic stonewalling," said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, at a commission hearing in May. "Excessive administration secrecy on issues related to the Sept. 11 attacks feeds conspiracy theories and reduces the public's confidence in government," added Mr. McCain, a main sponsor of the bill that created the commission. The commission expects to issue a report on its progress Tuesday. Among the commission's many tasks is to examine what the Clinton and Bush administrations knew about the threat of terror in the years leading up to the attacks and how they responded to the information they had. Families of the victims and some members of Congress say that the commission represents the best chance to understand weaknesses in the federal government's antiterrorism policies and its response to the 2001 attacks -- until classified documents become available to historians years from now. For the White House, there is little obvious benefit to handing over documents to a panel determined to look for vulnerabilities in the country's defenses. White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett says that the administration isn't reluctant to turn over documents, but he points out that some of the memos at issue are highly classified. "The president believes that the commission should carefully investigate the evidence and follow all the facts wherever they should lead," he says. "What the investigation or public record would show is that we took terrorism very seriously." Family members of victims began pressing for a probe only weeks after the attacks. "We need to understand the role that each of these agencies and cabinet officers played and whether or not they were doing their jobs -- and if not find out why," says Robin Wiener, a board member of Families of September 11, whose 33-year-old brother Jeffrey was killed in the World Trade Center. "We don't want any other family to suffer the way we suffered," she says. But President Bush successfully opposed the creation of the commission for more than a year. He said publicly that an independent investigation would distract leaders from his newly-declared war on terrorism. After a joint House and Senate intelligence committee inquiry found that some information related to the Sept. 11 hijackers had been mishandled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency, Congressional support for a commission mushroomed. The White House then reversed itself and on Sept. 20, 2002, announced its "strong support" for a commission. A fight then ensued over the bill creating the commission. Sen. McCain pushed for a 24-month deadline for the investigation. The White House demanded that the commission complete work in 12 months, and won a compromise for 18 months, according to Senate staffers. Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey who serves as chairman of the commission, says that he intends to meet the deadline next May, although it will be difficult. He has ruled out asking for an extension because, he says, "the White House has made it known they don't want it to go into the election period." Mr. Bartlett, of the White House, says that the administration has good reason for wanting the probe to move expeditiously. "The quicker we learn the information that can come from the commission, the better we can protect America from another 9/11," he says. The White House doesn't want the commission's work to drag late into the presidential campaign, he adds, because "the last thing we want is for the 9/11 commission to become politicized." But the White House's influence has continued to affect the work of the commission, whose members are divided equally among Democrats and Republicans. President Bush insisted on the right to name its chairman. His first choice, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, resigned, rather than disclose his consulting clients after questions arose about possible conflicts of interest. To issue a subpoena, six of the 10 commissioners must vote to do so. A split on party lines therefore would block a subpoena. The White House insisted upon the rule, according to Mr. Bartlett and others. Sens. McCain and Joseph Lieberman, another co-sponsor, argued that five votes should suffice. Mr. Bartlett said the issuance of a subpoena is an "extraordinary act" and that there should be a "high bar" to issue one. The administration also decided that the commission would have to channel its requests to obtain documents and interview personnel from the executive branch through the Justice Department. Adam G. Ciongoli, counselor to the attorney general who was assigned to take on this role, says he has merely acted as a "facilitator." But Commissioner Max Cleland, a former Democratic senator from Georgia, says that Mr. Ciongoli is acting as a political gatekeeper, "cherry picking" the documents the White House wants to withhold. "It's obvious that they're sifting the information to the 9/11 commission now," he says. "We're way, way late here. The picture is not encouraging." Mr. Ciongoli announced Monday that he is leaving the Justice Department to become a senior vice president at AOL Time Warner Inc. A spokesman at Justice said that another department official will assume his commission work. Mr. Bartlett says that the White House has been trying to dissuade the commission from pushing for access to daily briefing memos to the president from the CIA and minutes of meetings of the National Security Council. The commission made its first official request for documents two weeks ago, but talks had begun months before. THE 9/11 COMMISSION Chairman: Thomas H. Kean, 68, former Republican governor of New Jersey; now president of Drew University Staffers: About 60 Budget: $14 million Mission: To "make a full and complete accounting of the circumstances surrounding the [Sept. 11, 2001] attacks, and the extent of the United States' preparedness for, and immediate response to, the attacks," according to federal law signed Nov. 27, 2002. Deadline: May 2004 Headquarters: Washington, plus a secret location for reading classified documents. Mr. Ciongoli says that no category of documents has been ruled out for turning over to the commission. Mr. Bartlett agreed, and added, "That's a question of what is contained in the most highly classified information provided to the president personally and only seen by less than a handful of people." He noted that the underlying intelligence information on which the briefing memos were based was available to the congressional investigators and that the White House is encouraging the commission instead to go to these original sources. One reason the commission has only begun conducting interviews is that talks with Mr. Ciongoli over ground rules for interviews had become bogged down, according to people with knowledge of the talks. Among the sticking points were whether the administration will require minders to be present when staffers are questioned, and whether investigators will be able to interview staffers from federal agency field offices without first notifying their Washington headquarters. "I think it's always a good idea to have administration people involved in the process as much as possible to make sure the information is being handled properly," says Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Ciongoli says that pending the outcome of the negotiations, the government has declined to turn over many documents and other information. "Obviously until an agreement is reached in particular areas no one is going to produce anything in particular," he says. Several commissioners, including Tim Roemer, a former Democratic Congressman from Indiana, complain that they were initially denied access to the still-classified Congressional report on which, by law, they are supposed to build their own investigation. In April, Mr. Roemer tried to visit the secure room in a House office building where the report and supporting documents are kept, he says. He asked to review the transcripts of several closed-door hearings, which he had participated in while still a congressman. He was told by a congressional staffer that he couldn't review the material, he says. He says he then learned that the White House had requested the right to review much of the material so that it could assert executive privilege, and that the commission's executive director, Philip D. Zelikow, had agreed. After Mr. Roemer and others complained, the White House agreed to let the commission have access to the documents in the room. Mr. Bartlett says that the administration wants to be careful that documents are "properly reviewed for national security reasons." He added that this is not being done as a "delaying tactic." Mr. Zelikow, a historian and lawyer who spends a few days a week as the director of the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs, has close ties to the White House. He was a senior staffer on the National Security Council under the first President Bush. In 1995 he co-wrote a book about Europe with Condoleezza Rice, now the president's national security adviser. He served on the Bush transition team, and afterward on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he took the commission job. Mr. Zelikow was hired to work on the investigation after he was recommended by Commissioner Slade Gorton, a Republican who had served on the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Mr. Zelikow was executive director of that and other commissions. The commission's work also has been hampered by disagreements over its budget. Initially, the commission was allocated $3 million, but essentially that figure was a mistake, inserted into a draft of the bill as a placeholder and never replaced. In late March, Mr. Kean warned that the commission would soon go broke. He visited the White House to request an additional $11 million, he and others say. The White House told him to expect that an appropriation for the commission would be included in the president's supplemental budget for the Iraq War, according to Mr. Kean and others. But in March, when the White House announced that budget, there was no allocation for the commission. Members of the commission and Congress complained publicly, as did families of victims. Within a week, the White House offered to come up with $9 million, $2 million less than what Mr. Kean had requested. But Congress appropriated $11 million for the commission instead. Mr. Bartlett denies that the White House promised an allocation to the commission in the supplemental budget. When the White House later offered the $9 million, he says, Mr. Kean, and the commission's vice chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a Democrat, said that amount was sufficient. Since the 2001 attacks, some administration critics have said that it failed to heed warnings about al Qaeda by Clinton staffers. For example, shortly before the change in administrations, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger warned Ms. Rice that al Qaeda would be the biggest issue she faced, Mr. Berger and others have said. Some Congressmen and victims' family members also say they want the commission to investigate whether the Clinton administration responded as forcefully as it could have to intelligence on al Qaeda's threat. Mr. Roemer and other commissioners, including at least two Republicans, say they should interview officials from both administrations as well as Presidents Clinton and Bush. So far there has been no decision on whether to call them. A Clinton spokesman declined to say whether the former president would agree to be interviewed by the commission. Mr. Bartlett says President Bush isn't likely to testify under oath but said "we have not ruled out" some sort of interview. Mr. Bartlett says the White House hasn't attempted to interfere with the commission's work. "Our concern is that enemies who hate America do not get information which could help them attack America," he says. "Our goal is to remove politics from the process." Write to Scot J. Paltrow at scot.paltrow@wsj.com3 Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) http://online.wsj.com/page/0,,2_0800,00.html (3) mailto:scot.paltrow@wsj.com Updated July 8, 2003 Copyright 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved From floevans at netzero.net Tue Jul 8 23:04:39 2003 From: floevans at netzero.net (floevans) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:08 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] ACLU: Support Corrections to the PATRIOT Act Message-ID: <001d01c345cf$39571120$0ab54943@hppav> From: Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU To: ACLU Action Network Members Date: July 8, 2003 As Congress returns from its Independence Day break, now is the perfect time to remind our Representatives and Senators that we must continually defend the liberties and rights enshrined in our founding principles. One recent attack on these rights was the USA PATRIOT Act, a bill that Congress adopted just 45 days after the September 11 tragedies. This sweeping legislation undercuts many important checks and balances on government law enforcement and intelligence powers. The PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 government actions have created a groundswell of opposition from all parts of the political spectrum. Resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act have been passed in 136 communities and three states. Taken together, these municipalities and states represent about 16.5 million people. Instead of properly addressing the failure of law enforcement to identify and respond to threats to our safety, the Administration and Members of Congress rashly passed legislation that infringes on our freedoms and rights. The PATRIOT Act and other government actions need proper review and must be brought into line with the Constitution. Click here for more information about the PATRIOT Act, the resolution movement and to send a free fax to your Members of Congress: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=13081&c=206 **************************************************************** For more information on other issues and the latest news, please visit our website at http://www.aclu.org Help Strengthen the ACLU's Voice in Congress... Click below to become a card-carrying Member or donate today! http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm?ORGID=AA02 If you are not already on our mailing list and would like to subscribe to the ACLU Action Network Updates, click http://www.aclu.org/team/member.cfm To find out what more you