Two Weeks Ago

I already posted this, but want to return to a letter I wrote a couple weeks ago to advocate dropping charges against the Oly 26. This group of people protested against the use of the municipal port for the shipment of military cargoes related to the occupation of Iraq. Drop Charges Against Oly 26 Protesters

War is Bankrupting the U.S.

Here I am posing for a photograph after a weekly peace vigil that I participate in. The vigil has been going on for almost 10 years every Friday. It's sponsored by the Olympia chapter of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. It's at the North end of the Percival Landing City Park in Olympia Washington. Everyone is welcome.



War is bankrupting the U.S.. Yes it is. Imagine taking materials and energy that are poured into the destructive war economy and turning them toward positive and beneficial efforts. We could all be very wealthy economically if our government and its keepers weren't bent on destruction and domination.

bert

Why We Resist

go to original

by Chris Hedges
...
We face a crisis. Our democratic institutions are being dismantled. We are headed for a state of perpetual war. We are paralyzed by fear. We will be stripped, if we do not resist, of our few remaining rights. To resist, while there is still time, is not only the highest form of spirituality but the highest form of patriotism. It is, if you care about what is worth protecting in this country, a moral imperative. There are hundreds of thousands who have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This number would be dwarfed by a war with Iran, which could ignite a regional inferno in the Middle East. Not a lot is being asked of us. Compare our potential sacrifices with what is being inflicted on and demanded of those trapped in the violence in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon, perhaps, Iran. Courage, as Aristotle wrote, is the highest of human virtues because without it we are unlikely to practice any other virtue. Once we find courage we find freedom.

[May 14, 2008: Perhaps, not a lot is being asked of us, in comparison to those who feel the most severe effects of an oppressive and exploitative U.S.A. foreign policy. But, that does not mean our task of resistance and working for change is, or will be, in any way easy or simple. No, it will take great acts, courage, dedication and persistence in the face of what might, at times, seem like an insurmountable wall of the establishment - and an ingrained and habitual (perhaps mostly unconscious) societal appetite for destruction. It won't be easy. Perhaps the sacrifice won't be great, in comparison. But don't underestimate the "power of the darkside" (so to speak.) It won't be easy. Change won't arrive on the night train. It will require overt and principled, difficult, yet nonviolent confrontation and resistance. May 14, 2008/]

War is a Racket

This is from the military weapons exposition in Tacoma, June of last year:

War is a racket. - General Smedley Butler

Call Congress for a de-authorization act on occupation!

General Butler:
...
"In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows."

"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

"Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

"And what is this bill?

"This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."
...

Bush Corporatism on Display

The President demonstrates his allegiance to Corporations at the sake of the safety of the American People:

Keith Olbermann:
[...]

As Sen. Edward Kennedy reminded us in December:

"The president has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA.

"But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity.

"No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the president at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."

And that literally cannot be. Even Mr. Bush could not overtly take a step that actually aids the terrorists. I am not talking about ethics here. I am talking about blame. If the president seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water, it means we can safely conclude there is no baby.

Because if there were, sir, now that you have vetoed an extension of this eavesdropping, if some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists. You would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people. You would not merely be guilty of stupidity. You would not merely be guilty of treason, sir.

You would be personally, and eternally, responsible.

And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again - it is that you are never responsible.

As recently ago as 2006, we spoke words like these with trepidation.

The idea that even the most cynical and untrustworthy of politicians in our history, George W. Bush, would use the literal form of terrorism against his own people was dangerous territory. It seemed to tempt fate, to heighten fear.

We will not fear any longer. We will not fear the international terrorists, and we will thwart them. We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety, and we will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government, and we will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

go to original

100 Years of War

"bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..." John McCain.

100 years of war is enough reason for me to exercise pragmatism in this year's presidential election. That said, I vastly prefer Obama to Clinton, for a number of reasons. One, he demonstrates a decidedly lesser degree of indebtedness to special interests relative to Mrs. Clinton. Other reasons include that he has a positive attitude, and that he seems less inclined to be deluded into the status quo. He has less time in Washington D.C., which may allow him to bring a truly fresh and renewing energy to the national political scene.

That said, here's a good reason not to vote for McCain:


link to video

"The War on Whistleblowers"

Another example of extreme authoritarianism cropping up in US federal government: http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/01/whistleblowers/

The war on whistle-blowers

U.S. officials have long retaliated against employees who speak out, burying the dangers they expose. Now, Congress wants to give whistle-blowers greater protection -- but President Bush vows to stop it.

Editor's note: This story continues a multiyear series from Salon and the Center for Investigative Reporting scrutinizing the U.S. court system. For more background and resources related to this story, click here.

