template 
Must you see nature as a machine?
Is your only learning chemistry, physics, and ontology?
What if poetry was your template for life?
Can't you know Tao by the feeling of mud in your sandals?
Thus are the sages called silly:
They have given up their prejudices. The world appears as you perceive it. It is not that your perceptions are wholly shaped by a so-called objective world. The habit of interpretation is interactive; we do things to test our hypothesis until we have created a complicated web of sensory input and centrifugal manipulation. By the time we are "mature," we have created innumerable layers of interpretation and biased perception that become our templates for living. Of course, we could have some fun with this situation. We could change the templates that we use to interact with the world. What if we used poetry instead of science? What if we substituted spirituality for politics? The results of such experimentation are often fresh, happy and unusual. Unfortunately, when carried to their logical conclusions, they are just as futile as any other method. Templates are essential for beginners, a hindrance for veterans. True followers of Tao give up all templates and are without prejudices. They return to the actions of infants. Thus they are called silly. But because they view the world with their inner eye, they transcend all the sorrows of life. template 365 Tao daily meditations Deng Ming-Dao (author) ISBN 0-06-250223-9 
Enjoy paintings under parasol tree by Fu Bao Shi  for Caldonia
we loved you but a short time .... you will be with us always. We have received a donation to the Heifer Project of a flock of Geese. Add to that another flock (or any donation), and we will be sending two flocks of ducks to families in need around the world! (I am matching every two donations) http://catalog.heifer.org/index.cfm will get you to the main catalogue http://catalog.heifer.org/ducks.cfm is the duck spot! and for the folks who would rather not send animals, there is a special gift of knitting basket or bees! |
Saturday
template dao
HALF OF ALL AMERICANS FAVOR LIMIT OF CIVIL LIBERTIES ON MUSLIM AMERICANS
ITHACA, N.Y. – Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, according to a nationwide poll.
The survey conducted by Cornell University also found that Republicans and people who described themselves as highly religious were more apt to support curtailing Muslims' civil liberties than Democrats or people who are less religious.
Researchers also found that respondents who paid more attention to television news were more likely to fear terrorist attacks and support limiting the rights of Muslim Americans.
While researchers said they were not surprised by the overall level of support for curtailing civil liberties, they were startled by the correlation with religion and exposure to television news.
Associated Press
( '? they probably polled anyone who voted for shrub ( '?
URGENT ACTION: Woman to be Buried Alive and Stoned to Death
Iran: Woman to Be Buried Up to Chest and Stoned to Death In The Next Five Days
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
According to reports, Hajieh Esmailvand was sentenced to five years imprisonment, to be followed by execution by stoning, for adultery with an unnamed man who at the time was a 17 year old minor. Although the exact date of her arrest and trial are not known, it is reported that she has been imprisoned in the town of Jolfa, in the north west of Iran, since January 2000.
The Iranian Penal Code is very specific about the manner of execution and types of stones which should be used. Article 102 states that men will be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should “not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones”.
All death sentences in Iran must be upheld by the Supreme Court before they can be carried out. In November 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against Hajieh Esmailvand but changed the lower court's verdict from ‘death by hanging’ to ‘death by stoning’. Reports suggest that the Supreme Court has ordered that the remainder of Hajieh’s five year prison sentence be annulled so that the stoning sentence can be carried out before 21 December.
Amnesty International UK Media Director Mike Blakemore said:
The news follows reports of a 19-year old girl, "Leyla M", who has a mental age of eight, reportedly facing imminent execution for "morality-related" offences in Iran after being forced into prostitution by her mother as a child. According to a Tehran newspaper report of 28 November, she was sentenced to death by a court in the central Iranian city of Arak and the sentence has now been passed to the Supreme Court for confirmation.
Leyla M was reportedly sentenced to death on charges of "acts contrary to chastity" by controlling a brothel, having intercourse with blood relatives and giving birth to an illegitimate child. She is to be flogged before she is executed. She had apparently “confessed” to the charges.
Leyla was forced into prostitution by her mother when she was eight years old, according to the 28 November report, and was raped repeatedly thereafter. She gave birth to her first child when she was nine, and was sentenced to 100 lashes for prostitution at around the same time. At the age of 12, her family sold her to an Afghan man to become his “temporary wife”.
His mother became her new pimp, “selling her body without her consent”. At the age of 14 she became pregnant again, and received a further 100 lashes, after which she was moved to a maternity ward to give birth to twins. After this "temporary marriage", her family sold her again, to a 55-year-old man, married with two children, who had Leyla’s customers come to his house.
One in three women around the world suffer serious violence in their lifetime, at home, in the community or in war, just because they are women. Amnesty International is running a global campaign to 'Stop Violence Against Women'. The human rights organisation is calling on governments to repeal laws that permit and encourage violence against women, and on communities to challenge attitudes that allow violence to continue. For more information visit: www.amnesty.org.uk/svaw.
Background information
Amnesty International is aware of at least one case in which a sentence of execution by stoning has reportedly been issued this year. According to a report on 8 January 2004 in the Iran newspaper, a criminal court in the city of Qazvin sentenced an unnamed man to 80 lashes and 10 years'’ imprisonment to be followed by execution by stoning. It is not known whether this sentence has been carried out.
Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is the most extreme form of torture. It is a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
It is clear that the punishment of stoning is designed to cause the victim grievous pain before leading to death. Such methods of execution specifically designed to increase the suffering of victims are of particular concern to Amnesty International, as the most extreme and cruel form of torture.
For details of how to help stop the executions of Hajieh and Leyla M, please go to: www.amnesty.org.uk/action/
[ Hajieh Esmailvand (f)
An unnamed man (aged 17 when accused)
Amnesty International fears that Hajieh Esmailvand is at risk of imminent execution after her death sentence for adultery was upheld by the Supreme Court in November. She could allegedly be stoned to death as early as 21 December. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging.
According to reports, Hajieh Esmailvand was sentenced to five years imprisonment, to be followed by execution by stoning, for adultery with an unnamed man who at the time was a 17 year old minor. Although the exact date of her arrest and trial are not known, it is reported that she has been imprisoned in the town of Jolfa, in the north west of Iran, since January 2000.
All death sentences in Iran must be upheld by the Supreme Court before they can be carried out. In November 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against Hajieh Esmailvand but changed the lower court's verdict from 'death by hanging' to 'death by stoning'.
Reports suggest that the Supreme Court has ordered that the remainder of Hajieh's five year prison sentence be annulled so that the stoning sentence can be carried out before 21 December.
The unnamed man, with whom Hajieh had the affair, has been sentenced to death by hanging. It is reported that he is awaiting official orders to be hanged in public, suggesting that the death sentence may have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Background Information
Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is the most extreme form of torture. It is a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
It is clear that the punishment of stoning is designed to cause the victim grievous pain before leading to death. Such methods of execution specifically designed to increase the suffering of victims are of particular concern to Amnesty International, as the most extreme and cruel form of torture.
The Iranian Penal Code is very specific about the manner of execution and types of stones which should be used.
Article 102 states that men will be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones".
In December 2002, the Head of the Judiciary, Ayatollah Shahroudi, reportedly sent a directive to judges ordering a moratorium on execution by stoning and for alternative punishments to be used instead. However, legal provision for execution by stoning remains, and in September 2003 a law was passed listing regulations for the implementation of particular sentences, including stoning.
Since the reported moratorium, Amnesty International is aware of at least one case in which a sentence of execution by stoning has reportedly been issued. According to a report on 8 January 2004 in the Iran newspaper, a criminal court in the city of Qazvin sentenced an unnamed man to 80 lashes and 10 years' imprisonment to be followed by execution by stoning. It is not known whether this sentence has been carried out.
As a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has undertaken not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under 18 years old.
The Iranian authorities are now considering legislation (the draft law on the Establishment of Children's Courts) that would prohibit the use of the death penalty for offences committed under the age of 18. Iran has executed at least three child offenders in 2004. In addition to this, at least eleven other child offenders are believed to have been sentenced to death.
Recommended Action
Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Persian, English, French or your own language:
Head of the Judiciary
His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Ministry of Justice,
Park-e Shahr,
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: irjpr@iranjudiciary.org (mark 'Please forward to HE Ayatollah Shahroudi')
[Salutation: Your Excellency]
Please send copies of your appeals to:
AND, IF POSSIBLE, TO THE FOLLOWING:
Centre for Women's Participation
Dr Zahra Shojaei
Head of the Centre of Women's Participation and Advisor to the President
128 Shaheed Labbafi Nejad Street
Tehran 13156,
Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: 00 98 21 640 3038 Email: cwp@women.org.ir
(please mark for the attention of Dr Zahra Shojaei)
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY –
APPEALS MUST ARRIVE BY 21 DECEMBER
This is an Amnesty International news release published on 17th December 2004
An Iranian woman charged with adultery faces death by stoning in the next five days after her death sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court last month. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging. Amnesty International members are now writing urgent appeals to the Iranian authorities, calling for the execution to be stopped.
According to reports, Hajieh Esmailvand was sentenced to five years imprisonment, to be followed by execution by stoning, for adultery with an unnamed man who at the time was a 17 year old minor. Although the exact date of her arrest and trial are not known, it is reported that she has been imprisoned in the town of Jolfa, in the north west of Iran, since January 2000.
The Iranian Penal Code is very specific about the manner of execution and types of stones which should be used. Article 102 states that men will be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should “not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones”.
All death sentences in Iran must be upheld by the Supreme Court before they can be carried out. In November 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against Hajieh Esmailvand but changed the lower court's verdict from ‘death by hanging’ to ‘death by stoning’. Reports suggest that the Supreme Court has ordered that the remainder of Hajieh’s five year prison sentence be annulled so that the stoning sentence can be carried out before 21 December.
Amnesty International UK Media Director Mike Blakemore said:
"This is an urgent case. Hejieh could be killed in the next five days if we do not act quickly. Our members here in the UK are writing to the Iranian authorities, imploring them to stop this brutal execution. Campaigners in Iran are also taking action. But we need more people to stand up and be counted, to tell the Iranian authorities that this is not acceptable.
"Every day, thousands of women across the world face repression and violence, just because they are women. From the battlefield to the bedroom, women are at risk. Violence against women is a human rights atrocity and one we must tackle immediately."
The news follows reports of a 19-year old girl, "Leyla M", who has a mental age of eight, reportedly facing imminent execution for "morality-related" offences in Iran after being forced into prostitution by her mother as a child. According to a Tehran newspaper report of 28 November, she was sentenced to death by a court in the central Iranian city of Arak and the sentence has now been passed to the Supreme Court for confirmation.
Leyla M was reportedly sentenced to death on charges of "acts contrary to chastity" by controlling a brothel, having intercourse with blood relatives and giving birth to an illegitimate child. She is to be flogged before she is executed. She had apparently “confessed” to the charges.
Leyla was forced into prostitution by her mother when she was eight years old, according to the 28 November report, and was raped repeatedly thereafter. She gave birth to her first child when she was nine, and was sentenced to 100 lashes for prostitution at around the same time. At the age of 12, her family sold her to an Afghan man to become his “temporary wife”.
His mother became her new pimp, “selling her body without her consent”. At the age of 14 she became pregnant again, and received a further 100 lashes, after which she was moved to a maternity ward to give birth to twins. After this "temporary marriage", her family sold her again, to a 55-year-old man, married with two children, who had Leyla’s customers come to his house.
One in three women around the world suffer serious violence in their lifetime, at home, in the community or in war, just because they are women. Amnesty International is running a global campaign to 'Stop Violence Against Women'. The human rights organisation is calling on governments to repeal laws that permit and encourage violence against women, and on communities to challenge attitudes that allow violence to continue. For more information visit: www.amnesty.org.uk/svaw.
Background information
Amnesty International is aware of at least one case in which a sentence of execution by stoning has reportedly been issued this year. According to a report on 8 January 2004 in the Iran newspaper, a criminal court in the city of Qazvin sentenced an unnamed man to 80 lashes and 10 years'’ imprisonment to be followed by execution by stoning. It is not known whether this sentence has been carried out.
Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is the most extreme form of torture. It is a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
It is clear that the punishment of stoning is designed to cause the victim grievous pain before leading to death. Such methods of execution specifically designed to increase the suffering of victims are of particular concern to Amnesty International, as the most extreme and cruel form of torture.
For details of how to help stop the executions of Hajieh and Leyla M, please go to: www.amnesty.org.uk/action/
[ Hajieh Esmailvand (f)
An unnamed man (aged 17 when accused)
Amnesty International fears that Hajieh Esmailvand is at risk of imminent execution after her death sentence for adultery was upheld by the Supreme Court in November. She could allegedly be stoned to death as early as 21 December. Her unnamed co-defendant is at risk of imminent execution by hanging.
According to reports, Hajieh Esmailvand was sentenced to five years imprisonment, to be followed by execution by stoning, for adultery with an unnamed man who at the time was a 17 year old minor. Although the exact date of her arrest and trial are not known, it is reported that she has been imprisoned in the town of Jolfa, in the north west of Iran, since January 2000.
All death sentences in Iran must be upheld by the Supreme Court before they can be carried out. In November 2004, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against Hajieh Esmailvand but changed the lower court's verdict from 'death by hanging' to 'death by stoning'.
Reports suggest that the Supreme Court has ordered that the remainder of Hajieh's five year prison sentence be annulled so that the stoning sentence can be carried out before 21 December.
The unnamed man, with whom Hajieh had the affair, has been sentenced to death by hanging. It is reported that he is awaiting official orders to be hanged in public, suggesting that the death sentence may have already been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Background Information
Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is the most extreme form of torture. It is a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and a violation of the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
It is clear that the punishment of stoning is designed to cause the victim grievous pain before leading to death. Such methods of execution specifically designed to increase the suffering of victims are of particular concern to Amnesty International, as the most extreme and cruel form of torture.
The Iranian Penal Code is very specific about the manner of execution and types of stones which should be used.
Article 102 states that men will be buried up to their waists and women up to their breasts for the purpose of execution by stoning. Article 104 states, with reference to the penalty for adultery, that the stones used should "not be large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes, nor should they be so small that they could not be defined as stones".
In December 2002, the Head of the Judiciary, Ayatollah Shahroudi, reportedly sent a directive to judges ordering a moratorium on execution by stoning and for alternative punishments to be used instead. However, legal provision for execution by stoning remains, and in September 2003 a law was passed listing regulations for the implementation of particular sentences, including stoning.
Since the reported moratorium, Amnesty International is aware of at least one case in which a sentence of execution by stoning has reportedly been issued. According to a report on 8 January 2004 in the Iran newspaper, a criminal court in the city of Qazvin sentenced an unnamed man to 80 lashes and 10 years' imprisonment to be followed by execution by stoning. It is not known whether this sentence has been carried out.
As a party to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Iran has undertaken not to execute anyone for an offence committed when they were under 18 years old.
The Iranian authorities are now considering legislation (the draft law on the Establishment of Children's Courts) that would prohibit the use of the death penalty for offences committed under the age of 18. Iran has executed at least three child offenders in 2004. In addition to this, at least eleven other child offenders are believed to have been sentenced to death.
Recommended Action
Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in Persian, English, French or your own language:
- stating your unconditional opposition to the death penalty, as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and violation of the right to life;
- expressing concern that Hajieh Esmailvand is reportedly facing imminent execution by stoning for adultery;
- asking for the trial details of the case against Hajieh Esmailvand, including details of any appeals against her convictions to be made public;
- urging that the death sentence against Hajieh Esmailvand be commuted immediately;
- seeking clarification about the status of the moratorium on stoning reportedly ordered by His Excellency Ayatollah Shahroudi in December 2002;
- expressing concern at reports that the unnamed co-defendant of Hajieh Esmailvand has been sentenced to death for an offence committed when he was a 17 year old minor;
- asking for details of the exact charges against the unnamed individual, including details of any appeals against his convictions to be made public;
- urging that the death sentence against him be commuted immediately;
- expressing concern and dismay that Amnesty International has recorded 10 executions of child offenders in Iran since 1990, three of them in 2004, and calling on the Iranian authorities to immediately halt further executions of child offenders and to pass legislation removing the provision for the execution of child offenders, thereby bringing Iran into line with its obligations under international law.
Leader of the Islamic Republic His Excellency Ayatollah Sayed 'Ali Khamenei The Presidency,
Palestine Avenue,
Azerbaijan Intersection,
Tehran,
Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: 00 98 21 649 5880 (please mark
'For the attention of the Office of His Excellency, Ayatollah al Udhma Khamenei, Qom)
[Salutation: Your Excellency]
Head of the Judiciary
His Excellency Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi
Ministry of Justice,
Park-e Shahr,
Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Email: irjpr@iranjudiciary.org (mark 'Please forward to HE Ayatollah Shahroudi')
[Salutation: Your Excellency]
Please send copies of your appeals to:
His Excellency Mr Morteza Sarmadi,
Embassy of Islamic Republic of Iran,
16 Prince's Gate,
London
SW7 1PT
Fax: 020 7589 4440
AND, IF POSSIBLE, TO THE FOLLOWING:
Centre for Women's Participation
Dr Zahra Shojaei
Head of the Centre of Women's Participation and Advisor to the President
128 Shaheed Labbafi Nejad Street
Tehran 13156,
Islamic Republic of Iran
Fax: 00 98 21 640 3038 Email: cwp@women.org.ir
(please mark for the attention of Dr Zahra Shojaei)
PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY –
APPEALS MUST ARRIVE BY 21 DECEMBER
This is an Amnesty International news release published on 17th December 2004
Political Cartoon from the start of the war on Iraq
Iraqis have been waiting for this moment for 7,000 years.
Finally, democracy is coming. They will enjoy it in their graves.
(Al-Ahram, 3/31/03).
Pinochet May Not See the INside of Prison After All...
Ex-Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet Suffers Stroke; Decision Pending on Human-Rights Indictment
Dec. 18, 2004 - Gen. Augusto Pinochet was hospitalized after suffering a stroke Saturday, one day after an appeals court delayed a decision on whether to uphold the former dictator's indictment and house arrest on human rights charges.
Doctors say Pinochet has suffered several minor strokes since 1998. The 89-year-old former ruler also has mild dementia, diabetes and arthritis, and uses a pacemaker.
On Friday, the Santiago Court of Appeals postponed until next week a decision on whether to uphold his indictment and house arrest for the alleged kidnapping of nine dissidents and the killing of one of them during his 1973-90 military regime.
Pinochet's health problems rescued him from trial three years ago on other charges.
"Gen. Pinochet suffered a new brain vascular accident with loss of consciousness," Santiago's Army Hospital said in a communique Saturday. He has developed moving and neurological problems, "but he has evolved with stable vital signs," the hospital said.
Pinochet's spokesman, retired Gen. Guillermo Garin, said the former ruler was rushed to the hospital after "he felt bad during breakfast as if he would faint, and doctors decided to take him to the hospital."
Pinochet's motorcade entered the hospital in the upscale Providencia district under heavy guard. Minutes later, his wife, Lucia Hiriart, and army commander Gen. Emilio Cheyre also entered, along with several other Pinochet relatives.
Pinochet had an unusually active day Friday. He left his country residence at Los Boldos, where he would serve out his house arrest if the court upholds the order by Judge Juan Guzman, and traveled the 80 miles to Santiago, where he visited his office, saw his dentist and later met with supporters.
Dec. 18, 2004 - Gen. Augusto Pinochet was hospitalized after suffering a stroke Saturday, one day after an appeals court delayed a decision on whether to uphold the former dictator's indictment and house arrest on human rights charges.
Doctors say Pinochet has suffered several minor strokes since 1998. The 89-year-old former ruler also has mild dementia, diabetes and arthritis, and uses a pacemaker.
On Friday, the Santiago Court of Appeals postponed until next week a decision on whether to uphold his indictment and house arrest for the alleged kidnapping of nine dissidents and the killing of one of them during his 1973-90 military regime.
Pinochet's health problems rescued him from trial three years ago on other charges.
"Gen. Pinochet suffered a new brain vascular accident with loss of consciousness," Santiago's Army Hospital said in a communique Saturday. He has developed moving and neurological problems, "but he has evolved with stable vital signs," the hospital said.
Pinochet's spokesman, retired Gen. Guillermo Garin, said the former ruler was rushed to the hospital after "he felt bad during breakfast as if he would faint, and doctors decided to take him to the hospital."
Pinochet's motorcade entered the hospital in the upscale Providencia district under heavy guard. Minutes later, his wife, Lucia Hiriart, and army commander Gen. Emilio Cheyre also entered, along with several other Pinochet relatives.
Pinochet had an unusually active day Friday. He left his country residence at Los Boldos, where he would serve out his house arrest if the court upholds the order by Judge Juan Guzman, and traveled the 80 miles to Santiago, where he visited his office, saw his dentist and later met with supporters.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press.
A Flood of Mentally Ill Soldiers Coming Home From Iraq
Contrary to the NY Times reports by Scott Shane today, psychologists at Camp Pendleton Marine Base in California have said that approximately 30% of the marines returning from Iraq have serious mental problems. Shane writes of 1 in 6, those psychologists who spoke with me said it was more like 1 in 3--twice what the NY Times is reporting. But then again, we know the NY Times has been soft on the Bush team in its reporting about negative matters pertaining to the Iraq and Afghan wars.
Elaine Cassel and I wrote an article about this, "When the Killers Come Home," back when the war in Iraq started, because we knew what kind of brutality our leaders were urging the military to train into our soldiers. This brutal training, pushed especially by Wolfowitz and the generals under Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and in the field, went, and continues to go against, the decency most of our soldiers were taught in their churches and in their homes. This attitude of treating Iraqis as "ragheads," "satan's soldiers," "worthless pieces of shit," and "the enemy, destroy them all," has made our soldiers into animals on the kill--that's why they are killing so many innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another factor in this equation that no one in the major American media will touch, but the British journalists like Robert Fisk, Patrick and Alexander Cockburn, do speak about, is the Israeli presence and influence on American troops through their new influence at the Rumsfeld Pentagon. Many ex-Israeli officers, Mossad, and South African Israeli trained mercenaries are directing and training American troops in "urban warfare," and torture methods. This Israeli posture on behavior is contrary to the best of American values of decency and humanity.
An example of how our homecoming troops have been damaged can be seen in the case of Jeffrey Lucey who was so upset with his recollections of the war that he hanged himself shortly after returning from Iraq.
Another case is Robert Brown
Thus, the mental breakdowns in our troops because they were being taught to behave in ways that were contrary to everything they'd been taught as they grew up in a more humane America. Our military, with the influence of the Israelis has created this problem, has sickened our soldiers, some unto death. Now, these soldiers and their families, and all the rest of us, must live with these mentally sick people--many of whom have already violently attacked their wives and children or taken their own lives. There is little word on how the women have behaved on their return, but I'm sure it is not good. Many have wondered what transformed Ms. England from a "down home girl" into the person she became in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.
Also, we, as citizens, will be paying the financial bill for these soldiers and their mental disabilities for years, according to psychological experts in and out of the military. Add to this the long term illnesses these soldiers will sustain, as will their deformed children, from the Depleted Uranium they have lived in since the invasion began.
Also, to be dealt with in another article in the near future, is the psychological damage our invasion of Iraq has visited upon generations of Iraqis, old to the very young--as well as the physical injuries the Iraqis sustained from our incessant bombings and the long-term illnesses from Depleted Uranium. Also, remember that the whole world has seen our cruelty on the Iraqi and Afghan scenes--this has turned not only Muslims and Arabs against us, but also over 80% of the citizens of the world (regardless of what their governments may say in England, Poland and Australia).
All I can say is that the worst is yet to come. Perhaps then, the American citizenry will awaken to the truth about Bush,Rumsfeld,Cheney, Tommy Franks, General Myers, Wolfowitz, Sanchez and General Abizaid--that they were the enemy of America and its people, they were the ones responsible for the poisoning of American soldiers with D.U. and the mental breakdowns because of the brutality they forced on our soldiers, not the Iraqi or Afghan civilians who were traumatized, maimed and killed.
Sam Hamod writes on international and domestic affairs; he edits, www.todaysalternativenews.com ; he published and edited 3rd World News in Wash,DC . He may be reached at shamod@cox.net
Elaine Cassel and I wrote an article about this, "When the Killers Come Home," back when the war in Iraq started, because we knew what kind of brutality our leaders were urging the military to train into our soldiers. This brutal training, pushed especially by Wolfowitz and the generals under Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and in the field, went, and continues to go against, the decency most of our soldiers were taught in their churches and in their homes. This attitude of treating Iraqis as "ragheads," "satan's soldiers," "worthless pieces of shit," and "the enemy, destroy them all," has made our soldiers into animals on the kill--that's why they are killing so many innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another factor in this equation that no one in the major American media will touch, but the British journalists like Robert Fisk, Patrick and Alexander Cockburn, do speak about, is the Israeli presence and influence on American troops through their new influence at the Rumsfeld Pentagon. Many ex-Israeli officers, Mossad, and South African Israeli trained mercenaries are directing and training American troops in "urban warfare," and torture methods. This Israeli posture on behavior is contrary to the best of American values of decency and humanity.
An example of how our homecoming troops have been damaged can be seen in the case of Jeffrey Lucey who was so upset with his recollections of the war that he hanged himself shortly after returning from Iraq.
Another case is Robert Brown
“Robert E. Brown was proud to be in the first wave of Marines invading Iraq last year. But Mr. Brown has also found himself in the first ranks of returning soldiers to be unhinged by what they experienced. He served for six months as a Marine chaplain's assistant, counseling wounded soldiers, organizing makeshift memorial services and filling in on raids. He knew he was in trouble by the time he was on a ship home, when the sound of a hatch slamming would send him diving to the floor. After he came home, he began drinking heavily and saw his marriage fall apart, Mr. Brown said. He was discharged and returned to his hometown, Peru, Ind., where he slept for two weeks in his Ford Explorer, surrounded by mementos of the war." (NY Times, Dec. 16, 2004)
Thus, the mental breakdowns in our troops because they were being taught to behave in ways that were contrary to everything they'd been taught as they grew up in a more humane America. Our military, with the influence of the Israelis has created this problem, has sickened our soldiers, some unto death. Now, these soldiers and their families, and all the rest of us, must live with these mentally sick people--many of whom have already violently attacked their wives and children or taken their own lives. There is little word on how the women have behaved on their return, but I'm sure it is not good. Many have wondered what transformed Ms. England from a "down home girl" into the person she became in Iraq at Abu Ghraib.
Also, we, as citizens, will be paying the financial bill for these soldiers and their mental disabilities for years, according to psychological experts in and out of the military. Add to this the long term illnesses these soldiers will sustain, as will their deformed children, from the Depleted Uranium they have lived in since the invasion began.
Also, to be dealt with in another article in the near future, is the psychological damage our invasion of Iraq has visited upon generations of Iraqis, old to the very young--as well as the physical injuries the Iraqis sustained from our incessant bombings and the long-term illnesses from Depleted Uranium. Also, remember that the whole world has seen our cruelty on the Iraqi and Afghan scenes--this has turned not only Muslims and Arabs against us, but also over 80% of the citizens of the world (regardless of what their governments may say in England, Poland and Australia).
All I can say is that the worst is yet to come. Perhaps then, the American citizenry will awaken to the truth about Bush,Rumsfeld,Cheney, Tommy Franks, General Myers, Wolfowitz, Sanchez and General Abizaid--that they were the enemy of America and its people, they were the ones responsible for the poisoning of American soldiers with D.U. and the mental breakdowns because of the brutality they forced on our soldiers, not the Iraqi or Afghan civilians who were traumatized, maimed and killed.
Sam Hamod writes on international and domestic affairs; he edits, www.todaysalternativenews.com ; he published and edited 3rd World News in Wash,DC . He may be reached at shamod@cox.net
By Sam Hamod Al-Jazeerah, December 17, 2004
Syrian driver to sue US for alleged torture in Iraq
Driver sues: Two French Reporters Remain Missing
PARIS, Dec 17 (AFP) - The Syrian driver of two French journalists taken hostage in Iraq in August is suing the US army for torture and ill-treatment, his lawyer, Jacques Verges said Friday.
The driver, Mohammad al-Jundi, was captured with Radio France Internationale reporter Christian Chesnot and Le Figaro journalist Georges Malbrunot on August 20 south of Baghdad and found in a house in Fallujah Nov. 12 when US troops invaded the city. The two French reporters still are missing.
Verges said that after being found by American troops, al-Jundi was taken in handcuffs to a military base where he was beaten and kicked.
Verges said al-Jundi claimed to have been thrice threatened with mock executions and tortured with electric shocks.
He alleged his client had been denied medicines and forced to sleep on a pile of plastic rice sacks.
Al-Jundi came to Paris under French protection, and Verges said he had the same rights as any French citizen to sue the US authorities.
Al-Jundi had lived as a refugee in Iraq for several years, and had worked as both driver and interpreter for the French journalists, the longest-held Western hostages in Iraq.
PARIS, Dec 17 (AFP) - The Syrian driver of two French journalists taken hostage in Iraq in August is suing the US army for torture and ill-treatment, his lawyer, Jacques Verges said Friday.
The driver, Mohammad al-Jundi, was captured with Radio France Internationale reporter Christian Chesnot and Le Figaro journalist Georges Malbrunot on August 20 south of Baghdad and found in a house in Fallujah Nov. 12 when US troops invaded the city. The two French reporters still are missing.
Verges said that after being found by American troops, al-Jundi was taken in handcuffs to a military base where he was beaten and kicked.
Verges said al-Jundi claimed to have been thrice threatened with mock executions and tortured with electric shocks.
He alleged his client had been denied medicines and forced to sleep on a pile of plastic rice sacks.
Al-Jundi came to Paris under French protection, and Verges said he had the same rights as any French citizen to sue the US authorities.
Al-Jundi had lived as a refugee in Iraq for several years, and had worked as both driver and interpreter for the French journalists, the longest-held Western hostages in Iraq.
12/17/2004 18:52 GMT - AFP Copyright © 2004 Agence France Presse
"People have the misconception that everyone goes to war and gets killed,"
Guard Reports Serious Drop in Enlistment
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 - In the latest signs of strains on the military from the war in Iraq, the Army National Guard announced on Thursday that it had fallen 30 percent below its recruiting goals in the last two months and would offer new incentives, including enlistment bonuses of up to $15,000.
In addition, the head of the National Guard Bureau, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, said on Thursday that he needed $20 billion to replace arms and equipment destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan or left there for other Army and Air Guard units to use, so that returning reservists will have enough equipment to deal with emergencies at home.
The sharp decline in recruiting is significant because National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers now make up nearly 40 percent of the 148,000 troops in Iraq, and are a vital source for filling the ranks, particularly those who perform essential support tasks, like truck drivers and military police.
General Blum said the main reason for the Army National Guard's recruiting shortfall was a sharp reduction in the number of recruits joining the Guard and Reserve when they leave active duty. In peacetime the commitment means maintaining their ties to the military with a weekend of service a month and two weeks in the summer.
Over the last 30 years, General Blum said, the Guard has counted on these soldiers with prior military service for about half of its recruits. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, however, many of these soldiers have been hesitant to join the Guard because of the increasing likelihood that America's citizen-soldiers will be activated and sent to Iraq or Afghanistan for up to 12 months. Indeed, many of the active-duty soldiers the Army would like to enlist in the Reserves have recently fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and some have no inclination to do so again.
In an effort to halt the slide, the Army National Guard this week approved recruiting incentives that triple the enlistment bonuses to $15,000 for soldiers with prior military experience who sign up for six years (tax-free if soldiers enlist overseas), Guard officials said. Bonuses for new enlistees will increased to $10,000 from $6,000.
The Guard has already said it intends to increase the number of recruiters to 4,100 from 2,700 over the next three months, the first large increase since 1989.
"We're in a more difficult recruiting environment, period," General Blum told reporters in disclosing the new figures and the new incentives. "There's no question that when you have a sustained ground combat operation going that the Guard's participating in, that makes recruiting more difficult."
There are 42,000 Army National Guard soldiers serving in Iraq and Kuwait, and 8,200 serving in Afghanistan. Since Sept. 11, General Blum said, there have been about 100,000 Army National Guard troops activated for duty at home or abroad at any given time.
General Blum's remarks come just a few days after the chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, told The Dallas Morning News that the Army Reserve recruiting was in a "precipitous decline" that if unchecked could inspire renewed debate over the draft. General Helmly told the newspaper that he personally opposed reviving the draft.
For the first two months of the fiscal year 2005, which started Oct. 1, the Army Reserve has also stumbled, falling 315 recruits short of its goal of 3,170 soldiers, a drop of 10 percent.
In November, the Guard recruited 2,902 enlistees, about 26 percent below its target of 3,925 recruits. In October and November combined, the Guard recruited 5,448 enlistees, nearly 30 percent below its goal of 7,600. At full strength, the Guard has 350,000 soldiers.
In the 2004 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, the Guard missed its overall recruiting target of 56,000 soldiers by more than 5,000, the first time it had missed its yearly goal since 1994. The active-duty branches of the armed services all met their recruiting goals last year.
As a result, General Blum said, the Guard has lowered its reliance on recruits with military experience to just 35 percent of its overall total and will seek a much larger pool of recruits with no military experience.
"We are correcting, frankly, some of our recruiting themes and slogans to reflect a reality of today," he said. "We're not talking about one weekend a month and two weeks a year and college tuition. We're talking about service to the nation."
General Blum expressed confidence that the nearly $300 million in recruiting bonuses in this year's budget and the increase in the number of recruiters would propel the Guard to meet its yearly goal but said that probably would not happen until August or so. "I think we'll recover," he said.
Some military personnel specialists offered a much more pessimistic forecast and said the lower recruiting numbers were the harbingers of tougher times to come.
"I don't think this is an aberration," said David R. Segal, a military sociologist who directs the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. "I think we're going to see significant shortfalls in recruitment, and I think we're to begin to see retention problems. We're also going to see increasing concerns at the state level about how the Guard will man itself and perform its state missions."
The Guard's woes do not end with recruiting. General Blum said the Army National Guard needed $20 billion over the next three years to buy additional radios, trucks, aircraft, engineering equipment and other materiel that have been wrecked or left behind in Iraq or Afghanistan..
"Otherwise, the Guard will be broken and not ready for the next time it's needed, either here at home or for war," General Blum said.
A spokesman for the Florida National Guard, Lt. Col. Ron Tittle, said Guard units in the state, which mobilized some 5,000 troops to deal with the three hurricanes in August and September, were already experiencing some shortages.
"It could hinder us to some degree," Colonel Tittle said. "But we adapt and make do. We'll accomplish the mission."
2004 The New York Times December 17, 2004 By ERIC SCHMITT
Yoni Brook/The New York Times photo credit
Yoni Brook/The New York Times photo credit
caption: "People have the misconception that everyone goes to war and gets killed," said Sgr. Daniel Mak, an Army Guard recruiter in Brooklyn.
Soldier Accused of Asking to Be Shot
this was stuck at the bottom of a story in the NYTimes, on the "print only" page
Soldier Accused of Asking to Be Shot
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 16 (AP) - A soldier on leave has been accused of having his cousin shoot him so he would not have to return to Iraq, the police say.
The soldier, Specialist Marquise J. Roberts, 23, of Hinesville, Ga., suffered a minor wound to his left leg from a .22-caliber pistol on Tuesday, the police said. Specialist Roberts was treated at a hospital, then arrested after he and his cousin admitted having made up a story about the shooting, the authorities said.
After giving differing accounts of the incident, "they just broke down and confessed that they concocted the whole story so he didn't have to go back to the war," Lt. James Clark of the Philadelphia police department said on Thursday.
Specialist Roberts, who was visiting family members in Philadelphia, was charged with filing a false report. His cousin, Ronald Fuller, was charged with aggravated assault and other charges.
“WE HONOR HIS BRAVERY”
- lisbeth at duckdaotsu media
- lisbeth at duckdaotsu media
Hezbollah TV loses satellite feed to U.S
BEIRUT, Lebanon -- Al-Manar, the television station of Lebanon's Hezbollah militants that has glorified suicide bombers, lost its satellite feed to the United States on Saturday after Washington put it on a list of terror organizations.
The exclusion from U.S. TV screens came less than a week after France banned its broadcasts, but al-Manar's troubles airing its anti-Israel message abroad don't seem to hurt its popularity in the Arab world. The station till enjoys the support of the Lebanese and Syrian governments and a broad and sympathetic Arab audience.
The station, which ranks fourth or fifth among Lebanon's nine stations, has drawn protests from across the globe for airing anti-Israel programs that include videos glorifying Hezbollah and other Arab suicide bombers who target Israelis, describing the attacks as "heroic martyrdom operations." Its presenters refer to Israel as "the enemy."
"We are sorry to lose our audience in France and America. We will work to change that. Meanwhile, we still have our faithful viewers elsewhere," said Hassan Fadlallah, Al-Manar's news director.
The United States placed Al-Manar on its list of terrorist organizations Friday, dismissing freedom of speech objections and accusing Al-Manar of inciting violence in the Middle East.
"We don't see why here or anywhere else a terrorist organization should be allowed to spread its hatred and incitement through the television airwaves," said U.S. State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher.
Fadlallah told The Associated Press, "This is a blatant attack on press freedoms and an exercise in intellectual terrorism against the voices that are opposed to U.S. and Israeli policies. It is part of an organized Israeli campaign against Al-Manar to keep it from transmitting the facts of the Arab-Israeli struggle."
Lebanese authorities have threatened to reciprocate against French channels for the ban. Lebanon considers Hezbollah - a militant Shiite Muslim group high on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations - to be a legitimate resistance organization fighting Israeli occupation.
Al-Manar's broadcasts to the United States through satellite operator Intelsat, were halted Saturday, Fadlallah said. French authorities banned satellite television broadcasts by the station on Dec. 13, soon after a Nov. 23 program that quoted someone described as an expert on Zionist affairs warning of "Zionist attempts" to transmit diseases such as AIDS to Arab countries.
