The Canadian Press notes the finding of Judge Robert Barnes of Canada's Federal Court, issued Friday, which found that, contrary to the Immigration and Refugee 'Board''s opinion, "Officially condoned military misconduct falling well short of a war crime may support a claim to refugee protection." ["Board" because the full committee does not hear the claims or the appeals, one person does.] The individual's case under review was Joshua Key who stated, "It's quite a statement."
Earlier Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey who were the first US war resisters to go to Canada this decade and attempt to receive refugee status. In refusing to hear their appeals, the Court allowed the lower courtss findings to stand. Key was among those cases of appeal winding their way through the Canadian court system following the Immigration and Refugee 'Board' turning down his claim for asylum. Judge Barnes' decision does not reverse the finding of the 'Board,' it merely requires that it re-examine the decision (and the 'board' has ten days to appeal to decision).
The War Resisters Support Campaign has issued a press release and appear to have left out a word or too when offering Jeffry House's legal summary of the judge's opinion: "summarized the decision saying that the court found that Key was required to systematically violate the Geneva Conventions as part of his military service in Iraq and that he was justified in doing so." Something's missing before "and that he was justified in doing so."
Judge Barnes did not find that anyone was justified in violating the Geneva Conventions. A better take would be House "summarized the decision saying that the court found that Key was required to systematically violate the Geneva Conventions as part of his military servince in Iraq and that was justified in REFUSING to do so." Without "refusing" in there, the summary makes no sense and does not reflect either Judge Barnes' legal opinion issued Friday or what he can legally do.
Barnes' opinion rests on recognized, acceptable legal human behaviors, it does not reject Geneva, it does note that Geneva Conventions but it also notes other standards (and states the standards the "Board" used were "too restrictive"). He did not find that someone "was justified" in violating Geneva. He did find that someone could be justified in refusing any action that was "contrary to the basic rules of norms of human conduct." Barnes found that the "Board" had issued a decision which stated that there were "violations of the Geneva Convention prohibition against humilitary and degrading treatment".
From Barnes' decision, "The authorities indicate that military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates eitehr combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is proven reason for refusing to serve." The decision does cite Hinzman's case (Hinzman v. Canada, 2006) as well as the Immigration and Refugee Board's findings on Jeremy's claim:
It is apparent to me that the Board in Hinzman did not have before it the kind of evidence that was presented by Mr. Key and, therefore, neither the Board nor Justice [Anne] Mactavish were required in that case to determine the precise limits of protection afforded by Article 171 of the UNHCR Handbook. I do not consider Justice Mactavish's remarks to be determative of the issue presented by this case -- that is, whether refugee protection is available for persons like Mr. Key who would be expected to participate in widespread and arguably officially sanctioned breaches of humanitarian law which do not constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Judge Barnes points out that if Key had returned the US military any review (by the US military) would have been unlikely ("may not have been realistic") because he would have been deployed back to Iraq.
From the decision:
In November, 2003, Mr. Key returned to the United States on a 2-week furlough. He was then suffering from debilitating nightmares. Instead of reporting back to his unit, Pte. Key anonymously sought legal advice from a Judge Advocate General (JAG) representative who apparently told him to return to duty in Iraq or face imprisonment. Pte. Key elected to desert and he and his family relocated to Philadelphia. On March 8, 2005, the family came to Canada and they initiated their claims for refugee protection three days later." The justice further found, "The idea that a refugee claimant in such circumstances ought to be returned to his home country to face such a dilemma is repugnant and inimical to the futherance of humanitarian law.
Barnes notes that the "Board" found Key credible and "truthful" but also found his objection to the Iraq War was not "religiously motivated. Rather what Mr. Key objected to were the systematic violations of human rights that resulted from the conduct of the United States Army in Iraq and the requirement that he participate. The Board summarized Mr. Key's evidence concerning these events and compared his experiences to the observations of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) detailed in its report from 2003. It is apparent that the Board found Mr. Key's experiences to be consistent with the ICRC findings". Judge Barnes wrote that an error was made by the 'Board' when they found "that refugee protection for military deserters and evaders is only available where the conduct objected to amounts to a war crime, a crime against peace or a crime against humanity."
Again, there's at least one word missing in the War Resisters Support Campaign's press release when they summarize Jeffry House's summary of Judge Barnes' decision. PDF format warning, the decicision can be found online here (23 pages).