By James Sandler

Nov. 1, 2007

If there is any doubt about how the Bush administration treats government whistle-blowers, consider the case of Teresa Chambers. She was hired in early 2002, with impeccable law enforcement credentials, to become chief of the United States Park Police. But after Chambers raised concerns publicly that crime was up in the nation's parks, she was rebuked by superiors and fired. When Chambers fought to regain her job through the legal system meant to protect whistle-blowers, government lawyers fought back, and associated her with terrorists. Despite a multiyear legal struggle, she is still fighting for her job.

Whistle-blowers have faced hostility not only under Republican administrations. During President Clinton's tenure, Bogdan Dzakovic, an undercover security agent with the Federal Aviation Administration, suffered retribution for speaking out about weak airport security -- three years before Sept. 11, 2001. Dzakovic was passed up for promotion time and again, and today, he says, he remains consigned to data entry duties for the Transportation Security Administration.

Every year, hundreds of federal workers sound the alarm about corruption, fraud or dangers to public safety that are caused or overlooked -- or even covered up -- by U.S. government agencies. These whistle-blowers are supposed to be guaranteed protection by law from retaliation for speaking out in the public's interest.

But a six-month investigation by the Center for Investigative Reporting, in collaboration with Salon, has found that federal whistle-blowers almost never receive legal protection after they take action. Instead, they often face agency managers and White House appointees intent upon silencing them rather than addressing the problems they raise. They are left fighting for their jobs in a special administrative court system, little known to the American public, that is mired in bureaucracy and vulnerable to partisan politics. The CIR/Salon investigation reveals that the whistle-blower system -- first created by Congress decades ago and proclaimed as a cornerstone of government transparency and accountability -- has in reality enabled the punishment of employees who speak out. It has had a chilling effect, dissuading others from coming forward. The investigation examined nearly 3,600 whistle-blower cases since 1994, and included dozens of interviews and a review of confidential court documents. Whistle-blowers lose their cases, the investigation shows, nearly 97 percent of the time. Most limp away from the experience with their careers, reputations and finances in tatters.
...

US Soldiers Murdering Iraqis

Killing innocent civilians is tantamount to murder. It is murder. An effective effort must be made by the Pentagon to remedy this serious violation of ethics and human rights. Civilians have a right to live without fear of being raped, killed or tortured by an occupying military force.

go to original

PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer

In a survey of U.S. troops in combat in Iraq, less than half of Marines and a little more than half of Army soldiers said they would report a member of their unit for killing or wounding an innocent civilian.

More than 40 percent support the idea of torture in some cases, and 10 percent reported personally abusing Iraqi civilians, the Pentagon said Friday in what it called its first ethics study of troops at the war front. Units exposed to the most combat were chosen for the study, officials said.
...
Only 47 percent of the soldiers and 38 percent of Marines said noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect.
...
[continued]

Terrorism and Iraq

The connection between Iraq and Terrorism is one that is a figment of the war hawk's propaganda machine. It is a cleverly and insidiously conceived fabrication - that the reason for the US military occupation of Iraq is due to the threat of terrorism.

We have to remember, and keep it in the forefront, that it has been (and is) the actions of the USA that have turned Iraq into a hotbed of "terrorism" (in quotes because it is arguable that the situation in Iraq involves freedom fighters who oppose occupation by a foreign invading force.)

*Important: Iraq posed no credible or immediate threat of terrorism or terroristic actions prior to the March 2003 unilateral decision by the USA (i.e. Bush Administration) to invade.

Also Important: the invasion contravened explicit demands in the UN charter that require security council authorization - or the credible and immediate threat to national security. Neither of these conditions were met prior to the invasion.

Iraq posed no threat to national security. Therefore the invasion was illegal. Therefore the occupation is illegal.

Congress Girds for Oversight Procedures

Well, it's about time.

go to original

Congress girds up for return to oversight

Probes include alleged contracting abuses in Iraq and the alteration of scientific findings.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON - Not since the Depression-era Congress of 1932 has Capitol Hill ramped up so quickly for oversight hearings and related legislation – most targeting the Bush administration.

Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are hiring more lawyers, and watchdog groups say they are swamped with calls from committee staff asking for advice on pursuing the nearly lost art of congressional investigation.

In its first 100 days, the new Congress launched probes on allegations ranging from contracting abuses in Iraq and the alteration of scientific findings to the misuse of federal resources for partisan purposes. Some hearings, such as those on last year's firing of eight US attorneys, were snatched from the headlines; others are longer-term campaigns to try to uncover any government waste and to expand the public's access to how government conducts its business.

...

Is the Surge Working?

Is the surge even working? It is costing a lot in lives, and in resources. Is it worth it?