Al-Manar - the self-proclaimed "Channel of Resistance and Liberation" - airs documentaries, dramas, political talk and health shows - but even some of its entertainment programs are centered on "the struggle" against Israel, with some of its game shows featuring questions on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Youssef Fawaz, a 42-year-old grocer, said he watches Al-Manar and will continue to do so "because it speaks for all Arab people." He rejected accusations that Al-Manar incites violence, saying the station "shows facts on the grounds. They (Americans) are the violent ones, they are the terrorists. Look what they've done to Iraq."
The station is widely seen in the Palestinian territories for its interviews and quick coverage of events affecting Palestinians. It is also popular with Shiite Muslims, believed to be the largest group in Lebanon.
"Al-Manar is committed to the truth, and the Americans are afraid of the truth reaching the public there," said Ali Sharefeddine, a Lebanese student.
---
On the Net:
Al-Manar: http://www.manartv.com
Hezbollah: http://www.hizbollah.org
By ZEINA KARAM ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER ©Seattle Post Intelligencer
Fallujah assault still exacting heavy toll on mental health of US marines
NEAR FALLUJAH, Iraq (AFP) - Nearly six weeks after US marines stormed the rebel enclave of Fallujah, military psychologists are still seeing a steady stream of service personnel traumatised by the long days and nights of ferocious street fighting.
In the macho culture of the US Marine Corps, it is sometimes hard for its personnel, male or female, to admit they have a problem and some try to ride out the symptoms, only seeking help after weeks of suffering in silence.
The warning signs can range from irritability to extreme apathy, says Lieutenant Erryn Simmons, a trained psychologist who runs a combat stress management unit in this US base just outside the western Iraqi city.
Her colleague Lieutenant Thomas Fearing nods in agreement. "They are coming to us predominantly for sleep-related problems, such as insomnia or nightmares, bad dreams," he says.
"After the offensive began, we had a lot of patients, then there was this lull, and it has picked up again recently with people trying to sit on their symptoms."
The marines lost more than 50 dead and hundreds wounded, some of them seriously, in the huge assault launched on November 8, the largest since last year's invasion.
The US-backed government put rebel losses at more than 2,000, although unit commanders later revealed their troops had orders to shoot all males of fighting age seen on the streets, armed or unarmed, and ruined homes across the city attest to a strategy of overwhelming force.
The marines who seek help can be haunted by the sight of appalling injuries, the screams of wounded comrades, the fear of death, or simply the chaotic hell of combat, the psychologists say.
"We get mostly enlisted men, because they represent the bulk of our troops, but we also get a few NCOs and officers," says Simmons.
"We are here to prevent the combat stress symptoms from turning into post-combat syndrome disorder," she says.
"One technique is the listening experience, where we try to make them realise what really happened, how it happened, and why they display symptoms of stress because of this.
"We also have relaxation strategies or we can use sleep medication."
Fearing says most of those seeking help have been treated successfully through counselling, although one or two have needed more intensive therapy.
"All went back to duty, except for a few worst cases... we had a couple of them staying a few days with us," he says.
Given the difficulties of getting marines to seek help in the first place, it is perhaps understandable that the corps's press officers refused AFP's requests to interview some of the servicemen and women who were receiving treatment.
The marines were the last of the services in the US military to acknowledge that the stresses of the combat could undermine its fighting capacity and to recruit psychologists to provide counselling and other therapies.
"You are talking about a very macho, masculine environment, where there is a stigma attached to looking weak or in fear," says Simmons, one of a growing number of women in the corps.
"But I guess there's been a real shift to admit that somebody suffering from combat stress is not necessarily deranged or crazy."
At the moment the unit is treating five or six patients a day. Most return to active duty after a short series of 45-minute counselling sessions.
Simmons says that oddly it is more effective to treat traumatised personnel within their units rather than sending them home to families, who can often struggle to understand what their loved ones have been through.
"It's better if we can keep them with us, because we can provide support," she says.
"Maybe, it's better for them than to be sent back home, because, for some, their stronger family is here not there."
In the macho culture of the US Marine Corps, it is sometimes hard for its personnel, male or female, to admit they have a problem and some try to ride out the symptoms, only seeking help after weeks of suffering in silence.
The warning signs can range from irritability to extreme apathy, says Lieutenant Erryn Simmons, a trained psychologist who runs a combat stress management unit in this US base just outside the western Iraqi city.
Her colleague Lieutenant Thomas Fearing nods in agreement. "They are coming to us predominantly for sleep-related problems, such as insomnia or nightmares, bad dreams," he says.
"After the offensive began, we had a lot of patients, then there was this lull, and it has picked up again recently with people trying to sit on their symptoms."
The marines lost more than 50 dead and hundreds wounded, some of them seriously, in the huge assault launched on November 8, the largest since last year's invasion.
The US-backed government put rebel losses at more than 2,000, although unit commanders later revealed their troops had orders to shoot all males of fighting age seen on the streets, armed or unarmed, and ruined homes across the city attest to a strategy of overwhelming force.
The marines who seek help can be haunted by the sight of appalling injuries, the screams of wounded comrades, the fear of death, or simply the chaotic hell of combat, the psychologists say.
"We get mostly enlisted men, because they represent the bulk of our troops, but we also get a few NCOs and officers," says Simmons.
"We are here to prevent the combat stress symptoms from turning into post-combat syndrome disorder," she says.
"One technique is the listening experience, where we try to make them realise what really happened, how it happened, and why they display symptoms of stress because of this.
"We also have relaxation strategies or we can use sleep medication."
Fearing says most of those seeking help have been treated successfully through counselling, although one or two have needed more intensive therapy.
"All went back to duty, except for a few worst cases... we had a couple of them staying a few days with us," he says.
Given the difficulties of getting marines to seek help in the first place, it is perhaps understandable that the corps's press officers refused AFP's requests to interview some of the servicemen and women who were receiving treatment.
The marines were the last of the services in the US military to acknowledge that the stresses of the combat could undermine its fighting capacity and to recruit psychologists to provide counselling and other therapies.
"You are talking about a very macho, masculine environment, where there is a stigma attached to looking weak or in fear," says Simmons, one of a growing number of women in the corps.
"But I guess there's been a real shift to admit that somebody suffering from combat stress is not necessarily deranged or crazy."
At the moment the unit is treating five or six patients a day. Most return to active duty after a short series of 45-minute counselling sessions.
Simmons says that oddly it is more effective to treat traumatised personnel within their units rather than sending them home to families, who can often struggle to understand what their loved ones have been through.
"It's better if we can keep them with us, because we can provide support," she says.
"Maybe, it's better for them than to be sent back home, because, for some, their stronger family is here not there."
Posted: Saturday December 18,2004 - 09:47:00 am
(from rss feed lunaville.org)
(from rss feed lunaville.org)
OUTED: The REAL threat to the life of the nation. It ain't Muslim...
Unlawful discrimination
Dec. 17, 2004 | A scathing judgment by the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, condemning the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects as a threat to the life of the nation left anti-terrorist laws in tatters Thursday. The ruling by an 8-1 majority held that the indefinite detention without trial at Belmarsh and Woodhill high-security prisons was unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights. Constitutional lawyers called it one of the most important decisions from Britain's highest court in 50 years.
But 24 hours after David Blunkett, the law's sponsor, was forced to resign as home secretary, Downing Street and the new home secretary, Charles Clarke, decided to tough it out. They said they would study the judgment, but made it plain they are more likely to renew the controversial laws than modify them. Lord Hoffmann ruled that there is no "state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation" -- the only basis on which Britain is entitled to exercise its opt-out from Article 5 of the European Convention, the right to liberty. It was the anti-terror laws introduced by Blunkett that posed a threat, he declared. "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."
The judgment adds to the clutch of election-sensitive law-and-order problems in Clarke's in box. No. 10 signaled it is "clearly minded to renew it," and Clarke chose to stress continuity with Blunkett's policies.
On Channel 4 News Hazel Blears, the police minister, said judges who authorized detentions had seen intelligence data that the law lords did not. "This is a matter for Parliament to decide" in line with the European Convention. "Our overriding concern is the protection of this nation."
Sixteen Muslims have been detained under the anti-terror legislation, with 10 still held in Belmarsh, southeast London, and Woodhill, Bucks, and one in Broadmoor mental hospital. They are certified as "suspected international terrorists."
The law lords' ruling said the state should decide whether a state of emergency existed. But they argued that the government's response breached the human rights convention because it went further than required. It was a disproportionate interference with liberty and equality and unlawfully discriminated against foreigners because British terror suspects thought to pose a similar risk cannot be locked up without charge or trial.
Lord Scott described the regime under which suspects can be detained indefinitely on the say-so of the home secretary with no right to know the grounds for detention as "the stuff of nightmares, associated with France before and during the revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, and now associated, as a result of Section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom."
The judgment does not oblige the government to release the detainees immediately, but under the Human Rights Act the government must take steps soon to remedy the situation. These could include legislation -- for example, making evidence obtained from telephone tapping admissible in a criminal court -- that would make it easier to try detainees. Another option would be measures allowing them to be released under constant surveillance and monitoring.
Clarke is expected to produce new proposals in the new year, and until then the detainees will remain in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. Gareth Peirce, solicitor for eight detainees, commented: "The government has to take steps to withdraw the legislation and release the detainees."
The judgment puts Clark under huge pressure to devise a solution or face the prospect of more embarrassing court defeats in the run-up to the general election. The detainees' solicitors could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, if the government drags its heels. Lawyers said another possibility was an application in the English courts for a declaration that it was unconstitutional for the home secretary to continue to detain the men in breach of a House of Lords ruling.
The case was heard by an almost unprecedented panel of nine law lords, instead of the usual five, because of its constitutional significance. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who argued the case for the government, had tried to persuade the judges that they were "undemocratic" and should defer to the will of elected representatives.
Jeffrey Jowell, professor of public law at University College London, said: "It establishes that, even where the government claims national security is an issue, the court has authority to delineate the proper boundaries of a rights-based democracy."
Britain's highest court rules that the unlimited detention of foreign terror suspects is "the real threat to the life of the nation."By Clare Dyer, Michael White and Alan Travis
Dec. 17, 2004 | A scathing judgment by the House of Lords, Britain's highest court, condemning the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects as a threat to the life of the nation left anti-terrorist laws in tatters Thursday. The ruling by an 8-1 majority held that the indefinite detention without trial at Belmarsh and Woodhill high-security prisons was unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights. Constitutional lawyers called it one of the most important decisions from Britain's highest court in 50 years.
But 24 hours after David Blunkett, the law's sponsor, was forced to resign as home secretary, Downing Street and the new home secretary, Charles Clarke, decided to tough it out. They said they would study the judgment, but made it plain they are more likely to renew the controversial laws than modify them. Lord Hoffmann ruled that there is no "state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation" -- the only basis on which Britain is entitled to exercise its opt-out from Article 5 of the European Convention, the right to liberty. It was the anti-terror laws introduced by Blunkett that posed a threat, he declared. "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."
The judgment adds to the clutch of election-sensitive law-and-order problems in Clarke's in box. No. 10 signaled it is "clearly minded to renew it," and Clarke chose to stress continuity with Blunkett's policies.
On Channel 4 News Hazel Blears, the police minister, said judges who authorized detentions had seen intelligence data that the law lords did not. "This is a matter for Parliament to decide" in line with the European Convention. "Our overriding concern is the protection of this nation."
Sixteen Muslims have been detained under the anti-terror legislation, with 10 still held in Belmarsh, southeast London, and Woodhill, Bucks, and one in Broadmoor mental hospital. They are certified as "suspected international terrorists."
The law lords' ruling said the state should decide whether a state of emergency existed. But they argued that the government's response breached the human rights convention because it went further than required. It was a disproportionate interference with liberty and equality and unlawfully discriminated against foreigners because British terror suspects thought to pose a similar risk cannot be locked up without charge or trial.
Lord Scott described the regime under which suspects can be detained indefinitely on the say-so of the home secretary with no right to know the grounds for detention as "the stuff of nightmares, associated with France before and during the revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, and now associated, as a result of Section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom."
The judgment does not oblige the government to release the detainees immediately, but under the Human Rights Act the government must take steps soon to remedy the situation. These could include legislation -- for example, making evidence obtained from telephone tapping admissible in a criminal court -- that would make it easier to try detainees. Another option would be measures allowing them to be released under constant surveillance and monitoring.
Clarke is expected to produce new proposals in the new year, and until then the detainees will remain in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons. Gareth Peirce, solicitor for eight detainees, commented: "The government has to take steps to withdraw the legislation and release the detainees."
The judgment puts Clark under huge pressure to devise a solution or face the prospect of more embarrassing court defeats in the run-up to the general election. The detainees' solicitors could take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, if the government drags its heels. Lawyers said another possibility was an application in the English courts for a declaration that it was unconstitutional for the home secretary to continue to detain the men in breach of a House of Lords ruling.
The case was heard by an almost unprecedented panel of nine law lords, instead of the usual five, because of its constitutional significance. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who argued the case for the government, had tried to persuade the judges that they were "undemocratic" and should defer to the will of elected representatives.
Jeffrey Jowell, professor of public law at University College London, said: "It establishes that, even where the government claims national security is an issue, the court has authority to delineate the proper boundaries of a rights-based democracy."
Krugman pens third column against Bush plan
In his third straight column railing against Bush's plans to "convert Social Security into a giant 401(k),"Paul Krugman says:
Buying Into Failure
By PAUL KRUGMAN
As the Bush administration tries to persuade America to convert Social Security into a giant 401(k), we can learn a lot from other countries that have already gone down that road.
Information about other countries' experience with privatization isn't hard to find. For example, the Century Foundation, at www.tcf.org, provides a wide range of links.
Yet, aside from giving the Cato Institute and other organizations promoting Social Security privatization the space to present upbeat tales from Chile, the U.S. news media have provided their readers and viewers with little information about international experience. In particular, the public hasn't been let in on two open secrets:
Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies.
It leaves many retirees in poverty.
Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.
These fees cut sharply into the returns individuals can expect on their accounts. In Britain, which has had a privatized system since the days of Margaret Thatcher, alarm over the large fees charged by some investment companies eventually led government regulators to impose a "charge cap." Even so, fees continue to take a large bite out of British retirement savings.
A reasonable prediction for the real rate of return on personal accounts in the U.S. is 4 percent or less. If we introduce a system with British-level management fees, net returns to workers will be reduced by more than a quarter. Add in deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and a big increase in risk, and we're looking at a "reform" that hurts everyone except the investment industry.
Advocates insist that a privatized U.S. system can keep expenses much lower. It's true that costs will be low if investments are restricted to low-overhead index funds - that is, if government officials, not individuals, make the investment decisions. But if that's how the system works, the suggestions that workers will have control over their own money - two years ago, Cato renamed its Project on Social Security Privatization by replacing "privatization" with "choice" - are false advertising.
And if there are rules restricting workers to low-expense investments, investment industry lobbyists will try to get those rules overturned.
For the record, I don't think giving financial corporations a huge windfall is the main motive for privatization; it's mostly an ideological thing. But that windfall is a major reason Wall Street wants privatization, and everyone else should be very suspicious.
Then there's the issue of poverty among the elderly.
Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years after the system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide a minimum pension." In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.
The same thing is happening in Britain. Its Pensions Commission warns that those who think Mrs. Thatcher's privatization solved the pension problem are living in a "fool's paradise." A lot of additional government spending will be required to avoid the return of widespread poverty among the elderly - a problem that Britain, like the U.S., thought it had solved.
Britain's experience is directly relevant to the Bush administration's plans. If current hints are an indication, the final plan will probably claim to save money in the future by reducing guaranteed Social Security benefits. These savings will be an illusion: 20 years from now, an American version of Britain's commission will warn that big additional government spending is needed to avert a looming surge in poverty among retirees.
So the Bush administration wants to scrap a retirement system that works, and can be made financially sound for generations to come with modest reforms. Instead, it wants to buy into failure, emulating systems that, when tried elsewhere, have neither saved money nor protected the elderly from poverty.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
© 2004 The New York Times
Buying Into Failure
By PAUL KRUGMAN
As the Bush administration tries to persuade America to convert Social Security into a giant 401(k), we can learn a lot from other countries that have already gone down that road.
Information about other countries' experience with privatization isn't hard to find. For example, the Century Foundation, at www.tcf.org, provides a wide range of links.
Yet, aside from giving the Cato Institute and other organizations promoting Social Security privatization the space to present upbeat tales from Chile, the U.S. news media have provided their readers and viewers with little information about international experience. In particular, the public hasn't been let in on two open secrets:
Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies.
It leaves many retirees in poverty.
Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.
These fees cut sharply into the returns individuals can expect on their accounts. In Britain, which has had a privatized system since the days of Margaret Thatcher, alarm over the large fees charged by some investment companies eventually led government regulators to impose a "charge cap." Even so, fees continue to take a large bite out of British retirement savings.
A reasonable prediction for the real rate of return on personal accounts in the U.S. is 4 percent or less. If we introduce a system with British-level management fees, net returns to workers will be reduced by more than a quarter. Add in deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and a big increase in risk, and we're looking at a "reform" that hurts everyone except the investment industry.
Advocates insist that a privatized U.S. system can keep expenses much lower. It's true that costs will be low if investments are restricted to low-overhead index funds - that is, if government officials, not individuals, make the investment decisions. But if that's how the system works, the suggestions that workers will have control over their own money - two years ago, Cato renamed its Project on Social Security Privatization by replacing "privatization" with "choice" - are false advertising.
And if there are rules restricting workers to low-expense investments, investment industry lobbyists will try to get those rules overturned.
For the record, I don't think giving financial corporations a huge windfall is the main motive for privatization; it's mostly an ideological thing. But that windfall is a major reason Wall Street wants privatization, and everyone else should be very suspicious.
Then there's the issue of poverty among the elderly.
Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years after the system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide a minimum pension." In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.
The same thing is happening in Britain. Its Pensions Commission warns that those who think Mrs. Thatcher's privatization solved the pension problem are living in a "fool's paradise." A lot of additional government spending will be required to avoid the return of widespread poverty among the elderly - a problem that Britain, like the U.S., thought it had solved.
Britain's experience is directly relevant to the Bush administration's plans. If current hints are an indication, the final plan will probably claim to save money in the future by reducing guaranteed Social Security benefits. These savings will be an illusion: 20 years from now, an American version of Britain's commission will warn that big additional government spending is needed to avert a looming surge in poverty among retirees.
So the Bush administration wants to scrap a retirement system that works, and can be made financially sound for generations to come with modest reforms. Instead, it wants to buy into failure, emulating systems that, when tried elsewhere, have neither saved money nor protected the elderly from poverty.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
© 2004 The New York Times
Rummys Head on Chopping Block
Iraq fears put pressure on Rumsfeld to quit
Although Republicans have publicly stood by George Bush's decision to go to war throughout the growing death toll among US troops and spiralling violence on the ground, the acerbic Pentagon chief has become a focus of anxieties about the conduct of the war and about the future of Iraq. Unease about Mr Rumsfeld reached critical proportions when the former Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, told businessmen in Mississippi that the defence secretary should be replaced in the new year.
Mr Lott is from the centre of the Republican party, and was a powerful figure until forced to step down as Senate leader in 2002. "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," he told the Biloxi chamber of commerce. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers." He added: "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so."
Earlier this week, Mr Rumsfeld was the object of a withering attack by the editor of the Weekly Standard, the in-house organ of the neo-conservative movement, accusing him of "arrogant" buckpassing. "Surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defence secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term," said William Kristol.
Last spring, at the height of the scandal over the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, President Bush resisted calls for Mr Rumsfeld to stand down.
He reaffirmed his faith in the man after his re-election victory, keeping him on as Pentagon chief, and it is unlikely that the White House will want to signal a change of heart before Iraq holds elections next month. "The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job, and that's why he asked him to continue serving during this time of war," said the White House spokesman, Scott McLellan.
But the latest crisis over his temperament and management style may prove difficult to brush off, when many Republicans are wondering aloud how US troops are going to manage to stabilise Iraq in the coming months. Mr Rumsfeld's critics in Congress are on their way home for the holidays, where they will meet families of soldiers serving in Iraq who are outraged by duty-tour extensions made necessary by troop shortages, and by complaints of lack of armour and weaponry on trucks and other "soft" vehicles used by support troops who face guerrilla attacks unforeseen by Pentagon planners.
The manpower problem in the National Guard is so acute that it has upped its signing bonuses and tripled re-enlist ment bonuses. The chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Steven Blum has asked for $20bn (about £10.3bn) over three years to replace equipment destroyed in Iraq. "Otherwise, the guard will be broken and not ready the next time it's needed, either here at home or for war," he said.
On Thursday, Mr Rumsfeld was rebuked by a member of the Senate armed services committee, the moderate Republican Susan Collins, over the Pentagon's failure to provide sufficient armoured Humvees.
The latest crisis to enfold Mr Rumsfeld was provoked by his airy response last week to a member of the Tennessee National guard who complained about having to forage in scrapheaps for armour for Humvees. Mr Rumsfeld replied that countries go to war with the army they have, "not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time".
Strong messages show Rumsfeld that he might not have the JOB “you might want or wish to have at a later time”Donald Rumsfeld is at the centre of a Republican firestorm over his handling of the war in Iraq, with pressure appearing to mount in Washington for him to quit as defence secretary.
Although Republicans have publicly stood by George Bush's decision to go to war throughout the growing death toll among US troops and spiralling violence on the ground, the acerbic Pentagon chief has become a focus of anxieties about the conduct of the war and about the future of Iraq. Unease about Mr Rumsfeld reached critical proportions when the former Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, told businessmen in Mississippi that the defence secretary should be replaced in the new year.
Mr Lott is from the centre of the Republican party, and was a powerful figure until forced to step down as Senate leader in 2002. "I'm not a fan of Secretary Rumsfeld," he told the Biloxi chamber of commerce. "I don't think he listens enough to his uniformed officers." He added: "I would like to see a change in that slot in the next year or so."
Earlier this week, Mr Rumsfeld was the object of a withering attack by the editor of the Weekly Standard, the in-house organ of the neo-conservative movement, accusing him of "arrogant" buckpassing. "Surely Don Rumsfeld is not the defence secretary Bush should want to have for the remainder of his second term," said William Kristol.
Last spring, at the height of the scandal over the Abu Ghraib prison abuse, President Bush resisted calls for Mr Rumsfeld to stand down.
He reaffirmed his faith in the man after his re-election victory, keeping him on as Pentagon chief, and it is unlikely that the White House will want to signal a change of heart before Iraq holds elections next month. "The president believes Secretary Rumsfeld is doing a great job, and that's why he asked him to continue serving during this time of war," said the White House spokesman, Scott McLellan.
But the latest crisis over his temperament and management style may prove difficult to brush off, when many Republicans are wondering aloud how US troops are going to manage to stabilise Iraq in the coming months. Mr Rumsfeld's critics in Congress are on their way home for the holidays, where they will meet families of soldiers serving in Iraq who are outraged by duty-tour extensions made necessary by troop shortages, and by complaints of lack of armour and weaponry on trucks and other "soft" vehicles used by support troops who face guerrilla attacks unforeseen by Pentagon planners.
The manpower problem in the National Guard is so acute that it has upped its signing bonuses and tripled re-enlist ment bonuses. The chief of the National Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Steven Blum has asked for $20bn (about £10.3bn) over three years to replace equipment destroyed in Iraq. "Otherwise, the guard will be broken and not ready the next time it's needed, either here at home or for war," he said.
On Thursday, Mr Rumsfeld was rebuked by a member of the Senate armed services committee, the moderate Republican Susan Collins, over the Pentagon's failure to provide sufficient armoured Humvees.
The latest crisis to enfold Mr Rumsfeld was provoked by his airy response last week to a member of the Tennessee National guard who complained about having to forage in scrapheaps for armour for Humvees. Mr Rumsfeld replied that countries go to war with the army they have, "not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time".
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington Saturday December 18, 2004 The Guardian
Chinese crackdown extends to editors: affects duckdaotsu web site
( '? duckdaotsu has been personally affected by recent actions in Chinese propoganda watch. Our site was mirrored at a very secured web location in China and is no longer available to our readers in China. We continue to have a mirror site in Saudi Arabia however... ( '?
"Radio hostess found dead in deputy mayor's bed" and "Female students ordered to dance with officials" are not the headlines Chinese Communist Party officials like to see.
Now, it seems, they won't have to, after a sweeping change of editors ordered by the Communist Party propaganda department at two of the country's raciest newspapers.
The replacement of top editors at the China Youth Daily and the new tabloid (New Weekly) comes as the party begins a crackdown that has included the arrest of several writers and internet activists as recently as this week.
In the first case, Li Xueqian, editor-in-chief and president of the China Youth Daily - which is controlled by the Communist Party Youth League, the stepping stone to power for current President and party chief Hu Jintao - resigned earlier this month and now has a routine job in the youth league.
His replacement, Li Erliang, previously edited a drab trade newspaper belonging to the main party organ, the People's Daily.
The Youth Daily had been daring in exposing cases of corruption by government and party officials, most recently revealing how the deputy party secretary in the southern industrial city of Shenzhen had required local university students to buy tickets for a movie that his daughter directed, produced and starred in.
The party official, Li Yizhen, was forced to make a humiliating public apology.
In the second case, Xin Zhou Bao suddenly announced a three-week shutdown after only seven weeks in publication because of "office relocation" while its president, Feng Xiaoping, and editor-in-chief, Zhao Shilong, both resigned.
It was not clear which articles were the cause of the closure, which could become permanent. The two headlines quoted above are examples of the stories that attracted national attention, but the moves signal a widening campaign by the powerful party propaganda department against dissent.
On Monday, police arrested at least three leading writers and social critics - Yu Jie, Liu Xiaobo, and Zhang Zhuhua - and questioned them about their recent internet postings. They were later released.
Another writer, Shi Tao, was arrested several weeks ago. According to the website secretchina.com, Mr Yu underwent 14 hours of continuous interrogation and was made to sign copies of his articles that had appeared on various websites, including one sponsored by the banned Falun Gong spiritual group.
Police said the articles attacked the party leadership and were thus illegal. The website quoted Wang Yi, an intellectual recently included in a media ban issued by the propaganda department, as saying the arrests showed the "authoritarian anti-rightist ideology emerging after Hu Jintao's ascension".
In the southern province of Guangdong, next to Hong Kong, the Pyongyang-educated party secretary Zhang Dejiang continued a tough approach to the region's innovative media, with the sacking in October of Xiao Weibin, editor-in-chief of the magazine Tong Zhou Gong, which had run an interview with a retired provincial party secretary who advocated political liberalisation matching economic freedoms.
Earlier this year the editor of the popular newspaper Southern Metropolis News, Cheng Yizhong, spent five months in jail under investigation for embezzlement. His offence was "revealing attempts to cover-up blame at high levels for a death in custody".
"Radio hostess found dead in deputy mayor's bed" and "Female students ordered to dance with officials" are not the headlines Chinese Communist Party officials like to see.
Now, it seems, they won't have to, after a sweeping change of editors ordered by the Communist Party propaganda department at two of the country's raciest newspapers.
The replacement of top editors at the China Youth Daily and the new tabloid (New Weekly) comes as the party begins a crackdown that has included the arrest of several writers and internet activists as recently as this week.
In the first case, Li Xueqian, editor-in-chief and president of the China Youth Daily - which is controlled by the Communist Party Youth League, the stepping stone to power for current President and party chief Hu Jintao - resigned earlier this month and now has a routine job in the youth league.
His replacement, Li Erliang, previously edited a drab trade newspaper belonging to the main party organ, the People's Daily.
The Youth Daily had been daring in exposing cases of corruption by government and party officials, most recently revealing how the deputy party secretary in the southern industrial city of Shenzhen had required local university students to buy tickets for a movie that his daughter directed, produced and starred in.
The party official, Li Yizhen, was forced to make a humiliating public apology.
In the second case, Xin Zhou Bao suddenly announced a three-week shutdown after only seven weeks in publication because of "office relocation" while its president, Feng Xiaoping, and editor-in-chief, Zhao Shilong, both resigned.
It was not clear which articles were the cause of the closure, which could become permanent. The two headlines quoted above are examples of the stories that attracted national attention, but the moves signal a widening campaign by the powerful party propaganda department against dissent.
On Monday, police arrested at least three leading writers and social critics - Yu Jie, Liu Xiaobo, and Zhang Zhuhua - and questioned them about their recent internet postings. They were later released.
Another writer, Shi Tao, was arrested several weeks ago. According to the website secretchina.com, Mr Yu underwent 14 hours of continuous interrogation and was made to sign copies of his articles that had appeared on various websites, including one sponsored by the banned Falun Gong spiritual group.
Police said the articles attacked the party leadership and were thus illegal. The website quoted Wang Yi, an intellectual recently included in a media ban issued by the propaganda department, as saying the arrests showed the "authoritarian anti-rightist ideology emerging after Hu Jintao's ascension".
In the southern province of Guangdong, next to Hong Kong, the Pyongyang-educated party secretary Zhang Dejiang continued a tough approach to the region's innovative media, with the sacking in October of Xiao Weibin, editor-in-chief of the magazine Tong Zhou Gong, which had run an interview with a retired provincial party secretary who advocated political liberalisation matching economic freedoms.
Earlier this year the editor of the popular newspaper Southern Metropolis News, Cheng Yizhong, spent five months in jail under investigation for embezzlement. His offence was "revealing attempts to cover-up blame at high levels for a death in custody".
By Hamish McDonald China Correspondent Beijing December 16, 2004
"Bush has two daughters. Let them go over and fight"
US military sees sharp fall in black recruits
Dolly Wilson's father proudly served in the Second World War and her husband in Vietnam. But her children will not join the military if she has any say in it.
"We don't want our kids to go into no war for nothing," said Mrs Wilson, snatching a cigarette with colleagues outside her Washington office.
"Bush has two daughters. Let them go over and fight," she added, to a chorus of "That's not our war" from the others.
James Golladay served in the US coastguard, but would discourage his two teenagers if they came home talking about enlisting. "I wouldn't want them to experience anything like that," he said, as he passed a US army recruiting office on 14th Street, Washington.
Constance Allen's husband, grandfather, uncle and son all served, but she would "never" let her grandson join up.
Mrs Wilson, Mr Golladay and Mrs Allen are not typical of America as a whole. But their views are enough to give the Pentagon cause for alarm. The reason? All three of them are black.
For years, black Americans have formed the backbone of the all-volunteer US army, filling a quarter of its ranks, though blacks account for only 13 per cent of the population. Blacks are more likely to treat the army as a lifelong career; a third of senior sergeants and non-commissioned officers are black. Suddenly, that is changing.
Apart from a sudden fall in the past two months in recruiting for the part-time National Guard, army recruitment as a whole has held more or less steady this year, with the help of increased enlistment bonuses and an early call-up for some youths originally due to enter basic training next year.
But the proportion of black recruits into the army was only 15.6 per cent, down from 22.3 per cent in the fiscal year 2001. In the part-time army reserve, the drop is sharper.
Army officials decline to speculate about the collapse in black recruiting, instead noting what they call a positive development, that army numbers will now reflect the make-up of society better.
Behind the scenes, there is more concern, according to Prof David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland.
"If there are fewer blacks coming in - and it is blacks who stay in and become NCOs - then six, seven, eight, nine years down the road, you can anticipate a shortage of sergeants," he said.
Prof Charles Moskos, an expert on the military and race at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the drop-off began even before the Iraq war, with the election of President George W Bush in 2000 in the face of overwhelming black antipathy, an attitude that lingers to this day.
That hostility increased exponentially with the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed by a large majority of black Americans, amid suspicion over the reasons given for toppling Saddam Hussein and anger at billions of dollars spent overseas, rather than at home.
Mrs Allen pointed to the rain-lashed streets of Washington, a large, poor, mainly black city that also happens to be the nation's capital.
"You've got so many homeless people here, they were in the military, half of them. You look at that, people ask, 'Why should I go fight the white man's war when there's nothing for us here?' " she said.
Mr Golladay said blacks tended to join the military for stable employment, college scholarships and the chance to learn valuable skills.
Pentagon statistics from 2003 back him up, showing that 67 per cent of black soldiers served in support or rearguard units, working as technicians, medical assistants, clerks or cooks. Only 16 per cent of black soldiers were in combat units.
Asked why blacks chose rear-line units, Mr Golloday answered: "People looked to the military as a way of receiving benefits. People want to transition into a civilian life later. Being a chief gunner isn't something that people will pay a lot for." Then he laughed, and added: "And they don't want to die."
Crucially, among older generations there are also sharp memories of the Vietnam War, in which blacks were seen as bearing an unfair burden of casualties. Martin Luther King spoke of it being fought by people of colour against people of colour in the interests of whites.
Kayla Roach, a black woman, said: "I know families whose kids want to join the military, and their parents are saying no. Maybe they have just one or two children and it's scary to them."
The perception has spread among black Americans that in the war on terrorism, rear-line units are as vulnerable as front-line infantry squads.
Prof Moskos defended the US military as one of America's most racially integrated large institutions.
"The army is not a utopia but it is the only place where whites are routinely bossed around by blacks," he said.
To Mr Golladay, the military is not the problem. "People join understanding that they might go to war," he said. "But this war now, I feel it's unnecessary."
more on this subject:
4 September 2003: Britain and US overstretched by occupation
12 October 1997: We got it wrong on blacks, [British] Army chief admits
Bonus boost to bring in new guard
African Americans in the US Army - US Army Center of Military History
US Army targets black hip-hop fans [21 Oct '03] - Daily Hip-Hop News
Why I Serve - US Department of Defense
Dolly Wilson's father proudly served in the Second World War and her husband in Vietnam. But her children will not join the military if she has any say in it.
"We don't want our kids to go into no war for nothing," said Mrs Wilson, snatching a cigarette with colleagues outside her Washington office.
"Bush has two daughters. Let them go over and fight," she added, to a chorus of "That's not our war" from the others.
James Golladay served in the US coastguard, but would discourage his two teenagers if they came home talking about enlisting. "I wouldn't want them to experience anything like that," he said, as he passed a US army recruiting office on 14th Street, Washington.
Constance Allen's husband, grandfather, uncle and son all served, but she would "never" let her grandson join up.
Mrs Wilson, Mr Golladay and Mrs Allen are not typical of America as a whole. But their views are enough to give the Pentagon cause for alarm. The reason? All three of them are black.
For years, black Americans have formed the backbone of the all-volunteer US army, filling a quarter of its ranks, though blacks account for only 13 per cent of the population. Blacks are more likely to treat the army as a lifelong career; a third of senior sergeants and non-commissioned officers are black. Suddenly, that is changing.
Apart from a sudden fall in the past two months in recruiting for the part-time National Guard, army recruitment as a whole has held more or less steady this year, with the help of increased enlistment bonuses and an early call-up for some youths originally due to enter basic training next year.
But the proportion of black recruits into the army was only 15.6 per cent, down from 22.3 per cent in the fiscal year 2001. In the part-time army reserve, the drop is sharper.
Army officials decline to speculate about the collapse in black recruiting, instead noting what they call a positive development, that army numbers will now reflect the make-up of society better.
Behind the scenes, there is more concern, according to Prof David Segal, a military sociologist at the University of Maryland.
"If there are fewer blacks coming in - and it is blacks who stay in and become NCOs - then six, seven, eight, nine years down the road, you can anticipate a shortage of sergeants," he said.
Prof Charles Moskos, an expert on the military and race at Northwestern University in Chicago, said the drop-off began even before the Iraq war, with the election of President George W Bush in 2000 in the face of overwhelming black antipathy, an attitude that lingers to this day.
That hostility increased exponentially with the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed by a large majority of black Americans, amid suspicion over the reasons given for toppling Saddam Hussein and anger at billions of dollars spent overseas, rather than at home.
Mrs Allen pointed to the rain-lashed streets of Washington, a large, poor, mainly black city that also happens to be the nation's capital.
"You've got so many homeless people here, they were in the military, half of them. You look at that, people ask, 'Why should I go fight the white man's war when there's nothing for us here?' " she said.
Mr Golladay said blacks tended to join the military for stable employment, college scholarships and the chance to learn valuable skills.
Pentagon statistics from 2003 back him up, showing that 67 per cent of black soldiers served in support or rearguard units, working as technicians, medical assistants, clerks or cooks. Only 16 per cent of black soldiers were in combat units.
Asked why blacks chose rear-line units, Mr Golloday answered: "People looked to the military as a way of receiving benefits. People want to transition into a civilian life later. Being a chief gunner isn't something that people will pay a lot for." Then he laughed, and added: "And they don't want to die."
Crucially, among older generations there are also sharp memories of the Vietnam War, in which blacks were seen as bearing an unfair burden of casualties. Martin Luther King spoke of it being fought by people of colour against people of colour in the interests of whites.
Kayla Roach, a black woman, said: "I know families whose kids want to join the military, and their parents are saying no. Maybe they have just one or two children and it's scary to them."
The perception has spread among black Americans that in the war on terrorism, rear-line units are as vulnerable as front-line infantry squads.
Prof Moskos defended the US military as one of America's most racially integrated large institutions.
"The army is not a utopia but it is the only place where whites are routinely bossed around by blacks," he said.
To Mr Golladay, the military is not the problem. "People join understanding that they might go to war," he said. "But this war now, I feel it's unnecessary."
more on this subject:
4 September 2003: Britain and US overstretched by occupation
12 October 1997: We got it wrong on blacks, [British] Army chief admits
Bonus boost to bring in new guard
African Americans in the US Army - US Army Center of Military History
US Army targets black hip-hop fans [21 Oct '03] - Daily Hip-Hop News
Why I Serve - US Department of Defense
(Filed: 18/12/2004) © Telegraph LTD
WE are the facist torturers
US painted as fascist torturers
in Havana propaganda battle
A war of words flared yesterday when Cuban authorities displayed a giant swastika and pictures of abused Iraqi prisoners in front of the US mission in Havana.
The propaganda stunt was in retaliation for US diplomats' Christmas decoration which highlighted the plight of Cuban dissidents.