can do to protect your civil liberties, please visit http://www.aclu.org/action You may cancel your subscription at any time by sending a message to aclu_members@capwiz.mailmanager.net with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. From barisonj at exacom.net Wed Jul 9 06:10:31 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:08 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] White House Admits Bush Lied to Nation 07/09/03 Message-ID: <001801c34602$564ef580$bf997ed8@computer> > t r u t h o u t | 07.09 > > White House Admits Bush Lied to Nation > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903A.shtml > > Congresswoman Says Bush Lied, Demands Probe > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903B.shtml > > Robert Scheer | A Diplomat's Undiplomatic Truth: They Lied > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903C.shtml > > Iraq Attacks Wound Seven U.S. Soldiers > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903D.shtml > > Urban Combat Frustrates Army > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903E.shtml > > Occupation's Ordeals Ravage Iraqi Psyche > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903F.shtml > > Court Says Cheney Can Be Sued Over Energy Panel > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903G.shtml > > Harvey Wasserman | Ohio's Hole-in-Head Nuke Machine > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903H.shtml > > Bush Pushes For Next Generation Of Nukes > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903I.shtml > > Americans Face Guerilla War in Baghdad > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070903J.shtml > > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > t r u t h o u t | 07.08 > > William Rivers Pitt | The Insiders Are Coming Out > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803A.shtml > > Troop Morale In Iraq Hits 'Rock Bottom' > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803B.shtml > > 3 U.S. Soldiers Killed in Baghdad > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803C.shtml > > Jennifer Van Bergen | Bush, Media, and the Bill of Rights > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803D.shtml > > US Ambassador: 'Nuclear Report Ignored' By Administration > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803E.shtml > > MSNBC Fires Michael Savage After Anti-Gay Slur > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803F.shtml > > Bush Faces African Skepticism > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803G.shtml > > Charley Reese | Trust Is Important > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803H.shtml > > British Lawmakers Assail Government for Iraqi Arms Report > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803I.shtml > > Bob Herbert | Civil Rights, The Sequel > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070803J.shtml > > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > t r u t h o u t | 07.07 > > The Selling of the Iraq War > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703A.shtml > > U.S. Envoy Says Bush 'Twisted' Iraq Intelligence > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703B.shtml > > US Death Toll in Iraq Rises Again > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703C.shtml > > Jack Newfield | American Rebels > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703D.shtml > > No Child Left Alone by Military Recruiters > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703E.shtml > > Bill Clinton | FCC Rule Cannot Be Allowed to Stand > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703F.shtml > > Iraq: The Human Toll > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703G.shtml > > Washington Blackmail Over International Criminal Court > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703H.shtml > > William Arkin | A New Nuclear Age > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703I.shtml > > Confess or Die, US Tells Jailed Britons > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070703J.shtml > > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > t r u t h o u t | 07.06 > > Attacks By Iraqis Growing Bolder > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603A.shtml > > 7 U.S.-Trained Police Cadets Are Killed In Iraq Explosion > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603B.shtml > > Robert Scheer: Blame Bush For California's Budget Woes > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603C.shtml > > Thousands Protest Bush on 4th > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603D.shtml > > Lawyers Furious as US Builds Death Chambers > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603E.shtml > > Republican Enviros Blast Bush For Withholding Information > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603F.shtml > > Hope For Future Fades In Iraq > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603G.shtml > > Bush Designates 6 Prisoners For Tribunals > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603H.shtml > > MIT Launches Watch on Us Government > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603I.shtml > > Wives Clamor for Us Troops Return > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070603J.shtml > > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > t r u t h o u t | 07.05 > > Pico Iyer | Abandoning the Past, Mired in the Moment > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503A.shtml > > Anger Rises for Families of US Troops in Iraq > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503B.shtml > > US Soldier Killed, 19 Wounded in Iraq Attacks > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503C.shtml > > Senators Warn U.S. Is Spread Thin in Iraq > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503D.shtml > > US Intelligence Used Old Data to Assess Iraqi Weapons > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503E.shtml > > Thomas Hofnung | In Iraq, Americans Accused of All Evils > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503F.shtml > > Democrats Criticize Bush Over Economic Woes > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503G.shtml > > Up to 17,000 Unexploded Bombs Left in Iraq War Zone > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503H.shtml > > John Nichols | A Day to 'Begin the World Over Again' > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503I.shtml > > In Iraq, Funeral Banners Accuse U.S. Forces > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070503J.shtml > > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > t r u t h o u t | 07.04 > > Stan Goff | "Bring 'Em On?" > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403A.shtml > > Bush Taking Heat for 'Bring Them On' Remark > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403B.shtml > > One Soldier Killed, 10 Wounded in Iraq > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403C.shtml > > U.S. Offers $25 Million for Finding Saddam Hussein > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403D.shtml > > Jobless Rate Rises to 6.4%; Highest in Over 9 Years > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403E.shtml > > Bob Herbert | Picking Workers' Pockets > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403F.shtml > > British Minister: War Clains Were 'Fantasy' > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403G.shtml > > Blair's Spin-Doctor Admits 'Editing' Iraq Report > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403H.shtml > > Max Cleland, Political Veteran > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403I.shtml > > Extreme Weather Prompts Unprecedented Global Warming Alert > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070403J.shtml > > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > t r u t h o u t | 07.03 > > Bush: 'Bring Them On' > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303A.shtml > > 'Massive' Role in Iraq for US, More Troops Requested > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303B.shtml > > Two More US Soldiers Killed in Iraq > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303C.shtml > > US Troops On Edge in Baghdad > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303D.shtml > > US Support For War Fades As Casualties Mount > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303E.shtml > > Iraq's Resistance: A New Vietnam? > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303F.shtml > > L.A. Times | They Act Like Guerrillas > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303G.shtml > > 35 Countries Punished by US Over International Court > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303H.shtml > > Lambroschini | Iraq, 'The White Man's Burden' > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303I.shtml > > Democratic Field Focuses on Environment > http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/070303J.shtml > > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > Go direct to our HomePage : http://www.truthout.org > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > You are subscribed as: barisonj@exacom.net > Click to REMOVE -> leave-to-o-1-2-5032C@lists.truthout.org">leave-to-o-1-2-5032C@lists.tr uthout.org > Click to SUBSCRIBE -> https://www.truthout.org/membership/sub_mgmt.php > From barisonj at exacom.net Wed Jul 9 06:12:05 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:08 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Saturday= PROTEST Message-ID: <002001c34602$8dcce440$bf997ed8@computer> Although there is no regular Farmer's Market this Saturday July 12 on the Square, there is the Arts Fair with hundred of people. I plan to carry this sign= Bush Lied- GI Sons Die, Lies, Lies, Lies, Bush Lies- We Told the Truth ------------------------ Bush Lied & LIES Why GI Son Dies -- We tell the Truth www.madpeace.org ---------------------------- If you can join me, meet at 9am, regular King st. corner site. From barisonj at exacom.net Wed Jul 9 06:29:29 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:09 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] What? a Real Conspiracy? Message-ID: <004101c34604$fc0e1260$bf997ed8@computer> Could this be the "missing conspiracy"? Subject: NYTimes.com Article: Wrestling for the Truth of 9/11 > Wrestling for the Truth of 9/11 > > July 9, 2003 > > The Bush administration, long allergic to the idea of > investigating the government's failure to prevent the Sept. > 11 terror attacks, is now doing its best to bury the > national commission that was created to review Washington's > conduct. That was made plain yesterday in a muted way by > Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor, and Lee > Hamilton, the former congressman, who are directing the > inquiry. When these seasoned, mild-mannered men start > complaining that the administration is trying to intimidate > the commission, the country had better take notice. > > In a status report on its work, the commission said various > agencies - particularly the Pentagon and the Justice > Department - were blocking requests for vital information > and resources. Acting more like the Soviet Kremlin than the > American government, the administration has insisted that > monitors from various agencies attend debriefings of key > officials by investigators. Mr. Kean is quite correct in > objecting to this as a thinly veiled attempt at > intimidation. Meanwhile, the clock is running for the > commission to complete a full report to the nation by next > May. > > Too polite to use the word "stonewalling," the bipartisan > commission nevertheless warned the nation that thus far the > administration had "underestimated the scale of the > commission's work and the full breadth of support > required." > > The White House has repeatedly pledged cooperation while > stressing the delicacy of protecting classified secrets. > There are techniques and precedents for the commission to > be extended access to critical information without > compromising security. Two serious areas of dispute that > should be quickly settled in the commission's favor are > access to the minutes of National Security Council meetings > and to the daily briefing memorandums prepared by the > Central Intelligence Agency for President Bush. > > Mr. Kean assumed the chairmanship after questions were > raised about potential conflicts of interest for the White > House's initial choice, Henry Kissinger. "The coming weeks > will determine whether we will be able to do our job," the > commission warned in prodding the administration to protect > the nation's future security as passionately as it clings > to its past secrets. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/09/opinion/09WED1.html?ex=1058745925&ei =1&en=22519900448d78ff > > > --------------------------------- > > Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine > reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like! > Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy > now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: > > http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html > > > > HOW TO ADVERTISE > --------------------------------- > For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters > or other creative advertising opportunities with The > New York Times on the Web, please contact > onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media > kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo > > For general information about NYTimes.com, write to > help@nytimes.com. > > Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company > From jhawkins at ci.madison.wi.us Wed Jul 9 10:29:12 2003 From: jhawkins at ci.madison.wi.us (Jennifer Hawkins) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:09 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Frederick Douglass' opinion Message-ID: The paragraph below applies to what MAPC and other groups should focus on (take or leave the reference to God, as you prefer). >From Frederick Douglass' Independence Day Speech at Rochester, 1841 At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could I reach the nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced. More herehere -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030709/481efd2c/attachment.htm From kck34 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 9 10:27:18 2003 From: kck34 at yahoo.com (Keith Kinion) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:09 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Courting the middle class Message-ID: <20030709162718.25481.qmail@web10102.