By Paul Kiel - April 9, 2007, 9:14 AM

The New York Times delivers the first major report on the surge's progress this morning, a painstaking effort involving statistics and on the ground reports. The verdict?

American casualties are down in Iraq's provinces, but way up in Baghdad.
Sectarian killings are down, but increased use of car bombs has kept the civilian death toll high -- and anyway the beheadings seem to be surging again.
And as the U.S. moves to confront insurgents, the groups seem to be fracturing, making the fight increasingly confusing.

Or as an American private in the First Battalion, Fifth Cavalry puts it:

“The insurgents, they see what we’re doing and we see what they’re doing. Then we get ahead, then they figure out what we’ve done and they get ahead.

“It’s like a game of cat and mouse. It’s just a really, really smart mouse.”

go to original

Port of Olympia Public Testimony

[edit: Let me preface this statement by saying that in no way do I think the employees and commissioners of the Port are intending to do the wrong thing (in regard to military shipments.) I think that the Port's goal of creating prosperity for the county is an honorable one. But there is a point when we, as human beings - and as citizens - have to make decisions about what is right and what is wrong. The unnecessary violence that has occurred, and continues unabated in Iraq, has been promulgated [edit: caused] by US actions. The ongoing presence of US forces is exacerbating, and it prolongs, the problem. (The violence won't stop immediately if the US pulls out rapidly - but it's not stopping now, while the US remains, either.)

It is time to stop this "war." By encouraging (and forcing via nonviolent civil disobedience if necessary) local institutions to comply with moral, humanitarian and legal imperatives, PMR (see below) will take an important step in creating a scenario that will promote the acceleration of an end to the US military presence in - and domination of - Iraq.]

Here is the text of a written comment I submitted a recent Port Commission meeting. I also summarized the comment in verbal testimony during the public comment period of the meeting.

Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) has recently adopted a campaign strategy to oppose the further use of the municipal Port of Olympia to enable the continuance of the illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq. More on that later.

Here's the comment:

Monday, January 22, 2007
Robert Whitlock
Resident of Thurston County

Port of Olympia Commission Meeting Testimony:
The Legality of US Actions in Iraq
vîs a vîs
The Shipment of Military Cargoes Through the Port

In light of the illegality of the ongoing occupation of Iraq by US military forces, I request and urge the Commissioners of the Port of Olympia to adopt an official policy relating to the shipment of military goods through the Port of Olympia. By allowing further military cargoes, the Port is aiding, abetting and enabling the Occupation – thereby subjecting itself to legal vulnerabilities. The Port, in good conscience, must stop allowing cargoes destined to further the occupation of Iraq.

Therefore, I hereby renounce my own support for the allowance of military cargoes destined to support the illegal occupation of Iraq through the Municipal Port of Olympia. Further, as a resident of Thurston County, I request legal and moral asylum from any ongoing participation, by the Port, in the Occupation. I hereby formally revoke assent so as to absolve myself from complicity in the County’s support for the illegal military actions.

But it is not enough to politically revoke my complicity or formally request legal asylum. It is my duty as a citizen to actively oppose the illegal actions of my government. In so doing, I will present evidence to convince the Commission of the basis for my legal understanding of the US presence in Iraq.

Here’s a brief outline of some legal issues relating to the actions of the US in Iraq:

1. Article VI of the Constitution (USA) says:
   “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.”



2. The Principles of Nuremberg were adopted by the United Nations International Law Commission, in 1950. We have seen the Bush Administration’s prewar intelligence for what it is – a fraud. It is clear that there was no legitimate military motive for launching the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq; therefore the war can only be viewed as a war of choice – a war of aggression. The Principles of Nuremberg are enlightening in regard to the invasion and occupation (and conduct thereof) of Iraq:
   Principle Vl
   The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
   
   a. Crimes against peace:
   
   i. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
   ii. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). [emphasis added]
   
   b. War crimes:
   
   Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
   
   c. Crimes against humanity:
   
   Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
   
   Principle VII
   Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law. [emphasis added]



3. Former Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, said the unilateral invasion of Iraq violated internationally recognized legal agreements. Annan said that the USA’s actions in Iraq violated the UN Charter, which requires Security Council approval before the invasion of a sovereign nation.

All of this information is public. I hope this list makes it clear that there is a firm legal basis for my assertion that the war is, indeed, illegal. I request that the Port develop a clear policy relating to any possible future military cargoes destined to Iraq. I ask that the Port deny any further cargoes that are designed to further the occupation of Iraq. Please, do not hesitate to ask me if you have any further questions or to request more information.

Thank you.


[signed]
Robert Whitlock

War Isn't Working

(Lettering is white on original.)

Get your very own Peace Action "War isn't working" bumper sticker here.