The diplomats awoke yesterday to the sight of two huge billboards opposite the mission's entrance emblazoned with a swastika, the word "Fascists" in bold red letters, and some of the infamous photographs of American troops abusing Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison, Baghdad.
To drum home the point to commuters on one of Havana's busier avenues, the word "Fascists" had a giant "Made in America" stamp on top.
The display was opposite the mission's Christmas decorations, which infuriated the authorities with a neon 75, a reference to the 75 dissidents imprisoned by Fidel Castro last year.
Cuba complained about the decorations to James Cason, the chief American representative, and demanded that he take them down.
The speaker of the Cuban parliament, Ricardo Alarcon, said the display, which includes a Father Christmas and white lights wrapped around palm trees, was "rubbish" and a "provocation". He said Mr Cason seemed "desperate to create problems".
The State Department defended the decorations and said there were no plans to take them down before the end of the Christmas holiday.
"It shows our solidarity with Cubans who struggle for democracy and freedom," said the department spokesman, Richard Boucher.
When the decorations went up Cuba gave warning of unspecified "consequences". Yesterday the threat became clear as America was given its latest reminder of how the Abu Ghraib scandal has delivered Washington its greatest public relations setback in years.
Mr Cason has refused to back down.
Since his arrival two years ago, to the fury of Havana he has met leading dissidents, encouraged their struggle for democracy and dispensed books and short-wave radios.
Havana has subsequently imprisoned 75 dissidents and journalists and banned Mr Cason's trips around the country. But still every month thousands of Cubans visit his headquarters where they get free access to the internet and watch cable television.
Washington cut diplomatic ties with Havana and imposed sanctions after Castro took power in 1959. The two countries retain special missions in each other's capitals.
photo caption:
A jogger passes the billboard depicting abused Iraqis
By Alec Russell in Washington (Filed: 18/12/2004) © Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.
Friday
Fuckin’ A -- The Guy is Right!!
It’s the Fuckin’ Good Time Show With Chevy Chase
By Richard Leiby
Washington Post
Thursday, December 16, 2004
xxx expletives have been filled in, making this, uhm, the normal stuff for kids to read and hear these days, so what the .
Even certified Hollywood liberals were reeling after Chevy Chase's potty-mouthed Bush-bashing Tuesday night at the Kennedy Center, where the actor hosted an awards ceremony staged by People for the American Way.
For most of the evening, Chase was his usual comedic self, delivering lines like "This just in -- resignations in the upper echelon of the Bush administration. The Bush sisters have resigned and are being replaced by Paris and Nicky Hilton. Back for more news later."
After actors Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon delivered speeches accepting their Defender of Democracy awards, Chase took the stage a final time and unleashed a rant against President Bush that stunned the crowd. He deployed the four-letter word that got Vice President Cheney in hot water, using it as a noun. Chase called the prez a "dumb fuck." He also used it as an adjective, assuring the audience, "I'm no fucking clown either. . . . This guy started a jihad."
Chase also said: "This guy in office is an uneducated, real lying schmuck . . . and we still couldn't beat him with a bore like Kerry."
People for the American Way distanced itself yesterday from the actor's rant. "Chevy Chase's improvised remarks caught everyone off guard, and were inappropriate and offensive," Ralph Neas, the liberal advocacy group's president, said in a statement. "It was not what I would have said, and certainly not the language People for the American Way would ever use in discussing any president of the United States."
Founder Norman Lear agreed, telling us: "I thought it was utterly untoward, obviously unexpected and unscripted and all that stuff. And, uh -- it was Chevy Chase. He'll live with it, I won't."
Sen. Tom Daschle, the former minority leader, looked taken aback when he went on directly after Chase. His opening line: "I've had to follow a lot of speakers, but -- "
The movie star didn't return for a curtain call or to savor dessert at the reception after the event. We were told he hurt his back and needed to call it a night by 9. Chase's PR rep told us yesterday she was unable to reach him.
Meanwhile, the other host of the evening, the newly blond Cynthia Nixon, told us she had a more gracious message for Bush: "Don't just listen to people who are telling you yes, listen to the people who are telling you no!"
dao breath
breath 
You breathe.
Frosting mountains white, Exciting trees to verdant flame, Dancing sparrows on your wing, Swirling waves into long sighs. You breathe, And all things live. A central concept for Tao is breath. Without breath, there is no life. The complexity of this idea is great indeed. You breathe; that brings you oxygen. You breathe; that sustains you. You breathe; that regulates your heartbeat, feeds your brain, makes your blood red. Deeper still; You breathe, and the entire energy field of your body is sustained and set into motion. When that field, so intimately tied to breathing, is integrated with your mind, you have the power of spirituality. Breath. Don't crassly think of it as mere gas. Just as we breathe, so too does the universe breathe. In fact, we can think of the entire medium of life as breath. When the world breathes, all things are sustained. Weather moves as it should. Plants grow as they should. Animals are made strong. The very forces of geology are set into motion. And together, a might field of energy is generated, a much larger version of what happens in your own body. Connected to that field is a universal mind. Do you want to know how spirituality works? Breathe. breath 365 Tao daily meditations Deng Ming-Dao (author) ISBN 0-06-250223-9 
Lotus Pool by Fu Bao Shi receive a full HTML copy of the daily meditation sent directly to your inbox, please send a note with the words "subscribe tao" in the subject line to duckdaotsu to unsubscribe or take a vacation, contact me with specifics at the same address! |
Thursday
PTSD, one of the worst ‘four letter words’ around
A Flood of Troubled Soldiers Is in the Offing, Experts Predict
By SCOTT SHANEDecember 16, 2004
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - The nation's hard-pressed health care system for veterans is facing a potential deluge of tens of thousands of soldiers returning from Iraq with serious mental health problems brought on by the stress and carnage of war, veterans' advocates and military doctors say.
An Army study shows that about one in six soldiers in Iraq report symptoms of major depression, serious anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, a proportion that some experts believe could eventually climb to one in three, the rate ultimately found in Vietnam veterans. Because about one million American troops have served so far in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Pentagon figures, some experts predict that the number eventually requiring mental health treatment could exceed 100,000.
"There's a train coming that's packed with people who are going to need help for the next 35 years," said Stephen L. Robinson, a 20-year Army veteran who is now the executive director of the National Gulf War Resource Center, an advocacy group. Mr. Robinson wrote a report in September on the psychological toll of the war for the Center for American Progress, a Washington research group.
"I have a very strong sense that the mental health consequences are going to be the medical story of this war," said Dr. Stephen C. Joseph, who served as the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs from 1994 to 1997. What was planned as a short and decisive intervention in Iraq has become a grueling counterinsurgency that has put American troops into sustained close-quarters combat on a scale not seen since the Vietnam War. Psychiatrists say the kind of fighting seen in the recent retaking of Falluja - spooky urban settings with unlimited hiding places; the impossibility of telling Iraqi friend from Iraqi foe; the knowledge that every stretch of road may conceal an explosive device - is tailored to produce the adrenaline-gone-haywire reactions that leave lasting emotional scars.
And in no recent conflict have so many soldiers faced such uncertainty about how long they will be deployed. Veterans say the repeated extensions of duty in Iraq are emotionally battering, even for the most stoical of warriors.
Military and Department of Veterans Affairs officials say most military personnel will survive the war without serious mental issues and note that the one million troops include many who have not participated in ground combat, including sailors on ships. By comparison with troops in Vietnam, the officials said, soldiers in Iraq get far more mental health support and are likely to return to a more understanding public.
But the duration and intensity of the war have doctors at veterans hospitals across the country worried about the coming caseload.
"We're seeing an increasing number of guys with classic post-traumatic stress symptoms," said Dr. Evan Kanter, a psychiatrist at the Puget Sound veterans hospital in Seattle. "We're all anxiously waiting for a flood that we expect is coming. And I feel stretched right now."
A September report by the Government Accountability Office found that officials at six of seven Veterans Affairs medical facilities surveyed said they "may not be able to meet" increased demand for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder. Officers who served in Iraq say the unrelenting tension of the counterinsurgency will produce that demand. "In the urban terrain, the enemy is everywhere, across the street, in that window, up that alley," said Paul Rieckhoff, who served as a platoon leader with the Florida Army National Guard for 10 months, going on hundreds of combat patrols around Baghdad. "It's a fishbowl. You never feel safe. You never relax."
In his platoon of 38 people, 8 were divorced while in Iraq or since they returned in February, Mr. Rieckhoff said. One man in his 120-person company killed himself after coming home.
"Too many guys are drinking," said Mr. Rieckhoff, who started the group Operation Truth to support the troops. "A lot have a hard time finding a job. I think the system is vastly under-prepared for the flood of mental health problems."
Capt. Tim Wilson, an Army chaplain serving outside Mosul, said he counseled 8 to 10 soldiers a week for combat stress. Captain Wilson said he was impressed with the resilience of his 700-strong battalion but added that fierce battles have produced turbulent emotions."There are usually two things they are dealing with," said Captain Wilson, a Southern Baptist from
When all goes as it should, the life-saving medical services available to combat units like Captain Wilson's may actually swell the ranks of psychological casualties. Of wounded soldiers who are alive when medics arrive, 98 percent now survive, said Dr. Michael E. Kilpatrick, the Pentagon's deputy director of deployment health support. But they must come to terms not only with emotional scars but the literal scars of amputated limbs and disfiguring injuries.
Through the end of September, the Army had evacuated 885 troops from Iraq for psychiatric reasons, including some who had threatened or tried suicide. But those are only the most extreme cases. Often, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder do not emerge until months after discharge.
"During the war, they don't have the leisure to focus on how they're feeling," said Sonja Batten, a psychologist at the
Robert E. Brown was proud to be in the first wave of Marines invading Iraq last year. But Mr. Brown has also found himself in the first ranks of returning soldiers to be unhinged by what they experienced.
He served for six months as a Marine chaplain's assistant, counseling wounded soldiers, organizing makeshift memorial services and filling in on raids. He knew he was in trouble by the time he was on a ship home, when the sound of a hatch slamming would send him diving to the floor.
After he came home, he began drinking heavily and saw his marriage fall apart, Mr. Brown said. He was discharged and returned to his hometown,
"I just couldn't stand to be with anybody," said Mr. Brown, 35, sitting at his father's kitchen table.
Dr. Batten started him on the road to recovery by giving his torment a name, an explanation and a treatment plan. But 18 months after leaving Iraq, he takes medication for depression and anxiety and returns in dreams to the horrors of his war nearly every night.
The scenes repeat in ghastly alternation, he says: the Iraqi girl, 3 or 4 years old, her skull torn open by a stray round; the Kuwaiti man imprisoned for 13 years by Saddam Hussein, cowering in madness and covered in waste; the young American soldier, desperate to escape the fighting, who sat in the latrine and fired his M-16 through his arm; the Iraqi missile speeding in as troops scramble in the dark for cover.
"That's the one that just stops my heart," said Mr. Brown. "I'm in my rack sleeping and there's a school bus full of explosives coming down at me and there's nowhere to go."
Such costs of war, personal and financial, are not revealed by official casualty counts. "People see the figure of 1,200 dead," said Dr. Kanter, of Seattle, referring to the number of Americans killed in Iraq. "Much more rarely do they see the number of seriously wounded. And almost never do they hear anything at all about the psychiatric casualties."
As of Wednesday 5,229 Americans have been seriously wounded in Iraq. Through July, nearly 31,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for injuries or psychological ailments, according to the Department Veterans Affairs.
Every war produces its medical signature, said Dr. Kenneth Craig Hyams, a former Navy physician now at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Soldiers came back from the Civil War with "irritable heart." In World War I there was "shell shock." World War II vets had "battle fatigue." The troubles of Vietnam veterans led to the codification of post-traumatic stress disorder.
In combat, the fight-or-flight reflex floods the body with adrenaline, permitting impressive feats of speed and endurance. But after spending weeks or months in this altered state, some soldiers cannot adjust to a peaceful setting. Like Mr. Brown, for whom a visit to a crowded bank at lunch became an ordeal, they display what doctors call "hypervigilance." They sit in restaurants with their backs to a wall; a car's backfire can transport them back to Baghdad.
To prevent such damage, the Army has deployed "combat stress control units" in Iraq to provide treatment quickly to soldiers suffering from emotional overload, keeping them close to the healing camaraderie of their unit.
"We've found through long experience that this is best treated with sleep, rest, food, showers and a clean uniform, if that is possible," said Dr. Thomas J. Burke, an Army psychiatrist who oversees mental health policy at the Department of Defense. "If they get counseling to tell them they are not crazy, they will often get better rapidly."
To detect signs of trouble, the Department of Defense gives soldiers pre-deployment and post-deployment health questionnaires. Seven of 17 questions to soldiers leaving Iraq seek signs of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.
But some reports suggest that such well-intentioned policies falter in the field. During his time as a platoon leader in Iraq, Mr. Rieckhoff said, he never saw a combat stress control unit. "I never heard of them until I came back," he said.
And the health screens have run up against an old enemy of military medicine: soldiers who cover up their symptoms. In July 2003, as Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine reservist from Belchertown, Mass., prepared to leave Iraq after six months as a truck driver, he at first intended to report traumatic memories of seeing corpses, his parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey, said. But when a supervisor suggested that such candor might delay his return home, Mr. Lucey played down his problems.
At home, he spiraled downhill, haunted by what he had seen and began to have delusions about having killed unarmed Iraqis. In June, at 23, he hanged himself with a hose in the basement of the family home.
"Other marines have verified to us that it is a subtle understanding which exists that if you want to go home you do not report any problems," Mr. Lucey's parents wrote in an e-mail message. "Jeff's perception, which is shared by others, is that to seek help is to admit that you are weak."
Dr. Kilpatrick, of the Pentagon, acknowledges the problem, saying that National Guardsmen and Reservists in particular have shown an "abysmal" level of candor in the screenings. "We still have a long ways to go," he said. "The warrior ethos is that there are no imperfections."
photo captions:
A veteran of Iraq, Robert E.Brown, right, with his uncle Leone Brown, an Air Force veteran, at his father's house near Peru, Ind., in November. Both veterans are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Sonja Batten, a psychologist at the Baltimore veterans hospital, says veterans often realize their troubles after they've returned home.
Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article.
©NYT
The Salt March
  |
|
|
| |||
|
A conversation with Larry Kramer
about the current state of gay activism
'You Can Never Not Fight Back!'
December 15 - 21, 2004
Loud and clear at the march
on Washington in 1987 (photo: marcgeller.com) |
In a blistering speech at Cooper Union on November 7, his first in over a decade, author and activist Larry Kramer told a packed crowd that "as of November 2, gay rights are officially dead."
The founder of Gay Men's Health Crisis and of ACT UP, Kramer, 69, is an Oscar-nominated screenwriter, bestselling novelist, and author of the plays The Normal Heart and The Destiny of Me and of a collection of essays, Reports From the Holocaust. He spoke with Alisa Solomon about the current state of the gay movement.
Alisa Solomon: Since the election, the national lesbian-gay-bi-trans groups have been regrouping and asking what went wrong. All 11 state ballot initiatives defining marriage as between a man and a woman passed—and some of them even deny civil-union protections for gay and lesbian couples. Last week, people in the country's biggest gay lobbying group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), reportedly said they thought the movement needs to temper its demands and slow down. They even said they'd consider supporting Bush's plans to privatize Social Security if it would help advance LGBT rights. What do you make of the suggestion that we need to be more moderate?
Larry Kramer: It's a disaster! You can never not fight back. You can't give them an inch. So what if they're attacking us? You don't run back into the closet. I was appalled when I heard the idea dribbling out that we should pull back instead of carrying on or pressing even more. My favorite expression is: You do not get more with honey than with vinegar! What I'm hoping—and it looks like this may be developing—is that this may finally be, if not the downfall of the HRC, at least putting them in their place. I never saw an organization exist so long, raise so much money, and do so little. Their annual budget is $25 million! I think they get a lot of money from rich people in the heartland. I want to ask those people: What are you getting for it? This election is a real slap in the face to HRC and their complete ineptitude. And now they want to make deals!
| "I don't know how to say this without sounding like a shit: It's about money, pure and simple." |
Kramer: There's lobbyists, and then there's lobbyists. A good lobbyist is not an ass kisser. HRC seems to be more and more devoted to ass kissing. That way lies disaster. We've got to teach them: You don't suck up. There's a great deal of feeling that all they do is pay to go to parties in Washington, to be on the circuit, to be seen, as if that amounts to much.
Solomon: I wonder if there might not be a problem built into the very structure of this kind of lobbying model. If your whole orbit is the offices and the parties of the Hill, and your work is to go bargain with them and be cozy with them in the same social circles, then you speak their language, share their perspectives—
Kramer: If that's what lobbyists across-the-board do, then we're in trouble. It seems to me lobbyists are there to represent the people, not sell out the people. "Bargain" is the wrong word. If you have power, you go in and say what you want. They listen to you or not. You go in and be angry. If they don't like it, tough. What are they going to do to you? They can't do anything worse than what they're already doing. But if you represent as many people as they say they do—500,000 or 600,000 people—that's a lot of votes.
Solomon: Well, they do claim some achievements, don't they?
Kramer: HRC takes credit for keeping the marriage amendment from getting anywhere in Congress. Yet it is generally agreed that it would never have gotten anywhere anyway, with or without them. Still, I don't know why everyone is so intent on pouring cold water on the notion that it was gay marriage that lost the election, which I firmly believe. I have no doubt that if not the major, it was one of the major reasons that we got dumped on.
Solomon: Don't you think it's more complicated? The war, fear of terrorism . . . ?
Kramer: I do and I don't. I think when it comes right down to it, there is a lot of hate out there that we refuse to face up to. It sometimes reflects itself in subtle ways. Talking to straight people about gay marriage, you can just hear the anger that comes into their voice. That's something deeper than just being against gay marriage.
Solomon: True. But where I don't completely agree is that the Right has been putting forth anti-gay ballot initiatives of one kind or another for a couple of decades now. They can whip up anger and motivate people around homophobia no matter what we do or don't do, no matter what we demand or don't demand.
Kramer: Yes. I should have said not just marriage, but gay issues generally. They're surfacing under gay marriage now. We are now much more visible in many ways, and they're thinking we've got to be put back in our place.
| "I have no idea why there hasn't been more civil disobedience, guerrilla tactics. ACT UP changed the world: The drugs are now out there because kids, most of whom are now dead, went out and put their bodies on the line and changed history. Why can't we continue to do it?" |
Kramer: That's why I want it. There are over 1,000 economic benefits the government passes out to married couples. I want 'em.
Solomon: —but more around the symbolic power of the state recognizing our relationships.
Kramer: I'm hoping that the symbolic stuff is beginning to fade. I think it's sentimental. I have nothing against that, but I don't think we should hold out for sentiment if we can get cold hard cash. I think we were on our way to getting the more easily obtainable civil union when the Massachusetts thing passed and marriage took its course. Then we had no choice but to fight for it, when a lot of us would have been happy to have the civil union. So when at the last minute Bush seemed to offer civil union, we weren't in a negotiating position to say, OK, we'll take that instead.
Solomon: With that possibility on the back burner, what do you make of HRC's willingness to consider supporting Bush's plans to privatize Social Security?
Kramer: Can you believe it? I can't see why people think Social Security needs to be repaired. Read Paul Krugman! Social Security is not broke. Why are they trying to fix it? It seems to be another Bush con to line the pockets of the rich.
Solomon: Yes. But isn't that exactly the problem? If HRC has a board of directors and an agenda that is being driven by people who give them a lot of money—which is to say the rich—why are we surprised when they support plans that line the pockets of the rich?
Kramer: I guess I'm naive enough to find it difficult to believe that this would be done at the expense of the rest of the gay population to such a degree. That's rabid right-wing philosophy.
Solomon: Indeed! I'd like to pursue that because, arguably, a certain kind of identity politics separates what's construed as "our interests" from a larger understanding of social and economic justice.
Kramer: What do you mean by "identity politics"? Fighting just for gay things?
Solomon: Yes. In your speech at Cooper Union, for example, you quoted some grim statistics from a talk by Bill Moyers about poverty in the U.S. and the ever widening income gap. I can imagine that HRC might say in response, "What's that got to do with us? That's not a gay issue."
Kramer: The people behind these policies are the same people who are crucifying us! If they're capable of that, they're certainly capable of destroying us, which they're attempting to do! Why do people like HRC separate it? HRC exists without any community oversight. They're not elected. We have no input into what they do. And they go and convince Congress that they represent the gay world.
Solomon: Why do we let them?
Kramer: Because, quite frankly, it's better than nothing. And nothing was what we had for so long. It's what every single speech I've ever made comes down to: Where are we? Where is everybody? Everyone is invisible. Even though so many of us are out of the closet, we're still invisible. Don't people know how to speak up?
Solomon: The whole culture has gone this way, hasn't it?
Kramer: The whole culture isn't being led to the gas chambers! And I use that analogy with full knowledge of what I'm saying. I really think they are out to completely eliminate us and to destroy us. It's becoming clearer and clearer. I finally got scientists and bureaucrats at the NIH to admit their intentionality in not doing anything about AIDS. Between 1981 and 1985, nothing was done. Every gay man who had sex without a condom got exposed. They knew it. That's hate. That's people who want to get rid of us. And we refuse to see that.
Kramer in Summer 2001 ethanhill.com |
Kramer: I know. I'm always called crazy. And now it's "Larry's conspiracy theory."
Solomon: So what should we be doing about it?
Kramer: I really am tired of that question. Everybody's got to do what they can do. The amazing thing about ACT UP and GMHC is that they made themselves. People showed up and said, "I can do this, I'm gonna do that." GMHC came along when everything was really desperate. Lawyers said, "Let me help legally." Doctors said, "We're being screwed on the epidemiology. Let me investigate that." How we got drugs is an amazing story. A straight woman showed up at a meeting who nobody had ever seen before—Iris Long—who is a scientist, and she said, "You people don't know squat about any of this. You don't know how the government works, you don't know how science is done, you don't understand how it's researched, you don't know how to get grants, you don't know how drugs get approved, you don't know the chemistry of all of these drugs." And she started a group with three or four people, the Treatment and Data Committee. They all taught themselves everything. They became smarter than the scientists.
It was the same thing with ACT UP. It wasn't me making up all those demonstrations that were so effective. It was very imaginative people who sat around in a room with a couple hundred other people and brainstormed. I didn't know what we were going to do when I said we've got to do something. You can't know in advance. You have to get together and talk. You have to find out: What do you want to do? What are you capable of? What do you dream of doing? It's all about dreams. We have to stop making it sound so clinical.
Solomon: I wonder if that is harder for the current generation than it was for yours or mine. I mean, we're talking about people born after Reagan. They didn't grow up with an idea that the state has obligations to its citizens, that they could be part of a meaningful collective effort rather than just strive as individuals, that some kind of safety net isn't a Communist plot—
Kramer: It's true. But I grew up nonpolitical. I was out on Fire Island laughing at the Gay Pride marches on TV. What politicized me was a couple of friends dying real fast.
Solomon: Yes. But also you were politicized into an atmosphere that still had some live radical spores.
Kramer: I agree. Those ideas are out of currency. But it's no excuse. You can list all kinds of reasons for why it's not easy, but you gotta wake up and smell the coffee. They're coming after us. Big time. Even if they're doing it under the guise of Mr. and Mrs. Nice Guy with God on Their Side. And a lot of people don't want to see it. Andrew Sullivan just wrote an article saying everything is going to be wonderful. Makes you want to puke!
Solomon: Why do you suppose he sees what you consider so dire in a more optimistic way?
Kramer: One thing I learned in GMHC and ACT UP is that after a while it's pointless to ask the question "why?" There are a million whys. You just gotta take each day and react to the pile of shit they dish you out that day. You go after it. You cope with today's emergency. That's why you can't be too much of a bureaucracy. You've got to be able to be loose and deal with the issues on a daily basis.
Solomon: But even as you're doing that, don't you also need a long-range vision—those dreams you were talking about before?
Kramer: Honey, to be free and have equal rights. You don't need any more long-range vision than that.
Solomon: That sounds good. But what about the difference between equality and justice?
Kramer: They should be the same thing.
Solomon: But are they? Take health care. One of the great contributions of ACT UP was articulating demands for universal health coverage. But as the gay movement has focused in on marriage equality, all we seem to say about health care now is that we want to be able to access our partners' health benefits—assuming we have a partner—and that she or he has a job that provides decent benefits, which is less and less the case as unions get busted and corporations get stingier and stingier.
Kramer: I agree. It's not doing us any good to make this a one-issue fight about gay marriage. That's what the Right is forcing us to do.
Solomon: It seems to me the gay movement would have a lot more allies if we were working for genuine universal health care. Is there a family in this country that isn't affected by the disaster of our system, that hasn't been gouged by health costs? I sometimes wonder why people all over America aren't rioting in the streets over this issue.
Kramer: There's my favorite line, I use over and over, from a Brazilian reporter who saw one of our more feeble ACT UP demonstrations outside City Hall, and she said, "You call that a demonstration? In my country, when they raise the bus fare we burn the buses!" I have no idea why there hasn't been more civil disobedience, guerrilla tactics. The Right uses guerrilla tactics all over the place in the guise of think tanks. What I'm slowly beginning to sniff and to encourage is that some of the richer gays with their foundations are beginning to talk among themselves about what they can do with their money. They're generous, but they're safe-generous, and it's time not to play everything so safe.
Solomon: Even as you look for more civil disobedience and local organizing, do you really think we have to rely on the millionaires?
Kramer: Right now, yes. It shouldn't be either-or. But there isn't any issue out there of major import that accretes less money to itself than we do—and this is a rich population. People get mad when I say that because of course there are a lot of us who aren't. But for those who are—we are letting them off the hook. It's shocking.
Solomon: Maybe you're thinking of some well-funded think tanks like those the Olin and Bradley foundations supported on the Right for so many years as they built their power. But that's so much easier on the Right—there's no contradiction between their ideology and their pocketbooks. Look at neoliberal policy around marriage, for instance, and its social engineering. From this perspective, we'd make the best common cause with women on welfare, who are being told they have to get married in order to qualify for assistance. Or one could make a similar point about immigration—that to win rights to bring noncitizen partners here, we should understand that issue within the full picture of assaults on immigrants more generally. But rich gays aren't likely to ally themselves with women on welfare or undocumented workers—some of whom, in both categories, of course, are also LGBT.
Kramer: I don't know how to say this without sounding like a shit: It's about money, pure and simple. That's the reality of it all. We're not going to change the world by asking everybody to think of poor people. It's never worked that way, even though that's the way it should work. And it's quite right to say all of these things because they are, indeed, true. But when it comes right down to it, it's about power, and power is money. Money buys you the power, and power gets you the rights. The hope is that will include poor people. You've got to keep your eye on the prize.
|
"I really think they are out to completely eliminate us and to destroy us." |
Kramer: Which is becoming powerful. Coalition is the best idea in the world—and I've never seen it work, except maybe around the Vietnam War. It certainly didn't work with AIDS, and it's not going to work with gay marriage.
Solomon: But even without necessarily saying we have to work in coalition, couldn't we at least strive for a broader, more contextual way of thinking? Couldn't we encompass it in our vision, even if not in our meetings?
Kramer: Of course, you can do whatever you want. But I saw in ACT UP how we ended up with so many issues to attend to. It's not that you're denying the existence and relevance and importance of other issues, but you can't water down your power by having everybody fighting for their own separate interests.
Solomon: So what do we do now?
Kramer: [Long pause. Big sigh.] I don't want to start another organization as long as I live. But I say to people, you have to plug in. Somehow. In an essay I wrote in 1982 or '83 that's in Reports From the Holocaust, I talked about getting mobilized: It's really a group of people getting together and discussing an issue and then going out and doing something about it.
ACT UP changed the world: The drugs are now out there because kids, most of whom are now dead, went out and put their bodies on the line and changed history. Why can't we continue to do it?
Solomon: If you were handed the directorship of HRC or some other major gay organization, what's the first thing you'd do?
Kramer: Fire everybody.
Solomon: And then?
Kramer: Call some friends and sit down and talk. I come from the movie business. You start by pitching ideas.© daVoice
The weirdest job in PR: reflections on life as a 'terrorist' spokesman
Press Clips
by Jarrett Murphy
Getting Burned
The weirdest job in PR: reflections on life as a 'terrorist' spokesman
by Jarrett Murphy
Getting Burned
Was it an act of domestic terrorism, a devilish prank, or just one hell of a coincidence?
When nearly simultaneous fires broke out last week in 41 homes at a new development in Maryland, early suspicion fell on the Earth Liberation Front. The new houses had rankled green groups because they're built near wetlands, and the E.L.F., which the FBI considers a domestic terrorist organization, has a history of getting fired up about such things.
For all the speculation about its role, the E.L.F. itself was mostly silent. The New York Times and The Washington Times reported efforts to get in touch, but no named spokesperson came forward. That could be because, according to the last known spokesman for the E.L.F., Leslie James Pickering, even the PR operation has gone underground.
Until he got out of the game in 2002, Pickering had a rather unique role as a PR man: He says he didn't belong to the group he represented or even have a way to contact them. Pickering tells the Voice he was a social justice activist in Portland, Oregon, when the E.L.F. contacted him in 1997 about their burning of a federal horse stable near Burns, Oregon. He passed the claim on to the media.
After claiming several more attacks for the E.L.F., Pickering and fellow activist Craig Rosebraugh decided in 2000 to start an official press office to spread the group's call for a sweeping overhaul of the capitalist system. At first, Pickering says, he and Rosebraugh were surprised at how the press mangled that message—using only the soundbites "where we didn't look so good." Then they learned "to manipulate [the press] as much as they manipulated us," by appealing to the media's taste for sensationalism, Pickering says. "If you're trying to get across the message that 'we're not fucking around anymore,' you can get that message across real clear."
The feds apparently got the message. During his time as an E.L.F. flack, Pickering says, he dodged grand jury subpoenas, and the press office was raided twice by the FBI. He also had run-ins with the feds at protests—even at the supermarket.
The harassment was worth it, Pickering says, because he had become frustrated with the limitations of traditional protest. Eventually, however, he grew tired of "single-issue extremism" and wanted to move on to a broader struggle. Pickering folded the press office in the summer of 2002 and "after I stepped down from that, nobody stepped up." An anonymous e-mail address is all that remains. In a December 7 response to The Washington Times, the press office said it could "neither confirm or deny" an E.L.F. role in the Maryland arson.
Tracking E.L.F. actions has always been tricky. The group has no hierarchy or official membership. If you believe in E.L.F. principles, you belong to it, and you can carry out acts of violence.
"The way I've heard it phrased is the A.L.F. [Animal Liberation Front] and E.L.F. are brand names," says Washington Times reporter Jon Ward. "The way it works is a couple of people go out and burn something, and it usually takes them a couple days to claim responsibility because it takes them a while to figure out how to do that."
Ultimately, the spokesperson decides if those acts are claimed for the E.L.F. or not, and therefore wields great authority. If someone gets hurt or dies, "this would not be considered an E.L.F. action," according to a FAQ brochure produced by Pickering's press office in 2001. (The E.L.F. website is down, but its material can be found on the A.L.F. site.)
Disinformation, please
On October 14, CNN's Wolf Blitzer told viewers, "There's a major U.S.-Iraqi military offensive in Falluja under way right now." Only there wasn't. The assault didn't begin until the following month. It turns out a Marine officer fed CNN a lie, perhaps to see how insurgents would react.
The military misled us. What else is new? Americans have already been fed the Jessica Lynch canard, the nose-cone shots of "precision" missile strikes, and even the WMD "evidence" that sold the war.
"This incident seems different in that it very clearly was the transmission of information known to be false in order to achieve certain military goals," Michael Massing, author of an authoritative survey of Iraq coverage in a recent issue of The New York Review of Books, tells the Voice.
The Pentagon said it was looking into the CNN incident. But the line between psychological operations targeting the enemy and PR aimed at Americans has been getting blurrier since the war started.
Now, Joint Chiefs chairman General Richard Myers is warning about holes in the wall between psy-ops and PR. In a September 27 memo to commanders, he warned that any coordination between the two must make sure that public affairs can "maintain its institutional credibility."
That warning comes as U.S. psy-ops bulks up for the "global war on terrorism": Last month, the Special Operations Command began surveying firms that might provide multimedia products to "enhance media capabilities of the Joint PSYOP Support Element." A military spokesman, Captain Ken Hoffman, tells the Voice that while psy-ops involves only "truthful information"—like telling Bosnian kids not to touch land mines—"by law, the U.S. military cannot produce psychological-operations products directed toward U.S. citizens."
But today's global communications mean that messages meant for the bad guys can reach U.S. audiences, says Sam Gardiner, a retired colonel and military professor who tracks military pronouncements. And 24-7 news operations are prone to quickly report —and belatedly correct—disinformation like the Falluja feint. Plus, Massing says, while reporters in Iraq are skeptical of what the military says, they are hemmed in by rules governing whom they can talk to in Baghdad's Green Zone and deterred by continued violence from venturing out of that area. Sometimes, the military action itself seems to have a PR angle. One of the first U.S. targets in Falluja was a hospital that had been a major source of civilian casualty reports during the first attack on the city in April. There may have been a military objective for GIs in effectively shutting down the hospital, but there was undoubtedly a PR effect.
"I think that the news management," Massing says, "was an essential part of the offensive."December 15 - 21, 2004 issue ©daVoice
Sad Day at Notre Dame
Muslim scholar gives up visa fight
ASSOCIATED PRESS
December 15, 2004
SOUTH BEND, Ind. – A Muslim scholar resigned his appointment to the University of Notre Dame yesterday, four months after the Bush administration revoked the scholar's work visa before he could take up his teaching position.
"I'm abandoning the idea of moving to the United States," Tariq Ramadan told The Associated Press from Geneva. "I want to maintain my dignity."
Ramadan notified the university Monday, citing the stress on him and his family from the uncertainty of their situation, said R. Scott Appleby, director of Notre Dame's Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.
Ramadan, a Swiss citizen, was barred from working in the United States in August just days before he was to begin teaching at Notre Dame. The Department of Homeland Security cited security concerns but gave no specifics. Ramadan's work visa was issued in May.
Ramadan said yesterday there is nothing in his past to justify the ban and demanded U.S. authorities give details of its investigation of him in order to clear him of the "untrue and humiliating" claims that he was barred because of ties to terrorism.
"This is an obstacle to academic freedom of expression," he said.
The revocation of his visa sparked protests from at least four U.S. scholars' groups and led a U.N.-sponsored institution to issue an academic freedom alert.
Many of Ramadan's supporters believe the scholar's sharp criticism of Israel, the war in Iraq and U.S. policy in the Mideast was the reason for the revocation.
At the time, the Department of Homeland Security said the decision was based on "public safety or national security interests" and pointed to federal law applying to aliens who have used a "position of prominence . . . to endorse or espouse terrorist activity."
Scopes Trial: The Sequel
'Intelligent design' plans draw lawsuit
HARRISBURG, Pa. – Almost 80 years after the trial of Tennessee biology teacher John Scopes launched the landmark battle between science and religion, a lawsuit filed yesterday in Pennsylvania might reopen national debate over the teaching of evolution.
Two civil liberties groups, representing 11 parents in a community 25 miles southwest of here, sued the Dover Area School District seeking to block its introduction next month of "intelligent design" in the science curriculum.
The suit, which contends that the teaching of intelligent design violates the constitutional separation of church and state, is believed to be the first of its kind.
The intelligent design theory, first advanced in the late 1980s, holds that the universe is so complex that a supernatural force must be at work.
Proponents say it provides scientific answers for gaps and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution.
Critics, including the groups suing, say intelligent design is a watered-down version of creationism, which the Supreme Court has repudiated in public school curriculums.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, argues that intelligent design is "neither scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument."
Initiatives to introduce intelligent design in curriculums are percolating nationally, and this case could test how far opponents of evolution can go in shaping the teaching of science, said advocates and critics of intelligent design.
Recent surveys have shown that a majority of Americans favor teaching alternatives in school, and local boards have stepped up efforts to challenge the teaching of evolution.
In Cobb County, Ga., the ACLU has sued the school district over a disclaimer about evolution inserted in textbooks. In Kansas, conservatives who favor challenging the teaching of evolution recently won a majority on the state school board, and they are generally expected to change the state science curriculum as early as the spring.
Witold Walczak, legal director for the Pennsylvania ACLU chapter, called intelligent design "a Trojan horse for bringing religious creationism back into the public school science classroom."
Proponents said the theory was not based on any religion's holdings about creation but on science.
"Students will be made aware of gaps and problems in evolution," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., that promotes Christian values. "What's wrong with that? What gets the ACLU and others all upset is that those alternatives to evolution might include intelligent design, which might lead to God."
In October, the Dover school board voted to require ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement that Darwin's theory, that life evolved through a process of natural selection, is "not fact" and that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." The directive is scheduled to go into effect in January.
Officials of the school district, which has 3,600 pupils, could not be reached yesterday to comment on the case.
By Amy Worden KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE December 15, 2004
The New York Times News Service contributed to this report.
HARRISBURG, Pa. – Almost 80 years after the trial of Tennessee biology teacher John Scopes launched the landmark battle between science and religion, a lawsuit filed yesterday in Pennsylvania might reopen national debate over the teaching of evolution.
Two civil liberties groups, representing 11 parents in a community 25 miles southwest of here, sued the Dover Area School District seeking to block its introduction next month of "intelligent design" in the science curriculum.
The suit, which contends that the teaching of intelligent design violates the constitutional separation of church and state, is believed to be the first of its kind.
The intelligent design theory, first advanced in the late 1980s, holds that the universe is so complex that a supernatural force must be at work.
Proponents say it provides scientific answers for gaps and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution.
Critics, including the groups suing, say intelligent design is a watered-down version of creationism, which the Supreme Court has repudiated in public school curriculums.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court by the ACLU of Pennsylvania and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, argues that intelligent design is "neither scientific nor a theory in the scientific sense; it is an inherently religious argument."
Initiatives to introduce intelligent design in curriculums are percolating nationally, and this case could test how far opponents of evolution can go in shaping the teaching of science, said advocates and critics of intelligent design.