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all, Below is a commentary I receive by Znet at a premium. If you would like to know more, you can pull up there website at znet.org. I hope this thoughtful commentary by Cynthia Peters will give people some useful insight abour organizing. In solidarity, Keith ZNet Commentary Courting the "Middle Class" July 09, 2003 By Cynthia Peters As we approach election year 2004, it is tempting to lead with the rallying cry, "Dump Bush." Besides the obvious reasons why it would be preferable to unseat this frat boy with his finger on the button, many progressives believe that the slogan appeals to the "middle class." Who is this middle class that we so often worry about alienating? I'm afraid it is made up of people who are often not our natural allies, and who in fact are more invested in maintaining their privilege than other classes of people who potentially have a lot more to offer to social change movements, but who we have a pattern of ignoring. Perhaps we imagine that by hooking our cause to socially acceptable norms, we will grow. If our message is palatable to the New York Times, we will get better coverage, and so gain legitimacy. If our movement resonates with the social-climber professionals, coordinators and decisionmakers, then they will use their resources and talents to carry us forward. In the last couple of years, I have received email notices reminding me to dress "nicely" for upcoming demonstrations. I have heard mostly white activists debate dropping a black rap group from an event line-up because their language might offend "families." And I have heard people argue that a "Dump Bush" demand is worthwhile because it appeals to people who "aren't ready" for a more radical message that lays the blame for war and injustice less on one evil-doer and more on the workings of society's underlying institutions. But when we contrive a wardrobe that will appeal to others, eliminate the edge from our cultural commentary, and demonize the figurehead of our corporate controlled government, we lose credibility with the people who know better. Consider the person I met at a local bar the other night when I was there with a couple of friends strategizing about how to link local and national organizing efforts in Boston during next year's Democratic National Convention. We got to talking after he bought us all a round of beers for no reason other than to be friendly. His name was Johnny, and I asked him, "Who do you think you're going to vote for next year?" "Vote?!" he said. "I don't bother voting. It's all a pile of shit," he explained as he play-acted shoveling out manure. "Watch out for that shit. You'll need your waders." We all laughed. He went back to his friends and we went back to our conversation, with a fresh reminder that although protesting the national conventions of the major political parties seems like a reasonable and potentially productive organizing strategy, it's not going to mean much to people who think the whole thing is a charade to begin with. Johnny won't be voting and it seems likely he could care less about protesting the Democrats or anyone else since he thinks the whole system is a "pile of shit." And he's not alone. About half the electorate did not bother voting in 2000 -- that's tens of million people. It's only anecdotal, but the people I talk to who are most interested in voting are the people who are most invested in maintaining the status quo. The welfare recipients and low-wage workers I teach in adult education classes believe the "candidates are all the same" and that it makes no difference who you vote for. They understand oppression as stemming from the fact that they have to be dependent on abusive men, that they have to go along with English-only policies at work, that they have to tolerate bosses who yell at them and give them exceedingly boring and unfulfilling work and then stand over them telling them to hurry up. They are overwhelmingly anti-war because they understand that war kills poor people while it makes rich people richer. Another patron of the bar was Kevin. He approached us because he noticed my friend's anti-School of the Americas shirt, which refers to the Georgia-based military training center as the "School of Assassins." "I salute you for wearing that shirt," he says. "That place is nothing but a torture school." He had been drinking, and there was an edge in his voice as he leaned into us and pointed his finger, "I suppose you'd say I was an assassin, too. And I am. I've got four confirmed kills," he said, "and a bunch more unconfirmed ones." He had served in Beirut in `83 where a bunch of his buddies died in the attack on the embassy. He served in Panama in 1989 and in the first Gulf War. His voice veered back and forth between aggression and sadness. It was as if he couldn't decide if he wanted to pick a fight or share his deepest concerns. Kevin made what he believes is the supreme sacrifice for his country. "And it ain't dying," he said. "It's killing." "Dying is nothing," he tells us, "But the killing.I've got to live with that my whole life." "Was it worth it?" I asked. He was silent for a minute. "I don't know," he said. But then the anger returned, this time directed at "Nazi-chusetts" where we live, and where the Speaker of the House, Thomas Finneran, told the electorate to shove it when he shelved a referendum on clean elections. He railed against U.S. imperialism. In the course of the conversation, there wasn't much that Kevin, Johnny or I disagreed on, yet there was an enormous gulf between us. "There's nothing I can do about what's wrong with this country," Kevin said at one point. "That 's for you people to figure out. You're articulate. You've been to college." To state the obvious, Kevin would not be showing up at any anti-Finneran or anti-war protests - both of which (between my friends and I) we had devoted years to organizing. Unless we do something radically different than usual, he won't be coming to the DNC protests either even if some of the plans were hatched right there in his own neighborhood bar. This is one of the disconnects that keeps progressive movements on the margins. My guess is that there are millions of people like the low-wage workers and the ex-marines who don't need to be enlightened about injustice. But very few would have anything to do with current social change movements, and under most circumstances would keep their distance from the apparently educated and articulate elite that seem to determine the anti-establishment agenda. And I'll be honest. I have probably kept my distance from people like Johnny and Kevin. I did not go into the bar that night wondering what the other patrons were thinking about. It wasn't me who bought the round for everyone. I'm intimidated by guys in bars who boast about their "kills" on the one hand, but on the other reveal just how thoroughly chewed up and spit out they are by a system that recruits them with false promises, uses them for false pretenses, and then leaves them with no way to rationalize what they did. In my isolation from the guys in the bars, I imagine them to have unattractive views about reproductive rights, affirmative action, and gay liberation. But I don't know any of this for sure as I have never asked. Even if I discovered significant disagreement on issues I really care about, that should not impede my efforts to build alliances and work in coalitions with people like Johnny and Kevin. After all, my disagreements with the engineers of Kevin's fate -- the managers, bosses, legislators, and assorted other middle-class professionals-- are at least as significant, yet I am part of an anti-war movement that never gives up courting them. There are possibly millions and millions of people whose trust of us will not climb along with the New York Times's, but in fact is probably inversely related. We don't need credibility from institutions that safeguard elite interests. We need credibility from the legions of people that have already given up on these institutions. Their numbers are growing. Are we talking to them? More importantly, are we listening? Cynthia Peters (cyn.peters@verizon.net) is active in the peace and justice movement on the neighborhood, regional and national levels. She teaches in the Worker Education Project at SEIU Local 285. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com From earlwal at chorus.net Wed Jul 9 15:22:37 2003 From: earlwal at chorus.net (BobReuschlein) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:09 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Rumsfeld defensive about lies Message-ID: my comments in (parentheses) Bob Reuschlein UNWIRE Today: Rumsfeld Says New Evidence Did Not Spur War With Iraq (yup, going in regardless) U.S. May Ask NATO For Help In Iraq (when the going gets tough.....) U.S. To Appoint Governing Council This Month (about time.....) WFP Concerned About Security, But Food Shipments Increasing Rumsfeld Says New Evidence Did Not Spur War With Iraq U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said today the United States did not go to war with Iraq because it had discovered new evidence that Iraq was producing banned weapons but because it regarded existing evidence differently than it had before September 2001. (never one to miss an opportunity) "The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit" of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, Rumsfeld said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light - through the prism of our experience on 9-11" (Reuters , July 9). (Rummy wanted Iraq on 9-12-01, see Woodwards book "Bush at War") The topic of the committee hearing was "Lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq" (CNN, July 9). Rumsfeld told senators that "the United States did not choose a war - [deposed Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein did. For 12 years he violated 17 United Nations resolutions without cost or consequences." (yup, kept changing the goalposts until they got him, then withdrew and bombed to prevent evidence of disarmament from ending sactions in 1998-RWR) The secretary added that since Iraq had had 12 years to conceal its weapons programs, uncovering them would take time (Reuters). (just like finding the real killer took time for OJ) In related news, the Financial Times reported today that the International Atomic Energy Agency said it had to wait six weeks - from December 2002 to early February 2003 - for evidence from the United States that the Iraqi government had tried to obtain uranium from Africa. (the old stall and lie trick) According to a letter from the U.N. agency released yesterday by U.S. Representative Henry Waxman, the delay came during the critical period when U.N. inspectors were investigating U.S. allegations that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons. During the six weeks in question, the administration repeated several times, including during the president's State of the Union address, the allegations that Iraq had tried to buy "yellow cake" uranium from Niger. (Debugged a year before by special Cheney envoy in March 02 with 17 agencies notified) On Monday the White House said the allegations were based on "bogus" information (Financial Times, July 9). Opposition Democratic leaders are now pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into intelligence about the weapons of mass destruction claims. (Does the word "bogus" now mean "true"? "1984" the book.) "The quality of that intelligence has been known ... from the very beginning," said West Virginia Senator John Rockefeller, speaking of the Niger intelligence. "It was all discredited, early and often," he said, adding, "It was debunked everywhere" (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo! News, July 9). U.S. May Ask NATO For Help In Iraq Amid mounting casualties and domestic complaints that its military is stretched too thin, the United States is considering asking NATO to take over operations in Iraq, the Baltimore Sun reported today. The newspaper cited an anonymous U.S. official as saying the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush has shown "interest" in handing over the mission to NATO, though not immediately. "I think the American public would be pleased to see NATO helping us in Iraq," the official added. Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reportedly said in a press conference last month that NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson had told him NATO would be "willing to step in" but had not yet been asked. According to the Sun, officials in Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels say a handover could be discussed as early as this fall. News of potential NATO involvement comes as the Pentagon released death toll figures yesterday showing that 143 U.S. troops have been killed by enemy fire since the war began, a sum that approaches the 1991 Gulf War death toll of 147. Of those, 29 have died since hostilities formally ended May 1 (Matthews/Bowman, Baltimore Sun, July 9). Iraqi insurgents have increased attacks on U.S. soldiers in the past few weeks. Yesterday seven U.S. troops were wounded in three separate attacks, one in Kirkuk, one in Baghdad and one about 20 miles west of Baghdad. Also yesterday, Al-Jazeera and Lebanon's LBC Al-Hayat television station aired an audiotape, purportedly from Hussein, urging more covert attacks on coalition forces. It was the second in one week. (but "the media" still wonder if he's dead or alive) "Returning to covert attacks is the appropriate means for resistance," the voice on the tape said. "Your main mission, Iraqis, is to evict the invaders from Iraqi territory" (Reuters/Gulf News, July 9). In response to the attacks, the United States yesterday offered a $2,500 reward for information about anyone who has killed a coalition soldier or Iraqi policeman. Last week U.S. officials put a $25 million bounty on Hussein and a $15 million price on the head of each of his sons. "I urge the Iraqi people to come forward to take these people off the streets of the country," said the director of security in Iraq, Bernard Kerik, announcing the reward in Baghdad (Washington Times, July 9). U.S. Central Command announced today that two high-ranking members of Hussein's government were arrested yesterday. Mizban Khadr al-Hadi, a senior Baath Party member, reportedly turned himself in, and former Interior Minister Mahmud Dhiyab al-Ahmad reportedly was arrested. So far 34 of the 55 people on the most-wanted list are in U.S. custody (Paul Haven, Associated Press/Yahoo! News, July 9). U.S. To Appoint Governing Council This Month U.S. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith said yesterday that chief U.S. administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer will this month install a governing council of Iraqi leaders. Feith said the council will eventually oversee Iraq's government ministries and will represent the Iraqi people to the U.S.-led coalition and the rest of the world. Feith called plans for the council - and Baghdad's city advisory committee, which held its first meeting on Monday - a "major step in turning over the running of Baghdad to Iraqis" (Vernon Loeb, Washington Post, July 9). According to the London Guardian, the announcement of the council's formation follows a reversal of policy by one of Iraq's prominent former exile groups. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a powerful Shiite group that has spent the last 20 years in exile in Tehran, had been insisting that Iraqis elect the council rather than accept one picked by Bremer. "Any government chosen by Bremer cannot be defended before the Iraqi people," a SCIRI spokesman told the British newspaper last Saturday. However, the Guardian reports, at a meeting Monday of the so-called "Group of Seven" former opposition parties in Salaheddin, SCIRI decided to welcome the appointed council after it was convinced that elections would take too long. According to the British newspaper, the council will have no more than one representative from each Group of Seven party, plus another 20 or so members from independent or smaller parties, to be chosen over the next week. It will be a Shiite majority body - an historic first for Iraq - and will reportedly include three or four women. It will be tasked with writing a constitution, organizing elections, making recommendations for reforming the educational and judicial systems, approving the budget and representing Iraq (Steele/Whitaker, London Guardian, July 9). In other news, the U.S.-installed governor of Karbala stepped down yesterday amid allegations by the city council that he had misspent government funds. Ali Kammouna had served as governor of the southern city since May and was the first postwar governor to be installed by the U.S. Marines, according to AP. A U.S. military spokesman said coalition forces and the Karbala city council would conduct an investigation. Kammouna is the second leader in southern Iraq to lose his job in the last two weeks. The governor of Najaf was recently arrested on charges of corruption and kidnapping (Bassem Mroue, AP/Yahoo! News, July 8). WFP Concerned About Security, But Food Shipments Increasing In an interview with Integrated Regional Information Networks, World Food Program Executive Director James Morris said the main obstacle to distributing food in Iraq is security, but that the amount of food WFP has brought into Iraq through Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and Iran, has grown from 74,000 metric tons in April to 758,000 in June. The agency has dedicated 20 percent of its global staff to the effort, with 320 international employees assigned to Iraq along with 800 national staffers. WFP sends about 9,000 trucks laden with food into the country each month. Drivers have been threatened or beaten up while transporting food into Iraq in isolated incidents, Morris said, adding that the security at warehouses was "not ideal," as the guards are unarmed and powerless to stop looting at warehouses in Umm Qasr and Baghdad Morris said the budget of $1.5 billion looks to be sufficient. "We are nearly fully funded, thanks to 30 donors, and also thanks to the Oil for Food program,, which is expected to cover about 65 percent of requirements," he said (IRIN/ReliefWeb, July 8). In related news, the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia convened a three-day meeting today in Beirut, Lebanon, to discuss how Iraq's neighbors can help with reconstructing Iraq's infrastructure, social safety nets and economic well-being, as well as how countries in the region can deal with the war's impact on regional economies (U.N. release, July 7). From edinur at wisc.edu Wed Jul 9 14:47:06 2003 From: edinur at wisc.edu (Esty Dinur) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:09 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Fwd: Wheels of Justice Bus Tour Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030709134608.02104ca0@wiscmail.wisc.edu> They'll be here 7/22. >Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 13:32:14 -0500 >From: "info@vitw.org" >Subject: Wheels of Justice Bus Tour >To: Esty Dinur >Reply-to: "info@vitw.org" >Organization: Voices in the Wilderness >X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service >X-Spam-Score: ******* >X-Spam-Report: Probability=75%, Hits=__HAS_X_PRIORITY, __HAS_X_MAILER, > __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI, __EVITE_CTYPE, NOSPAM_INC, FORGED_RCVD_TRAIL, > DATE_IN_FUTURE_96_XX, MISSING_MIMEOLE, MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME, > SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 >Original-recipient: rfc822;edinur@facstaff.wisc.edu > >Note: >If you wish to participate or host the WHEELS OF JUSTICE tour, contact Ceylon >Mooney of Voices in the Wilderness at ceylon@vitw.org and 917-567-5048. > > > >WHEELS OF JUSTICE TOUR >Nonviolent education and action against war and occupation in Iraq and >Palestine > >Members of Voices in the Wilderness, Al-Awda, the International Solidarity >Movement, and Middle East Children's Alliance take to the road in a >colorfully >decorated full-size school bus for the Wheels of Justice Tour. Starting in >mid-August 2003, this tour will canvass the western United Sates to challenge >and educate North Americans on the occupation of Palestine and Iraq. > >Having seen and lived with war, terror and occupation in Iraq and Palestine, >participants in the Wheels of Justice offer first-hand experience >irrespective of >partisan politics and sound bite sloganeering. To build upon and reassert the >massive domestic opposition to war against Iraq and occupation of the >Palestinians, the Wheels of Justice Tour will travel all across the >western United >States for education, outreach, nonviolence/action training, active >resistance, >and community-building. > > The > Wheels of Justice Tour Platform: > >We call for adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights > >Through education, outreach, nonviolent actions and personal witness, we >stand >in opposition to the violence and injustice of war and occupation. > >We recognize that to find peace, the root injustices must be sought, seen and >directly dealt with. > >We seek and practice nonviolent alternatives to the current violence and >advocate solutions to the roots of war in Iraq and Palestine/Israel and >our own >communities. > > >Truth-Telling: > >We must address Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestine. This >occupation continues a legacy that began in 1947 with Israel's death squads >killing and expelling Palestinians to make room for foreign settlers. The >apartheid laws, ongoing displacement of native Palestinians, and numerous >injustices under Israel's 36-year military occupation of Palestinian land >perpetuates the bloodshed. The violence suffered by Israelis and Palestinians >will continue as long as the foundation upon which it stands--direct military >occupation and human rights abuses--remains. > > We must address the ongoing legacy of U.S. involvement in Iraq. The current >U.S. occupation of Iraq, the lifting of sanctions under U.S. military >rule, and the >continued local instability deny the Iraqi citizenry the very >self-determination >championed by the United States. The cultural, political and economic >institutions of Iraq belong to the Iraqis, not to Washington; the >hijacking of Iraq's >culture and resources by a foreign power exacerbates and prolongs the >consequences of the 13-year U.S.-led war, and the ordinary people of Iraq >still >have no self-governance. > >You cannot have peace without justice, you cannot see justice without >actively >resisting injustice, and you can't nourish a nonviolent resistance without a >supportive community. The consequences of these wars and occupations fall >upon the shoulders of the poor and oppressed, the refugees and the >marginalized, and those in our own communities whose needs are neglected by >governments' costly pursuit of foreign wars; the human cost is paid for by >the >innocent and most vulnerable, here and abroad. To see an end to the violence >and injustice of war and occupation, we must invest in justice and human >rights >for those living with and living under occupation and war. > > The Only Roadmap for Peace: Justice and > Human Rights > >As people of conscience working for peace, we see that the only roadmap for >peace is justice and human rights. We call upon all parties involved to >recognize and adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we >call for nonviolent resistance to this violence of war, terror and occupation. > >As much of this violence is supported by our tax dollars and by our elected >officials, Americans bear a great responsibility. The people of the world >know >this, and U.S. government policy provokes rage and retaliation against >Americans. > >Further, draining our treasury on weapons and wars helps prolong and >exacerbate our economic crisis and diverts resources greatly needed to build >American schools and infrastructure and provide employment and healthcare to >our own citizens. To break the cycle of violence we must change our roles in >these conflicts; as individuals and as a nation, we must move from >instigator to >negotiator, from enabler to resister. > > >Educational Focus: >*Self-determination for both Iraqis and Palestinians versus occupation and >colonization (drawing parallels to the dispossession and oppression of other >peoples, including American Indians, African Americans, South African blacks >under Apartheid, etc.) >*Universal Human Rights and equality under the law >*Effects of war and occupation on civilians in Palestine/Israel and Iraq, >including >house demolitions, armed conflict, apartheid laws, collective punishment, and >degrading humanitarian conditions >*US taxpayers' footing the bill and bearing the consequences of flawed US >foreign policy in Iraq and Palestine/Israel. > > >Action Focus: >*Promote solidarity with Iraqis and Palestinians under war and occupation. >*Cultivate, promote and take nonviolent direct action for peace and justice. >*Build and strengthen networks of action groups in states visited. >*Engage in advocacy with elected and appointed officials; challenge pro-war >and pro-occupation officials in public. >*Engage in mass media campaigns. >*Raise material support for home rebuilding, refugee aid, and advocacy work. > > >Brought to you by > >Voices in the Wilderness > >Middle East Children's Alliance > Al-Awda, the Palestinian Right to > Return Coalition > Affiliates of the International > Solidarity Movement > > >The WHEELS OF JUSTICE bus tour starts in mid-August. Leaving from the >Chicago area, we will head north and west, passing through and stopping in >Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Washington...we start >moving south when we hit the west coast; next, we start heading east from >southern California through Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, the >plains, >Oklahoma, Texas; then northbound from Louisiana through Mississippi and >Arkansas. This is a HUGE territory we wish to cover in 6 months, and we >will not >be able to visit everywhere in one itinerary. There is the possibility of >doing >simultaneous mini-tours to locations, which we'll have to bypass on the main >route. Simon Harak and Ceylon Mooney are exploring a few different itinerary >options. > >Here are a list of activities we'd like to co-organize and participate in >with host >organizations and individuals: >*press conferences >*blood drives: donor donates in the name of Iraqi or Palestinian civilians >killed/wounded by u.s. weapons >*teach-ins, lectures, presentations, slide shows in public and private venues >*faith-related activities, religious services for justice and peace in >Iraq and >Palestine Israel >*movie screenings >*slide shows >*letter-writing, outreach and lobby training >*appearances at campaign rallies and events featuring elected and selected >public officials >*events and public appearances of company executives (from boeing, >caterpillar, etc) who indirectly or directly participate in war/occupation >and >related activities >*nonviolence and direct action training/orientation >*poetry events/open mike >*"bands against bombs" concerts and musical performances >*community-building events, like potlucks and strategizing local >resistance and >peacemaking efforts >*vigils, protests, and nonviolent actions at military facilities and >war-related >corporate locations (Boeing, Bechtel, Lockheed-Martin, Caterpillar, DynCorp, >etc) >*using BIO DIESEL to fill up our school bus > >Here is the travel route through December 23: > >July 20 Sun. Milwaukee >July 21 Mon. Racine >July 22 Tue. Madison >July 23 Wed. Sheboygan, 7 pm, at the Library >July 24 Thur. West Bend >July 25 Fri. Stevens Point, PM > >July 30-Aug 3 Toledo or western Illinois (tentative) > >aug 13, 14 Green Bay, Wisconsin >aug 15 Lacrosse, WI >aug 16-21 Minnessota >aug 22-29 North Dakota >aug 30-sept 5 South Dakota >sept 6 leave SD and drive >sept 7-12 Nebraska >sept 13-21 Colorado >sept 22-25 Wyoming >sept 26-oct 3 Montana >oct 4-6 Spokane, Washington >oct 7-18 more Washington >oct 19-27 Oregon >oct 28-nov 2 Idaho >nov 3 drive >nov 4-9 Utah >nov 10 drive >nov 11-16 upper Nevada >nov 17-dec 7 California >dec 8 drive >dec 9-12 lower Nevada, Vegas, etc >dec 13-23 Arizona > >after the new year: >New Mexico >The Republic of Texas >Louisiana >Mississippi >Tennessee > > then we start the next tour of the deep south. Then up the east coast. >Then into >Canada. > > >If you wish to participate or host the WHEELS OF JUSTICE tour, contact Ceylon >Mooney of Voices in the Wilderness at ceylon@vitw.org and 917-567-5048. Esty Dinur Marketing and Communications Manager Wisconsin Union Theater 800 Langdon St. Madison, WI 53706-1459 608-262-3907 (voice) 608-265-5084 (fax) edinur@wisc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030709/6a356e34/attachment.htm From whoogirl at hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 16:26:04 2003 From: whoogirl at hotmail.com (Laura McNeill) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:09 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Fw: SOLDIERS OF