UPI notes, "The Friday ruling may pave the way for other American deserters who try to claim refugee status in Canada, The Globe and Mail in Toronto reported." Tu Thanh Ha (Globe and Mail) points out, "However, the ruling didn't address another legal hurdle faced by American deserters: proving that they'll face undue hardship if sent back to the United States." Brett Clarkson (Toronto Sun) observes, "It's also the first time a court in Canada has sided with the deserters' movement, which has won both the support of Parliament and a majority of Canadians, according to various recent polls, but has been rebuffed by the Immigration and Refugee Board and Harper government." R. Robertson (Indybay Media) covers the decision here. Joe Schneider (Bloomberg News) covers it here, CBC covers it here, BBC here and AP here.
US war resister Corey Glass is scheduled to be deported July 10th. He is not mentioned in the decision. He is mentioned in some press on this news. What Glass needs to do (what House needs to do) is file a motion to stop the deportation based on recent reports, ask for an emergency hearing, present the press accounts and Brett Clarkson as a witness (to testify only to what he has reported, not to break any journalistic ethics), argue that Glass is not a deserter, that the deportation order needs to be dropped and immediately start the citizenship process for Glass. This was going to be explained in a lengthy piece for Third noting (a) what is currently going on re: US military and (b) the historical nature. After the nasty e-mail Friday, we killed the article. And before the dumb ass e-mails again, I've stated what needs to be done. That is the legal route to IMMEDIATELY go. If any pause is taken, if any wait and see is taken, Glass will likely lose out. I include that not for the 'helpers' but for the war resister Corey Glass -- who does not appear to be being 'helped.'
They're just there to try and make the people free, But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me. Just more blood-letting and misery and tears That this poor country's known for the last twenty years, And the war drags on. .- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war hit the 4,113 mark. And tonight? 4114. The US military announced today: "A Multi-National Corps – Iraq Soldier died of non-battle related causes in Baghdad July 5. An investigation into the cause of death is under way." Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,236,604 up from 1,225,898 since they last updated.
Reported violence over the weekend? McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents were working so we'll note them.
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Saturday a Friday Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives and left eight people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing (Saturday) that wounded two people, a Friday home bombing in Diyala Province that left a family of six wounded and an Al Anbar Province roadside bombing (Saturday) which "targeted Khalid Abu Mihahid a leader of the Islamic party in Faulljua" and wounded him and "two of his guards." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports today a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 6 lives and left fourteen wounded, another Baghdad car bombing that wounded five people, a Diyala Province bombing that claimed 7 lives and left three wounded and another that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier with three more Iraqi soldiers injured and a Kirkuk bombing that left four Iraqi police officers injured.
An Iraqi correspondent files "Resettlement!!" at McClatchy's Inside Iraq about the US offer of 'resettlement' which resulted in several Iraqi journalists attending a briefing today:
At the beginning of the meeting, faces were optimistic. Some of the journalists attended with many question marks and they wanted helping them to start the most difficult step. Most of the questions were about the aid that the program would provide especially the issues that concern housing and finding jobs, but unfortunately the answersabout these two questions were disappointing for them. Those journalists were comparing American's aid with the aid that submit toIraqi refugees from some European countries like Sweden, Holland and Germany which provided Iraqi refugees with accommodation and salaries for years.
Kat: "I'm going back some day, come what may . . ." she promises in "Blue Bayou." Linda Ronstadt. Judy Collins if Collins had a little soul and didn't think every performance was a recital. That's what Bill said, back in the summer of 1979, and probably the worst relationship I ever had but, when you're right, you're right. Flash forward to almost the present. We were in Puerto Rico a month before the primary, C.I., Ava, Elaine, Trina and myself. We'd landed, we had the rental car, we were good to go. Or so we thought. I was driving. Who's got the tunes?
No one had packed CDs. Got to have my tunes. A quick stop for sodas and gum and I'm at the counter where they've got a hundred scratch offs, aspirin by the twos in those little packages and assorted sundry items. They've also got a little white box with maybe a dozen CDs. I'm flipping through and the only act I'm recognizing is Jan & Dean when I come across Linda Ronstadt and assume it's a quickie, cut-out or one of those 'albums' that gives you seven or eight cuts and retails for $7.99 or less because there's only one cut you know. But it's the real deal, a full fledged collection, put together by a genuine label (Elektra) and it's got 21 tracks. We'll spend every weekend in Puerto Rico getting out the vote for Hillary and I didn't the need to wait until the results were counted to know Puerto Rico was going to be a lucky region. I discovered that at the gas station where I found The Very Best of Linda Rondstadt.