Recent surveys have shown that a majority of Americans favor teaching alternatives in school, and local boards have stepped up efforts to challenge the teaching of evolution.
In Cobb County, Ga., the ACLU has sued the school district over a disclaimer about evolution inserted in textbooks. In Kansas, conservatives who favor challenging the teaching of evolution recently won a majority on the state school board, and they are generally expected to change the state science curriculum as early as the spring.
Witold Walczak, legal director for the Pennsylvania ACLU chapter, called intelligent design "a Trojan horse for bringing religious creationism back into the public school science classroom."
Proponents said the theory was not based on any religion's holdings about creation but on science.
"Students will be made aware of gaps and problems in evolution," said Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich., that promotes Christian values. "What's wrong with that? What gets the ACLU and others all upset is that those alternatives to evolution might include intelligent design, which might lead to God."
In October, the Dover school board voted to require ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement that Darwin's theory, that life evolved through a process of natural selection, is "not fact" and that "gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence." The directive is scheduled to go into effect in January.
Officials of the school district, which has 3,600 pupils, could not be reached yesterday to comment on the case.
By Amy Worden KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE December 15, 2004
The New York Times News Service contributed to this report.
dao hourglass
hourglass 
Life is like an hourglass.
Imagine an hourglass.
Consciousness is the sand. Its shape is like the symbol for infinity. Its form recalls the double helix of DNA. Its two sections represent polarity. The material on one side, the immaterial on the other. The male on one side, and the female on the other. Hot and cold, positive and negative, or any other duality. The sand runs in a stream, the same stream as the course of energy that runs up your spine, the same stream that is the road of life. The movement of that sand is what we call Tao. Our consciousness alternates between the various states represented by the hourglass. It is as difficult to grasp as a stream of sand. Therefore, it is foolish to examine things minutely. It is unwise to focus on the material. It is wisdom to understand the movement. 365 Tao daily meditations Deng Ming-Dao (author) ISBN 0-06-250223-9 
Jungle Sea of Snowfield 1961 by Fu Bao Shi 
 *** special note: (the gift of a duck)
dear friends, I am sending a flock of ducks to a needy family. If two of you send one as well, I will send a flock of geese. If two more of you send either ducks or geese or chicks, I will send a flock of chicks. Let's see this grow, and make it a tradition for duckdaotsu and for all those who know and care about this silly duck, lisbeth! xoxo lisbeth west ps. just let me know by forwarding me an honor card, http://catalog.heifer.org/index.cfm will get you to the main catalogue http://catalog.heifer.org/ducks.cfm is the duck spot! and for the folks who would rather not send animals, there is a special gift of knitting basket or bees! receive a full HTML copy of the daily meditation sent directly to your inbox, please send a note with the words "subscribe tao" in the subject line to duckdaotsu to unsubscribe or take a vacation, contact me with specifics at the same address! |
Wednesday
deserters and AWOLS increase: resignations, lawsuits, seeing a pattern here, BSHUMY?
The pattern of discontent in US ranks
Griping among the troops is as old as armed conflict, illustrated most memorably by cartoonist Bill Mauldin's "Willie and Joe" characters during World War II. But something more than that is happening now in Iraq with what appears to be growing resistance from the troops.Evidence includes numbers of deserters (reportedly in the thousands), resignations of reserve officers, lawsuits by those whose duty period has been involuntarily extended, and a refusal to go on dangerous missions without proper equipment. There's also been a willingness at grunt level to publicly challenge the Pentagon - as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld found out recently in a trip to the war zone, where he got an earful about unarmored humvees.
While some don't see much defiance - and, in fact, have been surprised by the depth of solidarity - others see an unusual amount of tension surfacing for an all-volunteer military force.
"What is driving the resistance is the same thing that drove it during Vietnam - a lack of trust in the civilian leadership and a sense that the uniformed leaders are not standing up for the forces," says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington.
Colonel Smith doesn't expect the kind of "fragging" incidents that occurred in Vietnam where soldiers attacked their own officers. "This force is too professional," he says. "But the lack of trust and the inequity of the tours will very likely be reflected in the numbers of Guard and reservists who vote no-confidence with their feet."
MILITARY SHORTAGES
That already appears to be happening. The Army National Guard is short 5,000 new citizen-soldiers.
"Although generally successful in overall mission numbers, we continue to experience difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified individuals in certain critical wartime specialties," Army Reserve chief Lt. Gen. James Helmly told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year.
The number of officers wanting to resign from the Army Reserve has jumped as well. And according to a recent report on CBS's "60 Minutes," the Defense Department acknowledges that more than 5,500 service personnel have deserted since the Iraq war began.
While the complaints and the resistance to following some military policies may pattern earlier conflicts, the fighting in Iraq has a unique context, experts say.
BACKDOOR DRAFT
It's the first large-scale 21st-century conflict against an aggressive insurgency, causing thousands of US casualties; the first war in more than a generation in which homeland security and the threat of domestic terror attack seem so real; the first "semi-draft," with the Guard/reserve component approaching 50 percent of combat and combat support troops (and already taking more casualties than they did in Vietnam); and it's the first time in many years that soldiers have been ordered to serve beyond their commitments.
Legal challenges to military authority appear to be increasing as well, with more use of civilian attorneys than was seen in Vietnam. "It's very much in evidence," says Eugene Fidell, a former military lawyer who heads the National Institute of Military Justice. Mr. Fidell just finished teaching the first course on military issues at Harvard Law School since 1970.
All this is happening in an age when CNN brings live war coverage to the trenches and barracks, when troops are more aware of the successes and debacles on the battlefield than ever before. At the same time, reporters embedded with combat units, as well as e-mail and Internet access, make it easier for families and others back home to be heard by the soldiers - and for the soldiers to complain to them. This is especially true, perhaps, of citizen-soldiers, who are not only older than the average GI but more used to speaking out.
Since the fighting began in Iraq, the number of Guard and reserve troops on active duty has more than doubled. Critics say this is an indication that US forces are stretched too thin. One such critic is Senator John McCain (R) of Arizona, a supporter of the war who declared this week that he had "no confidence" in Secretary Rumsfeld.
At this point, much of the data is scattered and anecdotal, like the doubling of desertions at the Army's Fort Bragg in North Carolina last year to about 200. It may be too early to draw exact comparisons with earlier wars, experts agree.
GIs SPEAK OUT
But they also note a growing trend for GIs to speak out and to find leverage points to protect their interests - including personal safety. "I am amazed that it is not greater," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. "The war continues to go badly. Their equipment is in bad shape. Supply problems continue. Tours are extended. Many are on a second or third deployment to a combat zone. I would expect a louder voice."
A key issue for war planners is whether any of this adversely effects individual morale and unit performance. That remains an open question, particularly as the war goes on and its original rationale (weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda) fades.
"Soldiers always gripe, and often with good reason," says Loren Thompson, head of security studies at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "But I don't see much evidence that the enemy in Iraq is eroding the will of US forces to fight. As long as US forces are well led, the gripes aren't likely to lead to more serious problems."
Others aren't so sure.
"When you are risking your life on the battlefield, the importance of knowing why you are doing so cannot be underestimated," says Ivan Eland, national security analyst at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. "If soldiers don't know why they are fighting there or believe they've been hoodwinked, we may see the same phenomenon happen in Iraq as occurred in Vietnam."
Related stories:
12/09/04
For Army, it's Operation Stretch
12/01/04
America divided on war - not on valor of US soldiers
11/19/04
US expected to boost troop levels in Iraq
11/19/04
SOURCE: OXFORD COMPANION TO AMERICAN MILITARY HISTORY;
RICH CLABAUGH - STAFF
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Killing Us Softly (w/ silence)
The Cowardice of the Mainstream Press in the Face of American Wars
by Abhinav Aima
The shock and dismay over Gary Webb’s death this weekend has further driven home the notion that an unabashed and cowardly American media is killing its own, softly.
A decidedly authoritarian editorial process, dominated by the spokespersons for the who’s who in American society, has largely kept the media on the Right side of American wars. Two of those wars, the one against the Sandanista and the one against drugs, proved to be the undoing of Webb, who had the courage to buck the mighty press corps.
And the cowardice is not merely dating back to 1996. As this nation’s newspapers salivate over the possible trial of Pinochet over Operation Condor, no American newspaper listed in the Lexis-Nexis archives has yet published a story this past month that even dares to put the name Nixon in the same story as Pinochet. None. In the last 30 days!
The only two newspapers that show articles on the database putting Pinochet in context with Nixon are The Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen, both Canadian newspapers.
So why is it that the heavyweights of the American press can not bring themselves to examine Pinochet’s crimes in context of their own nation’s bankrupt policies ranging from the acts of September 11, 1973 to Operation Condor? Is it because some of them, indeed, served as speech writers and advisors to Nixon? How long do you have to be out of bed from the White House before the gum is wiped off your lips?
Surely 30 years should be enough time. But not so for The New York Times or the Washington post.
It is laughable that these newspapers expected to be taken seriously in their apology to the public for misleading them in the run-up to the Iraq war, when, in almost every American war, be it domestic or foreign, these newspapers have exhibited cowardice in not daring to be anything more than stenographers for the powers that be.
Sure, once or twice a year the giants of our industry will publish something that passes for a critical look at American foreign policy. The New York Times has published two reports this year that mention Nixon and Pinochet together, one of them was buried in Section E (Arts/Culture). The Post has published three, two of them were buried in the Style section. This record is all the more interesting when one considers that both these newspapers have published dozens of stories this year that mention Pinochet. The connection between Pinochet and Nixon, therefore, is clearly not an editorial priority for the Times and the Post.
So much for institutional memory and a perceptive press! And of course, at precisely the time when it is most important, and most newsworthy to revisit the flaws and foibles of American power, the hot shot editors seem to develop a particularly troublesome case of amnesia.
Of course, God forbid that the American mainstream press should develop an attitude to examine America first. The reasonable question is, will it ever report on Americans to blame when blame is justified? Or is their moral courage limited to endorsing the lesser of two evils once every four years?
Don’t take my word for it – give it a twirl. How many stories mentioning Hamid Karzai with Unocal in the last two years? One in Times, none in Post. How many reports that mention Karzai in this same time period? Over 350 in the Times, over 250 in the Post. Why is Karzai’s relationship with an American gas company relevant? Well, that would be the historical perspective now, wouldn’t it.
Why are most of American-sponsored foreign leaders usually former salesmen for gas, oil, weapons, drugs or any other commodity thereof? Don’t rely on the Times or the Post to tell you. Not when it was the anti-Sandanista Contras, and certainly not when it is the anti-Taliban Afghans.
As the only country with a First Amendment that requires constitutional protection of the freedom of the press, it never ceases to amaze me how readily American scribes prostitute their talents at the altars of power. Those that actually dare cast a skeptical eye rarely make a living out of it. And sadly, way too many die of it.
Abhinav K. Aima (aaima@d.umn.edu) is a journalism instructor at University of Minnesota, Duluth.
### © commondreams
Options for ways to support our troops (and it ain't cards and letters, folks)
How We Really Could Support Our Troops
by Susan Lenfestey
Stuck behind a Hummer in a convoy of holiday shoppers, I found myself wondering what the driver had in mind when he put three of those now-ubiquitous support-our-troops vinyl ribbons on the billboard-sized tailgate of his gas hog.
Is he telling me to do something I don't already do? Is there a tinge of hostility in it, or a sort of patriotic superiority? Or is it simply a gesture; a way to feel connected to a disastrous gamble in a distant land?
Later that day, a gutsy soldier named Thomas Wilson asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the question heard round the world about why some Guard units have to scrounge the dumps to find makeshift armor for their Humvees. And Rummy answered with the usual callous arrogance that he applies to any situation where his judgment is questioned or his ineptitude exposed.
His answer, along with his insistence that all's hunky-dory in Iraq -- even though the recently leaked CIA memo tells a very different story -- shows his utter lack of compassion for the lives of those he sends "into harm's way." (There's a doozy of a military euphemism.)
So what does it mean to support our troops when the secretary of defense doesn't?
Does it mean contributing to the legal expenses of the eight soldiers who are challenging the Army's stop-loss policy, which extends their service in Iraq well beyond the time that they agreed to serve -- without giving them any clue at the front end that this might happen? (See the Center for Constitutional Rights at www.ccr-ny.org.)
Certainly the Army should hold a Guard member responsible for completing a tour of duty after investing in his or her training, as the Texas Air National Guard did to the tune of nearly $1 million to train George W. Bush as a fighter pilot. They cannot allow that Guard member to walk off the job without fulfilling his part of the contract. Well ... usually they can't.
Unlike their commander-in-chief, these Guard members have willingly and courageously fulfilled their obligations in a war zone and have families depending on them back home. Being forced to stay beyond their contracted time is indeed a cruel form of conscription, a back-door draft.
Or does it mean visiting some of the 10,000 wounded and maimed soldiers in a veterans hospital near you? Only if you can. "Out of sight, out of mind" remains this administration's policy when it comes to our war carnage. We know there's a ban on photos of coffins coming home from Iraq, but visitors have reported being turned away from wards housing those trying to recover from the wounds received in Iraq -- young people with missing limbs, shattered skulls, sightless eyes and only a husk of the promise their lives once held.
Given that this administration chooses to wage this heinous war under a veil of secrecy and denial, and that we no longer collectively shoulder the burdens of war by growing victory gardens and rationing everything from butter to gasoline, how do we really show support for our troops? A good start is Operation Truth (www.optruth.com).
Among soldiers' reports and photos from Iraq you'll find a number of organizations that provide a range of services for these brave, beleaguered troops.
There's Operation Comfort, which provides mental health care, free of charge, to family members who have a loved one serving in the Middle East. Or Books for Soldiers, which ships books, DVDs and other supplies to deployed soldiers as well as those in VA hospitals. Or Salute America's Heroes, an organization created to help severely wounded and disabled veterans rebuild their lives.
If President Bush were to lead by example, he might put some of the $50 million he plans to raise for his inaugural bash into better equipment and better lives for our veterans.
For no money at all he could give our troops a new secretary of defense. One who levels with them, who acknowledges mistakes, and who will not send them to fight an enemy he can't find, in a country that didn't attack us, with support hardly more substantial than a few vinyl yellow ribbons on the sides of their Humvees.
Susan Lenfestey (SooLen@aol.com) is a Minneapolis writer.
Bush ‘Has Created a New Climate of McCarthyism’
Bush second time around
By Ignacio Ramonet
THE re-election of George Bush as president of the United States is a serious setback for the spirit of American democracy; the US has the longest-standing democracy in the world and is therefore a fundamental reference point. This time at least there are no technical reasons that can be blamed for the result. Nobody can contest the legitimacy of the election. Exercising their rights, the US electorate voted as they wished to vote (1). The result confirms that although democracy may be the least imperfect of political regimes, it is still capable of making choices that bring to power dangerous demagogues.What is disturbing is that Bush is now the most massively elected candidate in US electoral history. This is disturbing because he misled the people and lied to Congress to get authorisation for a “preventive war” (not authorised by the UN) and the invasion of Iraq; he encouraged a disproportionate use of force and caused the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians (2); he ignored President Gerald Ford’s 1976 executive order (still in effect) that bans the secret services from assassinating foreign leaders, and ordered the execution of supposed terrorists (3); he violated the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war; he allowed torture in Abu Ghraib prison and other secret detention centres.
At home he has created a new climate of McCarthyism, under which any citizen suspected of having links with an enemy organisation is considered guilty by association.
With such a dire record any other leader would have been seen as politically undesirable and shunned by the civilised world. Not so George Bush. He is the president of the world’s sole hyperpower and occupies centre stage in world politics.
His second term seems set to continue the policies of the first. His first two government appointments show that he views his election victory as a vote of confidence in his policies. The choice of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General is a direct rebuff to those who have criticised the torture of those prisoners accused of terrorism. As the president’s legal adviser, he created the structure designed to sidestep the Geneva Conventions by defining prisoners of war from Afghanistan and Iraq as “enemy combatants” and then arranged the framework for the Guantánamo detention facility. He had no hesitation in removing the ban on using physical pressure on prisoners, in contravention of both US law and international treaties, on the pretext that “the president’s authority to conduct war” is total (4).
As for Condoleezza Rice’s appointment to the State Department, this must be seen as a victory for the hardline unilateralism of the authoritarian Republicans who surround the president, a victory confirmed by the fresh threats now being made against Iran.
The inability of the armed forces to contain and defeat the insurgents in Iraq has highlighted the limitations of the military option. A similar realisation seems to have dawned on Ariel Sharon, Bush’s main ally in the Middle East, at the moment of Yasser Arafat’s death.
Apparently the Israeli prime minister has realised that the Palestinians’ capacity to suffer remains higher than his army’s capacity for inflicting hurt (although we may wonder whether he will draw the appropriate lessons from this revelation).
Are we justified in living in hope? Is it possible that one day George Bush will finally realise that the negative aspects of globalisation - the aggravation of the poverty of the poor, the global injustice, the regional rivalry, the climatic deregulation - can only degenerate into conflicts unless they are countered by multilateral joint action? And that one country does not have the right to lay down the law to everybody?
cite:
(1) A free will that was nevertheless strongly conditioned by political marketing and media propaganda. See Outfoxed, Robert Greenwald’s documentary on the manipulation of television news in the US and the effect that this has, which favours Bush.
(2) According to Iraq Body Count the number of civilian dead as a result of military intervention in Iraq had reached more than 14,454 by 21 November 2004. According to The Lancet, November 2004, the number of Iraqis who have died as a result, directly or indirectly, of the invasion is about 100,000.
(3) See Seymour Hersh, Chain of Command, HarperCollins, New York, 2004.
(4) El PaÃs, Madrid, 11 November 2004.
all rights reserved © 1997-2004 Le Monde diplomatique.
An investigation withheld until now_ will facts of their son's murder come to light?
Who killed Baha Mousa?
By Robert Fisk
12/15/04 Baha Mousa, 26, was working as a hotel receptionist in Basra 14 months ago when British troops surrounded the building and arrested seven men. They were taken to a British base and were reportedly hooded and beaten. Two days later, Mousa was dead. His family was given $3,000 in compensation and rejected a further $5,000. What they wanted was justice. Yesterday, after more than a year of official stonewalling, his relatives won a 'historic' ruling to force the MoD to hold an independent inquiry. Will the truth now be known?
Yesterday's ruling offers Mr Mousa's family the prospect of a proper investigation into the shameful, outrageous death of their 26-year-old son, who was arrested in front of his Iraqi police colonel father. Documents obtained by The Independent show beyond any doubt that Mr Mousa was killed in British Army custody. He was one among many whose deaths the British Ministry of Defence has tried to forget.
Two senior High Court judges ruled in favour of Mr Mousa's family, saying the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights extended to "outposts of the state's authority" in foreign lands; a subsequent inquiry will ask whether there had been an unlawful killing. The Mousa family could be entitled to damages from the British Government if Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention--which guarantee the right to life and freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment--were breached.
British soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment surrounded a Basra hotel in September last year following information that weapons were being kept in the building. One of the owners was later arrested. When Daoud Mousa, an Iraqi police colonel, turned up at the hotel, he discovered his son lying on the ground with his hands tied behind his back. He told The Independent his son had seen British soldiers looting the hotel safe and that a British officer had later ordered the soldiers to hand the cash back and that they should be disarmed. Baha Mousa's father later claimed the British troops involved decided to revenge themselves upon his son because he had revealed the theft. In their written judgment yesterday, Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Forbes criticised "the dilatoriness of the investigative process'' conducted by the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) of the Royal Military Police, stating it was difficult to say whether the SIB investigation "has been timely, open or effective". Investigations by The Independentshowed that Mr Mousa repeatedly complained to his British attackers that he was having difficulty breathing.
Other Iraqi detainees were also reported to have been cruelly beaten. When Baha's father, Daoud, and brother, Alaa, went to see another of those arrested, Kifah Taha, they did not know Baha had been killed.
"Kifah looked like half a human, he was so badly beaten,'' Alaa said. "When we asked him about Baha, he said he didn't know. Then he said: 'I hope God will not show any human what I witnessed.'''
Colonel Daoud Mousa told The Independent after his son's death that a British officer, a 2nd Lieutenant, promised that his son would be protected after his arrest. "Three days later, I was looking at my son's body,'' the colonel said. "The British came to say he had 'died in custody'. His nose was broken. There was blood above his mouth and I could see the bruising of his ribs and thighs. The skin was ripped off his wrists where the handcuffs had been.''
Baha Mousa left two small boys, five-year-old Hassan and three-year-old Hussein. Both are now orphans, because Baha's 22-year-old wife had died of cancer just six months before his own death.
When The Independent initially made enquiries about Baha Mousa's death, British officers in Basra seemed unconcerned, referring all enquiries to the Ministry of Defence in London and repeating that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment was no longer operating in Southern Iraq.
Not one of the prisoners taken at the hotel said he had been questioned about the alleged discovery of weapons in the building. The arrested men were taken to the former Iraqi secret service headquarters of Ali Hassann al-Majid, Saddam Hussain's brutal cousin, known as "Chemical Ali'' for his gassing of the Kurds of Halabja, which was now part of a British military compound.
One of the detainees was to recount to The Independent an appalling story of cruelty: "We were put in a big room with our hands tied and with bags over our heads.
"But I could see through some holes in my hood. Soldiers would come in, ordinary soldiers, not officers--mostly with their heads shaved, but in uniform--and they would kick us, picking on one after the other.
"They were kick-boxing us in the chest and between the legs and in the back. We were crying and screaming. They set on Baha especially and he kept crying that he couldn't breath in the hood. He kept asking them to take the bag off and said he was suffocating.
"But they laughed at him and kicked him more. One of them said: 'Stop screaming and you will be able to breathe more easily'
"Baha was so scared. Then they increased the kicking on him and he collapsed on the floor. None of us could stand or sit because it was too painful.''
© UKIndependent.
By Robert Fisk
12/15/04 Baha Mousa, 26, was working as a hotel receptionist in Basra 14 months ago when British troops surrounded the building and arrested seven men. They were taken to a British base and were reportedly hooded and beaten. Two days later, Mousa was dead. His family was given $3,000 in compensation and rejected a further $5,000. What they wanted was justice. Yesterday, after more than a year of official stonewalling, his relatives won a 'historic' ruling to force the MoD to hold an independent inquiry. Will the truth now be known?
Yesterday's ruling offers Mr Mousa's family the prospect of a proper investigation into the shameful, outrageous death of their 26-year-old son, who was arrested in front of his Iraqi police colonel father. Documents obtained by The Independent show beyond any doubt that Mr Mousa was killed in British Army custody. He was one among many whose deaths the British Ministry of Defence has tried to forget.
Two senior High Court judges ruled in favour of Mr Mousa's family, saying the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights extended to "outposts of the state's authority" in foreign lands; a subsequent inquiry will ask whether there had been an unlawful killing. The Mousa family could be entitled to damages from the British Government if Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention--which guarantee the right to life and freedom from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment--were breached.
British soldiers of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment surrounded a Basra hotel in September last year following information that weapons were being kept in the building. One of the owners was later arrested. When Daoud Mousa, an Iraqi police colonel, turned up at the hotel, he discovered his son lying on the ground with his hands tied behind his back. He told The Independent his son had seen British soldiers looting the hotel safe and that a British officer had later ordered the soldiers to hand the cash back and that they should be disarmed. Baha Mousa's father later claimed the British troops involved decided to revenge themselves upon his son because he had revealed the theft. In their written judgment yesterday, Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Forbes criticised "the dilatoriness of the investigative process'' conducted by the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) of the Royal Military Police, stating it was difficult to say whether the SIB investigation "has been timely, open or effective". Investigations by The Independentshowed that Mr Mousa repeatedly complained to his British attackers that he was having difficulty breathing.
Other Iraqi detainees were also reported to have been cruelly beaten. When Baha's father, Daoud, and brother, Alaa, went to see another of those arrested, Kifah Taha, they did not know Baha had been killed.
"Kifah looked like half a human, he was so badly beaten,'' Alaa said. "When we asked him about Baha, he said he didn't know. Then he said: 'I hope God will not show any human what I witnessed.'''
Colonel Daoud Mousa told The Independent after his son's death that a British officer, a 2nd Lieutenant, promised that his son would be protected after his arrest. "Three days later, I was looking at my son's body,'' the colonel said. "The British came to say he had 'died in custody'. His nose was broken. There was blood above his mouth and I could see the bruising of his ribs and thighs. The skin was ripped off his wrists where the handcuffs had been.''
Baha Mousa left two small boys, five-year-old Hassan and three-year-old Hussein. Both are now orphans, because Baha's 22-year-old wife had died of cancer just six months before his own death.
When The Independent initially made enquiries about Baha Mousa's death, British officers in Basra seemed unconcerned, referring all enquiries to the Ministry of Defence in London and repeating that the Queen's Lancashire Regiment was no longer operating in Southern Iraq.
Not one of the prisoners taken at the hotel said he had been questioned about the alleged discovery of weapons in the building. The arrested men were taken to the former Iraqi secret service headquarters of Ali Hassann al-Majid, Saddam Hussain's brutal cousin, known as "Chemical Ali'' for his gassing of the Kurds of Halabja, which was now part of a British military compound.
One of the detainees was to recount to The Independent an appalling story of cruelty: "We were put in a big room with our hands tied and with bags over our heads.
"But I could see through some holes in my hood. Soldiers would come in, ordinary soldiers, not officers--mostly with their heads shaved, but in uniform--and they would kick us, picking on one after the other.
"They were kick-boxing us in the chest and between the legs and in the back. We were crying and screaming. They set on Baha especially and he kept crying that he couldn't breath in the hood. He kept asking them to take the bag off and said he was suffocating.
"But they laughed at him and kicked him more. One of them said: 'Stop screaming and you will be able to breathe more easily'
"Baha was so scared. Then they increased the kicking on him and he collapsed on the floor. None of us could stand or sit because it was too painful.''
© UKIndependent.
Acoustic Ecology: the relationship between human beings and their sonic environments
Acoustic Ecology
By Rachel Lears
December 15, 2004
The delicate jingling of many small bells. The crunch of footsteps on bare ground. A quiet car passing. Sheep begin to bleat. In Gragnana, Italy, a shepherd leads his flock of 50 from the Tuscan hills back to the farm. After their arrival, church bells sound the evening hour.
Steven Feld, in his documentary soundscape series The Time of Bells, brings European history alive as bells of all kinds—from animals, churches, bicycles, carnivals—form the raw material for short aural essays about particular places. “I work with time and space in order to tell a story about time and space,” says Feld. “In this case they’re historical stories that are also contemporary. They are stories about power and authority—the authority of ringing the hours. They are pieces that question the state and the church as institutions, and how bells figure in protest and disruption and carnival and play. How the bells make communities audible, and ring the boundaries of the commons. How the history of private land and public land is rung out by the sound of animals moving through those lands.”
Feld’s recordings are to radio journalism what cinéma vérité is to TV documentary. Like an observational filmmaker, Feld wears light, mobile recording equipment and moves around to capture multiple spatial perspectives that he then edits together. Rather than directly narrating, these pieces draw the listener into the landscape. Feld’s liner notes identify the who, what, where, when and how of the recordings, but it is the unmitigated experience of the compositions themselves that most stimulates one’s attention, allowing listeners to create their own visual accompaniment.
Feld has been working on acoustic ecology—the relationship between human beings and their sonic environments—for more than 25 years. In the mid-’70s, Feld studied for a year with visual anthropologist and cinéma vérité pioneer Jean Rouch. During the ’80s, he made a name for himself as an anthropologist, working among the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea and exploring the links between their musical expression and the sound world of the Bosavi rainforest in which they live. At the same time, Feld was among the first to critically examine the emerging “world music” industry. While sympathetic to the ideal of cross-cultural collaboration, he has consistently pointed out how the music industry’s star system and profit motives can re-entrench already existing power relations between different cultures.
In 1991, backed by former Grateful Dead drummer Mickey Hart, Feld produced Voices of the Rainforest (Rykodisc), a CD of Bosavi music and rainforest ambience. Hart and Feld set up the Bosavi People’s Fund, which the Kaluli themselves control, to receive royalties from both the recording and Feld’s writings on Papua New Guinea. The Fund (http://www.bosavipeoplesfund.org) has financed projects as various as the building of schools and clinics, the creation of a Bosavi-English dictionary and the re-release of a 3-CD set of Kaluli music on the Smithsonian’s Folkways label.
Throughout this process, Feld continued to channel his consciousness of his role as a middleman into his scholarship. “I felt I had a responsibility to write about mediation, and to chronicle the kind of anxiety I had,” he says. “I felt during the making of Voices of the Rainforest that it might be a deal with the devil. ... On the one hand, this would be a way of getting the Bosavi people some serious money and respect, some serious validation in the world of music. On the other hand, every time I see you can go to Encarta’s New Guinea map and hear 13 seconds of a Bosavi bamboo jew’s harp, I think: ‘Have I really participated in caricaturing and cartooning and commodifying people?’”
In 2003, Feld founded the independent record label VoxLox (http://www.voxlox.net) to publish recordings that had no other outlet, recordings that advocate for human rights and acoustic ecology. The impetus for VoxLox was Iraqi Rahim AlHaj, a virtuoso of the oud (the Middle Eastern lute) who went into exile in 1991. The two met in 2000 in Albuquerque, where AlHaj had a job as a security guard in a hospital that allowed him to practice the oud all night long. They became friends when they discovered a common passion for the music of Munir Bashir, one of the most renowned oud players of all time and AlHaj’s mentor at the Institute of Music in Baghdad.
In the spring of 2003, when the third war of AlHaj’s lifetime was beginning in Iraq, Feld, then a professor at Columbia University, invited him to perform a solo concert in a New York bookstore. AlHaj’s passionate compositions meshed traditional Iraqi rhythms and melodic modes with gestures from classical and flamenco guitar. Betweeen pieces, he explained to the audience that his music was a creative response to the destruction of his homeland. Feld recorded the concert as a souvenir for AlHaj, but realized afterward that the recording should reach a larger audience. When no existing label would pick up Iraqi Music in a Time of War, he started his own.
“The CD would become a historical testimony of what it means to play music in a time of war,” Feld says. “It’s mostly a story about doing what you have to do in that kind of time.”
Now, as a result of the album, AlHaj performs regularly and is again able to support himself as a professional musician. (For more information, visit http://www.rahimalhaj.com.)
Feld sees two interconnected missions for the new label. While some projects promote human rights by featuring indigenous, refugee or exiled voices, others explore the sound environment and acoustic ecology. The Creative Opportunity Orchestra, a jazz big band from Austin, Texas, will perform suites by Texan composer Alex Coke titled “Iraqnophobia” and “Wake Up Dead Man.” Another recording will feature native Alaskan musicians who will be displaced by the Bush administration’s slated drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
“That recording connects the environment in general with human rights, because people are singing about their land,” says Feld. “And a compilation of Tibetan diasporic rock’n’roll from around the world will advo-cate for Tibet in a very different way than the Tibetan sacred music that has gotten a lot of attention.”
Feld is also concerned with how the media mediates the ways we participate in democracy by controlling access to information. “The biggest problem with democracy in America is that it has become largely associated with product choice,” he says. “How do we create new alternatives for participation? What power does music have as an alternative outlet?”
In the largest sense, VoxLox recordings like Iraqi Music in a Time of War bring the expressive cultures of marginalized people to a wider audience. On another level, though, these CDs actively demand participation. The Time of Bells sends the listener into a sonic environment. AlHaj’s humble voice asks for an empathetic ear. By forcing the listener to respond actively, VoxLox turns recorded sound into a foundation for political engagement and intercultural dialogue.
Rachel Lears is a musician and a graduate student of anthropology and documentary filmmaking at New York University.
By Rachel Lears
December 15, 2004
The delicate jingling of many small bells. The crunch of footsteps on bare ground. A quiet car passing. Sheep begin to bleat. In Gragnana, Italy, a shepherd leads his flock of 50 from the Tuscan hills back to the farm. After their arrival, church bells sound the evening hour.
Steven Feld, in his documentary soundscape series The Time of Bells, brings European history alive as bells of all kinds—from animals, churches, bicycles, carnivals—form the raw material for short aural essays about particular places. “I work with time and space in order to tell a story about time and space,” says Feld. “In this case they’re historical stories that are also contemporary. They are stories about power and authority—the authority of ringing the hours. They are pieces that question the state and the church as institutions, and how bells figure in protest and disruption and carnival and play. How the bells make communities audible, and ring the boundaries of the commons. How the history of private land and public land is rung out by the sound of animals moving through those lands.”
Feld’s recordings are to radio journalism what cinéma vérité is to TV documentary. Like an observational filmmaker, Feld wears light, mobile recording equipment and moves around to capture multiple spatial perspectives that he then edits together. Rather than directly narrating, these pieces draw the listener into the landscape. Feld’s liner notes identify the who, what, where, when and how of the recordings, but it is the unmitigated experience of the compositions themselves that most stimulates one’s attention, allowing listeners to create their own visual accompaniment.
Feld has been working on acoustic ecology—the relationship between human beings and their sonic environments—for more than 25 years. In the mid-’70s, Feld studied for a year with visual anthropologist and cinéma vérité pioneer Jean Rouch. During the ’80s, he made a name for himself as an anthropologist, working among the Kaluli of Papua New Guinea and exploring the links between their musical expression and the sound world of the Bosavi rainforest in which they live. At the same time, Feld was among the first to critically examine the emerging “world music” industry. While sympathetic to the ideal of cross-cultural collaboration, he has consistently pointed out how the music industry’s star system and profit motives can re-entrench already existing power relations between different cultures.
In 1991, backed by former Grateful Dead drummer Mickey Hart, Feld produced Voices of the Rainforest (Rykodisc), a CD of Bosavi music and rainforest ambience. Hart and Feld set up the Bosavi People’s Fund, which the Kaluli themselves control, to receive royalties from both the recording and Feld’s writings on Papua New Guinea. The Fund (http://www.bosavipeoplesfund.org) has financed projects as various as the building of schools and clinics, the creation of a Bosavi-English dictionary and the re-release of a 3-CD set of Kaluli music on the Smithsonian’s Folkways label.
Throughout this process, Feld continued to channel his consciousness of his role as a middleman into his scholarship. “I felt I had a responsibility to write about mediation, and to chronicle the kind of anxiety I had,” he says. “I felt during the making of Voices of the Rainforest that it might be a deal with the devil. ... On the one hand, this would be a way of getting the Bosavi people some serious money and respect, some serious validation in the world of music. On the other hand, every time I see you can go to Encarta’s New Guinea map and hear 13 seconds of a Bosavi bamboo jew’s harp, I think: ‘Have I really participated in caricaturing and cartooning and commodifying people?’”
In 2003, Feld founded the independent record label VoxLox (http://www.voxlox.net) to publish recordings that had no other outlet, recordings that advocate for human rights and acoustic ecology. The impetus for VoxLox was Iraqi Rahim AlHaj, a virtuoso of the oud (the Middle Eastern lute) who went into exile in 1991. The two met in 2000 in Albuquerque, where AlHaj had a job as a security guard in a hospital that allowed him to practice the oud all night long. They became friends when they discovered a common passion for the music of Munir Bashir, one of the most renowned oud players of all time and AlHaj’s mentor at the Institute of Music in Baghdad.
In the spring of 2003, when the third war of AlHaj’s lifetime was beginning in Iraq, Feld, then a professor at Columbia University, invited him to perform a solo concert in a New York bookstore. AlHaj’s passionate compositions meshed traditional Iraqi rhythms and melodic modes with gestures from classical and flamenco guitar. Betweeen pieces, he explained to the audience that his music was a creative response to the destruction of his homeland. Feld recorded the concert as a souvenir for AlHaj, but realized afterward that the recording should reach a larger audience. When no existing label would pick up Iraqi Music in a Time of War, he started his own.
“The CD would become a historical testimony of what it means to play music in a time of war,” Feld says. “It’s mostly a story about doing what you have to do in that kind of time.”
Now, as a result of the album, AlHaj performs regularly and is again able to support himself as a professional musician. (For more information, visit http://www.rahimalhaj.com.)
Feld sees two interconnected missions for the new label. While some projects promote human rights by featuring indigenous, refugee or exiled voices, others explore the sound environment and acoustic ecology. The Creative Opportunity Orchestra, a jazz big band from Austin, Texas, will perform suites by Texan composer Alex Coke titled “Iraqnophobia” and “Wake Up Dead Man.” Another recording will feature native Alaskan musicians who will be displaced by the Bush administration’s slated drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
“That recording connects the environment in general with human rights, because people are singing about their land,” says Feld. “And a compilation of Tibetan diasporic rock’n’roll from around the world will advo-cate for Tibet in a very different way than the Tibetan sacred music that has gotten a lot of attention.”
Feld is also concerned with how the media mediates the ways we participate in democracy by controlling access to information. “The biggest problem with democracy in America is that it has become largely associated with product choice,” he says. “How do we create new alternatives for participation? What power does music have as an alternative outlet?”
In the largest sense, VoxLox recordings like Iraqi Music in a Time of War bring the expressive cultures of marginalized people to a wider audience. On another level, though, these CDs actively demand participation. The Time of Bells sends the listener into a sonic environment. AlHaj’s humble voice asks for an empathetic ear. By forcing the listener to respond actively, VoxLox turns recorded sound into a foundation for political engagement and intercultural dialogue.
Rachel Lears is a musician and a graduate student of anthropology and documentary filmmaking at New York University.
Supplimental spending adds up to $100 Billion, that's all.... oh wait, then there are those pesky interest charges....
War funding request may hit $100 billion
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration plans to ask for between $80 billion and $100 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year, rather than the $70 billion to $75 billion the White House privately told members of Congress before the election, according to Pentagon and White House officials.
Administration officials said yesterday they have not concluded how much money they will request in a "supplemental" spending package that is scheduled to go to Congress in January.
"There's work going on inside the department to understand what's needed, and there's work going on with the Office of Management and Budget," the Defense Department's chief spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, told reporters yesterday.