MISFORTUNE Message-ID: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 12:41 AM Subject: SOLDIERS OF MISFORTUNE SOLDIERS OF MISFORTUNE ===================== [Col. Writ. 6/19/03] Copyright '03 Mumia Abu-Jamal Every politician worth his or her salt speaks sweet words of endearment about the young soldiers on the periphery of the American Empire. They're "brave," "courageous" and "defenders of 'our' freedoms." Everyone in power seems to be basking in the glow of spring love for 'our' young warriors, but if time teaches us anything about the praises of politicians, it is that such sweet words last about as long as cotton candy in an April shower. If we are honest, and if we look at things from the perspective of political leaders, we see that soldiers are but instruments of state power. They're seen as, say a queen bee 'sees' a drone; they are expendable. How can we come to any other conclusion in light of the way veterans of military engagements past are treated, not by protestors who may oppose their imperial violence, but by the State that employed their services? Soldiers of World War II were subjected to dangerous exposure to radioactive materials, causing uncounted effects in thousands of men over generations. The veterans of Vietnam were exposed to the ravages of Agent Orange, but found their enemies not in grass and mud hootches in the subtropics of Asia, but in the Veteran's Administration hospitals, the chemical companies, and the politicians who represent their interests, who rejected their health concerns for at least a generation. When thousands of men and women went to the (first) Gulf War, they experienced serious life-threatening illnesses that they called the Gulf War Syndrome. Who opposed them, assuring them that it was 'just in their minds'? The same folks who opposed their predecessors! The raging protests of Vietnam forced the government to deep-six the draft (which had been unpopular since the Civil War), and institute what they claimed was an 'all-volunteer' service. Yet, who volunteers-- and why? Studies have shown that low-income levels and chronic unemployment is an important element in why some people opt for military service. Slick, computer-generated ad campaigns promise thousands of dollars for college, and emphasize individuality under the ??oArmy of One??? pitch. With few prospects of a career in an economy driven by recession, and the demoralizing weight of a dead-end job (if one is able to get one), the ads on TV can prove irresistible. The Philadelphia-based Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors (CCCO) considers the military's present recruitment efforts as a "poverty draft". The Jennifer Lynch's of the world, surviving in the low-growth economic battlefield of West Virginia, find the military a viable, stable option in an unstable civilian economy. How many people in the services would be there, if education was truly affordable? Or if the economy was out of recession? As Congress passes resolutions praising the troops, the very same House of Representatives moves to cut some $25 billion from veterans' health benefits over the next decade. The love of politicians seems ever so fickle these days. Meanwhile, more and more public dollars gets funneled into the cavernous maw of the military-industrial-complex. As this happens, we see the economic underpinnings of war. Wars are not waged on behalf of the many, but for the few; those few who can, and will benefit from ravages of war, like oil companies, defense industries and the like. How can this most recent war be for the benefit of a people who overwhelmingly opposed it, in unprecedented numbers? Least of all, are wars fought for those who fight in them. They are drawn, overwhelmingly, from the ranks of the poor and the working-classes; those who can find no space in a tight economic environment. They fight abroad because they are exhausted from the never-ending fight at home, for a decent, affordable education, for decent housing, for a job with some degree of longevity. They are fighting to survive against a truly ruthless enemy -- those who run America's economy. Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal ======================================= MUMIA'S COLUMNS NEED TO BE PUBLISHED AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE TO INSPIRE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT AND HELP CALL ATTENTION TO HIS CASE. The campaign to kill Mumia is in full swing and we need you to **please** contact as many publications and information outlets as you possibly can to run Mumia's commentaries (on-line and **especially off-line**)!! The only requirements are that you run them *unedited*, with every word including copyright information intact, and send a copy of the publication to Mumia and/or ICFFMAJ. THANK YOU!!! These are VERY SERIOUS TIMES for political activists in this country and around the world. Get full details and keep updated by reading ACTION ALERTS!! at www.mumia.org and its links. ======================================== To download Mp3's of Mumia's commentaries visit www.prisonradio.org or www.fsrn.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030709/ed18a61a/attachment.htm From whoogirl at hotmail.com Wed Jul 9 16:33:24 2003 From: whoogirl at hotmail.com (Laura McNeill) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:10 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Fw:God Responds to W. Message-ID: a bit of humor for you from tim wise. ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Wise To: timjwise@msn.com Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:31 PM Subject: [WACadvisory] (unknown) Thought you all might get a kick out of it. I sent it to Alternet; have no idea if they'll run it, of course. God Responds to W. Chatting With the Almighty About President Bush By Tim Wise God is apparently quite busy. Between trying to soften the hearts of the hateful, sow peace and brotherhood throughout the world, and prevent a new episode of The Bachelor, the Almighty apparently also talks to George W. Bush. According to the Israeli daily Ha?aretz, Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that God had told him to attack al-Qaeda and then Saddam Hussein. I know some folks say anyone who claims to hear the voice of God is crazy, but don?t count me among those people. After all, I spoke with God this morning, and man is she pissed. Although Bush?s supporters insist there must have been a mistranslation of the President?s remarks, God says that?s exactly what Bush claimed, even though she never told him any such thing. She?s considering a libel suit. As God explained to me this morning: ?I didn?t say ?attack Hussein,? I said ?attack Houston,? what, do I mumble or something?? I had e-mailed God asking for an interview, not really expecting to hear back. After all, there?s a lot going on nowadays and I?m not really in the press pool, so to speak. I was hoping to ask the Lord about a few things, especially another recent comment by the President, in which he taunted Iraqis angry with the U.S. occupation of their country, saying ?bring ?em on,? when asked about snipers who might try and kill American troops, as several indeed have. When the phone rang I thought it was a telemarketer. Imagine my surprise when it turned out to be God. ?I mean, what is with this guy?? God asked, as if she didn?t already know. ?Is this what conservatives mean by ?support the troops?? Good Me! Isn?t this the same putz who said Jesus Christ was his favorite political philosopher during the 2000 Presidential campaign?? ?Yes,? I confirmed. Bush had said that. ?See, that?s what I?m talkin? about,? God continued, clearly getting worked up. ?Where do you get ?bring it on? from Jesus? ?Or what was that other thing he said, about that asshole bin Laden? What was it? ?Dead or alive?? Me almighty! What in the name of Me was I thinking when I breathed life into this blithering idiot?? There was no stopping her now. ?In fact, wait just a minute; let me put you on three-way calling for a second. I?ve gotta call Jesus and ask him about this. Let?s see, where?s my Day Planner? Ah yes, here it is, now let?s see, ?Prince of Peace,? ?Prince of Peace,? oh wait, I?ve got him on speed-dial. This should only take a second.? I waited, the phone rang, Jesus answered, and before he could say anything, God piped up. ?Hey Yeshua, when you were standing on that hill giving that sermon, did you dare the Romans to ?bring it on?? Did I miss something?? ?I know, I know,? Jesus responded. ?If I wasn?t so committed to that ?turn the other cheek? thing, I'd return to Earth just to set that guy straight. As a matter of fact I did say ?bring it on,? but only once, and I wasn?t taunting anybody. It was right after I fed the multitudes from that one loaf of bread. I was asking for some margarine, as in, ?bring it on, can?t a brotha? get some margarine up in here?? I don?t know how he got it all twisted around.? ?Me love him,? God replied, letting out a heavy sigh, ?he?s as thick as a post.? Seeing as how I?m an American, I think God almost felt sorry for me. ?Me bless you,? she said. ?You all are in one Me-awful mess down there, aren?t you?? I thanked her for her concern, and then noted that the President was currently traveling in Africa. ?You think I don?t know that?? she snapped. ?I watched him get off the plane in Senegal earlier, turn to one of his aides and ask ?Is this the capital of Africa?? Jeeezus H. Christ!? ?Yes?? Jesus replied, still on the line. ?No, no, not talking to you. It?s just an expression,? God explained. ?Sorry.? ?So, do you think the President?s AIDS package for Africa will do any good?? I inquired. ?Well,? God replied, ?I really can?t talk about the future. But I sure hope he doesn?t dare the virus to ?bring it on.? The people of sub-Saharan Africa have suffered enough without your President challenging a deadly disease to a game of chicken.? ?Hey listen,' God continued, ?I really have to wrap this up. I?ve got a live interview on Fox in a second. Gonna give O?Reilly fits. I?m thinking about the old Tower of Babel trick, where I garble up all of his words so no one can tell what in the name of Me he?s talking about. Or maybe the locust thing, I don?t know. So many curses and plagues, so little time.? "O.K.,' I said, 'one last question: seeing as how you created the universe and all, how do you feel about the President?s environmental policies?" ?What environmental policies?' God asked sarcastically. 'You mean the one where he tells global warming to ?bring it on,? because he?s from Texas and can take the heat? That environmental policy? He?s really starting to piss me off. In fact, I?m thinking of taking out a bulletin board smack dab in the middle of the hole in the ozone layer that says, ?I burned one Bush, I can burn another one. Don?t test me, frat boy'.? I thanked God for her candor and then, wondering how she might react decided to throw in one last thing. ?You know,? I said. ?George W. is convinced you?re a man. In fact, most people apparently think so. To be honest, I guess I did too.? ?Oh for the Love of Me! What is it with you fellas? What, you think creating a cosmos is something you can do just because you took a class at Home Depot or something? Hah! I?d like to see you try it. To make a world from scratch you?ve gotta have patience, you?ve gotta have humility, you?ve gotta have spatial relations for My sake! Most guys can?t even pack their own suitcase without help. If I?d been a man, Jupiter would be sitting on top of Pluto right now, because ?Who cares, it?s permanent press!? ?Those are all good points,? I interjected, as if God needed my approval for her logic. ?Maybe you should try and clear it up for everyone,? I suggested. ?What do you mean?? she asked. ?Should I go on Oprah or something?? ?No,? I said. ?I don?t think guys like George W. watch Oprah. She encourages people to read.? ?Hmm...? God wondered aloud. ?O.K. then, better make it The Super Bowl. That way, both Jesus and I can make it real clear to these clodhoppers that we had nothing to do with them winning the big game. We couldn?t care less, so stop thanking us.? ?Better yet, maybe I?ll just show up at the next meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, right about the time they decide to discuss that whole ?women should submit graciously to their husbands? thing. Oh yeah baby, time for God to ?bring it on.? This is going to be fun.? Tim Wise is an essayist, activist and father. He can be reached (and/or forgiven) at timjwise@msn.