But some analysts and government officials said the request is expected to run as high as $100 billion, bringing the total cost of operations in Iraq alone to well over $200 billion since the March 2003 invasion.
Earlier this fall, members of Congress said the Defense Department told them in private briefings the supplemental package would be between $70 billion and $75 billion. The budget request will be higher, sources said, because of the greater number of soldiers -- temporarily boosted to 150,000 -- needed to provide security around the time of the Jan. 30 Iraqi elections, and the loss of equipment due to the vigorous insurgency there.
In June, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 2005 supplemental to be submitted this January for Iraq and Afghanistan would be between $55 billion and $60 billion.
The January supplemental will be the third special budget request to cover the military costs of Iraq. The administration asked for $55.8 billion in April 2003 and $71.8 billion in November 2003. In May of this year, Congress added $25 billion in war costs to the fiscal 2005 defense budget. In total, $152.6 billion in military funding for Iraq has been provided through the end of this year.
Those statistics do not include emergency money to support the 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan, which brings the total bill to $162.3 billion.
In addition, the military has been spending more than was approved for 2004, in anticipation of a fresh infusion of funds in early 2005.
"They ran out of the 2004 budget a month early [and] had to borrow [from] 2005," said John Pike, a defense specialist at the military think tank GlobalSecurity.org, a military think tank in Alexandria, Va. "They're already starting to suggest that the 2005 budget is going to be $100 billion for one year alone."
The Iraq operation, he said, has "been running over a billion a week thus far. I think we're probably getting up to $2 billion a week fairly soon."
Few analysts expect the Iraq mission to be wrapped up in a year, and many question why the Bush administration is continuing to budget its war costs through supplementals -- usually reserved for one-time, emergency expenses -- rather than include them in the annual budget request that is sent to Capitol Hill every February.
Democrats and some fiscally conservative Republicans believe the administration is trying to hide the effects of rising war costs on the federal deficit, thereby justifying President Bush's calls for making some tax cuts permanent and spending more on education and other domestic priorities.
Although war costs ultimately get added to the deficit, keeping them off the annual budget creates a false picture of the government's commitments at a time when Congress is making funding decisions, critics said.
Brian Reidl, an economist with the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, said the Iraq funding should be put in the defense budget, because the Pentagon knows it will need money to pay for the operation. Leaving it out masks the true size of the deficit, he said.
"There's an argument to be made that [early in the year] you don't know what you'll need" for Iraq funding, Reidl said. But "there's no reason why you can't put in a place-holder to at least estimate the cost."
The administration separates the Iraq funding because "it's easier to sell the budget resolution with a smaller deficit and a smaller spending total because Iraq is excluded," Reidl said.
Steve Kosiak, a defense budget specialist at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, added that "the idea is [supplementals] are supposed to be used when there is a surprise. This is no longer a surprise that we are in Iraq."
The actual cost of the military operations in Iraq is higher than any of the supplementals suggest, analysts said, because the wartime wear and tear on people and equipment will require expenditures long after the war ends.
A soon-to-be-completed classified study by the Government Accountability Office requested by Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee concludes that the cost of "resetting" the worn-out armed forces for peacetime will require billions more than the money needed simply to maintain combat operations, according to congressional officials.
"They will need new training and the sense is that the longer this thing goes on the deeper the problems get," said a congressional staff member who has been briefed on the GAO study.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon yesterday alerted more units to be ready for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tens of thousands of Army soldiers from Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, New York, and Texas -- including a brigade of the Army's 10th Mountain Division based at Fort Drum in New York -- will prepare to deploy overseas by the middle of 2005. The planned rotations, and others to be announced in the coming weeks, would maintain a force of 138,000 US troops in Iraq well into 2006.
However, Di Rita called the notifications "prudent planning" and cautioned that it does not necessarily mean the United States will need all those forces.
"It would be wrong to say that, as far as the eye can see, this is the number," Di Rita said. "It may very well be less than this. It may be the same amount. It may be more."
Susan Milligan and Kathleen Hennrikus of the Globe staff contributed to his report. Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
More deadly gunfire in the middle east
Israeli Army Kills Palestinian on Gaza Road-Medics
Wed Dec 15, 2004 03:30 PM ET
GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian man on Wednesday as he tried to cross a Gaza road they had sealed off near a Jewish settlement, Palestinian medics and witnesses said.
Soldiers later killed a Palestinian militant armed with grenades and an assault rifle who was trying to carry out an attack on a Gaza settlement, militant sources said.
Separately in Gaza, Palestinian militants shot and wounded four Israeli soldiers and a civilian in an attack on their vehicles on a road leading to Jewish settlements, an Israeli army spokeswoman said.
The army cut occupied Gaza into three sections with a series of blockades after an attack on Sunday in which five Israeli soldiers were killed when militants detonated a big bomb in a tunnel they dug under a military base in south Gaza.
Medics said Palestinian Mustafa al-Sawarka, 32, was shot dead while trying to slip across a Mediterranean coastal road blocked off by troops near Netzarim settlement. Another Palestinian man was seriously wounded in a second shooting at the same spot soon afterwards, witnesses said.
An Israeli military source said soldiers had fired warning shots toward Palestinian cars that sped into a closed military zone along the road but that none was targeted directly.
In the West Bank, militants from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades shot dead a 20-year-old Palestinian man they said had acted as an informer for Israel and dumped his body in the central square of the city of Ramallah.
The Israeli army also demolished the family home of a Hamas militant in Hebron it said gave explosives to suicide bombers who killed 16 people in the Israeli city of Beersheba in August. The militant, Iyad Abu Shkheidem, was arrested two weeks ago.
After a brief period of relative calm following the Nov. 11 death of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, violence resurged last week with several deadly incidents in Gaza.
Israel tried to kill a senior militant in a helicopter missile strike that failed, while Palestinian armed groups resumed peppering settlements with mortar and rocket fire.
A mortar attack killed a female Thai farm labourer and wounded two others in the Ganei Tal settlement on Tuesday.
Militants want to portray Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza, captured in the 1967 Middle East war, as a flight under fire.
Israel wants to prevent any such impression by smashing the militant leadership first, although it appears to have eased military operations to help Palestinian moderates in a Jan. 9 Palestinian election of a successor to Arafat.
(Additional reporting by Elana Ringler)
© reuters
Wed Dec 15, 2004 03:30 PM ET
GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian man on Wednesday as he tried to cross a Gaza road they had sealed off near a Jewish settlement, Palestinian medics and witnesses said.
Soldiers later killed a Palestinian militant armed with grenades and an assault rifle who was trying to carry out an attack on a Gaza settlement, militant sources said.
Separately in Gaza, Palestinian militants shot and wounded four Israeli soldiers and a civilian in an attack on their vehicles on a road leading to Jewish settlements, an Israeli army spokeswoman said.
The army cut occupied Gaza into three sections with a series of blockades after an attack on Sunday in which five Israeli soldiers were killed when militants detonated a big bomb in a tunnel they dug under a military base in south Gaza.
Medics said Palestinian Mustafa al-Sawarka, 32, was shot dead while trying to slip across a Mediterranean coastal road blocked off by troops near Netzarim settlement. Another Palestinian man was seriously wounded in a second shooting at the same spot soon afterwards, witnesses said.
An Israeli military source said soldiers had fired warning shots toward Palestinian cars that sped into a closed military zone along the road but that none was targeted directly.
In the West Bank, militants from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades shot dead a 20-year-old Palestinian man they said had acted as an informer for Israel and dumped his body in the central square of the city of Ramallah.
The Israeli army also demolished the family home of a Hamas militant in Hebron it said gave explosives to suicide bombers who killed 16 people in the Israeli city of Beersheba in August. The militant, Iyad Abu Shkheidem, was arrested two weeks ago.
After a brief period of relative calm following the Nov. 11 death of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, violence resurged last week with several deadly incidents in Gaza.
Israel tried to kill a senior militant in a helicopter missile strike that failed, while Palestinian armed groups resumed peppering settlements with mortar and rocket fire.
A mortar attack killed a female Thai farm labourer and wounded two others in the Ganei Tal settlement on Tuesday.
Militants want to portray Israel's planned withdrawal from Gaza, captured in the 1967 Middle East war, as a flight under fire.
Israel wants to prevent any such impression by smashing the militant leadership first, although it appears to have eased military operations to help Palestinian moderates in a Jan. 9 Palestinian election of a successor to Arafat.
(Additional reporting by Elana Ringler)
© reuters
"[Patricia J. Williams is] a militant black feminist who hates all white people." ?? ‘Diary of a Mad Law Professor’ author speaks to Salon.
The secret history of black people
Corrie Pikul is an editorial fellow at Salon
Law professor and commentator Patricia Williams talks about passing, choosing her adopted son from a racial menu, and the myth of Condoleezza Rice.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Corrie Pikul
Dec. 15, 2004 | Patricia J. Williams, a professor of law at Columbia University, isn't afraid to take on controversial subjects -- even if they lead to death threats, insults (a student once said that she "epitomized liberal bias") or hysterical labels like this one from London's Daily Mail: "She's a militant black feminist who hates all white people." One of America's foremost commentators on race, rights and gender, she writes a regular column for the Nation ("Diary of a Mad Law Professor"), and is the author of three books about race. To Williams, the personal is always political, and vice versa; most of her writing is rooted in personal experience. However, Williams' latest book, "Open House: Of Family, Friends, Food, Piano Lessons, and the Search for a Room of My Own," is her most inner-directed and autobiographical yet.
"Open House" is organized into metaphorical "rooms" in which Williams moves gracefully from personal anecdotes to discussions of social issues. In "The Outhouse," she uses the story of her great-aunt Mary to discuss racial "passing." The daughter of a light-skinned black mother and the descendant of a wealthy white landowner, Mary spent her childhood as a servant to distant white relatives in St. Louis, then moved home to her family's house in Tennessee. As an adolescent, she desperately wanted to be educated. Inspired by an advertisement on the toilet sheets in her family's outhouse, Mary hatched a plan to pass as a Native American in order to receive a scholarship to an elite Boston finishing school.
In "The Music Room," Williams talks about her decision to take piano lessons at age 50 as an antidote to a midlife crisis (she finds it "a wonderful form of meditation"), and ends with a conversation she had with some of her friends about the discrimination they face as outspoken black women. And in "The Crystal Stair," Williams weaves together the history of the black middle class, the irony of African-American cliques and secret societies, and her pet issue, affirmative action.
Salon met with Williams in her office at Columbia, where she looked nothing like the way she describes herself in the chapter titled "The Boudoir." ("I dress down instead of up, and my hair is a complete disaster.") Draped in an elegant black shawl, her bob held back by clips, Williams, 53, talked about public intellectualism, Bill Cosby and her uncomfortable relationship with the "myth" of Condoleezza Rice.
You received a MacArthur Fellowship in 2000. What's it like being considered a "genius"?
It makes me laugh every time somebody says I'm a genius. In fact, after I got it, some friends of mine made me a little ankle bracelet with the word "Genius" on it, but the letters never stayed in the right place. So people would look at it and say, "Eniusg?"
The MacArthur lends you legitimacy and credibility. People think you're much smarter than you are. It has been instructive because I think you ratchet yourself up because of it.
In your opinion, what's the current state of American intellectualism?
American intellectuals are busy writing their hearts out and conversing away, but the real function of intellectualism is to be a broader conversation with the public and particularly with political life. That's clearly where we as Americans seem to be diverging from an intellectual tradition. Intellectualism is disparaged as elitist. I'm thinking particularly of the slashing of the budget of the National Science Foundation, or the stacking of scientific review committees with industry people so that you manipulate the facts to come out the way you want, or the failure to collect data in any number of realms -- that worries me a lot. I don't think this is just a matter of religious fundamentalism, to which it's frequently attributed. I think it's a broader way in which believing something because you want it to be so has replaced research, reservation, caution and critique.
What did you think about Bill Cosby's inflammatory comments on the anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education? Among other things, he said, "In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on ... They're buying things for the kid. $500 sneakers, for what? They won't buy or spend $250 on 'Hooked on Phonics.'"
There was such a brouhaha about what Bill Cosby said about anti-intellectualism in the black community. I disagreed with the way in which he presented that. I actually thought that the more interesting point was that we Americans are undergoing the very anti-intellectualism that he seemed to limit only to the black community. Then again, maybe he wanted to make a point to one community, but I think it let too many people off the hook to say, "See? You black people just don't study hard enough!" This was against a backdrop of a political discussion in which people were saying that one of the presidential candidates speaks in paragraphs that are too long, and that the other is a populist -- not because he supports populist programs but because [of his] malapropisms and because he speaks in split infinitives!
From your family history, we learn about the educated black upper-middle class of the early 1900s. However, this segment of society is not often mentioned as part of America's demography -- as you put it, they're "hidden pockets of history."
There is an ambivalence about that generation. The beneficent gift of education to that class came about because of the generosity of the people who formerly owned them. It's the same situation as Strom Thurmond paying for his black daughter's education. Educating the mistresses' children is always a complicated phenomenon. In the wake of slavery there were missionary schools, schools set up for African-Americans, and the historically black colleges were set up, but it was by and large for the children of a certain -- not class. It's complicated to call it upper class, because often it was not accompanied by a great amount of money; you were upper class in the black community, but the actual salary you earned was way below that of working-class whites. That was part of an invisible dual structure of class; it overlapped with skin color. When you start talking about that it scratches the surface of this deep, horrible history of "colorism," as it's called in the black community, and it overlaps with people like my great-aunt Mary, who really couldn't be bear being black and who disdained her blackness.
A lot of black history gets lost. It's just uninteresting to a larger audience. I was thinking as I was going through books that my godmother left me that there are cycles of literature: There was the Frederick Douglass generation, the W.E.B. Du Bois generation, the Harlem Renaissance, the Richard Wright era, the black-power writers, then the public intellectuals. Now there's a new crop of hip, young artists coming up. But it is as though people forget about that history, that literature, the intellectual voice of African-American culture. It goes in cycles of almost every 20 years, then it gets disparaged, and it's terrible and nobody talks about it and you become this cipher for all things stupid. But then somebody "discovers" that there's a Toni Morrison.
I think that the device by which this is consistently buried and not a permanent part of our history has to do with the fact that African-American contributions to American society -- African-American brainpower, intellectualism, science, math ability as well as literary and art ability -- are always figured as exceptional. The notion of exceptionalism buries us cyclically.
In the book, you attribute your accomplishments as "proceeding from intergenerational gifts of learning from progressively well-educated family members." You then go on to explain that your relatives were "beneficiaries of a world that did not then hoard learning like water in the desert." How is education being "hoarded" today? How do class and race factor into that?
People tend to separate the African-American crisis of access to education from the general American crisis of access to education. There has been a real decline in the quality of education for all of us, whites and blacks. There have been several cycles of destroying our public school education: One was pulling resources out of public schools in the wake of white flight (particularly in the urban North) after migration from the South in the '60s and '70s of blacks to the inner city. But the second was the sort of tax withdrawal, so that you have a system like California's. When I first graduated from law school and moved to California, California had the No. 1 public school system and university system in the country; but it is now at the bottom because they purposefully took money out of it. They destroyed it. Yes, home schooling is fine, and yes, there are private schools. But if that's what we rely on, we rely on something less than a notion of universal access and something other than a system that unsettles a class system. If private schools and home schooling are all we have, we have a much more static society, rooted in generational class stasis.
You write, "For black middle-class and upper-middle-class parents, schooling means segregation of a different sort -- children who almost never encounter another black child, who are always 'the' integration wherever they go."
For most of my son's academic career, he has been the only black kid in his class, though not in his school. For most of my black friends it's the same thing: Living in an integrated world means you're really living in a mostly white world, and you are the integration. As children take it in, it's sort of funny sometimes. For example, my son went to a birthday party once. This little kid invited lots of other kids from around his neighborhood, beyond the classmates who knew my son. So when we came in the door, I heard the kid saying about my son, "This is my friend; he's black!" He was just so excited.
In the book, I mentioned the conceptual artist damali ayo, who has this Web site called Rent-a-Negro.com. She has a book coming out about people who want to have a black person to impress their friends and to prove they're not racist. This little kid, of course, was not a racist, but it was clear that being the only black person means you are a perpetual novelty. And children don't censor their sense of that novelty. They tend to connect you to the only other black people they know.
For a long time that was Michael Jordan, but now that Michael Jordan has faded as a role model (unfortunately), he has been replaced by any variety of singers and rap stars. It's interesting because now that my son is just on the cusp of adolescence -- he's 12 -- you see all the kids, black and white, imitating these sportslike gestures. They expect my naive little boy to teach them "the secret handshake," and my son is making them up to be "race cool," so to speak. It's amusing, but it's also a little worrisome.
In the book, you say your son "knew about Martin Luther King Jr. and had read books about the necessity for black self-esteem and education and economic power and how beautiful we all were." And yet, he still asked if his light-skinned black grandmother was "white" because she was lighter than an Italian neighbor. Now that he's getting older, has there been a defining moment where he has been, like, "Mom, I get the 'black' thing now"?
Yes. It was when the father of one of his friends talked about "these black kids who are criminals." This man started talking about "black boys" like he had forgotten my son was there. He had categorized him differently, or exceptionalized him separately. But my son got it. He was 8 years old.
That moment comes for all of us. For me it was when one of my friends' fathers in Boston decided that when blacks moved into his neighborhood, he was going to move out. So for me, it was hearing what he thought through this little girl, my friend. It's often peers or parents of those peers who bring this realization.
There's a chapter in the book called "The Boudoir," where you briefly discuss dating with your "best white friend," but otherwise men, romance and sex are conspicuously absent from your book. Why?
[Loud sigh] I think my relationships were all good ones, and I'm sorry that some of them didn't work out. I used to be sorrier, but as I approach middle age, a large percentage of my friends are engaged in child custody battles or divorce, and my sister is a widow. I think that as you grow older, you take what life gives you, and I don't regret it as much as when I was younger, in my aspirational prime.
Can you tell me how you came to the decision to adopt your son? That, too, is absent from the book. You say you were working on adoption case law, but not much else.
My last major relationship had broken off, and I was 40, and I wanted a child. I am a very lucky person and I've had a very lucky life; I have a lot of resources at my disposal. I literally went down to an adoption agency on my 40th birthday. It was really odd, actually, because the adoption agency presented all the racial combinations that they had at the time: everything from Sino-Japanese to Afro-Celtic to Senegalese. It was like going to Kentucky Fried Chicken. The array of options felt almost as vulgar as choosing a leg or a wing. I really didn't care about any of this, gender or race. My son is black.
Toward the beginning of the book, you bring up a question asked by Anna Deavere Smith: "Who is the one person you could never be?" You say the whole book began as an effort to answer that question. Have you come to an answer yet?
I did a column for the Nation recently in which I was thinking about the complicated icon that Condoleezza Rice is. Now, I don't know Rice as a person -- she has been very effective at keeping her life private. But the myth of Condoleezza Rice's life is so akin to what so many of us at a certain age survived, lived, how we constructed ourselves, how we wanted to appear to the public, how we watched the borders of who we were. We were the same kind of achievers. When I hear about the lessons she went to, I think of all the Saturday lessons I went to --swimming, piano. We had to be really well scrubbed. The message you got from your parents was that you might be the first black person a white person had ever seen; you had this whole burden of race on your shoulders. She evokes that feeling in me more than any other public figure.
At the same time, here's someone who clearly represents the ideological opposite end of everything I believe in and stand for. So I think when the question "Who could I never be" gets asked, I'm confronted with the enormous paradox of being human. There is nobody I could say I'd never be. Once I've even asked the question, I am mired in a sense of identification. Because I think of someone who is so different from me, but then I think, "Oh really?" I am already engaged in this person.
About the writerCorrie Pikul is an editorial fellow at Salon
don't mess with dubya or ya gunna get tapped
US caught wiretapping UN atomic energy head ElBaradei
By Peter Symonds
15 December 2004
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has become the latest target of the Bush administration’s diplomatic thuggery. An article in Sunday’s Washington Post revealed that US intelligence has intercepted dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls, with Iranian diplomats in particular, in an effort to dig up embarrassing details that could be used to oust him.
Citing several US sources, the newspaper stated that “anonymous accusations against ElBaradei made by US officials in recent weeks are part of an orchestrated campaign. Some US officials accused ElBaradei of purposely concealing damning details of Iran’s program from the IAEA board. But they offered no evidence of a cover-up. ‘The plan is to keep the spotlight on ElBaradei and raise the heat,’ another US official said.”
The White House has made no secret of the fact that it is seeking to replace ElBaradei, who has been IAEA head since 1997, when his second term expires next year. As early as September, US Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the former Egyptian diplomat and lawyer to step down. Powell justified the demand on the flimsiest of pretexts, citing an informal “rule” that senior UN positions should be limited to two terms.
It is no mystery why Washington wants ElBaradei out. He has repeatedly questioned the Bush administration’s fabrications about nuclear weapons in Iraq, as well as in Iran and North Korea. In the case of Iran, ElBaradei has refused to go along with unsubstantiated US allegations that Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program. In the lead-up to last month’s IAEA meeting, he produced a report concluding that “all nuclear material in Iran had been accounted for, and therefore such material is not diverted to prohibited activities”.
By siding with European efforts to negotiate a deal with Tehran to freeze key aspects of its nuclear programs, ElBaradei helped frustrate US efforts to refer Iran to the UN Security Council and impose sanctions for alleged breaches of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As in the case of Iraq, Washington is using alleged illicit nuclear weapons activity as the pretext for destabilising the Tehran regime and preparing future military aggression. Iran is one of the countries, along with Iraq and North Korea, branded by Bush in 2002 as part of an “axis of evil”.
ElBaradei has given no indication that he intends to bow to US pressure. He rebuffed Powell’s invocation of the so-called two-term rule and has been nominated for a third term as IAEA director.
Various allegations have been circulated about ElBaradei, including claims that he colluded with Iranian officials and showed them confidential IAEA reports prior to their publication. ElBaradei has vigorously denied the accusations, declaring last week that the IAEA did not leak, discuss or negotiate its reports with anyone, especially a country subject to inspection. “At the end of the day, not a single paragraph is shown to any single country until the report is out,” he said.
The most obvious source for such an accusation is the telephone intercepts. But, according to US officials who have seen phone transcripts, there is nothing that implicates ElBaradei. “Some people think he sounds way too soft on the Iranians, but that’s about it,” one official told the Washington Post. In comments in the US press, Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared: “So far, to the best of my knowledge, there’s nothing that has indicated that ElBaradei has done anything untoward, illegal or inappropriate.”
According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration has already sounded out possible replacements for ElBaradei, including two South Korean officials, a Brazilian disarmament expert, two Japanese diplomats and, topping the list, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer. The Australian Financial Review noted yesterday that Downer was rumoured in the US media as a possible replacement for ElBaradei several months ago. “John Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security—and one of the [US] administration’s fiercest hawks—has been quietly pushing Mr Downer’s candidacy behind the scenes,” the newspaper stated.
Downer reportedly turned down the offer at the time and, after a delay, issued a statement yesterday ruling out a challenge to ElBaradei. His comments do not, however, explain his rather sudden interest in issues related to nuclear arms—an area in which he has no previous experience or expertise. In August, he unexpectedly undertook a trip to Pyongyang to try to convince North Korean leaders to resume six-nation talks on its nuclear programs—negotiations to which Australia is not a party. Last month, he assumed centre stage at an Asia-Pacific non-proliferation conference in Sydney, which ElBaradei attended as his guest.
Downer’s only real qualification as US nominee for the IAEA post is his ability to parrot Washington’s political line. The Australian government wholeheartedly embraced the Bush administration’s “war on terrorism” and its doctrine of “pre-emptive war,” and dispatched troops for the US-led invasion. As its foreign affairs spokesman, Downer repeated verbatim every lie about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Since then, he has sought to demonstrate the Howard government’s unswerving loyalty to Washington in order to secure US backing for Australian ambitions in the Asia Pacific region.
Downer’s record stands in contrast to that of ElBaradei, who, prior to the US invasion, scotched US claims that Iraq was secretly developing nuclear weapons. He exposed as crude forgeries, documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium ore from Niger. In a report to the UN Security Council delivered in March 2003, ElBaradei declared that there was “no indication of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites”.
Along with those of Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC, the UN weapons inspections unit that scoured Iraq from late November 2002, ElBaradei’s reports constituted a damning refutation, virtually point by point, of the catalogue of lies presented by Powell to the UN Security Council in February 2003 to justify military invasion. Their evidence played a significant role in the ultimate refusal of the body to give its seal of approval to the US attack.
ElBaradei has continued to be a thorn in Washington’s side. Immediately prior to the November US election, he made several disclosures that were politically damaging to Bush. In a letter to the UN Security Council on October 1, he revealed evidence that there had been “widespread and apparently systematic dismantlement” of so-called dual-use equipment and facilities in Iraq that had previously been monitored by the IAEA to ensure they were not used for nuclear programs, and that neither the US nor the Iraqi government could account for the missing materials. On October 25, he exposed the fact that 400 tonnes of high explosives—potentially usable in detonators for nuclear weapons—had gone missing following the US invasion.
The failure of US occupation forces to secure these stockpiles and prevent them falling into the hands of potential terrorists underscored the fact that Iraq’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction” were an excuse for an invasion carried out to further Washington’s economic and strategic objectives in Iraq and the Middle East. In the aftermath of the US election, the Bush administration has shown every sign that it will adopt a more, rather than less, aggressive stance, particularly toward Iran and North Korea.
The publication of the Washington Post article is one more indication of ongoing, intense conflicts within the intelligence, foreign policy and military establishments in the US. It was based on leaks from US officials within the government or state apparatus who had access to the highly classified information and were clearly out to embarrass those within the White House pushing the campaign against ElBaradei. What lies at the heart of these disputes are not fundamental differences of principle, but tactical concerns over the dangers posed by the Bush administration’s unilateralist and bellicose foreign policy.
Washington is, however, unlikely to halt its efforts to oust ElBaradei, including by means that are patently in breach of international law. The revelations of US spying on a top UN official once again underscore the gangster methods of the Bush administration. While continually claiming to act in the name of peace, freedom and democracy, its stock-in-trade is secrecy, lies, bullying and provocation as it aggressively pursues its plans for dominance over its international rivals.
Not the silver bullet, what next for those liberal groups?
The revolution that failed -- for now
Groups like ACT and MoveOn promised to remake American politics, but they didn't beat Bush.
Is there a future for liberal People Power?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Farhad Manjoo
Dec. 15, 2004 | Three days after the election, I called Ellen Malcolm, founder of the influential advocacy group Emily's List and president of America Coming Together, to ask her where she'd screwed up.
The question wasn't as provocative as it sounds: 2004 was supposed to have been the year of the activist. For months, progressives had been extolling the possibilities of groups like ACT, which -- by bringing together Hollywood money, Silicon Valley tech wizardry, Washington know-how, and the passion of an army of volunteers recruited from Berkeley to Burlington -- seemed to be forging a new and quite powerful force in American politics, a movement that liberals promised would not only win this election but might also rewrite the rules of the game. ACT and its sister groups were to have been the Democrats' silver bullet, the one trick -- people power! -- Karl Rove could not match.
But as the returns streamed in on Nov. 2, the promise of ACT and the other third-party liberal groups fizzled. ACT had invested heavily in mobilizing voters in Florida and Ohio, and John Kerry lost in both places. What happened? I asked Malcolm. Why had ACT failed?
Malcolm didn't want to talk about failure. "We were very successful," she said. "But we didn't win the election. We turned out many, many, many voters, including a lot of first-time voters. It was a tremendously successful effort for democracy. But we're all obviously very disappointed in the results."
At the time, Malcolm's answer was unsatisfying; given the totality of the loss it seemed disingenuous to call what happened on Election Day a success. But when I pressed her on it, asking in several different ways what had gone wrong, she was unmoved. "You're not listening to what I'm saying," Malcolm finally snapped. ACT hadn't failed. ACT had in fact met all of its state voter-mobilization goals. John Kerry won more votes than any other presidential loser in history. ACT had succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of anyone involved in the group. The only problem was that the other side, the Republicans, was even more successful.
A month and a half has passed since I spoke to Malcolm, and in that time several observers have put forward the kind of sophisticated-sounding explanations for the apparent failure of liberal get-out-the-vote campaigns that I'd wanted Malcolm to offer shortly after the election. In the New York Times Magazine, Matt Bai suggested that ACT fundamentally misunderstood the electorate in Ohio -- instead of trying to persuade suburban swing voters to consider Kerry (as the GOP had done for Bush, fruitfully), ACT spent its resources in liberal urban centers, where there simply weren't enough Kerry voters to tip the balance.
More recently, the New Republic's Peter Beinart skewered MoveOn, ACT's progressive brother-in-arms, for dismissing national security threats, and in Slate Chris Suellentrop dismissed the group as being not "an organization so much as an outlet. It's a network of aggrieved liberals, connected by the central nervous system of the Internet, and it enables its members to convince themselves they're 'doing something' when they're really not."
There's much to criticize about ACT, MoveOn, and the constellation of liberal groups that attracted so much attention and so many volunteers, and raised so much money and so many hopes, in the months before the election. They certainly weren't the silver bullet. But many critics are too quick to dismiss the very real successes of the advocacy groups, the political, financial, logistical and emotional achievements that were required to bring hundreds of thousands of volunteers and paid staffers into battleground states, and to use these people in a way that boosted turnout.
Yes, John Kerry lost. But an amazing thing happened this year -- grass-roots activism, online and in the real world, invaded the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. Ordinary people, folks who'd never before expressed the slightest interest in politics, suddenly developed an abiding enthusiasm for the game. And personal contact, the online connections and the doorstep conversations of millions of citizens, became a primary method of campaigning.
There were, to be sure, many logistical snafus in the get-out-the-vote operations mounted by the various third-party groups -- some major, most relatively minor. The most serious limitation seems to have been built into the design of the campaign: Because the third-party groups were barred under campaign finance regulations from coordinating their efforts with John Kerry's official campaign, the entire liberal get-out-the-vote operation could never have proceeded as a coherent whole. Unlike the GOP effort, the Democratic campaign was intrinsically divided, split between two sides who weren't allowed to speak to each other.
Despite those limitations, though, the core gambit worked: Hard as it may be to believe (and it is hard), the numbers prove that that San Franciscans and New Yorkers met with some success in their attempts to persuade Clevelanders and Miamians to go to the polls for Kerry. As Democrats remake their party, it would be a shame for them to discount the work of the activists, or to fail to keep the activist spirit kindled. Glitches can be fixed, and logistical failures can be addressed. Imagine what might have been had these groups not become involved in this political cycle.
"Look at what happened the last time a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts won the nomination," notes Donald Green, the Yale political scientist whose research on get-out-the-vote efforts served as the blueprint for the liberal groups' mobilization drive. "That was Michael Dukakis -- he lost decisively.... The fact that John Kerry did as well as he did is only attributable to the incredible ground effort that the Democrats were able to muster." The third-party groups, in other words, profoundly altered the physics of the presidential race. Without them, it would have been a blowout.
In the spring of 2004, Moira DeNike, a sociology grad student and dance instructor in San Francisco, attended her first John Kerry Meetup. She wasn't overly impressed with what she saw. "I thought, this is nice if you're looking for a bunch of people to talk about how we all agree that Kerry should win," she says. DeNike, who was a political naif but nevertheless dead set on unseating the president, felt she needed a more constructive experience, something hands-on. After a bull session with a dancer friend, she hatched a plan -- to raise a lot of money to send a lot of people to Florida, where they would help register a lot of new voters for Kerry -- and a name: Dancers for Democracy. The money would come from dance -- DeNike organized a series of dance-oriented fundraisers (an all-day workshop, a buffet dinner with dancing as dessert) which raised several thousand dollars, enough to send six people to Miami in the weeks approaching Florida's Oct. 4 voter-registration deadline.
There's something undeniably inspiring, in a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" kind of way, about DeNike's entrepreneurial voter-mobilization enterprise. There's a bit of hubris in it, too. Why did DeNike believe that she, personally, would be able to persuade people in Florida to register to vote? Why did she assume that she was even needed in Florida -- that she, a dancer with no political experience, could become an asset to a major national political campaign?
Those are important questions, because what DeNike and thousands of other activists like her did during the 2004 campaign was in some sense not normal. In recent American elections, ordinary voters have not often set up their own political shops, raised their own funds, and sought out flaws in the system that they believed they could fix themselves. Of course, people have always volunteered in political campaigns, especially during tense political times -- but the scale and scope of what we saw this year, and especially the sense the volunteers had that their own contributions might make a critical difference in the outcome, were novel.
DeNike says she felt a sense of mission, a thought that you hear from many volunteers across the land. She knew she could make a real difference in a swing state. "I felt like there might be a lot of people who would feel disenfranchised [in Florida], and I read somewhere that most people who don't vote, don't vote because they've never been asked to." DeNike believed that if she asked them, they would vote.
DeNike's instinct that she was needed in Florida turned out to be on the mark. After Dancers for Democracy raised enough money to send a team to Miami, DeNike phoned the South Florida ACT office to ask if she could work with the group on voter registration. But ACT told DeNike that the group wasn't working on voter registration, and that instead it was working on a voter persuasion effort. So DeNike called the local Kerry campaign office and asked if she could work with them on voter registration. "And they too said that they weren't focusing on voter registration. They said that there were other groups that were going to be focusing on that," DeNike recalls.
DeNike had stumbled across one of the main operational flaws of the liberal get-out-the-vote effort -- a lack of coordination between the Kerry campaign and its third-party surrogates. What DeNike discovered was that neither the ACT people nor the Kerry people were mounting a final new-registration push in South Florida because each believed that the other group would be handling it. That would seem to be a silly mistake -- didn't people know their roles? -- but this sort of thing seems to have occurred often in the campaign, volunteers say. Because campaign finance laws prohibited the Kerry staffers from discussing their efforts with ostensibly independent groups such as ACT, the campaign and the outside groups were often duplicating each other's work, or sometimes weren't working on what needed to be done because they assumed the other side was doing it.
The coordination problem was especially pronounced during the last few weeks and days of the campaign, when the full force of get-out-the-vote canvassers, tens of thousands of people, were going door-to-door in battleground states. "We were knocking on doors and people would say, 'You're the third person who's come by today,'" says Eric Rorer, a freelance photographer from Northern California who worked for the Kerry campaign in Columbus, Ohio. Volunteers from the various groups were running into each other on the street, Rorer says, but they couldn't pass the slightest information between themselves, even plans as to which houses they would tackle first. One ACT volunteer who canvassed in Miami says, "By the Friday before Election Day people were like, 'Stop coming around!' These people were being extremely over-canvassed -- we were hitting them, MoveOn was hitting them, the Kerry people were hitting them, the Senate candidates were hitting them, there was a mayoral candidate that was hitting them..."
Nobody knows whether this "over-canvassing" problem -- which was reported by just about every canvasser Salon spoke to -- caused many (or any) voters to become so annoyed with the process that they decided to stay away from the polls. But Donald Green, of Yale, says the situation affected the progressive groups' overall efficiency. "It was not easy for them to spread their resources intelligently," he says. Successful door-to-door operations call for a well-planned series of visits to each household over a period of weeks. But instead of each household getting a first contact from a group, then a second contact, then a third, what happened in this campaign in many neighborhoods was that "lots of people were getting many first contacts," each from a different group. "Some people got five first contacts." That must have caused no small amount of confusion, if not anger, among voters.
If some neighborhoods in the swing states were being over-canvassed by progressives, other neighborhoods may have consequently been under-canvassed by those groups. Could the efforts of the third-party groups have been more fruitful if some of their door-to-door canvassing had been shifted from reliably Democratic urban neighborhoods to other areas -- specifically, should ACT and MoveOn have concentrated on some of the suburban and "exurban" neighborhoods that the New York Times Magazine's Bai calls the GOP's secret weapon in Ohio?
"It's a fair point," says Thomas Gensemer, ACT's director of Internet strategies. But conducting a get-out-the-vote operation in non-base suburban neighborhoods would have been difficult for ACT, he notes. Under federal campaign finance law (ACT is a 527 organization, an entity to which donors can contribute unlimited sums of "soft money,") ACT could not call on voters to go out and cast a ballot for a specific candidate. In Democratic strongholds, this limitation worked out OK: The group didn't need to sell voters there on the merits of John Kerry; all it had to do was make sure people got to the polls. But how could ACT have campaigned in areas where the voters' preferences weren't so certain? It wouldn't have worked. As a third-party group, ACT had one key limitation -- it was a "campaign without a candidate," Gensemer says. "That's why our mandate from the start was much more to go after base votes. I don't know if you can do anything else in a 527 world when you're not the actual candidate's campaign. Getting out the swing voters was not the role of us and MoveOn and others."
But if ACT and MoveOn could canvass only in the cities, why couldn't the Kerry campaign have canvassed in the suburbs, spreading the door-to-door resources? The answer, again, is coordination: In key states like Ohio and Florida, the Kerry team couldn't have shifted its resources to the suburbs because it couldn't be sure what the third-party groups would be doing in the cities. It had no way of coordinating with them. So it too had no choice but to concentrate its mobilization efforts in the cities, where all the reliable Democrats were located.
The Democratic focus on urban Democratic strongholds, then, seems to have been a necessary consequence of its reliance on third-party advocacy groups. Republicans, it should be noted, didn't face this problem. Because the Bush-Cheney get-out-the-vote operation was run in-house, not farmed out to soft-money third-party groups, canvassers could do as they pleased, without worrying about coordination failures, or prohibitions on how they could sell their candidate. If the Democrats faced any strategic mobilization disadvantage, Green says, it was this difference in their operations. Republican canvassers were selling a candidate, while canvassers at ACT were really selling an idea -- broad progressivism -- that they hoped would translate into action for their candidate. The match was not quite fair.
In the fall, after learning that neither ACT nor the Kerry campaign was focusing on registering new voters in South Florida, Moira DeNike wrote a passionate letter to ACT's coordinator in Miami, detailing all the reasons why she and her band of dancers should be allowed to work on voter registration out of ACT's offices there. The coordinator liked her letter, and ACT acceded to her requests. "They weren't going to stand in the way of this group of nutty San Franciscans who wanted to come down," she says -- and anyway the registration effort she helped coordinate at ACT was exceedingly successful. In the week before the registration deadline in Florida, DeNike and the others working on new registrations in the Miami ACT office signed up more than 900 new voters.
DeNike says she wasn't surprised by this success; she'd expected it. But other blue-coast volunteers who flew into Florida and Ohio to get out the vote did report initially feeling uncomfortable about their status as carpetbaggers in a contested land. It wasn't just that the progressive volunteers weren't locals -- although many political analysts, remembering the Howard Dean campaign's not-so-hot experience with invading political operatives in Iowa, had warned that voters in swing states might not take too well to outsiders telling them how to vote. But in third-party get-out-the-vote campaigns, the geographic distances between the volunteers and the locals often seemed secondary to the cultural distances -- in many cases the volunteers who flew into the swing states were whiter and wealthier than the neighborhoods they were hoping to mobilize, and some volunteers reported being on guard about, or at least very aware of, the differences.
"They sent us to some 100 percent minority areas, places where being white and having a sticker on your shirt that said your name and walking around with a bunch of flyers -- you stuck out like a sore thumb," said a white 20-something volunteer from California who asked not to be named in this article. "And ACT sent us to some really bad places -- there were people who were obviously prostitutes and drug dealers on the corner. But, that said, a lot of people there did appreciate the information. You took 30 seconds of their time, you told them about voting early, and then you went on your way." Indeed, the volunteer added sheepishly, "in some sense I realized that I became much more comfortable with being around black people. I don't consider myself a racist. I didn't realize that I was uncomfortable before. But on my way back to the airport I noticed that."
Rorer, who canvassed for the Kerry campaign in Ohio, says that he'd initially expected some criticism from the locals as well. "All the canvassers were white, and here we are walking in a lower-middle class black neighborhood," he says. "I would have thought there would have been a sense of, What are all you white people doing in our neighborhood? But when people saw us they were like, 'Kerry!' -- like pumping their fists! -- and old women would come to the door and invite us in to eat."
Several canvassers reported similar scenes, and ACT officials say they ultimately saw no real problem with using out-of-towners as their get-out-the-vote volunteers. Though they'd been wary of the possible culture clash, such disturbances never really occurred. Still, says Gensemer, "the quality of the contact when it's a local canvasser is much better," and one of the group's goals for the future is to assemble a cadre of activists in the swing states to work on mobilization efforts, "which is what the right does infinitely better."
A bigger problem with ACT, some volunteers say, was that in the rushed end to the campaign, the local offices became especially chaotic, and disorganization reigned. "Even with all of George Soros money, in the most contested state in the country, and in the largest county in that state -- with all that riding on this effort, the level of organization was not impressive," says DeNike of the Miami operations. "They had not done that much research. The offices were run by enthusiastic and energetic 20-somethings, and I loved them, but there wasn't the experience that needed to be there."
Another volunteer at the Miami ACT office told of his annoyance at being ordered to spend two whole days at Kinko's to make copies of canvassing maps. This volunteer had spent a considerable bit of money and time to fly out to Florida to help get out the vote, "and here I was making copies -- one day I literally copied 12,000 pages. They spent over $2,200 on copies that day."
Meanwhile, in the final weeks of the campaign, ACT began hiring a large number of local people on a day-labor basis to help with the door-to-door canvass. But volunteers said that ACT put in place no real method of monitoring these paid staffers' progress -- it did not ensure sure that they were rewarded if they worked well, or they were not rehired if they didn't. ACT essentially hired anyone who showed up every morning on a first-come, first-serve basis (the pay varied, though many people said they made between $50 and $100 a day.) The trouble with this arrangement was that ACT wasn't building "a core group of committed people," one volunteer said. "And to be honest I heard a lot of volunteers who worked with the paid people from the community say that the paid people weren't effective. And they would have been more effective if ACT had trained them better, or cultivated the sense that they were working for a cause," rather than for a day's wage.
Looking over ACT's work, it's possible to find many similar logistical and operational flaws. For instance, Bonnie Maslin, a psychologist from New York who canvassed with ACT in the last two days of the campaign in Ohio, said that her canvassing group was given flyers to affix to people's doorknobs, but none of the houses in the neighborhood she was in had accessible doorknobs -- they all had screen doors. Another difficulty: Many of the doorbells in poorer neighborhoods seemed to be broken, and consequently few people came to the door in those areas.
Volunteers emphasize that they don't believe that any of those problems contributed to Kerry's loss. They were simply the kinds of flaws you'd expect to see in an effort like this, and it's a testament to ACT's operational prowess that the effort worked as well as it did. "We were never really expecting we'd have 120,000 contributors" to the get-out-the-vote effort, Gensemer says.
Gensemer's right. Despite the problems, from an operational point of view what the various third-party groups accomplished in the months before Nov. 2 seems quite extraordinary. Still, notwithstanding the agility with which ACT and other groups expanded to accommodate the demand of thousands of volunteers, and the enthusiasm and hard work of many of those volunteers, the plain fact is they lost. And now, in defeat, the groups are being asked to explain themselves -- which is a difficult thing to do because, it turns out, many volunteers and staff at those campaigns genuinely find it hard to conceive of what happened on Nov. 2 as a failure.
And by many measures, the effort was not a failure. In Ohio, Kerry won 554,000 more votes than Al Gore won in 2000. In Florida, Kerry beat Gore's total by 544,000. In all of the urban centers where ACT and MoveOn and the other groups concentrated their door-to-door activities, Kerry's share of the vote went through the roof.
There were other wins for the advocacy groups. ACORN, a group that aimed its efforts at minority voters in Florida, scored a huge win with the minimum-wage ballot measure it sponsored in the state -- the amendment passed with 71 percent of the vote. The League of Conservation Voters, meanwhile, strongly opposed the Republican senatorial candidate Pete Coors in Colorado, and it won that race.
Compared to the presidency, those may seem like small victories. But for the thousands of activists who participated in the race, perhaps there's nothing wrong with taking pleasure in small victories. At the moment, just a month after the election, the future of the various groups that launched the historic get-out-the-vote campaign this year is, at best, cloudy. ACT and MoveOn say they're determined to stay strong and relevant. But people close to some key funders of the groups point out that the legal landscape isn't clear -- many expect that the Republican Congress will attempt to shut down the 527 soft-money exception, a move that could devastate a group like ACT.
Even without the question of funding, there are difficulties. During the campaign, ACT, MoveOn and other influential progressive groups -- labor unions, liberal interest groups -- worked roughly in parallel, sharing ideas and resources and a common mobilized base, all in an effort to vanquish a common foe. But with the campaign over, the groups have fewer incentives to work together, and differences over how to proceed -- and who gets to control what was created during the past year -- are bound to emerge.
We may already be seeing the early fissures. On Thursday, MoveOn took an aggressive posture in the battle to control the future of the Democratic Party, demanding in an e-mail memo to members that the party rid itself of "elite Washington insiders." Democrats "can't afford four more years of leadership by a consulting class of professional election losers," wrote Eli Pariser, the executive director of the MoveOn PAC. "In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."
MoveOn could not be reached for comment for this article. But it's hard not to wonder if Pariser's line about Washington elites was a subtle dig at ACT -- a group that is, after all, headed by some of the party's most insiderish insiders, Steve Rosenthal, Harold Ickes and Ellen Malcolm. Asked whether ACT had any sympathy for MoveOn's call to banish insiders from the party, Gensemer balked. "We don't have grandiose goals of taking over the party," he said. "The vast team of political professionals we've put together understand what our role is now. We're following to see what happens with the DNC. We have our thoughts, we've learned a lot, but we're not a reactionary force."
Even if ACT, MoveOn and other progressive groups manage to continue working well together, and the vast infrastructure they amassed this year remains relatively intact, there is still the matter of the activists -- those people on the ground who decided during the course of the year to join the political scene. Can those people be reactivated to fight future battles? Did the activists who swarmed to swing states this year do it only out of a quick, one-shot hatred of George W. Bush, or were they expressing deeper convictions, passions that will motivate them for the long haul?
For the third-party groups, this is the most difficult question to answer. It's hard to tell what peculiar cocktail of hatred for Bush, love for Kerry, and genuine fear for the national condition sparked the grand activist effort we saw this year; consequently, it's hard to tell whether many of the activists will remain active, or whether many will take Kerry's defeat as too much to bear and lose their willingness to fight.
"There's an absolute 100 percent risk of that," says Allan Oliver, who headed the League of Conservation Voters efforts in Florida. "That's a risk that we're trying to fight, and the way we're trying to fight is by saying: Let's sit down and do some smart analysis and figure out what went right, what went wrong. Let's figure out a future plan. What do we do from here?" In time, those answers will come. "And perhaps all those volunteers who traveled across the country for us -- they've taken some days off, they've sat down, we've all kind of moped around at one point or another. But soon they'll come back saying, We need to get into the fight."
| About the writer
Related stories
MoveOn moves up
|
Wake Up and Leave!!!
Getting Out Of Iraq
As many members of Congress and President George W. Bush’s administration argue that it’s unacceptable to leave Iraq as a failed state, it becomes clearer every day that U.S. operations and policies are fueling violence and instability. It’s time for the government to directly confront the question of how to fulfill U.S. obligations under international law, restore basic security, and responsibly withdraw U.S. forces.
Central to this point, Washington must not simply abandon the Iraqi people to the chaos it has created. But the U.S. needs to accept the fact that continued military occupation by the U.S. will only cause more casualties, foster division in the country, and keep reconstruction from advancing.
In the six months since the transition to Iraqi sovereignty officially got underway on June 28, 2004, the human cost of the U.S. occupation of that country has risen dramatically. U.S. military deaths have topped 1,200. A study published in The Lancet has estimated that 100,000 Iraqis have died as a result of war and conditions under occupation. Norwegian researchers, the United Nations, and the Iraqi government recently reported that malnutrition among the youngest children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the U.S.-led invasion of that country. And soaring rates of disease and a crippled health system are threatening to kill more than have died in the aftermath of the war.
This dynamic is unlikely to change in the near term. The Bush administration’s stated two-pronged plan of staging elections and putting Iraqis in charge of their own security is clearly the right objective. But on the ground this is failing for a variety of reasons. Iraqi elections held under U.S. military occupation and under election rules written by the U.S will lack legitimacy both inside and outside Iraq. Furthermore, the lack of UN election experts on the ground, coupled with continued fighting, and the fact that any polling location guarded by U.S. troops will be a military target, means free and fair elections can’t take place as scheduled in January.
Iraqis need to be in charge of their own security. But the Iraqi police and National Guard have largely failed to provide security for the Iraqi people and the situation appears to be only worsening. Iraq’s security forces are fighting in a war that puts anyone who is physically near or associated with the U.S. occupation at risk. At the same time, soldiers and police officers lack adequate training. One measure of the problem can be seen in their death toll. Over 1,500 Iraqi security force recruits and 750 Iraqi police officers have been killed. Iraqi security forces can’t succeed as long as the U.S. is leading a war on the ground in Iraq.
As Larry Diamond, who worked as a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, has noted, “There are really no good options,” at this point. But there are better options than the policies being currently pursued. The following five steps would lessen the violence and insecurity in Iraq:
1) Decrease U.S. troops and end offensive operations: As a first step to withdrawal, the U.S. should declare an immediate cease-fire and reduce the number of troops deployed in Iraq. Instead, the Bush administration has done the opposite, increasing the number of troops stationed there by 12,000. Increased offensive operations will only escalate the violence and make Iraq less secure and less safe. The U.S. should pull troops out of major cities so that greater manpower can be directed to guarding the borders to stem the flow of foreign fighters and money being used to fund the resistance. If Iraqi security forces need assistance maintaining order, they have the option of inviting in regional forces, as proposed by Saudi Arabia. They could also reinstate the former Iraqi army, which was well-trained, after purging upper-level Saddam supporters and providing additional counterinsurgency training to deal with the current war. Once implemented, these measures would allow for total withdrawal of U.S. forces.
2) Declare that the U.S. has no intention to maintain a permanent or long-term military presence or bases in Iraq: Congress needs to make clear that it is committed to the principle of responsible withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. By making this statement through a congressional resolution, the U.S. would openly acknowledge that it has no interest in controlling Middle Eastern oil or in suppressing Muslims, hence depriving insurgents of their central organizing message. Without such a resolution, Iraqis have little reason to believe that our present actions are nothing greater than a plan to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq and make the occupation a permanent feature of Iraqi life.
3) Do more to restore services: Moving control of reconstruction from the Defense Department to the State Department has been a positive step as it removes an agency designed to fight war from the much different task of nation building. But a much stronger statement to the Iraqi people would be to go even further and give Iraqis direct authority over reconstruction funding. The U.S. government and its contractors have failed to restore public services and public safety, strengthen institutions, or provide jobs. Meanwhile, billions of appropriated dollars remain unspent. By giving Iraqis control over reconstruction funds more Iraqis will get jobs and projects will be better targeted to the needs of Iraqis. And lowering the unemployment rate will weaken the potential for recruitment into the insurgency.
4) Postpone national elections and hold elections for provincial governments: Given that war is raging in most of Iraq’s Sunni regions, prospects for free and fair elections in January are dim. Given the reality on the ground, the U.S. should call for a delay of national elections while helping Iraqis hold elections for local governments. Local governments should be given the power so far denied to Iraqis. They need budget oversight and dedicated funding derived from the country's oil exports. Additionally, they need the authority to work with Iraqi ministries to assess local needs, decide which reconstruction efforts should get priority, and deliver services. They would also have an oversight role for expenditures. Once provincial elections are completed, illustrating that the U.S. is willing to cede power, and a guarantee that Sunnis will be included in the political process is in place, national elections will become more viable.
5) Impose conditions on U.S. spending for the Iraq War: To date the U.S. has spent $151 billion on the Iraq War. It’s important to support the troops, but a recent exchange between Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the troops illustrated the safety of the troops has not been Washington’s primary concern. Congress should exercise its prerogative in shaping U.S. policy in Iraq by tying a forthcoming supplemental spending bill now rumored to be between $70-100 billion to the previous four points. At the same time, lawmakers should put the brakes on the rampant war profiteering that has caused widespread waste, fraud, and abuse. To do this, the U.S. must stop awarding no-bid contracts and open-ended, “cost-plus,” multi-billion dollar contracts such as those awarded to Halliburton and Bechtel and increase oversight over the military and its contractors. Finally, the U.S. should cancel previously awarded contracts to companies whose workforces don’t have a majority of Iraqis.
The current U.S. approach in Iraq is too costly in human and financial terms to Americans at home, our troops abroad, and to the very people this war was supposed to liberate. More importantly, it isn’t improving Iraq’s stability or security. These five steps represent an ambitious new direction for the United States and for the Iraqi people.
<>
By Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus December 15, 2004
<> http://www.alternet.org/story/20754/ © 2004 Independent Media Institute.
<>
<>
By Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus December 15, 2004
<> http://www.alternet.org/story/20754/ © 2004 Independent Media Institute.
<>
Shopping for your GI? Don't forget the spare parts and body armor
12 days of Christmas
Rummy tries his hand at slumming it with service members while at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, Dec. 8, 2004. |
Let's start with civilian deaths: "Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," The Lancet, the respected British medical journal, reported in October. "Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths, and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."
Crude-oil exports, on which the economy relies, were averaging 1.6 million barrels a day last spring, far below the 6 million-barrel-a-day potential. All through summer and fall, the oil infrastructure has been ravaged by saboteurs blowing up pipelines and other oil facilities. As it stands, oil can't be counted on to generate the income to run the economy.
Before the war, agriculture accounted for more than one-quarter of the country's gross domestic product and 20 percent of employment. It is now in ruins. Recovery costs are estimated by the World Bank at $3.6 billion.
Electricity production was halved by the war, but though patchwork repair is coming back to pre-war levels—itself a patchwork job from the previous Gulf war—it is still far below projected needs, according to Columbia professor Richard Garfield.
Clean drinking water is scarce in many parts of the country. Sewage plants, hit in the first war and never repaired, have been further damaged. As of August, sewage from Baghdad's 3.8 million people was flowing untreated into the Tigris River.
According to August reports, some 1,000 Iraqi schools need to be rebuilt as a result of damage and looting, and almost 20 percent of the country's 18,000 school buildings need comprehensive or partial repair. There is no money to do any of this.
Various estimates put unemployment somewhere between 25 and 50 percent.
The Iraqi health care system is suffering from chronic shortages of all kinds. Unsafe streets mean that health workers can't move about and supplies can't be transported. Doctors in major hospitals continue to complain of shortages of drugs used in surgery and emergency operations, anti-inflammatory drugs, vital antibiotics, and cancer drugs.
Lack of clean water and shortages of electricity make matters chaotic, with generators breaking down mid-operation and patients dying.
Asked last week about the lack of armor on U.S. military vehicles in Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave an explanation that included this: "If you think about it, you can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can be blown up. And you can have an up-armored Humvee and it can be blown up."
For those who find Rumsfeld's remarks confusing, here is a basic rundown on the equipment problem:
HUMVEE ARMOR: Specialist Ronald Pepin, who serves in Baghdad with the New York National Guard, told CBS News last Halloween that his unit's Humvees "have no ground plating. So if you hit something underneath you, then it's going to kill the whole crew." He added, "And that's just something you have to live with."
In June, Staff Sergeant Sean Davis of the Oregon National Guard suffered shrapnel wounds and burns and couldn't walk for six weeks after his Humvee hit a homemade bomb near Baghdad. Davis said his Humvee, which came with no armor, had been fortified with plywood, sandbags, and armor salvaged from old Iraqi tanks.
SPARE PARTS: General Ricardo Sanchez, senior commander on the ground from summer 2003 to summer 2004, wrote to top army officials, "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with [readiness] rates this low," The Washington Post reported on October 18. In a letter to army units, he wrote that the army was "struggling just to maintain . . . relatively low readiness rates" on such key combat systems as M-1 Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, anti-mortar radars, and Black Hawk helicopters. Units had to wait more than a month to get critical spare parts, which 40 percent of the army depots didn't even have.
There have even been problems with parts for ordinary vehicles. Six reservists, two who had received Bronze Stars, were court-martialed for scrounging equipment to keep their unit going, the Chicago Tribune reported over the weekend. One of them, Darrell Birt, said his unit didn't have enough vehicles to haul the equipment it would need, so three men in the unit grabbed two tractors and two trailers left in Kuwait by units already on their way to Iraq. Later, they scavenged a five-ton cargo truck for parts. "We could have gone with what we had, but we would not have been able to complete our mission," Birt told the Tribune. "I admit that what we did was technically against the rules, but it wasn't for our own personal gain. It was so we could do our jobs."
BODY ARMOR: In notoriously short supply, body armor is on many soldiers' Christmas lists. Some scrounge it from armor left by Iraqi soldiers; others ask their families to buy armor and send it over.
RADIOS: As I wrote on October 12, a marine report found severe communications problems. Titled Operation Iraqi Freedom: Lessons Learned, the report for the Marine Corps Reserve Forces said, "Convoys as large as 100 to 150 vehicles had only two or three military radios for long-range communications and virtually no capability for intra-convoy communications." To stay in touch, the reserve units on their own went out and bought short-range handheld radios.
AMMUNITION: Soldiers of the army's Third Infantry Division marched into Iraq in the beginning of the war without enough ammunition to fight, according to published reports. Division commanders asked months ahead of time for more ammo for frontline units, but couldn't get enough. "Every attempt to gain the ammunition assets resulted in some agency or another denying requests, short-loading trucks, or turning away soldiers," the report said. "The entire situation became utter chaos."
CLOTHING: Soldiers couldn't get proper footwear. "Days before we flew out from North Carolina to Kuwait," one soldier recalled, "some Marines were still not being provided with the correct size desert boots. There were extra boots left, but none that would fit. The unit was allotted only a certain number of boots for each size. Still, others were issued two pairs of boots . . . the older type and a new type just released. The Marines without boots had to pay for cabs to bring them outside of the base to a military surplus store in town, where they could buy desert boots that actually fit."
by James Ridgeway Additional reporting: Nicole Duarte and David Botti. © daVoice
CIA narred its officers from taking part in torture.. uhm ..interrogations
C.I.A. Order on Detainees Shows Its Role Was Curbed
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 - Concerns about harsh techniques used by Special Operations forces prompted the Central Intelligence Agency last year to bar its officers in Iraq from taking part in military interrogations where prisoners were subjected to duress, intelligence officials said.
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Dec. 13 - Concerns about harsh techniques used by Special Operations forces prompted the Central Intelligence Agency last year to bar its officers in Iraq from taking part in military interrogations where prisoners were subjected to duress, intelligence officials said.
A classified directive issued by the agency's headquarters on Aug. 8, 2003, to all its personnel in Iraq advised that "if the military employed any type of techniques beyond questions and answers, we should not participate and should not be present," according to an account provided by a senior intelligence official.
In telling C.I.A. personnel to keep away from interrogations where military personnel were using harsh techniques, the directive was more restrictive than was previously known. Officials first disclosed the agency's order last September, saying that it had barred C.I.A. officers from interviewing the military's prisoners unless military officials were present.
The new disclosure is the latest sign of longstanding unease in intelligence circles about the military's interrogation techniques in Iraq. Complaints by the Defense Intelligence Agency about the rough treatment of prisoners by the same Special Operations units were made public last week in a document disclosed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
But the C.I.A. guidelines imposed for Iraq did not affect interrogations of prisoners in C.I.A. custody, including leaders of Al Qaeda being detained in secret locations around the world, officials said. Legal rulings by the Bush administration have granted the C.I.A. greater flexibility in conducting interrogations of suspected terrorists, including the use of harsh methods. The C.I.A. issued its directive on the military's prisoners in Iraq shortly after the agency's station in Baghdad complained in a July 16, 2003, cable about the use of noise, bright light and other techniques by Special Operations forces who were working in joint teams with C.I.A. personnel.
The agency also barred its employees last year from entering a secret interrogation facility in Baghdad used by Special Operations forces. The restrictive C.I.A. guidelines remain in effect, intelligence officials have said.
Army documents first obtained by The Denver Post show that an Iraqi prisoner was found dead in June 2003 at the classified interrogation facility used by Special Operations forces in Baghdad after being restrained in a chair for questioning and subjected to physical and psychological stress. An autopsy determined that the prisoner died of a "hard, fast blow" to the head, the newspaper reported last spring.
In recent interviews, intelligence officials have declined to say whether the C.I.A. complaints were related to that incident. But one intelligence official did say that the agency had become aware early in the campaign in Iraq, in June 2003, about "a significant incident of abuse involving military personnel of a detainee."
The joint military-intelligence teams have operated under various names in Afghanistan and Iraq, including Task Force 121 and Task Force 6-26. Their main focus has been to track down and capture leaders of Al Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's inner circle.
The Aug. 8, 2003, cable from the C.I.A.'s headquarters noted that all prisoners in Iraq were the responsibility of the military, and that while the C.I.A. might have an interest in questioning them, it should recognize that "we do not own, control or have custody of them," one intelligence official said.
Abu Ghraib near Baghdad, the site of the worst known prisoner abuses in Iraq, is run by American military forces.
The cable said that the C.I.A. should not suggest, condone or concur in any interrogation techniques beyond questions and answers with prisoners in military custody in Iraq, the intelligence official said.
It is not clear how the C.I.A. directive and the complaint a year later by the Defense Intelligence Agency have affected relations between those intelligence services and the Special Operations forces. The C.I.A. continues to take part in the joint military-intelligence task forces in Iraq, but it is unclear if it is taking part in interrogations, one senior government official said.
©NYT
“We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11”
Iraqi Resistance speech on videotape December 13 2004
Rush transcript-
Title: Communiqué Number 6
The media platoon of the Islamic Jihad Army. On the 27th of Shawal 1425h. 10 December 2004
People of the world! These words come to you from those who up to the day of the invasion were struggling to survive under the sanctions imposed by the criminal regimes of the U.S. and Britain.
We are simple people who chose principles over fear.
We have suffered crimes and sanctions, which we consider the true weapons of mass destruction.
Years and years of agony and despair, while the condemned UN traded with our oil revenues in the name of world stability and peace.
Over two million innocents died waiting for a light at the end of a tunnel that only ended with the occupation of our country and the theft of our resources.
After the crimes of the administrations of the U.S and Britain in Iraq, we have chosen our future. The future of every resistance struggle ever in the history of man.
It is our duty, as well as our right, to fight back the occupying forces, which their nations will be held morally and economically responsible; for what their elected governments have destroyed and stolen from our land.
We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11. These are only a few of the lies that these criminals present to cover their true plans for the control of the energy resources of the world, in face of a growing China and a strong unified Europe. It is Ironic that the Iraqi's are to bear the full face of this large and growing conflict on behalf of the rest of this sleeping world.
We thank all those, including those of Britain and the U.S., who took to the streets in protest against this war and against Globalism. We also thank France, Germany and other states for their position, which least to say are considered wise and balanced, til now.
Today, we call on you again.
We do not require arms or fighters, for we have plenty.
We ask you to form a world wide front against war and sanctions. A front that is governed by the wise and knowing. A front that will bring reform and order. New institutions that would replace the now corrupt.
Stop using the U.S. dollar, use the Euro or a basket of currencies. Reduce or halt your consumption of British and U.S. products. Put an end to Zionism before it ends the world. Educate those in doubt of the true nature of this conflict and do not believe their media for their casualties are far higher than they admit.
We only wish we had more cameras to show the world their true defeat.
The enemy is on the run. They are in fear of a resistance movement they can not see nor predict.
We, now choose when, where, and how to strike. And as our ancestors drew the first sparks of civilization, we will redefine the word “conquest.“
Today we write a new chapter in the arts of urban warfare.
Know that by helping the Iraqi people you are helping yourselves, for tomorrow may bring the same destruction to you.
In helping the Iraqi people does not mean dealing for the Americans for a few contracts here and there. You must continue to isolate their strategy.
This conflict is no longer considered a localized war. Nor can the world remain hostage to the never-ending and regenerated fear that the American people suffer from in general.
We will pin them here in Iraq to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.
We will disrupt, then halt the flow of our stolen oil, thus, rendering their plans useless.
And the earlier a movement is born, the earlier their fall will be.
And to the American soldiers we say, you can also choose to fight tyranny with us. Lay down your weapons, and seek refuge in our mosques, churches and homes. We will protect you. And we will get you out of Iraq , as we have done with a few others before you.
Go back to your homes, families, and loved ones. This is not your war. Nor are you fighting for a true cause in Iraq.
And to George W. Bush, we say, “You have asked us to ‘Bring it on’, and so have we. Like never expected. Have you another challenge?”
The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=8140
Rush transcript-
Title: Communiqué Number 6
The media platoon of the Islamic Jihad Army. On the 27th of Shawal 1425h. 10 December 2004
And to George W. Bush, we say, “You have asked us to ‘Bring it on’, and so have we. Like never expected. Have you another challenge?”
People of the world! These words come to you from those who up to the day of the invasion were struggling to survive under the sanctions imposed by the criminal regimes of the U.S. and Britain.
We are simple people who chose principles over fear.
We have suffered crimes and sanctions, which we consider the true weapons of mass destruction.
Years and years of agony and despair, while the condemned UN traded with our oil revenues in the name of world stability and peace.
Over two million innocents died waiting for a light at the end of a tunnel that only ended with the occupation of our country and the theft of our resources.
After the crimes of the administrations of the U.S and Britain in Iraq, we have chosen our future. The future of every resistance struggle ever in the history of man.
It is our duty, as well as our right, to fight back the occupying forces, which their nations will be held morally and economically responsible; for what their elected governments have destroyed and stolen from our land.
We have not crossed the oceans and seas to occupy Britain or the U.S. nor are we responsible for 9/11. These are only a few of the lies that these criminals present to cover their true plans for the control of the energy resources of the world, in face of a growing China and a strong unified Europe. It is Ironic that the Iraqi's are to bear the full face of this large and growing conflict on behalf of the rest of this sleeping world.
We thank all those, including those of Britain and the U.S., who took to the streets in protest against this war and against Globalism. We also thank France, Germany and other states for their position, which least to say are considered wise and balanced, til now.
Today, we call on you again.
We do not require arms or fighters, for we have plenty.
We ask you to form a world wide front against war and sanctions. A front that is governed by the wise and knowing. A front that will bring reform and order. New institutions that would replace the now corrupt.
Stop using the U.S. dollar, use the Euro or a basket of currencies. Reduce or halt your consumption of British and U.S. products. Put an end to Zionism before it ends the world. Educate those in doubt of the true nature of this conflict and do not believe their media for their casualties are far higher than they admit.
We only wish we had more cameras to show the world their true defeat.
The enemy is on the run. They are in fear of a resistance movement they can not see nor predict.
We, now choose when, where, and how to strike. And as our ancestors drew the first sparks of civilization, we will redefine the word “conquest.“
Today we write a new chapter in the arts of urban warfare.
Know that by helping the Iraqi people you are helping yourselves, for tomorrow may bring the same destruction to you.
In helping the Iraqi people does not mean dealing for the Americans for a few contracts here and there. You must continue to isolate their strategy.
This conflict is no longer considered a localized war. Nor can the world remain hostage to the never-ending and regenerated fear that the American people suffer from in general.
We will pin them here in Iraq to drain their resources, manpower, and their will to fight. We will make them spend as much as they steal, if not more.
We will disrupt, then halt the flow of our stolen oil, thus, rendering their plans useless.
And the earlier a movement is born, the earlier their fall will be.
And to the American soldiers we say, you can also choose to fight tyranny with us. Lay down your weapons, and seek refuge in our mosques, churches and homes. We will protect you. And we will get you out of Iraq , as we have done with a few others before you.
Go back to your homes, families, and loved ones. This is not your war. Nor are you fighting for a true cause in Iraq.
And to George W. Bush, we say, “You have asked us to ‘Bring it on’, and so have we. Like never expected. Have you another challenge?”
The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=8140
dao water
water 
Drops. Let’s look at it another way. Water does not overcome because it yields. It overcomes because it is relentless. It perseveres and does not give up. It is constant. Rock can block water. Rock can even hold water in a lake for thousands of years. Why can’t the yielding overcome the hard then? Because it cannot move. It cannot work its magic of being relentless. Just as water must be able to express its true nature in a relentless way, so too must we simultaneously and relentlessly express our true natures if we are to be successful in life. Otherwise, we will find ourselves hemmed in by the hard wall of reality, and we will never be able to break through. But how do we acquires such perseverance? We start small. As drops. water
365 Tao daily meditations Deng Ming-Dao (author) ISBN 0-06-250223-9 
Tiger Spring 1962 by Fu Bao Shi
**Suggested reading of daoist texts ancient poetry and contemporary Chinese literature is available at the site. receive a full HTML copy of the daily meditation sent directly to your inbox, please send a note with the words "subscribe tao" in the subject line to duckdaotsu to unsubscribe or take a vacation, contact me with specifics at the same address! |
Tuesday
A CONVICT REACTS TO THE PETERSON DEATH SENTENCE
< style="font-family: times new roman;">
An inmate in a federal prison in Kentucky describes prisoners' reactions to the Scott Peterson sentencing. After four years in the "free world," prison writer Dannie M. Martin was recently returned to federal custody for a parole violation. He is the co-author of "Committing Journalism: The Prison Writings of Red Hog" and the author of two published novels. He is currently in a federal prison in Kentucky.
BY DANNIE MARTIN, PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE
FCI MANCHESTER, Ky.--The jury's recommendation of death in the Scott Peterson trial probably came as a bigger shock to convicts then it did to people out in the street. Because of the total lack of forensic evidence, many of us in prison don't believe he got a fair trial.
At the same time, many here think he could be better off being sentenced to death than life without parole.
Because of the appeals process, some death row convicts have lived in excess of 20 years past their execution dates. Scott Peterson may live longer on death row than he would have serving life in prison, because of the dangers he would have faced in mainline lockups.
If Peterson had received a life sentence, he would have lived out his natural days with no privacy. He would be at the mercy of guards who thought he deserved the death penalty, not to mention violent sexual predators and schizophrenic psychopaths.
California prisons probably employ as many as 200 guards from the Modesto area, Laci Peterson's hometown. If I were Scott, I'd be grateful for the chance to stay further away from Laci's homeboys and what they could arrange for him.
Prisons are loud, noisy places that often during the day, and even at night, sound like gorilla cages at feeding time. These are places where you stand in line for everything, including all your meals. By contrast, on death row at San Quentin you can often hear a pin drop. Men and women on death row all have single cells, a privilege not found in mainline prisons. There are no lines, no jostling crowds and very little, if any, violence. Prison officials run a tight ship there.
As a member of the walking dead, Peterson may continue to have access to some of the finest legal talent in the nation. Some top lawyers will work pro bono in a death penalty case.
Of course, living on death row is nothing to look forward to. Peterson will be locked in his cell 23 hours a day, with just one hour for exercise. Every time he leaves his cell he'll be shackled and escorted.
Strangely, among the main obstacles to Peterson's eventual execution are the verdicts themselves. In California, first degree murder can be punished by death, life without parole, or 25-years to life sentences. But if "special circumstances" exist, only the first two sentences are options.
Murder for hire, murder during a commission of a crime, murder for personal gain, and other types of especially sinister killings have special aggravating circumstances that can warrant a sentence of death.
In Peterson's case, the jury found him guilty of first-degree with special circumstances only for the death of Laci Peterson. For Baby Conner Peterson, he was convicted of second-degree murder, which cannot be a capital offense. The problem legally is that if he planned to kill her, he would have known that Conner would also die. The baby's death would have been planned and, as such, would have been first-degree murder also.
With the second-degree verdict, the jury seemed to be saying that Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, in a fit of anger, and Conner's death was a by-product of the violence. Yet by convicting him of first-degree with special circumstances, the jury evidently also bought the theory that he killed her in premeditation and/or for personal gain.
The bifurcated verdict, plus the fact there was no physical or forensic evidence, makes convicts look with a jaded eye at Peterson's judgment.
Something about the whole deal looks more like vigilanteism than a reasonable consensus of his peers.
(12142004) ****END**** (C) COPYRIGHT PNS.
The War that IS a War Crime: "So what, he's just another haji,"
Abused Iraqis, Abused Americans
The War is the War Crime
By M. JUNAID ALAM
A Special Investigation by CorpWatch
This was a war to transcend all wars a war fought not for crass interests or crude motives, but for freedom and democracy. Or so we were told. Once this grand narrative was felled by reality, however, the story of its basic actors was twisted to meet new requirements: since it could not possibly be that the war aims were themselves corrupt, it must be the Iraqis the supposed recipients of liberation, and the American soldiers the deliverers of that liberation who were flawed. This twist was to serve as punishment for those Iraqis who interpreted "freedom" to mean not only freedom from Saddam but freedom from US control, and as a smear job against those US soldiers who interpreted "defending the country" to mean something other than killing innocents and creating more hatred for America.
And so a new narrative was fleshed out by the administration and its sycophants: Iraqis are not so good after all; many of them are terrorists, dead-enders, and crazed murderers who need to be brought to heel or wiped out. Moreover, not all those Americans who signed up to defend their country are good, either: those who report atrocities, fight against illegal extension of their service, and reject a war based on lies are deemed cowards, criminals, and traitors.
As the struggle in Iraq intensifies, its bitter and revealing ironies rise like angry waves, pummeling the eroding promontory of the war's many myths - foremost among them its very viability. Iraqis resisting occupation, soldiers exposing the brutalities that are fueling anti-occupation sentiment, and other Americans reluctantly being pressed into service to strengthen that occupation, are, in uneven, overlapping and contradictory ways, all victims of this war.
Consider the case of the case of Sergeant Frank Ford, a counterintelligence agent in the National Guard's 223rd Military Intelligence division with 30 years of military service. He was witness to five incidents of torture and abuse of Iraqis in Samarra before he decided he could no longer stand by and do nothing. US Army counterintelligence agent David Debatto, who spoke with Ford, related his story thusly:
"He described multiple incidents of what he called 'war crimes' and 'torture' of Iraqi detainees in age from about 15 to 35. According to Ford, his teammates, three counterintelligence agents like himself one of them a woman systematically and repeatedly abused several Iraqi male detainees over a two to three week time period. Ford describes incidents of asphyxiation, mock executions, arms being pulled out of sockets, and lit cigarettes forced into detainee's ears while they were blindfolded and bound."
Ford, his anger apparent, also noted, "I guess one of the things that pisses me off most is the arrogance. Some of the medics, too. Saying things like 'So what, he's just another haji,' like they were scum or some kind of animal, really just pisses me off."
So what happened when Ford brought the brutalities to the attention of his superior officer in June 2003? His immediate superior was himself involved in the abuse, and the one above him, when told of the allegations of war crimes by Ford, simply said chillingly, "Nope, that never happened. You're delusional, you imagined the whole thing. And you've got 30 seconds to withdraw your complaint. If you do it, it will be as if this conversation never took place." What happened next topped even this surreal Orwellian encounter: "[Ford was ordered] to report immediately to Captain Angela Madera, an Army psychiatrist, at the base mental-health facility for a 'combat stress evaluation.'" When Madera evaluated Ford as having no mental health issues, the superior officer, according to another witness, was "just livid," and berated and intimidated Madera into altering the report.