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: WACadvisory-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030709/bc045e83/attachment.htm From barisonj at exacom.net Wed Jul 9 20:41:59 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:10 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] More Evidence Bush Misled Nation; Message-ID: <002f01c3467c$1477f240$54997ed8@computer> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:57 PM Subject: More Evidence Bush Misled Nation; Iran: Perceptions and Misperceptions * More Evidence Bush Misled Nation * STRATFOR Iran: Perceptions and Misperceptions ______________________________________________ More Evidence Bush Misled Nation 07/07/2003 @ 5:37pm http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=800 If you blinked--or were busy buying hot-dogs and beer for a Fourth of July cookout--you might have missed the latest evidence that George W. Bush misrepresented the threat from Iraq as he guided the country into invasion and occupation in the Middle East. The day before Independence Day, Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director who is leading a review of the CIA's prewar intelligence on Iraq's unconventional weapons, held a series of interviews with journalists and revealed that his unfinished inquiry had so far found that the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction had been somewhat ambiguous, that analysts at the CIA and other intelligence services had received pressure from the Bush administration, and that the CIA had not found any proof of operational ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. In other words, Bush lied. Bush had said that intelligence gathered by the United States and other nations had determined--"no doubt"--that Hussein possessed WMDs, and he had declared that the Iraqi dictator was "dealing" with al Qaeda. Kerr's statements undermined these vital assertions Bush had made to justify the war. Kerr was not trying to be difficult. His remarks were primarily pro-CIA. He maintained that the agency had been right to tell Bush and top administration officials that Hussein was seeking WMDs. He said that intelligence analysts had resisted pressure and had done a fine job, considering the limited amount of material they had to work with. Kerr noted that US intelligence analysts had been forced to rely upon information from the early and mid-1990s and had little hard evidence to evaluate after 1998 (when UN weapons inspectors left the Iraq). The material that did come in after then was mostly "circumstantial" or "inferential," he said. It was "less specific and detailed" than in earlier years, "scattered." Speaking to The Washington Post, he commented, "It would have been very hard to conclude those [WMD] programs were not continuing, based on the reports being gathered in recent years." And he noted that CIA intelligence reports included the "appropriate caveats" regarding their less-than-definitive conclusions. (An unclassified CIA report released last October said, without qualification, "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons." But its supporting material was nuanced, and Kerr noted that intelligence analysts usually pointed out that their information was not perfect.) Though Kerr did not say so outright, his findings indicate that there was no hard-and-fast intelligence that Iraq possessed ready-to-go chemical or biological weapons. Yet that is what Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Ari Fleischer and other administration officials had asserted repeatedly. In his interviews, Kerr remarked that US intelligence analysts were right to assume, based on older evidence and more recent circumstantial material, that Iraq was maintaining its unconventional weapons programs. But developing weapons is not the same as possessing weapons. Bush and his advisers did not argue that the United States was compelled to go to war--rather than support more intrusive inspections--because Hussein had ongoing weapons programs; they claimed the United States had to invade because it was imminently threatened by actual weapons that were in Hussein's mitts (and that he could slip at any moment to his partners in al Qaeda). Before the war, there was little doubt that Hussein had a fancy for mass-killing weapons and was defying UN disarmament resolutions in part to maintain programs to develop such awful devices. Yet a desire for WMDs and a development program are not as threatening as the real things, and Bush and his colleagues said the intelligence showed--without question--Hussein was armed with biological and chemical weapons, was close to building a nuclear bomb, and was in league with Osama bin Laden. Kerr's comments offer further proof none of this was true. So did front-page headlines scream, "Former Deputy CIA Director Contradicts Bush's Key War Claims"? Nope. Kerr's remarks were treated more as a hiccup than a bombshell. A search of the Lexis-Nexis newspaper database turned up only three stories that were published; they appeared in the Post, The Los Angeles Times, and The San Diego Union-Tribune. And the headlines focused on Kerr's rah-rahing for the CIA. "Basis for Arms Claims Affirmed" (the Post). "Official Backs Prewar Claims" ( The Los Angeles). "Internal Review Backs CIA on Iraqi Weapons" ( The San Diego Union-Tribune). Each piece emphasized Kerr's endorsement of the CIA's analysts, rather than the fact that his findings revealed that the Bush administration had misrepresented the work of the analysts. As of this writing, The New York Times has not published a word about Kerr's preliminary findings. You think it's a coincidence that Kerr spoke to reporters the day prior to a long holiday weekend? You don't have to be James Bond to figure that out. Slowly, official material is seeping out that confirms the allegation that Bush and his national security crew misled the country into war. Last week, Representative Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, referred to preliminary findings of a review being conducted by her committee. This examination, like Kerr's, has found that the intelligence analysts had attached caveats and qualifiers to their assessments of the WMD threat from Iraq (which Bush never bothered to mention) and that there had been no good intelligence linking Hussein with bin Laden. (Click here to read more about her remarks.) Perhaps Kerr is right and that US intelligence analysts had good cause--if not good evidence--to conclude that Hussein was still on the prowl for WMDs. A cynic, though, might wonder whether this former senior CIA official (who was a longtime analyst for the agency) is being overly kind to his alma mater. Nevertheless, the issue at hand is what Bush and his administration told the public. Kerr's remarks add to the case against Bush. They are another signal that thorough investigations could end up establishing that the accusation that Bush lied needs no qualifiers or caveats. Copyright ? 2003 The Nation ======================================= Iran: Perceptions and Misperceptions Originally published on Jul 08, 2003 Summary Student protests calling for reform in Iran came to a screeching halt in late June after 10 days of unrest. A large segment of the Iranian population wants to reform the country's 24-year-old Islamist regime, but that does not necessarily mean replacing it with a Western-style democracy. In studying the Iranian political landscape, it becomes clear that most reformers -- unlike the student protesters and their allies in some civil society groups -- are not in favor of doing away with the current system and establishing a liberal democracy. Instead, most Iranians want to curtail the arbitrary power of the traditional clerics and set up an Islamic democracy. Analysis Calls for reforming the Islamist political system, such as those that culminated in 10 days of student protests in mid-June, have become ever more insistent -- both in and outside the country -- since the mid-1990s. The reform movement has matured over this period, and it has organized several waves of protests. However, the government thus far has been able to contain the movement with relative ease. Not only is this a measure of the government's power, but it also highlights the amorphous nature of the reform movement -- which lacks leadership, organization and direction, making it easy for Tehran to contain. Officials in Iran's judiciary, which is a bastion of religious conservatism, estimate that 4,000 people were detained during last month's demonstrations, which ended June 20. These protests were marked by unprecedented slogans targeting Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and fierce clashes between hard-line Islamist vigilantes and demonstrators. Despite the number of arrests, these protests were relatively small, with only a few thousand participants. Western media, however, portrayed the protests as a possible step toward the overthrow of the Islamist regime. This perception likely stems from two things: the memory of the 1978-79 revolution in Tehran (one of the biggest news items to hit the Western press about Iran), and an imperfect understanding of the relationship between the modernists -- led by President Mohammad Khatami -- and the traditionalists, led by Khamenei. Outside observers see Khatami and Khamenei as opponents rather than competitors who agree on the rules of the game. In reality, neither the modernists nor the traditionalists are willing to let the system sink. The most recent protests -- with many participants calling for an outright overthrow of the regime -- show that a small but radical faction that is increasingly disillusioned with Khatami's potential to effect change has emerged within the overall reform movement. However, apart from student demonstrators, there was not much support among the Iranian masses for last month's protests, which petered out relatively quickly. There are three possible explanations for this: 1) The government crackdown was severe enough to scare the protesters into giving up. 2) The protesters do not enjoy the support of the larger, mainstream reform movement, which wants to change the system rather than topple it. 3) With the United States surrounding Iran on all four sides, national security is a higher priority than reform for most of the population right now. The presence of a large U.S. military force encircling Iran has kept the masses -- as well as the reformists -- from voicing any serious dissent. On the other hand, there simply is not enough widespread popular support for a complete overthrow of the current Iranian political system. Mainstream activists want to reform the current system from within, not to replace it with a more Western-style system. Most Iranian reformists do not want to subvert the Islamist system; they only wish to curtail the arbitrary power of the unelected traditionalist mullahs. And the reform movement as a whole is not a secular movement. It is a moderate strand within Iranian Islamism that is trying to negotiate modernity with tradition, and hence advance a contemporary interpretation of Islam instead of applying medieval prescriptions to a modern reality. Most Western, and particularly U.S., observers tend to miss this distinction -- seeing a reform movement as intrinsically linked to a shift closer to Western ideas on governance, or as bringing about at least the possibility of an uprising against an oppressive (Islamist) government, which fits with the Western perception of Iran. The various factions in Iran likely are conscious of this perception and tailor it to their advantage in their international dealings. Many Iranian officials give the impression that they are quite liberal when catering to an international audience. These attempts to present a less-than- accurate, moderate image of themselves reinforce the simplified understanding prevalent in the West. This perception is guiding Washington's current attempts to foment unrest in Iran. U.S. government sources report that they expect a wave of demonstrations to sweep Iran on July 9 -- the anniversary of the 1999 student protests. Given that the sources claim to have foreknowledge that demonstrations are certain, it can reasonably be concluded that the unrest will be planned and orchestrated rather than spontaneous. This does not mean that the U.S. administration wants to overthrow the government in Tehran -- at least not immediately -- since it still could serve some purposes for the Bush administration. Instead, Washington likely is trying to rattle the Iranian regime by threat or by action, hoping to bring officials to the negotiating table for a quid pro quo on Iraq. The question is whether the expectations of unrest will come to fruition, given the alignment of forces within Iran. Student leaders on July 8 reportedly pledged to defy an official ban on protests, but in light of all the factors at play, any demonstrations that do erupt are likely to be small and easily contained. By trying to stir up domestic problems for Tehran, the Bush administration likely is seeking leverage to convince the regime to help craft a solution to the guerrilla insurgency in Iraq. Since the U.S. administration views the Iraqi resistance as a mainly Sunni initiative, officials likely believe they can counter the uprising by bringing Iran to the table to use its influence with the Shiites. This plan seems plausible, considering that Shiites constitute a 60 percent majority in Iraq. By including Iran in the negotiations, the United States likely will avert the possibility that the Shiites -- who are growing restless with the U.S. occupation -- might join the mostly Sunni resistance movement. Even if the United States solicits and receives Iranian assistance with the guerrilla war in Iraq, however, there remains the problem of the oversimplified Western view of the situation inside Iran. In essence, the issue is perception versus misperception. The reformist camp in Iran wants democratic consolidation, rule of law and civil liberties -- but most reformists and their supporters do not want to achieve these goals at the expense of the Islamic fabric of the regime. Instead, they wish to curtail the arbitrary and unbridled power of a clergy that is unique to Shiite Islam and Iran. ................................................................... STRATFOR SERVICES NOW AVAILABLE: Join decision-makers around the world who read Stratfor for daily intelligence briefs, in-depth analyses and forecasts on a wide range of international security, political and economic affairs. Stratfor Premium is our flagship product providing comprehensive global intelligence including daily analyses, special reports, intelligence alerts, premium analyses, situation reports, country and regional net assessments as well as Stratfor's sought after Annual and Quarterly Forecasts. Corporate or multi-user volume discount packages available. Visit this web page for details: http://www.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&c=c Stratfor Basic offers daily analysis, situation reports and ongoing coverage of global events. Also available with this package is a pay per view service for many of our premium reports. Visit this web page for details: http://www.