Ultimately, Ford was strapped down to a gurney and literally shipped out of Iraq illegally on the basis of non-existent mental problems - all because he had the courage to speak out against abuses he personally witnessed. His case is not unique: a military doctor charged with examining Ford in Germany (and who cleared him of any illness) noted "that he had treated 'three of four' other US soldiers from Iraq that were also sent to Landstuhl for psychological evaluationsafter they reported incidents" Another soldier who reported abuse, Julian Goodrum was "allegedly locked in a psychiatric ward as punishment for filing a complaint over the death of a soldier under his command;" he had also appeared before Congress to air grievances about the poor quality of medical care Reserve soldiers received. In another known case, Sergeant Samuel Provance of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade lost his security clearance and was shipped off to Germany after reporting abuses at Abu Ghraib. (1)
That Iraqis and other Arabs are being illegally abused, tortured, and killed on a systematic basis and that the top levels of command are assiduously covering it up - is not in any doubt. A leaked letter from July 2004 sent by a senior Justice Department official to the Army's leading criminal investigator reveals that FBI agents witnessed acts of torture and abuse committed against detainees at Guantanamo Bay in 2002, and reported them to the Pentagon which proceeded to do nothing. "Harrington [the FBI counterterrorism expert who wrote the letter] said FBI officials complained about the pattern of abusive techniques to top Defense Department attorneys in January 2003, and it appeared that nothing was done."
One of the incidents witnessed by an FBI agent was as follows: "Sergeant Lacey [a female] whispered in the ear of a handcuffed and shackled detainee, caressed him and applied lotion to his arms" This occurred during Ramadan when sexual activity is forbidden for Muslims. But this was not about sex: "Later, the detainee appeared to grimace in pain, and the FBI agent asked a Marine who was present why. The Marine said [Lacey] had grabbed the detainee's thumbs and bent them backward and also indicated that she also grabbed his genitals."
The Marine also "implied that her treatment of that detainee was less harsh than her treatment of others by indicating that he had seen her treatment of other detainees result in detainees curling into a fetal position on the floor and crying in pain." (2) It does not take much imagination to understand what was happening: Arab prisoners at Guantamo were having their testicles crushed by female military personnel.
Another classified report written around the same time recently (partially) released indicates similar horrors were imported into Iraq: "one of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's closest advisers learned of allegations that a clandestine military task force in Iraq was beating detainees, ordering Defense Intelligence Agency debriefers out of the room during questioning, confiscating evidence of the abuse and intimidating the debriefers when they complained." The director of the DIA is the highest official in the administration known to complain of abuse, though the Bush administration "fought vigorously to keep the new documents from public view." The two-page memo explains that a group named "Task Force 121" (now Task Force 6-26) hid "ghost detainees" in secret facilities and beat them up, including, as DIA agents noted, "punch[ing] a prisoner in the face to the point the individual needed medical attention," and leaving burn and bruise marks all over detainees. (3)
Outside America's new gulags, Iraqis still face the wrath of Bush's freedom campaign. According to military prosecutors and several soldiers, in an August 28 raid in Sadr City, two "American soldiers shot to death two unarmed Iraqi men in their homes, then tried to cover up their crimes by claiming that the Iraqis had reached for guns." Soldiers from the 41st Infantry Regiment, 1st Battallion who participated in the raid in which the civilian Iraqis were killed "said they immediately suspected that their two colleagues had murdered the Iraqi." This followed another killing.
< style="font-family: times new roman;">"The second killing occurred less than 30 minuters earlier, soldiers testified, when troops discovered an AK-47 rifle during a search of another house down the street.Williams ordered that the Iraqi man, who had been handcuffed and was being held on his knees in front of the house, be brought inside William cut off the plastic handcuffs, laid the rifle near the Iraqi and said aloud to other soldiers in the room, 'I feel my life has been threatened.' Williams then shot the man twice"
One of the testifying soldiers, Private first class Gary Romriell, who had to switch units after complaining about the murders said, "It was a real moral dilemma. On the one hand, my friends and associates were involved in the crimes. On the other hand, it was wrong." Romriell rejected the perverse right-wing notion that the any act is moral so long as "our side" commits it. He rejected the logic of "my country, right or wrong" as a citizen serving his country, he did what was right, and called out those citizens of his country who were wrong. (4)
Other soldiers have gone further. Former US Marine Sergeant Jimmy Massey "said his unit killed more than 30 innocent Iraqi civilians" in testimony before a Canadian tribunal, which is deciding whether it will allow deserting paratrooper Jeremy Hinzman, formerly of the 82nd Airborne, to seek asylum in that country and therefore avoid prosecution in the US. In support of Hinzman, Massey told the court, "I do know that we killed innocent civilians," adding, "I was never clear on who was the enemy and who was not. When you don't know who the enemy is, what are you doing there?" (5) Hinzman himself has said he began having doubts about the military when "I was walking to chow hall with my unit, and we were yelling, 'Train to kill, kill we will,' over and over again. I kind of snuck a peek around me and saw all my colleagues getting the red in the face and hoarse yelling and at that point a light went off in my head and said, 'You know, I made the wrong career decision.'" (6)
Hinzman is one of over 5,500 servicemen who have deserted the armed forces since the war in Iraq began. Many of these soldiers left the military not because they are cowards, but because they discovered that war was based on lies. Private first class Dan Felushko, 24, for instance, remarked, "I didn't want, you know, 'Died deluded in Iraq' over my gravestone," noting that he along with every intelligence community around the world - saw no connection between September 11th and Hussein. One youngster from Texas who signed up for the Army two months before the war started said that at first, "I was supportive. I didn't think to question." But then, he did:
"I found out, basically, that they found no weapons of mass destructionand the claim that they made about ties to al Qaeda was coming up short, to say the least. It made me angry, because I felt our lives were being thrown away as soldiersmy image of my country always being the good guy, and always fighting for just causes, has been shattered" (7)
Only a handful of the deserters have actually fled to Canada. But those who desert during wartime and remain within the US military's reach are usually thrown in jail for years. The full penalty under the law is execution.
When the war machine is not forcing Americans into morally compromising situations, transforming some into killers; when it is not actively intimidating and attacking those brave enough to speak out against atrocities; when it is not trying to hunt down and jail those who reject an illegal war, it still ensnares, grinds up, and spits out perfectly "patriotic" military personnel and even Americans who aren't supposed to be part of the military anymore.
Official casualty statistics show that more than 1,230 American soldiers have died and more than 9,300 have been wounded in action. But this is misleading. A Pentagon letter recently disclosed that more than 15,000 troops with "non-battle" injuries and diseases have been evacuated from Iraq. These include injuries arising from "accidents," as well as emotional and psychological trauma. According to a CBS report, only 20% of these 15,000 troops return to their units. (8)
Also misleading are the official non-fatality casualties: over half of them are serious enough to prevent a return to the war theater. Because more troops are being spared death from improved body and battle armor, more of those who survive suffer from severely crippling injuries. US troops injured in Iraq "have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars, and as many as 20 percent have suffered head and neck injuries that may require a lifetime of care." A majority of casualties come not from bullet fire but IEDs, which retired US Army Surgeon G. Holt explained, are particularly vicious because, "The angle of the force of these IEDs is right for the neck and face." (9)
What becomes of those military veterans who undergo amputation? The case of Army specialist Robert Loria is instructive. His arm ripped off by an IED while in Baqubah, Loria spent several months recuperating at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington D.C., before being sent back to his base in Fort Hood, Texas. There, he was expecting to leave the Army with $4,486 in pay. But instead he received something else: an Army bill totaling $6,255.50 for medical care, an "erroneous" previous payment, and items in his possession that were blown up in the attack. Now he is $1,768.81 in debt and doesn't even have enough money to return home. His wife was outraged: "They want us to sacrifice moreHis being blown up was supposed to be the worst thing, but it wasn't. That the military doesn't care was the worst." (10)
While the Army is busy booting out some of its discarded material, it is equally busy trying to recycle others. It has called up 5,000 Americans from the Ready Reserve for two years of service, who "generally don't train or get paid or belong to units, butcan be called up in case of war or national emergency." The vast majority of them never dreamed they would be called up for duty: they served years ago and are tied to the military through an obscure clause relegated to the "remark section" of their contracts - and represented only in the form a six-digit reference to the actual clause itself that requires them to resign their commissions to fully exit the service.
Therefore people like Carey Trevino, a 31 year-old woman with three kids, including a baby boy, and Margaret Murray, a 4 foot 8 inch 55 year-old woman, and Rick Howell, a 47 year-old who is disabled at the knee from an injury suffered during his military career, are all being thrown onto the front lines. Howell, who said he would serve if he was restricted to carrying out duties in the United States and was refused that request, now says, "They're going to have to come and get me. I mean literallyThey'll have to drag me away and make me go." (11)
The military's resort to desperate and draconian measures should come as no surprise. Its forces in Iraq are overstretched, overextended, and unable to cope with battlefield requirements, a fact most military experts freely admit. A full 43% of the 138,000 troops deployed in Iraq soon to be boosted to 150,000 are part-timers. Many are trapped there under "stop-loss" orders extending their stay; one of the eight soldiers who recently sued the military for this tactic lost his court battle to prevent the Army from turning his one-year contract into a two-year (at least) ordeal. Still, soldiers are resisting lucrative bonuses designed to entice them into staying in the service. In fact, a recent army survey revealed that half the existing force was not planning to re-enlist at all. (12) No serious person can doubt, therefore, that a continuation of the war at this level will require full-blown military conscription.
This war is a multi-layered disaster for an ever-expanding swath of Iraqis and Americans. The fundamental contradiction of war is that it can be based on lies, but it cannot be fought by liars. If people were willing to fight for lies, then they would not have to be lied to in the first place. Those American soldiers in the battlefield, like all Americans at home, were subjected to an intense propaganda barrage about the motives, aims, and goals of the war. They were deceived. But today, those soldiers are facing a barrage of an altogether different sort: that of an Iraqi insurgency whose very existence, success, and growth explodes all the official war claims.
The government believes that it can lie without consequence because, as one administration minion put it, such matters only concern "the reality-based community." It must be conceded that is true. But it must also be conceded that those soldiers witnessing their friends and comrades dying and suffering around them, those troops aware of the horrific atrocities taking place, those families seeing their loved ones sent off without warning and return home without limbs, are leading members of "the reality-based community." It is the duty of American anti-war activists to reach out to these people as we have already begun to do and end the war that is destroying America's soul.
M. Junaid Alam is co-editor of the radical youth journal Left Hook (http://www.lefthook.org); he can be reached at alam@lefthook.org
Notes
1. "Whitewashing torture?" David DeBatto, Salon.com, December 8, 2004.
2. "FBI witnessed Guantanamo 'abuse'." The Associated Press, December 7, 2004.
3. "Report to Defense Alleged Abuse By Prison Interrogation Teams." Barton Gellman and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post. December 8, 2004.
4. "U.S. Military Prosecutors Allege Murder, Cover-Up." By Edmund Sanders, LA Times, December 6, 2004.
5. "U.S. Marine claims unit killed Iraqi civilians." ABC News, December 8, 2004.
6. "Deserters: We Won't Go To Iraq." CBS News, December 8, 2004.
7. See note 6.
8. "Press Routinely Undercounts U.S. Casualties in Iraq." E &P Staff, November 25, 2004.
9. "Amputation rate for US troops twice that of past wars." By Raja Mishra, Boston Globe, December 9, 2004.
10. "He lost an arm in Iraq; the Army wants money." By Dianna Cahn, Times Herald-Record, December 10, 2004.
11. "Old Soldiers Back on Duty." CBS News. December 5, 2004.
12. "U.S. Army Plagued by Desertion and Plunging Morale." By Elaine Monaghan, The Times U.K., December 10, 2004.
a civilian look at the deaths in Fallujah horrors
Iraq: Civilian Suffering in the Fallujah Assault
The fierce combat in Fallujah, the most recent episode of which began on Nov. 7 when U.S. and Iraqi military forces launched an invasion against insurgents in the Sunni Muslim city, has inflicted devastation upon the local civilian population.Many civilians have fled Fallujah to seek refuge in nearby camps, abandoned buildings, and with acquaintances elsewhere in Iraq. However, thousands more have remained, often hiding in their homes and with many enduring casualties, shortage of food and clean water, and woefully insufficient medical services.
On Nov. 12, the human rights organization, Amnesty International, announced that dozens of civilians may have been killed in Fallujah, as a result of the failure by both sides to take adequate steps to keep those not participating in the fighting out of harm’s way. These reports, if substantiated, would represent contraventions of international humanitarian law, the body of law dedicated to reducing the suffering produced by war, and in particular, protecting noncombatants during armed conflict. Four days later, UN human rights chief Louise Arbour called for investigation into reported violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Fallujah. Arbour cited allegations that civilians have been targeted, and condemned any “indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks” by the parties to the conflict.
Al-Mashhadani was told to wait for assistance, but after two weeks he remained inside without food, drinking untreated water.
Meanwhile, one doctor from Fallujah’s main hospital told Reuters, “(t)here is not a single surgeon in Fallujah.” Though this assertion may not have been confirmed, the statements of other observers and relief agencies reflect the critical and immediate need for medical and humanitarian assistance to reach those in need in Fallujah.
Author: Andrew Prosser
Center for Defense Information
The fierce combat in Fallujah, the most recent episode of which began on Nov. 7 when U.S. and Iraqi military forces launched an invasion against insurgents in the Sunni Muslim city, has inflicted devastation upon the local civilian population.Many civilians have fled Fallujah to seek refuge in nearby camps, abandoned buildings, and with acquaintances elsewhere in Iraq. However, thousands more have remained, often hiding in their homes and with many enduring casualties, shortage of food and clean water, and woefully insufficient medical services.
On Nov. 12, the human rights organization, Amnesty International, announced that dozens of civilians may have been killed in Fallujah, as a result of the failure by both sides to take adequate steps to keep those not participating in the fighting out of harm’s way. These reports, if substantiated, would represent contraventions of international humanitarian law, the body of law dedicated to reducing the suffering produced by war, and in particular, protecting noncombatants during armed conflict. Four days later, UN human rights chief Louise Arbour called for investigation into reported violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Fallujah. Arbour cited allegations that civilians have been targeted, and condemned any “indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks” by the parties to the conflict.
As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers continue to battle opposition forces, all parties to the conflict are required as much as possible to protect civilians from being caught in the crossfire. The reports that have emerged from Fallujah – indicating large numbers of civilians killed, injured, and confined to life-threatening conditions – suggest that humanitarian norms regarding the prohibition of military attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks have been breached.
Worrisome Estimates of Civilian Casualties
One striking feature of the military operation in Fallujah is the paucity of reliable information relating to the full impact of the violence on civilians. In this respect, the Fallujah battle represents a microcosm of the wider conflict in Iraq. With deadly altercations persisting between U.S. and Iraqi troops and insurgents in the city, it is far too soon to be able to accurately gauge the entire civilian toll of the Fallujah assault.
Under the fourth Geneva Convention, Iraqi civilians must “at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence …” Customary international law also offers protections to civilians in armed conflict. As far as the U.S. military is concerned, the Constitution mandates respect for international treaty obligations under U.S. law. U.S. military policies implement both treaties and customary rules among U.S. forces through such documents as the Army Field Manual and Defense Department Directive 5100.77, which demands that the military branches “comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and with the principles and spirit of the law of war during all other operations.”
In terms of the Fallujah battle, U.S. and Iraqi officials have downplayed the incidence of adverse effects upon civilians. The U.S. military states that it does not count civilian casualties. However, news reports, residents and aid agencies have testified to the dire humanitarian situation amid the Fallujah hostilities. Sadly, this is not the first time that the civilians of Fallujah – until recently an insurgent stronghold – have endured the tribulations of deadly conflict. Just months ago, in April 2004, American military forces conducted large-scale aerial bombardments, utilizing 2,000-pound bombs during a month-long siege of Fallujah. The April assault was aimed at insurgents held responsible for the beheadings of four private American security workers and the killing of five American soldiers by an improvised explosive device (IED) in Fallujah. U.S. forces then handed over control to Iraqi forces due to concerns about heavy civilian casualties. At the time, UN human rights investigator Paul Hunt called for an independent inquiry into the effects of the siege on civilians, alluding to credible claims of human rights breaches and disproportionate numbers of noncombatant deaths. According to unconfirmed reports by hospital and media sources, at least 600 persons died in the April fighting. Over half of these people were reported to be civilians, including children. These accounts indicate the need to obtain more precise evidence of the actual civilian toll of the fighting, rather than simply denouncing casualty estimates due to claims that they lack credibility.
During the April hostilities, U.S. military commanders stated that they were doing their best to avoid civilian casualties. They accused militants of using civilians as human shields and firing at U.S. forces from hospitals, schools and mosques. Following the April siege, civilians faced the extremist rule of clerics and mujaheddin fighters who reigned in Fallujah after the U.S. pullout. Between July and October, numerous air strikes on Fallujah may have killed dozens, including women and children. Because insurgents are frequently located in close proximity to noncombatants, civilian casualties have arisen from U.S. strikes aimed at insurgents.
The U.S. military estimates that 200,000 persons fled Fallujah prior to the early November assault, leaving about 30,000-50,000 residents behind. Those unfortunate civilians who were unable to flee the conflict have inevitably been trapped amid the bombings, artillery, and small arms and light weapons fire between insurgents and U.S. and allied forces. U.S. and Iraqi authorities instructed Fallujans to evacuate the city to minimize civilian casualties during the recent invasion, but the destructive nature of urban combat, combined with the use of powerful weaponry in civilian-inhabited areas, has inexorably resulted in casualties among the civilians who could not leave the city.
In the days leading up to the November invasion, Fallujah was subjected to a U.S. military cordon and intense bombardment on a daily basis. U.S. warplanes, such as AC-130 gunships, struck insurgent positions, in tandem with tank cannons, mortar and artillery, including M109A6 Paladin 155mm howitzers that can be fired from a range of 22 miles and will kill anyone within 55 yards of the point of impact. A number of 500-pound bombs were dropped on the city, obliterating insurgent targets and any other persons or buildings in the impact area. Bombings were said to cause damage to poorly constructed houses, where such structures were located near buildings that were attacked. U.S. forces in Fallujah have used the Miclic rocket-propelled mine clearing system, normally deemed unfit for use in an urban environment because of its indiscriminate explosive force. The use of such extraordinary military hardware in an urban setting necessarily invokes questions – about the extent to which these armaments have affected local civilians – which need to be conclusively answered.
Reports of civilian objects being attacked have also brought to light the possibility of questionable bombing tactics which may have caused civilian deaths yet unconfirmed by authorities. As fighting raged during the present assault on Fallujah, residents and medical staff gave disturbing accounts of U.S. warplanes attacking the Central Health Center on Nov. 9. The health facility, a protected institution under the fourth Geneva Convention, was apparently acting as an emergency hospital to care for approximately 60 patients, many of whom had serious injuries from U.S. aerial bombings and attacks. Dr. Sami al-Jumaili reported that 35 patients were killed, including two girls and three boys under the age of 10, when three U.S. bombs were dropped on the clinic. Twenty-four medical staff were also reported to have died in the bombings, which were also described by Fadhil Badrani, an Iraqi reporter for Reuters and the BBC. Badrani placed the bombings’ death toll at 40 patients and 15 health workers. The entire health center reportedly collapsed on the people inside. The U.S. military has dismissed accounts of this bombing as unsubstantiated. However, the above reports echo stories of other bombings in Fallujah, from news sources such as the BBC, which describe similar attacks that have destroyed additional medical facilities and numerous homes.
Several reports, emanating from a wide array of media, have illuminated apparent failures by both sides to protect civilians in the Fallujah fighting; hence, more thorough explanations are needed from the authorities about the extent of, and reasons for, civilian injuries caused by the hostilities. According to the London Observer, “The horrific conditions for those who remained in (Fallujah) have begun to emerge ... as it became clear that U.S. military claims of ‘precision’ targeting of insurgent positions were false.” Such claims should elicit further investigation. Similarly, an Iraqi journalist reported that civilian casualties have been caused by huge demonstrations of force directed towards city neighborhoods during the Fallujah battle. A BBC correspondent remarked that massive amounts of firepower have been applied by U.S. troops: “I imagine there must be many casualties considering the amount of gunfire I’ve seen. The Americans launch about 500 rounds to the insurgents’ one, pelleting the insurgent area.” Furthermore, Amnesty International alleged that insurgents have deployed their weapons indiscriminately; insurgents have carried out suicide bombings and have taken hostages.
It is believed that scores of injured civilians remain in their homes in Fallujah, unable to obtain medical care due to poor security conditions and the U.S. military’s refusal to allow sufficient medical personnel into the city. As the violence in Fallujah waned in mid-November, some civilians – many starving, wounded and fear-stricken – ventured outside, braving ongoing fighting and U.S. and insurgent sniper fire, in search of nourishment and emergency medical care. Iraqi Health Minister Alaa Alwan stated that a “significant number” of wounded civilians were evacuated from Fallujah. On Nov. 16, a Red Cross official in Baghdad was reported to have stated that “at least 800 civilians” have already died in the recent Fallujah hostilities, although this number is unconfirmed.
A ‘Humanitarian Disaster’
In contrast to official U.S. and Iraqi comments, the situation in Fallujah has variously been declared a “humanitarian disaster” and “catastrophic” by independent relief agencies such as the Iraqi Red Crescent Society. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) expressed concern over the humanitarian situation in Fallujah. Eyewitness accounts and statements by international organizations reveal that the parties to the conflict may not have ensured humanitarian protection for civilians in Fallujah.
While the city continues to be under strict military occupation, health workers have spoken of large numbers of civilians lying starving or injured in homes. U.S. authorities have prevented medical personnel, ambulances, equipment and supplies from entering the city to tend to the sick and wounded, purportedly because of the lack of security. Diarrhea and other diseases represent major health threats, due to the lack of clean water, decaying corpses lining the streets and disrupted sanitation systems. U.S. forces cut off the city’s water supply before their assault on Fallujah. Shattered water and sewage pipes have produced pools of sewage-filled water. On Nov. 15, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies declared: “There is an urgent need to respond to the needs of the displaced families and to gain access to any civilians still inside Falluja. There is currently no water, power or food stocks, no access to medical assistance, or possibility (at this stage) of evacuating the wounded.”
Approximately 60 percent of Iraqis depend upon government food rations, but many Fallujans last received food allocations on Oct. 23. The distribution of food and clean water is only available in limited fashion, administered by U.S. and Iraqi forces at central locations. A 24-hour curfew was imposed by Iraqi authorities on Nov. 15. Electrical service has been inoperative for days, while power lines dangle on the ground. The city’s buildings, and much of its infrastructure, have largely been demolished. According to Iraqi Minister of Industry Hajim al-Hasani, “(s)o much has been destroyed, more than ever expected.”
Al-Mashhadani was told to wait for assistance, but after two weeks he remained inside without food, drinking untreated water.
Under the fourth Geneva Convention and U.S. military guidelines, hospitals, medical workers and transports are to be protected from the hostilities. Yet, Fallujah’s main hospital, Fallujah General Hospital, was seized by U.S. forces early in the recent assault, an action justified by the alleged presence of insurgents in the hospital. However, the fact that the hospital was seized without a single shot being fired lends credence to other reasons for its seizure. Notably, the hospital was viewed by the military as a center of propaganda because local medical personnel had disseminated inflated numbers of civilian casualties after previous aerial bombardments. American forces also reportedly fired upon an Iraqi ambulance; the driver and five patients were alleged to have died in the shooting, with one paramedic being wounded.
Meanwhile, one doctor from Fallujah’s main hospital told Reuters, “(t)here is not a single surgeon in Fallujah.” Though this assertion may not have been confirmed, the statements of other observers and relief agencies reflect the critical and immediate need for medical and humanitarian assistance to reach those in need in Fallujah.
U.S. and Iraqi military forces are the main providers of humanitarian assistance to Fallujah’s civilians. But residents claim that they are too afraid of the insurgents as well as the U.S. military to approach centralized aid centers run by allied troops. In the meantime, insurgents and U.S. and allied forces have failed to respect the independence of humanitarian aid agencies like the France-based Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), which left Iraq in November due to concerns for the safety of its staff.
Civilians have suffered great physical losses in the recent Fallujah hostilities. The psychological effects upon civilians, of seeing neighbors and relatives die from untreated wounds and malnutrition, and from witnessing the destruction of myriad homes, mosques and other buildings in the city, should also not be underestimated. These effects may become even more pronounced when the 200,000 people who fled Fallujah return to a city in ruins. The civilian toll of the Fallujah battle will not be fully comprehended for some time. However, in a battle admittedly being waged for the Iraqi people themselves, every effort must be taken to discover the totality of civilian suffering, use all possible means to prevent it, and remedy its occurrence.
The author, Andrew Prosser, is a Herbert Scoville, Jr., Peace Fellow at the Center for Defense Information.
Sources
Amnesty International, “Iraq – Falluja: assurances needed for the protection of civilians,” Nov. 4, 2004.
Amnesty International, “Iraq: Fears of serious violations of the rules of war in Falluja,” Nov. 12, 2004.
Amnesty International, “Iraq: Responsibilities of the occupying powers,” April 16, 2003.
Anne Barnard, “In Fallujah, US Battles Clock In Rebuilding Effort,” Boston Globe, Nov. 21, 2004.
Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (IV), Geneva, Aug. 12, 1949.
Dahr Jamail, “IRAQ: 800 Civilians Feared Dead in Fallujah,” IPS News Agency, Nov. 16, 2004.
Directive 5100.77, Department of Defense, Dec. 9, 1998.
“Fallujah,” GlobalSecurity.org, Updated Nov. 10, 2004.
Field Manual No. 27-10, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., July 18, 1956.
Hamza Hendawi, “Allawi Predicts Few Will Boycott Elections,” Boston Globe, Nov. 23, 2004.
Human Rights Watch, “International Humanitarian Law Issues In A Potential War In Iraq,” Briefing Paper, Feb. 20, 2003.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, “Iraq: Displaced Persons & Humanitarian Concerns,” Nov. 15, 2004.
“Iraq: UN human rights chief concerned over plight of civilians in Falluja,” UN News Service, Nov. 16, 2004.
Jackie Spinner, “ARTILLERY: Remains king of battle in Fallujah,” The Union Leader (New Hampshire), Nov. 11, 2004.
Jackie Spinner, “Fallujah Residents Emerge, Find ‘City of Mosques’ In Ruins,” The Washington Post, Nov. 18, 2004, p. 1.
Jackson Diehl, “Fallujah’s Fallout,” The Washington Post, Nov. 22, 2004, p. 19.
Lindsey Hilsum, “Falluja can only be won when the battle ends and people have water,” The Observer (London), Nov. 7, 2004.
Marie-Françoise Borel, “Additional support for the Iraqi Red Crescent,” International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Nov. 16, 2004.
Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), “Irak: Médecins Sans Frontières se retire d’Irak” (Doctors Without Borders Pulls Out of Iraq), Nov. 4, 2004.
Michael Evans, “Deadly rockets blast way through,” Times Online, Nov. 10, 2004.
Miles Schuman, “Falluja’s Health Damage,” The Nation, Dec. 13, 2004.
Omar Anwar, “Civilians Suffering Amid Ruins of Battle,” London Daily Telegraph, Nov. 15, 2004.
Patrick J. McDonnell, “A Battle For Hearts, Minds And Electricity,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 21, 2004.
Patrick J. McDonnell, “Iraqi City Lies in Ruins,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 15, 2004, p. 1.
“Q&A: US tactics in Falluja,” BBC News, Nov. 10, 2004.
Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital,” The New York Times, Nov. 8, 2004.
Richard A. Oppel Jr., “Fallujans In Flight: Transit Camps Are Not Much Safer Than Siege They Left,” The New York Times, Nov. 18, 2004.
Richard Lloyd Parry and Ali Hamdani, “Refugees claim that civilian casualties left to die,” Times Online, Nov. 11, 2004.
Robert H. Reid, “TROOPS WAITING: Insurgents launch deadly attacks across central Iraq,” The Union Leader (New Hampshire), Nov. 7, 2004.
Rory McCarthy, “Go kick some butt and make history, Vietnam-style, US troops urged,” The Guardian, Nov. 9, 2004.
Rory McCarthy and Peter Beaumont, “Civilian cost of battle for Falluja emerges,” The Observer (London), Nov. 14, 2004.
Stephanie Nebehay, “U.N. Rights Boss Urges Falluja ‘Abuses’ Probe,” Reuters, Nov. 16, 2004.
“Troops move towards central Falluja,” The Guardian, Nov. 9, 2004.
“U.S. accused of human rights violations in Fallujah,” CBC News, May 4, 2004.
“U.S. strikes raze Falluja hospital,” BBC News, Nov. 6, 2004.
“Warplanes continue to hit targets in Falluja,” CNN.com, Nov. 5, 2004.
Author: Andrew Prosser
Center for Defense Information
Israelis hasten land grab in shadow of wall
Bulldozers go in as expansion of settlements continues
Chris McGreal in Jayyous
Tuesday December 14, 2004
The Guardian
Sharif Omar has been waiting two years for the bulldozers, ever since Israel's steel and barbed wire "security fence" carved its way between his village and its land. Last week the excavators and diggers finally arrived on the outskirts of Jayyous to lay the foundations for an expansion of the nearby Jewish settlement of Zufim, fulfilling the fears and warnings of its Palestinian neighbours.
The bulldozers were preparing the ground for hundreds of new homes, despite the Israeli government's claim that it is not expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Like other building work along the route of the barrier, it seems to be an attempt to ensure that the land between the fence and the 1967 border remains in Israeli hands in any final agreement with the Palestinians.
"When they built the fence, we said they would use it to build a much bigger settlement, and they would take our land to do it," said Mr Omar, whose olive and citrus groves are now encircled. "It is very clear to us, they are planning to confiscate all of our land and drive us from here. They came and told us to finish harvesting because they were going to begin building 80 houses. They are beginning with my neighbour's land but if they do it there they will do it on mine."
At least five other sites along the barrier have settlement work in progress. Israeli human rights groups say the government appears to be racing to fill in the gap between the barrier and the Israeli border before a US team arrives next year to mark out the final limits of settlement expansion.
Zufim, where about 200 families live, is built on 136 hectares (336 acres) of land confiscated from Jayyous in 1986. An Israeli rights group, Bimkom, says that developers in Zufim plan to build about 1,200 new homes. Yehezkel Lein, a researcher for another Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, said the military government in the occupied territories had issued permits for the work.
He added: "In the plan for Zufim there is an extension to the north of the settlement that was already approved. There is also another expansion to the east. But there is no territorial contiguity between Zufim and the new construction, so it is really a new settlement."
He said the government's intention became clear when it sited the barrier between Jayyous and Zufim so that most of the land was on the settlers' side. "The fence took an inconvenient route, not one that is best for security. If you ask why, it can only be to take the land."
About 400 more houses are being built around Alfe Menashe settlement, at the heart of an enclave created by a loop in the barrier less than two miles south of Zufim. Trapped inside are five smaller Palestinian communities of about 1,000 people and their land.
A short distance away work has begun on about 50 houses at Nof Sharon on land confiscated from a Palestinian town. In recent months the government has invited tenders to build thousands of houses in big settlements, such as Ariel, and those close to Jerusalem, including Ma'ale Adumim.
The first stage of the peace road map obliges Israel to freeze all settlement construction. Its foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, told the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, in Jerusalem last month that the government was not expanding its settlements.
But a foreign ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said yesterday that Israel had an agreement with the US that new building was allowed within existing built-up areas. "The word settlement expansion means the outward growth of settlements. From our interpretation, that means building inside existing settlements," he said.
Pressed on why the building near Zufim and other sites was some distance from the settlements, Mr Regev said there was a different view of Jewish colonies close to the 1967 border. "We are talking about places that it's accepted will remain inside Israel whatever the outcome of final status talks. It's possible that in those places the thinking is different."
The Palestinians say there is no such acceptance on their part, and this is an Israeli interpretation of an agreement with Washington.
Settlement expansion between the barrier and the green line has been encouraged by a letter from President Bush to Ariel Sharon in April promising that "population concentrations" in the occupied territories - taken to mean Jewish settlements - would remain in Israeli hands under any peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Last week the US national security council adviser on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams, told a closed meeting of Jewish leaders that Washington saw settlements to the east of the barrier as ultimately intended for removal. But he said Israel would be allowed to hold on those to the west, which include Zufim.
The Palestinian communities trapped in the enclave with Alfe Menashe have gone to the Israeli high court to get the barrier moved, in part because they are afraid that settlement expansion will grab more of their land.
Last week government lawyers told the court that living next to Alfe Menashe gave the Palestinians the opportunity to find jobs in the settlement, and so they "were not only not harmed by building the fence but even benefited from it".
The villagers' lawyer, Michael Sefarad, was astonished by the government's claim. "None of the enclave's residents wants the fence, and is not interested in being at the mercy of the settlers. To suggest that is outrageous," he said.
"It reveals how the justice ministry really regards the Palestinians' lives and wishes. If anyone can even think that a Palestinian would be happy to live in a walled-in enclave because it gives him the opportunity to work in a settlement, it is very sad."
Chris McGreal in Jayyous
Tuesday December 14, 2004
The Guardian
Sharif Omar has been waiting two years for the bulldozers, ever since Israel's steel and barbed wire "security fence" carved its way between his village and its land. Last week the excavators and diggers finally arrived on the outskirts of Jayyous to lay the foundations for an expansion of the nearby Jewish settlement of Zufim, fulfilling the fears and warnings of its Palestinian neighbours.
The bulldozers were preparing the ground for hundreds of new homes, despite the Israeli government's claim that it is not expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Like other building work along the route of the barrier, it seems to be an attempt to ensure that the land between the fence and the 1967 border remains in Israeli hands in any final agreement with the Palestinians.
"When they built the fence, we said they would use it to build a much bigger settlement, and they would take our land to do it," said Mr Omar, whose olive and citrus groves are now encircled. "It is very clear to us, they are planning to confiscate all of our land and drive us from here. They came and told us to finish harvesting because they were going to begin building 80 houses. They are beginning with my neighbour's land but if they do it there they will do it on mine."
At least five other sites along the barrier have settlement work in progress. Israeli human rights groups say the government appears to be racing to fill in the gap between the barrier and the Israeli border before a US team arrives next year to mark out the final limits of settlement expansion.
Zufim, where about 200 families live, is built on 136 hectares (336 acres) of land confiscated from Jayyous in 1986. An Israeli rights group, Bimkom, says that developers in Zufim plan to build about 1,200 new homes. Yehezkel Lein, a researcher for another Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, said the military government in the occupied territories had issued permits for the work.
He added: "In the plan for Zufim there is an extension to the north of the settlement that was already approved. There is also another expansion to the east. But there is no territorial contiguity between Zufim and the new construction, so it is really a new settlement."
He said the government's intention became clear when it sited the barrier between Jayyous and Zufim so that most of the land was on the settlers' side. "The fence took an inconvenient route, not one that is best for security. If you ask why, it can only be to take the land."
About 400 more houses are being built around Alfe Menashe settlement, at the heart of an enclave created by a loop in the barrier less than two miles south of Zufim. Trapped inside are five smaller Palestinian communities of about 1,000 people and their land.
A short distance away work has begun on about 50 houses at Nof Sharon on land confiscated from a Palestinian town. In recent months the government has invited tenders to build thousands of houses in big settlements, such as Ariel, and those close to Jerusalem, including Ma'ale Adumim.
The first stage of the peace road map obliges Israel to freeze all settlement construction. Its foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, told the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, in Jerusalem last month that the government was not expanding its settlements.
But a foreign ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said yesterday that Israel had an agreement with the US that new building was allowed within existing built-up areas. "The word settlement expansion means the outward growth of settlements. From our interpretation, that means building inside existing settlements," he said.
Pressed on why the building near Zufim and other sites was some distance from the settlements, Mr Regev said there was a different view of Jewish colonies close to the 1967 border. "We are talking about places that it's accepted will remain inside Israel whatever the outcome of final status talks. It's possible that in those places the thinking is different."
The Palestinians say there is no such acceptance on their part, and this is an Israeli interpretation of an agreement with Washington.
Settlement expansion between the barrier and the green line has been encouraged by a letter from President Bush to Ariel Sharon in April promising that "population concentrations" in the occupied territories - taken to mean Jewish settlements - would remain in Israeli hands under any peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Last week the US national security council adviser on the Middle East, Elliott Abrams, told a closed meeting of Jewish leaders that Washington saw settlements to the east of the barrier as ultimately intended for removal. But he said Israel would be allowed to hold on those to the west, which include Zufim.
The Palestinian communities trapped in the enclave with Alfe Menashe have gone to the Israeli high court to get the barrier moved, in part because they are afraid that settlement expansion will grab more of their land.
Last week government lawyers told the court that living next to Alfe Menashe gave the Palestinians the opportunity to find jobs in the settlement, and so they "were not only not harmed by building the fence but even benefited from it".
The villagers' lawyer, Michael Sefarad, was astonished by the government's claim. "None of the enclave's residents wants the fence, and is not interested in being at the mercy of the settlers. To suggest that is outrageous," he said.
"It reveals how the justice ministry really regards the Palestinians' lives and wishes. If anyone can even think that a Palestinian would be happy to live in a walled-in enclave because it gives him the opportunity to work in a settlement, it is very sad."
And you thought it was just a Tom Hanks movie...
Expelled traveller living at airport
Rory Carroll in Johannesburg
Tuesday December 14, 2004
The Guardian
A Kenyan-born British national has lived at Nairobi airport for six months after being refused entry to Britain and Kenya, marooning him in a bureaucratic twilight zone.
Sanjai Shah, 42, has a small mattress, sheets, a blanket and daily rations of food from immigration officials to sustain him as he wanders the lounges of Jomo Kenyatta airport, the news agency AFP reported yesterday.
The case echoes the recent Steven Spielberg film The Terminal, with Tom Hanks as a man stuck for months at New York's JFK airport because of wrangling over his nationality.
The film was based on the true story of an Iranian refugee, Merhan Karimi Nasseri, who has been stranded for 16 years at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris.
Mr Shah renounced Kenyan citizenship early this year when he was granted a British overseas passport by the high commission in Nairobi. But when he travelled to Britain to meet his sister he was refused entry and deported back to the Kenyan capital.
"When Shah travelled to Britain to meet his sister, he was refused entry and deported back to Nairobi. He has since been living in the airport for six months," a unnamed government official told AFP.
"We cannot allow him in because he surrendered his Kenyan passport when they recognised him as a Briton."
The official added: "This is not our problem, it is London's."
A British high commission spokesman, Mark Norton, said Mr Shah had been refused entry in May because immigration officials realised he would not return to Kenya once he entered the UK.
"An overseas passport does not give its holder automatic entry and stay in Britain. We have repeatedly told Shah to come to our offices for us to advise him, but he has refused and opted to stay at the airport," said Mr Norton.
The airport's unusual lodger could not be reached for comment.
A deadly reversal
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, yesterday's victims have become today's aggressors
George Monbiot
Tuesday December 14, 2004
The Guardian
I hope that newspapers do not represent public opinion. If they do, it means that we consider the Home Secretary's love affair more important than the resumption of the most deadly conflict since the second world war. On Sunday, the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), already responsible for 3.8 million deaths, started again. If you missed it, you're in good company.
The Rwandan army appears to have crossed back into north-eastern DRC. Rival factions of the Congolese army - some of them loyal to Rwanda - have started fighting each other. As usual, it's the civilians who are being killed - and raped and tortured and forced to flee into the forest. Last week, before the fighting resumed, the International Rescue Committee reported that over 1,000 people a day are still dying from disease and malnutrition caused by the last conflict. Nearly half of them are children under five.
Rwanda has already invaded the DRC (or Zaire, as it used to be called), twice. In both cases it appeared to have justification. The Interahamwe militias who had killed 800,000 Rwandans fled there after the genocide in 1994. They were sheltered first by President Mobutu, then by President Kabila. They wanted to reinvade Rwanda and resume the genocide.
But after moving into the eastern DRC for the second time, in 1998, Rwanda more or less forgot about the genocidaires. It had found something more interesting: minerals. Better armed than the other forces in the region, the Rwandan army concentrated on seeking to monopolise the trade in diamonds and coltan. By 1999, according to a report for the UN security council, 80% of the Rwandan military budget - around $320m a year - was coming from minerals stolen from the DRC.
The six African armies that had been drawn into the conflict, their proxy militias and the government of the DRC started fighting a monumental turf war over the mines. Millions of people fled their homes. Thousands were captured and forced to mine or to work as prostitutes. Rwanda's operation was by far the most efficient. It was controlled directly from the capital, Kigali, according to Amnesty International. Even after 2002, when the armies officially withdrew, the Rwandan government left its men in the eastern DRC to continue running the mines. The latest invasion appears to be a thinly-disguised attempt to deal with the militias which threaten its lucrative business.
Though we are rightly exercised about the atrocities in Darfur, it is hard to find anyone who gives a damn about the Congo. This is partly because we are used to seeing the Rwandan government forces as the good guys - the people who first suffered at the hands of the genocidaires, and then drove them out of their country. It's hard to adjust to the fact that good guys can become bad ones, harder still to recognise that they can become some of the world's bloodiest war criminals.
Those who believe that Paul Kagame's government can do no wrong concentrate their attacks on a report published in 2002 by the UN. They allege that it has been subject to power-play between the members of the security council. But they fail to explain why Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, Global Witness, the British all-party parliamentary group and the US state department have all, independently, come to the same conclusions.
The reports produced by these bodies run to hundreds of pages, full of eye-witness accounts and the direct testimony of both survivors and perpetrators. They make horrifying reading. They state that troops have repeatedly raped children as young as three; have sliced off the genitals of women who resist being raped; have forced women and children to work in terrifying conditions in the mines: scores have been buried alive. They have torched villages, looted homes, killed those who resist or those who appear to have helped the other side, and forced millions to flee into the jungle. Most of the 3.8 million have died of malnutrition and disease; but had the marauding armies filled them with lead, they could scarcely have had greater responsibility for their deaths.
The reports give the names of both agents and victims, the dates of the crimes, the precise locations, the value of the stolen resources and the names of the people and companies who bought them. It is very hard to see how they could all be disputed.
Some, such as the Africa specialist and former Guardian journalist Victoria Brittain, have argued in these pages that Rwanda's critics have confused "the disciplined Rwandan army and the chaotic rebel groups". While all the armed forces who have fought in the DRC since 1998 have committed atrocities, the Rwandan army is named in the documents again and again. The US state department, for example, summarises "numerous credible reports" of regular Rwandan troops "killing, torturing, or raping" people in north and south Kivu and northern Maniema Province.
It is not easy to see, anyway, where the moral difference lies between killing people and commissioning others to do so on your behalf. Rwanda's proxy, the RCD-Goma militia, has committed innumerable atrocities all over the east. The Rwandan government is directly responsible for both its formation and its survival. In June this year, Global Witness reported that "the RCD was put together in Kigali [the Rwandan capital] rather than in the Congo" and "still remained highly dependent on its Rwandan backers to finance its military deployment in the region". Amnesty International reports that the Rwandan army supplied this force with "rocket launchers, armoured cars, machine guns, light artillery, mortars and landmines".
None of the reports disputes that the DRC's government in Kinshasa has also been responsible for crimes against humanity in the east of the country. But in much of this region, its writ hardly runs. As a UN report leaked to the BBC last week confirms, Rwanda and its proxy militias are the most powerful forces in the eastern DRC. They control most of the minerals trade and have been involved in almost all the fighting.
Rwanda could have wiped out the Interahamwe - which is now a much smaller and weaker force than it used to be - years ago. As the International Crisis Group points out, "Rwanda had exclusive and total military control over the eastern half of the Congo between 1996 and 2002 and failed to neutralise and repatriate all its nationals." Instead, it has repeatedly used its presence as an excuse to occupy the mineral-rich regions. As the British parliamentary group reports, the Rwandan army was often "located in areas where the Interahamwe did not exist, or were at least 50km away." In some places, the army has even formed alliances with the Interahamwe to control the mines. Now, using the old excuse, the Rwandan government is dragging the eastern Congo back into war.
It would not be hard for the international community to defuse the world's most deadly conflict. Rwanda is a tiny, frail state, which would collapse without foreign aid, over one third of which comes from Britain. But nothing will happen until we wake up to this dreadful war, and stop pretending that the victims of atrocious crimes cannot also be perpetrators.
Useful links
AllAfrica.com: Democratic Republic of Congo
L'Avenir
Congo Sans Frontieres
UN Mission
RCD
George Monbiot
Tuesday December 14, 2004
The Guardian
I hope that newspapers do not represent public opinion. If they do, it means that we consider the Home Secretary's love affair more important than the resumption of the most deadly conflict since the second world war. On Sunday, the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), already responsible for 3.8 million deaths, started again. If you missed it, you're in good company.
The Rwandan army appears to have crossed back into north-eastern DRC. Rival factions of the Congolese army - some of them loyal to Rwanda - have started fighting each other. As usual, it's the civilians who are being killed - and raped and tortured and forced to flee into the forest. Last week, before the fighting resumed, the International Rescue Committee reported that over 1,000 people a day are still dying from disease and malnutrition caused by the last conflict. Nearly half of them are children under five.
Rwanda has already invaded the DRC (or Zaire, as it used to be called), twice. In both cases it appeared to have justification. The Interahamwe militias who had killed 800,000 Rwandans fled there after the genocide in 1994. They were sheltered first by President Mobutu, then by President Kabila. They wanted to reinvade Rwanda and resume the genocide.
But after moving into the eastern DRC for the second time, in 1998, Rwanda more or less forgot about the genocidaires. It had found something more interesting: minerals. Better armed than the other forces in the region, the Rwandan army concentrated on seeking to monopolise the trade in diamonds and coltan. By 1999, according to a report for the UN security council, 80% of the Rwandan military budget - around $320m a year - was coming from minerals stolen from the DRC.
The six African armies that had been drawn into the conflict, their proxy militias and the government of the DRC started fighting a monumental turf war over the mines. Millions of people fled their homes. Thousands were captured and forced to mine or to work as prostitutes. Rwanda's operation was by far the most efficient. It was controlled directly from the capital, Kigali, according to Amnesty International. Even after 2002, when the armies officially withdrew, the Rwandan government left its men in the eastern DRC to continue running the mines. The latest invasion appears to be a thinly-disguised attempt to deal with the militias which threaten its lucrative business.
Though we are rightly exercised about the atrocities in Darfur, it is hard to find anyone who gives a damn about the Congo. This is partly because we are used to seeing the Rwandan government forces as the good guys - the people who first suffered at the hands of the genocidaires, and then drove them out of their country. It's hard to adjust to the fact that good guys can become bad ones, harder still to recognise that they can become some of the world's bloodiest war criminals.
Those who believe that Paul Kagame's government can do no wrong concentrate their attacks on a report published in 2002 by the UN. They allege that it has been subject to power-play between the members of the security council. But they fail to explain why Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Crisis Group, Global Witness, the British all-party parliamentary group and the US state department have all, independently, come to the same conclusions.
The reports produced by these bodies run to hundreds of pages, full of eye-witness accounts and the direct testimony of both survivors and perpetrators. They make horrifying reading. They state that troops have repeatedly raped children as young as three; have sliced off the genitals of women who resist being raped; have forced women and children to work in terrifying conditions in the mines: scores have been buried alive. They have torched villages, looted homes, killed those who resist or those who appear to have helped the other side, and forced millions to flee into the jungle. Most of the 3.8 million have died of malnutrition and disease; but had the marauding armies filled them with lead, they could scarcely have had greater responsibility for their deaths.
The reports give the names of both agents and victims, the dates of the crimes, the precise locations, the value of the stolen resources and the names of the people and companies who bought them. It is very hard to see how they could all be disputed.
Some, such as the Africa specialist and former Guardian journalist Victoria Brittain, have argued in these pages that Rwanda's critics have confused "the disciplined Rwandan army and the chaotic rebel groups". While all the armed forces who have fought in the DRC since 1998 have committed atrocities, the Rwandan army is named in the documents again and again. The US state department, for example, summarises "numerous credible reports" of regular Rwandan troops "killing, torturing, or raping" people in north and south Kivu and northern Maniema Province.
It is not easy to see, anyway, where the moral difference lies between killing people and commissioning others to do so on your behalf. Rwanda's proxy, the RCD-Goma militia, has committed innumerable atrocities all over the east. The Rwandan government is directly responsible for both its formation and its survival. In June this year, Global Witness reported that "the RCD was put together in Kigali [the Rwandan capital] rather than in the Congo" and "still remained highly dependent on its Rwandan backers to finance its military deployment in the region". Amnesty International reports that the Rwandan army supplied this force with "rocket launchers, armoured cars, machine guns, light artillery, mortars and landmines".
None of the reports disputes that the DRC's government in Kinshasa has also been responsible for crimes against humanity in the east of the country. But in much of this region, its writ hardly runs. As a UN report leaked to the BBC last week confirms, Rwanda and its proxy militias are the most powerful forces in the eastern DRC. They control most of the minerals trade and have been involved in almost all the fighting.
Rwanda could have wiped out the Interahamwe - which is now a much smaller and weaker force than it used to be - years ago. As the International Crisis Group points out, "Rwanda had exclusive and total military control over the eastern half of the Congo between 1996 and 2002 and failed to neutralise and repatriate all its nationals." Instead, it has repeatedly used its presence as an excuse to occupy the mineral-rich regions. As the British parliamentary group reports, the Rwandan army was often "located in areas where the Interahamwe did not exist, or were at least 50km away." In some places, the army has even formed alliances with the Interahamwe to control the mines. Now, using the old excuse, the Rwandan government is dragging the eastern Congo back into war.
It would not be hard for the international community to defuse the world's most deadly conflict. Rwanda is a tiny, frail state, which would collapse without foreign aid, over one third of which comes from Britain. But nothing will happen until we wake up to this dreadful war, and stop pretending that the victims of atrocious crimes cannot also be perpetrators.
Useful links
AllAfrica.com: Democratic Republic of Congo
L'Avenir
Congo Sans Frontieres
UN Mission
RCD
"The rafters are broken, the ridgepole is sundered. I have seen the builder of the house."
The Price of Fear Is Paid in Lost Freedom
by Joel Agee
I told a friend I would be writing an essay about fear. He cautioned me, counseled me: "Don't say that our fears are groundless." He had heard me express the widespread opinion that in allowing ourselves to be governed by fear, we may be forfeiting our freedom.
Of course our fears are not groundless. Who would deny the threat of nuclear and biological war on our shores? And there are militant factions within three major religions that seem intent on fulfilling some prophecy of a final war between good and evil, certain that they and not their enemies are the children of light. What greater danger can be imagined?
But just for that reason it seems to me necessary to live without fear — to the extent that we are able, of course. This does not mean we should not protect ourselves from real dangers. It means we must be vigilant against the counsels of fear.
What impressed me most forcefully in the pictures from Abu Ghraib was how fear was employed as an instrument of torture. Humiliation too — but those photographs were meant to terrify, because they could be used to shame the victims in their communities.
Why has the discussion of these outrages very nearly vanished from public discourse? Does our silence bespeak a tacit consent to their possible continuation? If so, what would be our motive? I believe it is fear — fear of an elusive, treacherous enemy, but also fear of seeing the depths to which we may go for the sake of an equally elusive security.
I spent my formative years behind the Iron Curtain. It is commonplace to say the people there were deprived of their freedom. This is true, but it is a truth that was not evident to many of those people. If you live in a stooped position long enough you can come to mistake it for an upright stance.
I remember crossing the East German border after I had lived in the West for a while. There was an obvious external difference — more color on one side, more traffic, more flowers.
But the inner difference was less easy to identify. I called it freedom, as most people did. But remembering it now, I think that fear and the lack of it describe it better. There is no freedom without freedom from fear.
A friend who grew up in Czechoslovakia and now lives in America told me about a sensation of deja vu he has felt in recent years — the Sovietization of America, he calls it.
"Not really," I said. "We're still a free people."
He proposed a theory of "cultural hydraulics": When McDonald's arrives in Moscow, something is displaced. It goes down the tube and comes up here.
"Like what?" I asked.
"Like political correctness, patriotic groupthink — thought police."
I laughed.
"There's more," he said: " 'You're either with us or against us' — remember that tone?"
"Sure," I said, catching his drift, "and I guess secret surveillance …. "
"Arrests without warrants."
"Indefinite detention."
At that point we fell silent. "This is getting depressing," he said.
A little later he asked me: "Why do you think people put up with it?"
"Because they're afraid."
Of all the stories in the world's religions, the one that inspires me most is the story of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, sitting under the Bodhi tree, at the end of a path of austerity and fruitless searching.
A shepherd girl brings him a bowl of rice milk to restore his emaciated body, and he resolves not to rise until he attains Enlightenment. Mara, the Lord of Illusion, unleashes his armies — every conceivable terror, every death, every torment the mind can imagine. "O Mara, you cannot imprison me again," Siddhartha says. "The rafters are broken, the ridgepole is sundered. I have seen the builder of the house."
To us who live daily with some measure of fear, this example may seem too grand and too noble for practical emulation. But Siddhartha was a man, not a god, and what he did can be accomplished by ordinary people.
I have had much acquaintance with fear, and some with danger as well. There is a difference. This difference may be too obvious to mention, but it is frequently overlooked.
Fear is a product of the mind. And danger can be met without fear. Surely soldiers in battle know about this. There is no greater enemy than fear.
Joel Agee's memoir, "In the House of My Fear," was just published by Shoemaker & Hoard. His translation of Hans Erich Nossack's "The End: Hamburg 1943" will be published by the University of Chicago.
© 2004 Los Angeles Times
by Joel Agee
I told a friend I would be writing an essay about fear. He cautioned me, counseled me: "Don't say that our fears are groundless." He had heard me express the widespread opinion that in allowing ourselves to be governed by fear, we may be forfeiting our freedom.
Of course our fears are not groundless. Who would deny the threat of nuclear and biological war on our shores? And there are militant factions within three major religions that seem intent on fulfilling some prophecy of a final war between good and evil, certain that they and not their enemies are the children of light. What greater danger can be imagined?
But just for that reason it seems to me necessary to live without fear — to the extent that we are able, of course. This does not mean we should not protect ourselves from real dangers. It means we must be vigilant against the counsels of fear.
What impressed me most forcefully in the pictures from Abu Ghraib was how fear was employed as an instrument of torture. Humiliation too — but those photographs were meant to terrify, because they could be used to shame the victims in their communities.
Why has the discussion of these outrages very nearly vanished from public discourse? Does our silence bespeak a tacit consent to their possible continuation? If so, what would be our motive? I believe it is fear — fear of an elusive, treacherous enemy, but also fear of seeing the depths to which we may go for the sake of an equally elusive security.
I spent my formative years behind the Iron Curtain. It is commonplace to say the people there were deprived of their freedom. This is true, but it is a truth that was not evident to many of those people. If you live in a stooped position long enough you can come to mistake it for an upright stance.
I remember crossing the East German border after I had lived in the West for a while. There was an obvious external difference — more color on one side, more traffic, more flowers.
But the inner difference was less easy to identify. I called it freedom, as most people did. But remembering it now, I think that fear and the lack of it describe it better. There is no freedom without freedom from fear.
A friend who grew up in Czechoslovakia and now lives in America told me about a sensation of deja vu he has felt in recent years — the Sovietization of America, he calls it.
"Not really," I said. "We're still a free people."
He proposed a theory of "cultural hydraulics": When McDonald's arrives in Moscow, something is displaced. It goes down the tube and comes up here.
"Like what?" I asked.
"Like political correctness, patriotic groupthink — thought police."
I laughed.
"There's more," he said: " 'You're either with us or against us' — remember that tone?"
"Sure," I said, catching his drift, "and I guess secret surveillance …. "
"Arrests without warrants."
"Indefinite detention."
At that point we fell silent. "This is getting depressing," he said.
A little later he asked me: "Why do you think people put up with it?"
"Because they're afraid."
Of all the stories in the world's religions, the one that inspires me most is the story of Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, sitting under the Bodhi tree, at the end of a path of austerity and fruitless searching.
A shepherd girl brings him a bowl of rice milk to restore his emaciated body, and he resolves not to rise until he attains Enlightenment. Mara, the Lord of Illusion, unleashes his armies — every conceivable terror, every death, every torment the mind can imagine. "O Mara, you cannot imprison me again," Siddhartha says. "The rafters are broken, the ridgepole is sundered. I have seen the builder of the house."
To us who live daily with some measure of fear, this example may seem too grand and too noble for practical emulation. But Siddhartha was a man, not a god, and what he did can be accomplished by ordinary people.
I have had much acquaintance with fear, and some with danger as well. There is a difference. This difference may be too obvious to mention, but it is frequently overlooked.
Fear is a product of the mind. And danger can be met without fear. Surely soldiers in battle know about this. There is no greater enemy than fear.
Joel Agee's memoir, "In the House of My Fear," was just published by Shoemaker & Hoard. His translation of Hans Erich Nossack's "The End: Hamburg 1943" will be published by the University of Chicago.
© 2004 Los Angeles Times
America's unhappy most wanted
High-level detainees go on a hunger strike to protest their solitary confinement and impending trials in an Iraqi court.
By Rory McCarthy
Dec. 13, 2004 | BAGHDAD -- More than 50 senior figures from Saddam Hussein's former regime have begun a hunger strike in their U.S. military jail in Baghdad, according to an Iraqi lawyer. The group includes Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, a former vice president, according to the lawyer, Badie Arief Izzat. Saddam, who is being kept in solitary confinement in a separate jail, is not involved in the protest.
However, the U.S. military said some detainees were still eating snacks. "It appears that some detainees have turned back some meals," said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, spokesman for detention operations. "I'm told all have been at least snacking during the day." He said Saddam "continued to take meals and has no change in his routine. He remains in good health." Izzat, who represents Aziz, said the protest began on Saturday morning. He was told about it by a fellow lawyer who met Taha Yassin Ramadan in the jail Sunday.
The strike was in protest of what the prisoners said was bad treatment and enforced solitary confinement, he said. They were also opposed to being handed over to the Iraqi government for trial. "Instead they want a trial in an international court," Izzat said.
Those involved include 52 of the prisoners on America's 55-most-wanted list of government, military and security officials from the former regime.
Izzat said the prisoners had been asked to testify against Saddam but had refused. "They asked them to make some statements against Saddam but they refused. They said they wanted to be dealt with as a proper government. They asked to speak with Saddam himself," he said. "They all agreed they would not stand against Saddam." He said U.S. officials had offered Ramadan a deal if he agreed to cooperate."They offered Taha Yassin Ramadan that if he was cooperative they would give him a job in the new government. He said no," he said.
The prisoners are being kept in solitary confinement in a jail in the sprawling base at Baghdad's International Airport, but are able to talk to each other when they use the bathroom.
Izzat said he had not yet met his client, Aziz, but said their first meeting was due within a week. He has been acting as a lawyer for several other senior figures from within Saddam's regime and has been able to communicate with some through letters. As he spoke he took calls on his mobile telephone from relatives of some of the most senior figures in the regime.
Saddam himself and 11 other figures from the regime appeared in a court for the first time at the U.S. military's Camp Victory in Baghdad on July 1. They were read a summary of the charges against them as a symbolic beginning of their trials, but since then there have been no further court appearances. Instead there appear to have been delays in preparing the prosecution cases despite the apparently overwhelming evidence against the men.
Only one of the many mass graves in Iraq has been forensically examined, largely because of the dangerous security environment. Salem Chalabi, who was appointed to lead the Iraqi special tribunal that will run the trials, was removed from his position this summer.
By Rory McCarthy
Dec. 13, 2004 | BAGHDAD -- More than 50 senior figures from Saddam Hussein's former regime have begun a hunger strike in their U.S. military jail in Baghdad, according to an Iraqi lawyer. The group includes Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister, and Taha Yassin Ramadan, a former vice president, according to the lawyer, Badie Arief Izzat. Saddam, who is being kept in solitary confinement in a separate jail, is not involved in the protest.
However, the U.S. military said some detainees were still eating snacks. "It appears that some detainees have turned back some meals," said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, spokesman for detention operations. "I'm told all have been at least snacking during the day." He said Saddam "continued to take meals and has no change in his routine. He remains in good health." Izzat, who represents Aziz, said the protest began on Saturday morning. He was told about it by a fellow lawyer who met Taha Yassin Ramadan in the jail Sunday.
The strike was in protest of what the prisoners said was bad treatment and enforced solitary confinement, he said. They were also opposed to being handed over to the Iraqi government for trial. "Instead they want a trial in an international court," Izzat said.
Those involved include 52 of the prisoners on America's 55-most-wanted list of government, military and security officials from the former regime.
Izzat said the prisoners had been asked to testify against Saddam but had refused. "They asked them to make some statements against Saddam but they refused. They said they wanted to be dealt with as a proper government. They asked to speak with Saddam himself," he said. "They all agreed they would not stand against Saddam." He said U.S. officials had offered Ramadan a deal if he agreed to cooperate."They offered Taha Yassin Ramadan that if he was cooperative they would give him a job in the new government. He said no," he said.
The prisoners are being kept in solitary confinement in a jail in the sprawling base at Baghdad's International Airport, but are able to talk to each other when they use the bathroom.
Izzat said he had not yet met his client, Aziz, but said their first meeting was due within a week. He has been acting as a lawyer for several other senior figures from within Saddam's regime and has been able to communicate with some through letters. As he spoke he took calls on his mobile telephone from relatives of some of the most senior figures in the regime.
Saddam himself and 11 other figures from the regime appeared in a court for the first time at the U.S. military's Camp Victory in Baghdad on July 1. They were read a summary of the charges against them as a symbolic beginning of their trials, but since then there have been no further court appearances. Instead there appear to have been delays in preparing the prosecution cases despite the apparently overwhelming evidence against the men.
Only one of the many mass graves in Iraq has been forensically examined, largely because of the dangerous security environment. Salem Chalabi, who was appointed to lead the Iraqi special tribunal that will run the trials, was removed from his position this summer.
America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb
America's Debt to Journalist Gary Webb
By Robert Parry
For his brave reporting at the San Jose Mercury News, Webb paid a high price. He was attacked by journalistic colleagues at the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the American Journalism Review and even the Nation magazine. Under this media pressure, his editor Jerry Ceppos sold out the story and demoted Webb, causing him to quit the Mercury News. Even Webb’s marriage broke up.
On Friday, Dec. 10, Gary Webb, 49, died of an apparent suicide, a gunshot wound to the head.
class="MsoNormal">Whatever the details of Webb’s death, American history owes him a huge debt. Though denigrated by much of the national news media, Webb’s contra-cocaine series prompted internal investigations by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department, probes that confirmed that scores of contra units and contra-connected individuals were implicated in the drug trade. The probes also showed that the Reagan-Bush administration frustrated investigations into those crimes for geopolitical reasons.
Failed Media
Unintentionally, Webb also exposed the cowardice and unprofessional behavior that had become the new trademarks of the major U.S. news media by the mid-1990s. The big news outlets were always hot on the trail of some titillating scandal – the O.J. Simpson case or the Monica Lewinsky scandal – but the major media could no longer grapple with serious crimes of state.
Even after the CIA’s inspector general issued his findings in 1998, the major newspapers could not muster the talent or the courage to explain those extraordinary government admissions to the American people. Nor did the big newspapers apologize for their unfair treatment of Gary Webb. Foreshadowing the media incompetence that would fail to challenge George W. Bush’s case for war with Iraq five years later, the major news organizations effectively hid the CIA’s confession from the American people.
The New York Times and the Washington Post never got much past the CIA’s “executive summary,” which tried to put the best spin on Inspector General Frederick Hitz’s findings. The Los Angeles Times never even wrote a story after the final volume of the CIA’s report was published, though Webb’s initial story had focused on contra-connected cocaine shipments to South-Central Los Angeles.
The Los Angeles Times’ cover-up has now continued after Webb’s death. In a harsh obituary about Webb, the Times reporter, who called to interview me, ignored my comments about the debt the nation owed Webb and the importance of the CIA’s inspector general findings. Instead of using Webb’s death as an opportunity to finally get the story straight, the Times acted as if there never had been an official investigation confirming many of Webb’s allegations. [Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004.]
By maintaining the contra-cocaine cover-up – even after the CIA’s had admitted the facts – the big newspapers seemed to have understood that they could avoid any consequences for their egregious behavior in the 1990s or for their negligence toward the contra-cocaine issue when it first surfaced in the 1980s. After all, the conservative news media – the chief competitor to the mainstream press – isn’t going to demand a reexamination of the crimes of the Reagan-Bush years.
That means that only a few minor media outlets, like our own Consortiumnews.com, will go back over the facts now, just as only a few of us addressed the significance of the government admissions in the late 1990s. I compiled and explained the findings of the CIA/Justice investigations in my 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth.’
Contra-Cocaine Case
Lost History, which took its name from a series at this Web site, also describes how the contra-cocaine story first reached the public in a story that Brian Barger and I wrote for the Associated Press in December 1985. Though the big newspapers pooh-poohed our discovery, Sen. John Kerry followed up our story with his own groundbreaking investigation. For his efforts, Kerry also encountered media ridicule. Newsweek dubbed the Massachusetts senator a “randy conspiracy buff.” [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Contra-Cocaine Chapter.”]
So when Gary Webb revived the contra-cocaine issue in August 1996 with a 20,000-word three-part series entitled “Dark Alliance,” editors at major newspapers already had a powerful self-interest to slap down a story that they had disparaged for the past decade.
The challenge to their earlier judgments was doubly painful because the Mercury-News’ sophisticated Web site ensured that Webb’s series made a big splash on the Internet, which was just emerging as a threat to the traditional news media. Also, the African-American community was furious at the possibility that U.S. government policies had contributed to the crack-cocaine epidemic.
In other words, the mostly white, male editors at the major newspapers saw their preeminence in judging news challenged by an upstart regional newspaper, the Internet and common American citizens who also happened to be black. So, even as the CIA was prepared to conduct a relatively thorough and honest investigation, the major newspapers seemed more eager to protect their reputations and their turf.
Without doubt, Webb’s series had its limitations. It primarily tracked one West Coast network of contra-cocaine traffickers from the early-to-mid 1980s. Webb connected that cocaine to an early “crack” production network that supplied Los Angeles street gangs, the Crips and the Bloods, leading to Webb’s conclusion that contra cocaine fueled the early crack epidemic that devastated Los Angeles and other U.S. cities.
Counterattack
When black leaders began demanding a full investigation of these charges, the Washington media joined the political Establishment in circling the wagons. It fell to Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s right-wing Washington Times to begin the counterattack against Webb’s series. The Washington Times turned to some former CIA officials, who participated in the contra war, to refute the drug charges.
But – in a pattern that would repeat itself on other issues in the following years – the Washington Post and other mainstream newspapers quickly lined up behind the conservative news media. On Oct. 4, 1996, the Washington Post published a front-page article knocking down Webb’s story.
The Post’s approach was twofold: first, it presented the contra-cocaine allegations as old news – “even CIA personnel testified to Congress they knew that those covert operations involved drug traffickers,” the Post reported – and second, the Post minimized the importance of the one contra smuggling channel that Webb had highlighted – that it had not “played a major role in the emergence of crack.” A Post side-bar story dismissed African-Americans as prone to “conspiracy fears.”
Soon, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times joined in the piling on of Gary Webb. The big newspapers made much of the CIA’s internal reviews in 1987 and 1988 that supposedly cleared the spy agency of a role in contra-cocaine smuggling.
But the CIA's decade-old cover-up began to crack on Oct. 24, 1996, when CIA Inspector General Hitz conceded before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the first CIA probe had lasted only 12 days, the second only three days. He promised a more thorough review.
Mocking Webb
Meanwhile, however, Gary Webb became the target of outright media ridicule. Influential Post media critic Howard Kurtz mocked Webb for saying in a book proposal that he would explore the possibility that the contra war was primarily a business to its participants. “Oliver Stone, check your voice mail,” Kurtz chortled. [Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1996]
Webb’s suspicion was not unfounded, however. Indeed, White House aide Oliver North’s emissary Rob Owen had made the same point a decade earlier, in a March 17, 1986, message about the contra leadership. “Few of the so-called leaders of the movement … really care about the boys in the field,” Owen wrote. “THIS WAR HAS BECOME A BUSINESS TO MANY OF THEM.” [Capitalization in the original.]
Nevertheless, the pillorying of Gary Webb was on, in earnest. The ridicule also had a predictable effect on the executives of the Mercury-News. By early 1997, executive editor Jerry Ceppos was in retreat.
On May 11, 1997, Ceppos published a front-page column saying the series “fell short of my standards.” He criticized the stories because they “strongly implied CIA knowledge” of contra connections to U.S. drug dealers who were manufacturing crack-cocaine. “We did not have proof that top CIA officials knew of the relationship.”
The big newspapers celebrated Ceppos’s retreat as vindication of their own dismissal of the contra-cocaine stories. Ceppos next pulled the plug on the Mercury-News’ continuing contra-cocaine investigation and reassigned Webb to a small office in Cupertino, California, far from his family. Webb resigned the paper in disgrace.
For undercutting Webb and the other reporters working on the contra investigation, Ceppos was lauded by the American Journalism Review and was given the 1997 national “Ethics in Journalism Award” by the Society of Professional Journalists. While Ceppos won raves, Webb watched his career collapse and his marriage break up.
Probes Advance
Still, Gary Webb had set in motion internal government investigations that would bring to the surface long-hidden facts about how the Reagan-Bush administration had conducted the contra war. The CIA’s defensive line against the contra-cocaine allegations began to break when the spy agency published Volume One of Hitz’s findings on Jan. 29, 1998.
Despite a largely exculpatory press release, Hitz’s Volume One admitted that not only were many of Webb’s allegations true but that he actually understated the seriousness of the contra-drug crimes and the CIA’s knowledge. Hitz acknowledged that cocaine smugglers played a significant early role in the Nicaraguan contra movement and that the CIA intervened to block an image-threatening 1984 federal investigation into a San Francisco-based drug ring with suspected ties to the contras. [For details, see Robert Parry’s Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’]
On May 7, 1998, another disclosure from the government investigation shook the CIA’s weakening defenses. Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, introduced into the Congressional Record a Feb. 11, 1982, letter of understanding between the CIA and the Justice Department. The letter, which had been sought by CIA Director William Casey, freed the CIA from legal requirements that it must report drug smuggling by CIA assets, a provision that covered both the Nicaraguan contras and Afghan rebels who were fighting a Soviet-supported regime in Afghanistan.
Justice Report
Another crack in the defensive wall opened when the Justice Department released a report by its inspector general, Michael Bromwich. Given the hostile climate surrounding Webb’s series, Bromwich’s report opened with criticism of Webb. But, like the CIA’s Volume One, the contents revealed new details about government wrongdoing.
According to evidence cited by the report, the Reagan-Bush administration knew almost from the outset of the contra war that cocaine traffickers permeated the paramilitary operation. The administration also did next to nothing to expose or stop the criminal activities. The report revealed example after example of leads not followed, corroborated witnesses disparaged, official law-enforcement investigations sabotaged, and even the CIA facilitating the work of drug traffickers.
The Bromwich report showed that the contras and their supporters ran several parallel drug-smuggling operations, not just the one at the center of Webb’s series. The report also found that the CIA shared little of its information about contra drugs with law-enforcement agencies and on three occasions disrupted cocaine-trafficking investigations that threatened the contras.
Though depicting a more widespread contra-drug operation than Webb had understood, the Justice report also provided some important corroboration about a Nicaraguan drug smuggler, Norwin Meneses, who was a key figure in Webb’s series. Bromwich cited U.S. government informants who supplied detailed information about Meneses’s operation and his financial assistance to the contras.
For instance, Renato Pena, a money-and-drug courier for Meneses, said that in the early 1980s, the CIA allowed the contras to fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds. Pena, who also was the northern California representative for the CIA-backed FDN contra army, said the drug trafficking was forced on the contras by the inadequate levels of U.S. government assistance.
The Justice report also disclosed repeated examples of the CIA and U.S. embassies in Central America discouraging Drug Enforcement Administration investigations, including one into alleged contra-cocaine shipments moving through the airport in El Salvador. In an understated conclusion, Inspector General Bromwich wrote: “We have no doubt that the CIA and the U.S. Embassy were not anxious for the DEA to pursue its investigation at the airport.”
CIA's Volume Two
Despite the remarkable admissions in the body of these reports, the big newspapers showed no inclination to read beyond the press releases and executive summaries. By fall 1998, official Washington was obsessed with the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, which made it easier to ignore even more stunning disclosures in the CIA's Volume Two..
In Volume Two, published Oct. 8, 1998, CIA Inspector General Hitz identified more than 50 contras and contra-related entities implicated in the drug trade. He also detailed how the Reagan-Bush administration had protected these drug operations and frustrated federal investigations, which had threatened to expose the crimes in the mid-1980s. Hitz even published evidence that drug trafficking and money laundering tracked into Reagan’s National Security Council where Oliver North oversaw the contra operations.
Hitz revealed, too, that the CIA placed an admitted drug money launderer in charge of the Southern Front contras in Costa Rica. Also, according to Hitz’s evidence, the second-in-command of contra forces on the Northern Front in Honduras had escaped from a Colombian prison where he was serving time for drug trafficking
In Volume Two, the CIA’s defense against Webb’s series had shrunk to a tiny fig leaf: that the CIA did not conspire with the contras to raise money through cocaine trafficking. But Hitz made clear that the contra war took precedence over law enforcement and that the CIA withheld evidence of contra crimes from the Justice Department, the Congress and even the CIA’s own analytical division.
Hitz found in CIA files evidence that the spy agency knew from the first days of the contra war that its new clients were involved in the cocaine trade. According to a September 1981 cable to CIA headquarters, one of the early contra groups, known as ADREN, had decided to use drug trafficking as a financing mechanism. Two ADREN members made the first delivery of drugs to Miami in July 1981, the CIA cable reported.
ADREN’s leaders included Enrique Bermudez, who emerged as the top contra military commander in the 1980s. Webb’s series had identified Bermudez as giving the green light to contra fundraising by drug trafficker Meneses. Hitz’s report added that that the CIA had another Nicaraguan witness who implicated Bermudez in the drug trade in 1988.
Priorities
Besides tracing the evidence of contra-drug trafficking through the decade-long contra war, the inspector general interviewed senior CIA officers who acknowledged that they were aware of the contra-drug problem but didn’t want its exposure to undermine the struggle to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government.
According to Hitz, the CIA had “one overriding priority: to oust the Sandinista government. … [CIA officers] were determined that the various difficulties they encountered not be allowed to prevent effective implementation of the contra program.” One CIA field officer explained, “The focus was to get the job done, get the support and win the war.”
Hitz also recounted complaints from CIA analysts that CIA operations officers handling the contra war hid evidence of contra-drug trafficking even from the CIA’s analytical division. Because of the withheld evidence, the CIA analysts incorrectly concluded in the mid-1980s that “only a handful of contras might have been involved in drug trafficking.” That false assessment was passed on to Congress and the major news organizations – serving as an important basis for denouncing Gary Webb and his series in 1996.
Though Hitz’s report was an extraordinary admission of institutional guilt by the CIA, it passed almost unnoticed by the big newspapers.
Two days after Hitz’s report was posted at the CIA’s Internet site, the New York Times did a brief article that continued to deride Webb’s work, while acknowledging that the contra-drug problem may indeed have been worse than earlier understood. Several weeks later, the Washington Post weighed in with a similarly superficial article. The Los Angeles Times never published a story on the release of the CIA’s Volume Two.
Consequences
To this day, no editor or reporter who missed the contra-drug story has been punished for his or her negligence. Indeed, many of them are now top executives at their news organizations. On the other hand, Gary Webb’s career never recovered.
At Webb’s death, however, it should be noted that his great gift to American history was that he – along with angry African-American citizens – forced the government to admit some of the worst crimes ever condoned by any American administration: the protection of drug smuggling into the United States as part of a covert war against a country, Nicaragua, that represented no real threat to Americans.
The truth was ugly. Certainly the major news organizations would have come under criticism themselves if they had done their job and laid out this troubling story to the American people. Conservative defenders of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would have been sure to howl in protest.
But the real tragedy of Webb’s historic gift – and of his life cut short – is that because of the major news media’s callowness and cowardice, this dark chapter of the Reagan-Bush era remains largely unknown to the American people.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
and will be adding to this report throughout the week. ( '?