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&c=d ................................................................... CONTACT INFORMATION: Product inquiries, partnership, and sales: marketing@stratfor.com Subscription and customer service issues: service@stratfor.com Comments and/or information for analysis: analysis@stratfor.com Media services and trade show requests: PR@stratfor.com http://www.stratfor.com ==================================================================== (c) 2003 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved. """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ SolidarityInfoServices Solidarity4Ever, LaborLeftNews, BayAreaNews, Labor4Justice: new listservs for social justice activists and others who want in-depth coverage of issues, insightful analysis, thought-provoking commentary and notice of important social change events and activities News - Analysis - Commentary in Service to Social Justice What you need to know, not just to understand the world ... but to change it! Subscriptions are offered without charge, but your tax-deductible contributions keep this service going. Now you can make that contribution on-line by using the link below. It will take you to PayPal, an Internet site that will process a credit card contribution and will transfer those funds to SIS. If you have used PayPal before, just fill in the amount of your contribution. If you are new to PayPal, it will ask you to complete information about your credit card account so that your contribution can be properly processed. The entire process is quick, easy and secure. Click on this link or copy and paste this address into your web browser: https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=SolidarityInfoServices%40igc.org&item_name=SolidarityInfoServices&item_number=2002- Your contribution makes it possible for SIS to continue bringing you the news, commentary, analysis and events announcements you need to remain well informed. It provides you the information you need to be most effective in your world-changing social justice work. Would you rather contribute by check? Make your tax-deductible contribution payable to SolidarityInfoServices/OTC. Mail it to SIS at 1737 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94703. SolidarityInfoServices is a non-profit project sponsored by ORGANIZE! Training Center, Pacifica, CA and is funded in part by a grant from the Vanguard Public Foundation. If you find this service to be useful, please tell others. If not, please tell us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To view Solidarity4Ever on the web: To view LaborLeftNews on the web: To view BayAreaNews on the web: To view Labor4Justice on the web: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Solidarity4Ever, send a blank email to Solidarity4Ever-subscribe@igc.topica.com To subscribe to LaborLeftNews, send a blank email to LLNews-subscribe@igc.topica.com To subscribe to BayAreaNews, send a blank email to BAN-subscribe@topica.com To subscribe to Labor4Justice, send a blank email to Labor4Justice-subscribe@topica.com _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________ Solidarity4Ever is distributed by SolidarityInfoServices, which gathers the news you can use to understand and change the world. _________________________________________________ This is a read-only list, but if you have an item you want posted, send it to the list moderator at SolidarityInfoServices@igc.org, who will determine whether it is appropriate for redistribution. You can temporarily suspend delivery by sending a request to the same address. Notify the moderator at the time you want delivery resumed. You can also manage this function yourself by going to the list at www.igc.topica.com/lists/Solidarity4Ever where you will have to register with Topica in order to administer your own subscription. _______________________________________________==^^=============================================================== This email was sent to: barisonj@exacom.net EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?b1dc1A.b2SvWu.YmFyaXNv Or send an email to: Solidarity4Ever-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^^=============================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.madimc.org/pipermail/mapc-discuss/attachments/20030709/e4742938/attachment.htm From barisonj at exacom.net Wed Jul 9 20:42:46 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:10 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Announcing the Baghdad-based International Occupation Watch Center Message-ID: <003601c3467c$3053e780$54997ed8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:07 PM Subject: Announcing the Baghdad-based International Occupation Watch Center > Announcing the Baghdad-based International Occupation Watch Center > > http://www.occupationwatch.org/index.php > > About Us > > Cognizant of the current lack of information about Iraq > and knowing that Iraq will receive increasingly less > attention as media sources abandon the country for the > newest "hot spot," an international coalition of peace > and justice groups is organizing the Baghdad-based > International Occupation Watch Center. The Center will > function under the auspices of United for Peace and > Justice (www.unitedforpeace.org), a U.S. anti-war > coalition with more than 600 member groups, with > participation from a diversity of international groups > including Focus on the Global South, Iraqi Democrats > Against Occupation, and members of the World Social > Forum. > > The Center will: > > ? Monitor the role of foreign companies in Iraq and > advocate for the Iraqis? right to control their own > resources, especially oil; > > ? Act as a watchdog regarding the military occupation > and U.S.-appointed government, including possible > violations of human rights, freedom of speech and > freedom of assembly; > > ? Research the dynamics, programs, and composition of > the Iraqi movement to resist occupation in order to > provide a more comprehensive picture to the > international community; > > ? Support the creation of independent Iraqi > organizations, such as media and environmental groups; > > ? Examine any changes in the rights and freedoms of > Iraqi women and support local Iraqi efforts to promote > women?s rights; > > ? Monitor the relationship between U.S. > corporations/subcontractors and Iraqi workers and > support the formation of independent trade unions; > > ? Track the international community?s financial > commitments to rebuilding Iraq and hold the responsible > parties accountable for those commitments; > > ? Monitor the physical impact of the U.S. invasion, > including civilian casualties, the Iraqis? ability to > have access to the basic necessities of food, water and > shelter, and the effects of depleted uranium and > cluster bombs on the population and the environment; > > ? Regularly provide reliable information to the outside > world. > > Advisory Board Members - June 2003 > > Rev. Patty Ackerman, Fellowship of Reconciliation > > Sami AlBanna, writer, systems and knowledge architect > > Rafael Alegria, president, Via Campesino > > Tariq Ali, author > > Sinan Antoon, writer, professor, Dartmouth College > > Walden Bello, Director, Focus on the Global South > > Medea Benjamin, Global Exchange/United for Peace and > Justice > > Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies > > Gene Bruskin, US Labor Against War > > Leslie Cagan, United for Peace and Justice > > Bernard Cassen, Director, Le Monde Diplomatique > > Nahla Chahal, International Civilian Campaign for the > Protection of the Palestinian People > > Munir Chalabi, Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation > > Pratap Chatterjee, CorpWatch > > Jodie Evans, Code Pink: Women for Peace > > Assaf Kfoury, professor, Boston University > > Kamil Mahdi, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, > University of Exeter, England > > Rania Masri, Iraq Action Coalition > > Maria Luisa Mendon?a, Organizing Committee, World > Social Forum > > Martha Mundy, professor, London School of Economics > > Kevin Murray, Grassroots International > > Milan Rai, author, War Plan Iraq > > Adbul Amir Rakaby, Iraqi Democratic Opposition Current > > Omeyya Seddik, Commission for an Arab Gathering of > Global Resistance (C-RARG) > > Anas Shallal, Iraqi Americans for Peaceful Alternatives > USA > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network. > Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today! > http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=39339 7 > > Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge. Download Now! > http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455 > > > portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a > news, discussion and debate service of the Committees > of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It > aims to provide varied material of interest to people > on the left. > > Post : mail to 'portside@yahoogroups.com' > Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe@yahoogroups.com' > Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com' > Faq : http://www.portside.org > List owner : portside-owner@yahoogroups.com > Web address : > Digest mode : visit Web site > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > From barisonj at exacom.net Thu Jul 10 09:39:14 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:10 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq Message-ID: <002e01c346e8$a90463a0$a2997ed8@computer> > Rumsfeld Doubles Estimate for Cost of Troops in Iraq > > July 10, 2003 > By THOM SHANKER > WASHINGTON, July 9 - Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that > violence and uncertainty in Iraq made it unlikely that > troop levels would be reduced "for the foreseeable future," > and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld nearly doubled the > estimated military costs there to $3.9 billion a month. > > "We have about 145,000 troops in there right now," General > Franks told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said he > had talked to "commanders at every level inside Iraq," and > found that the size and structure of those forces were > appropriate for the current situation. > > Mr. Rumsfeld has never laid out a timetable for bringing > American troops home, and has repeatedly pledged that the > forces would stay as long as required, but no longer. Even > so, the acknowledgement today of the scope of the long-term > military commitment to Iraq was the strongest indication to > date that the reconstruction effort requires the continued > deployment of large numbers of troops - and that the > undertaking carries a hefty price tag. > > Under intense questioning from Senator Robert C. Byrd, > Democrat of West Virginia, Mr. Rumsfeld or his aides > telephoned Pentagon financial officers during a break and > reported back to the committee that cost estimates for the > Iraq campaign had reached $3.9 billion per month, on > average from this past January through September. > > A Pentagon official said the $3.9 billion figure "is the > estimated cost to maintain the current force level in > Iraq," which includes expenses for military operations, > including fuel, transportation, food, ordnance and > personnel, but not reconstruction costs. The $3.9 billion > figure is almost double the $2 billion per month estimate > issued by administration officials in April. In addition, > the cost of operations in Afghanistan are now $900 million > to $950 million monthly, Mr. Rumsfeld said. > > During a grueling four-hour hearing, committee members > alternately complimented the military's war plan but > criticized the Pentagon's planning for the postwar > stabilization of the nation. > > In particular, Mr. Rumsfeld was pressed to detail efforts > to reach out to allies - including those like France and > Germany who opposed the war - for contributions of troops > to replace Americans. General Franks, who stepped down this > week from the top job at Central Command, gave no > indication that commanders were requesting more troops to > combat guerrilla-style attacks. When pressed to predict how > long a force comparable to the current one would be needed, > he said, "It is for the foreseeable future." > > Moments later, Mr. Rumsfeld sought to erase the impression > that those comments meant that the American commitment > could not shrink more rapidly. "The numbers of U.S. forces > could change, while the footprint stayed the same, in the > event that we have greater success in bringing in > additional coalition forces, in the event we are able to > accelerate the Iraqi Army," he said. > > With American forces suffering almost daily attacks in > Iraq, that statement did not satisfy Senator Edward M. > Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who challenged Mr. > Rumsfeld by saying that "we have the world's best-trained > soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a > shooting gallery." Mr. Kennedy said that "the lack of a > coherent plan is hindering our efforts at > internationalization and aggravating the strain on our > troops." > > Mr. Rumsfeld said 142,000 military personnel had returned > to their home bases, although most of those serve in the > Air Force and Navy, leaving the burden in Iraq to American > ground forces. The current ground force figure, 145,000, is > down from its peak of 151,000. And he announced the > withdrawal of one high-profile unit from the war zone, > saying all three brigades of the Third Infantry Division, > which spearheaded the attack on Baghdad, would leave Iraq > by September. > > In sketching how Iraqis will help stabilize their nation, > General Franks said that 35,000 Iraqi police officers had > been hired and that plans called for training a new Iraqi > army of 12,000 within one year and 40,000 within three > years. > > As recently as May, senior allied officials speaking to > correspondents in Baghdad said the Bush administration had > hoped to shrink the American military presence in Iraq to > two divisions, about 30,000 to 40,000 troops, by autumn, > with a third multinational division also present. > > Answering complaints that American unilateralism had > alienated its allies, Mr. Rumsfeld and General Franks said > that 19 nations now had forces supporting the Iraq effort, > that 19 others had promised troops and that discussions > were under way with 11 more. Those allied forces already in > Iraq, and those committed, totaled 30,000, they said. > > Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking > Democrat on the committee, if he would support having > France and Germany take part in the postwar stability > force, Mr. Rumsfeld said he would. "We have reached out to > NATO," Mr. Rumsfeld said. But he cautioned that "it would > be incorrect to say that we expect that international > forces will replace all of U.S. forces. We don't anticipate > that." > > Mr. Rumsfeld refused to issue a concrete schedule for > withdrawing American forces. "Nobody knows the answer to > that question, how long it will take," he said. "It will > take some time." But he said that "when it's done, it's > going to have been darn well worth having done." > > Senators from both parties - James M. Inhofe, Republican of > Oklahoma, and Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island - pressed > Mr. Rumsfeld on whether the Pentagon should consider > increasing the number of people in uniform to handle global > missions. "It seems to me that we have to be prepared to > increase our Army, the number of brigades in our Army, or > to activate National Guard divisions, and we have to make > that decision soon," Mr. Reed said. Mr. Rumsfeld said there > were no plans to expand the military. > > Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, asked Mr. Rumsfeld > about the threat from Iran, and Mr. Rumsfeld said he had > received reports that Iran had relocated some border posts > a few miles into Iraqi territory, and he cautioned the > government in Tehran against such adventurism. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/10/international/worldspecial/10MILI.ht ml?ex=1058841952&ei=1&en=5e5ec27c7097c335 > > > --------------------------------- > > Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine > reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like! > Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy > now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here: > > http://www.nytimes.com/ads/nytcirc/index.html > > > > HOW TO ADVERTISE > --------------------------------- > For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters > or other creative advertising opportunities with The > New York Times on the Web, please contact > onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media > kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo > > For general information about NYTimes.com, write to > help@nytimes.com. > > Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company > From barisonj at exacom.net Thu Jul 10 09:40:58 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:10 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Wheels of Justice Bus Tour Message-ID: <004501c346e8$e688fc40$a2997ed8@computer> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:17 PM Subject: Wheels of Justice Bus Tour Note: If you wish to participate or host the WHEELS OF JUSTICE tour, contact Ceylon Mooney of Voices in the Wilderness at ceylon@vitw.org and 917-567-5048. WHEELS OF JUSTICE TOUR Nonviolent education and action against war and occupation in Iraq and Palestine Members of Voices in the Wilderness, Al-Awda, the International Solidarity Movement, and Middle East Children's Alliance take to the road in a colorfully decorated full-size school bus for the Wheels of Justice Tour. Starting in mid-August 2003, this tour will canvass the western United Sates to challenge and educate North Americans on the occupation of Palestine and Iraq. Having seen and lived with war, terror and occupation in Iraq and Palestine, participants in the Wheels of Justice offer first-hand experience irrespective of partisan politics and sound bite sloganeering. To build upon and reassert the massive domestic opposition to war against Iraq and occupation of the Palestinians, the Wheels of Justice Tour will travel all across the western United States for education, outreach, nonviolence/action training, active resistance, and community-building. The Wheels of Justice Tour Platform: We call for adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Through education, outreach, nonviolent actions and personal witness, we stand in opposition to the violence and injustice of war and occupation. We recognize that to find peace, the root injustices must be sought, seen and directly dealt with. We seek and practice nonviolent alternatives to the current violence and advocate solutions to the roots of war in Iraq and Palestine/Israel and our own communities. Truth-Telling: We must address Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestine. Thi s occupation continues a legacy that began in 1947 with Israel's death squads killing and expelling Palestinians to make room for foreign settlers. The apartheid laws, ongoing displacement of native Palestinians, and numerous injustices under Israel's 36-year military occupation of Palestinian land perpetuates the bloodshed. The violence suffered by Israelis and Palestinians will continue as long as the foundation upon which it stands--direct military occupation and human rights abuses--remains. We must address the ongoing legacy of U.S. involvement in Iraq. The current U.S. occupation of Iraq, the lifting of sanctions under U.S. military rule, and the continued local instability deny the Iraqi citizenry the very self-determination championed by the United States. The cultural, political and economic institutions of Iraq belong to the Iraqis, not to Washington; the hijacking of Iraq's culture and resources by a foreign power exacerbates and prolongs the consequences of the 13-year U.S.-led war, and the ordinary people of Iraq still have no self-governance. You cannot have peace without justice, you cannot see justice without actively resisting injustice, and you can't nourish a nonviolent resistance without a supportive community. The consequences of these wars and occupations fall upon the shoulders of the poor and oppressed, the refugees and the marginalized, and those in our own communities whose needs are neglected by governments' costly pursuit of foreign wars; the human cost is paid for by the innocent and most vulnerable, here and abroad. To see an end to the violence and injustice of war and occupation, we must invest in justice and human rights for those living with and living under occupation and war. The Only Roadmap for Peace: Justice and Human Rights As people of conscience working for peace, we see that the only roadmap for peace is justice and human rights. We call upon all parties involved to recognize and adhere to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we call for nonviolent resistance to this violence of war, terror and occupation. As much of this violence is supported by our tax dollars and by our elected officials, Americans bear a great responsibility. The people of the world know this, and U.S. government policy provokes rage and retaliation against Americans. Further, draining our treasury on weapons and wars helps prolong and exacerbate our economic crisis and diverts resources greatly needed to build American schools and infrastructure and provide employment and healthcare to our own citizens. To break the cycle of violence we must change our roles in these conflicts; as individuals and as a nation, we must move from instigator to negotiator, from enabler to resister. Educational Focus: *Self-determination for both Iraqis and Palestinians versus occupation and colonization (drawing parallels to the dispossession and oppression of other peoples, including American Indians, African Americans, South African blacks under Apartheid, etc.) *Universal Human Rights and equality under the law *Effects of war and occupation on civilians in Palestine/Israel and Iraq, including house demolitions, armed conflict, apartheid laws, collective punishment, and degrading humanitarian conditions *US taxpayers' footing the bill and bearing the consequences of flawed US foreign policy in Iraq and Palestine/Israel. Action Focus: *Promote solidarity with Iraqis and Palestinians under war and occupation. *Cultivate, promote and take nonviolent direct action for peace and justice. *Build and strengthen networks of action groups in states visited. *Engage in advocacy with elected and appointed officials; challenge pro-war and pro-occupation officials in public. *Engage in mass media campaigns. *Raise material support for home rebuilding, refugee aid, and advocacy work. Brought to you by Voices in the Wilderness Middle East Children's Alliance Al-Awda, the Palestinian Right to Return Coalition Affiliates of the International Solidarity Movement The WHEELS OF JUSTICE bus tour starts in mid-August. Leaving from the Chicago area, we will head north and west, passing through and stopping in Wisconsin, Minnesota, the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Washington...we start moving south when we hit the west coast; next, we start heading east from southern California through Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, the plains, Oklahoma, Texas; then northbound from Louisiana through Mississippi and Arkansas. This is a HUGE territory we wish to cover in 6 months, and we will not be able to visit everywhere in one itinerary. There is the possibility of doing simultaneous mini-tours to locations, which we'll have to bypass on the main route. Simon Harak and Ceylon Mooney are exploring a few different itinerary options. Here are a list of activities we'd like to co-organize and participate in with host organizations and individuals: *press conferences *blood drives: donor donates in the name of Iraqi or Palestinian civilians killed/wounded by u.s. weapons *teach-ins, lectures, presentations, slide shows in public and private venues *faith-related activities, religious services for justice and peace in Iraq and Palestine Israel *movie screenings *slide shows *letter-writing, outreach and lobby training *appearances at campaign rallies and events featuring elected and selected public officials *events and public appearances of company executives (from boeing, caterpillar, etc) who indirectly or directly participate in war/occupation and related activities *nonviolence and direct action training/orientation *poetry events/open mike *"bands against bombs" concerts and musical performances *community-building events, like potlucks and strategizing local resistance and peacemaking efforts *vigils, protests, and nonviolent actions at military facilities and war-related corporate locations (Boeing, Bechtel, Lockheed-Martin, Caterpillar, DynCorp, etc) *using BIO DIESEL to fill up our school bus Here is the travel route through December 23: July 20 Sun. Milwaukee July 21 Mon. Racine July 22 Tue. Madison July 23 Wed. Sheboygan, 7 pm, at the Library July 24 Thur. West Bend July 25 Fri. Stevens Point, PM July 30-Aug 3 Toledo or western Illinois (tentative) aug 13, 14 Green Bay, Wisconsin aug 15 Lacrosse, WI aug 16-21 Minnessota aug 22-29 North Dakota aug 30-sept 5 South Dakota sept 6 leave SD and drive sept 7-12 Nebraska sept 13-21 Colorado sept 22-25 Wyoming sept 26-oct 3 Montana oct 4-6 Spokane, Washington oct 7-18 more Washington oct 19-27 Oregon oct 28-nov 2 Idaho nov 3 drive nov 4-9 Utah nov 10 drive nov 11-16 upper Nevada nov 17-dec 7 California dec 8 drive dec 9-12 lower Nevada, Vegas, etc dec 13-23 Arizona after the new year: New Mexico The Republic of Texas Louisiana Mississippi Tennessee .then we start the next tour of the deep south. Then up the east coast. Then into Canada. If you wish to participate or host the WHEELS OF JUSTICE tour, contact Ceylon Mooney of Voices in the Wilderness at ceylon@vitw.org and 917-567-5048. From barisonj at exacom.net Thu Jul 10 09:42:21 2003 From: barisonj at exacom.net (Jack Barisonzi) Date: Sat Mar 3 22:30:11 2007 Subject: [MAPC-discuss] Senate grills Rumsfeld on manpower; Companies Aren't Spending on Security; Pal Message-ID: <005001c346e9$1875bf40$a2997ed8@computer> ----- Original Message ----- From: ListMeister To: Solidarity4Ever@igc.topica.com Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:00 AM Subject: Senate grills Rumsfeld on manpower; Companies Aren't Spending on Security; Pal [All ads are inserted by Topica without our consent. Ignore them.] IN THIS MESSAGE * Senate grills Rumsfeld on manpower * Companies Aren't Spending on Security * Palestinian Political Prisoners * Ashcroft discusses anti-terror measures with local authorities ______________________________________________ Senate grills Rumsfeld on manpower By Tom Curry, MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/m/pt/printthis.asp?storyID=936532 "When do I get to go home?" Over and over again, that was the question that GIs asked senators who visited Iraq 10 days ago. So that's the question the senators asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at an Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon was studying whether U.S. troop strength in Iraq should be increased. But for now, total U.S. manpower isn't enough to promise service members in Iraq early and firm return dates. THE POLITICAL equation of boosting the overall size of the military -- something that some lawmakers are pushing for -- is a delicate one indeed. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who was part of the delegation that toured Iraq, struck a note echoed by other members of the committee, "one soldier from Maine told me, 'I can deal with another three months, I can deal with another six months, but I just need to know'" when his tour of duty would end. The Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which played a key role in capturing Baghdad, is beginning a pullout from Iraq, Rumsfeld said. 'DANGEROUSLY STRETCHED THIN' Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., was more pointed. "We are dangerously stretched thin in the Army and the other services also," Reed told Rumsfeld. "We have to be prepared to increase our Army, the number of brigades in our Army, or activate National Guard divisions and we have to make that decision soon -- because of the training these troops will need before they're deployed." Reed insisted that the Defense Department was "rapidly approaching a decision point" about enlarging the military. Rumsfeld replied that "at the moment, we do not see that that is the case" but acknowledged the strain on those serving in Iraq, saying it was "critically important" that the Pentagon "manage the forces in a way that we can continue to attract and retain the people that we need, that the Guard and reserve ... are not stressed, or called up so frequently or kept there so long that it affects their commitment to serve." Rumsfeld and his staff are in the middle of a process of transforming the military to a leaner and more technically adept force -- a long-term goal that conflicts with adding thousands of more soldiers and Marines. Armed Services Committee member Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., told MSNBC.com "when you're in the midst of transformation, you may not want to be expanding your force. At the same time, you might be able to reduce it based on more specialization and the use of more technology." But, given the current strains, he said, "you can make a strong case that there must not be enough end force if you have to rely so heavily on Guard and reserve components." RECRUITING AND RETENTION Nelson added, "if you can't tell the deployed troops when their deployment is over, then it is going to affect recruiting and particularly retention." During Rumsfeld's four hours of testimony, some senators urged him to emphasize to the American people that reconstructing Iraq would take years. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Rumsfeld that the American people had a sense of "unease -- not disaffection, not anger, but unease" about the commitment in Iraq and that Rumsfeld needed to specify how long the task would take and how many troops it would demand. "I'm convinced without a doubt that when Americans are told what the plan is for post-war Iraq, then I think you will receive overwhelming support on the part of the American people," McCain