"I've been cheated, been mistreated, when will I be loved?" We're in the rental. Rolling. And we've got Linda blasting on the speakers while we sing along at full volume. "It always breaks my heart in two, it happens every time."
Along with Carly Simon, Linda Ronstadt was one of the few female rock acts to rake up platinum status (over a million vinyl albums shipped to stores) in the seventies. I said "shipped." Back then, the charts were based on orders, not sales. Carole King had one strong album and then her tapestry unraveled. Joni Mitchell finally got the wide audience she deserved and then began her jazz experiments. Aretha Franklin and Diana Ross were sixties carry-overs like the Rolling Stones but the seventies for Aretha were really about the death of Atlantic's interest in her and it generally seemed that Motown only gave a damn about a Diana album if everyone else was tanking and they really needed the Queen of the label at that moment. On the album chart during that decade it really was just Carly and Linda in terms of consistency. While Carly was a singer-songwriter, Linda was a singer (though she did co-write a few songs in that decade).
She sold even when the record industry went bust. Today's current panic about the state of music sales is only 'fresh' and 'new,' if you haven't lived through the panic before. But Linda's success during the great meltdown didn't help her. Yeah, Living in the USA sold huge in 1978 and 1979 but it was a case of "bad wax," not "hot wax." I knew it at the time but am amazed by the number of people I have met over the years whose stories reflects those of my friends. Purchasing the album and then having to return it because it skipped. When we were all noting our trips to Puerto Rico and the Linda Ronstadt collection, a community member in Texas wrote a column for the gina & krista round-robin about her family's four trips to a Gibson's store two towns away to get a listenable copy of Living in the USA which finally ended with her deciding on the fifth trip to just exchange the album for something by another artist and not risk having to ask the folks, "Can we go back to Gibson's next weekend?"
I tell that story for two reasons. First, there's this romantic view of vinyl today. You hear about how the sound quality was superior and a hundred other details from purists who forgot the fact that vinyl (then) was mass produced and often badly. The returns on Fleetwood Mac's Tusk due to bad pressing (or low quality vinyl) may have done more to kill it than the supposed experimentation phase the band was in. That's not a defense of CDs or an argument that they are better. It's just noting that if the history of vinyl is going to be told, tell it warts and all.
The second reason I tell the story is because, in the vinyl era, it was down hill sales wise for Linda after that and, like the Mac, that's seen as resulting from experimentation. Mad Love would go on to sell half of what Living in the USA did and Get Closer would half the Mad Love sales. Vinyl was finicky. I knew friends who wouldn't touch it directly, they'd use a cloth. I knew friends who would leave vinyl albums laying around (outside of the sleeves). But whether your nursed it like a critical care patient or treated it like an ashtray or Frisbee, skips, hisses and crackling that came about because of your use (or misuse), you took accountability for but when you took that plastic wrapper off the album cover (if you did, some were so fanatical, they'd cut a slit and leave the plastic on -- I wonder if they now have plastic covered couches?) you expected thing to play perfect. When it didn't, the artist got a bad rep.
Now no one thought that Linda or Tom Petty (whose Hard Promises also resulted in many returns) was in the plant pressing the album or testing the vinyl. But if you purchased an album by an artist and had to return it once due to problems in the manufacture stage, you could be hesitant about purchasing another album by them. If you had to return it repeatedly, you might swear off the artist because who had time for the hassle? You went into the store, you had to produce the receipt. Even for an exchange where you were getting another copy of the album, it could get tense in that time when records weren't selling. If the store had a stereo, the clerk might feel the need to play it. There would be the long walk to the stereo with the clerk where you felt like you were on trial and the whole time you were thinking, "What if it's my needle? What if, when the record's played, it's not skipping? I'm going to look like such a liar!"
If you doubt the importance that played, look at the sales on Linda Ronstadt's Greatest Hits, Volume One (1976) and Greatest Hits, Volume Two (1980). The first sold seven million and, granted, some of that is from the CD era. The second sold a million but had more hits that were recently known when the album came out. (The first volume dipped into the sixties and Linda's work with the Stone Poneys for some of the tracks.) Two years after Living in the USA hit number one and was certified double platinum, four years after the first collection and it spends only 21 weeks on Billboard's Top 200 while the first collection spent 80 weeks?
I've never thought it was Linda's 'punk' phase (as some identified "Get Closer" and "How Do I Make You" as well as Linda's Elvis Costello covers in the early eighties) that saw a big portion of the audience move on, I think it was the bad pressing of Living in the USA. Linda would go off into her Nelson Riddle phase beginning in 1983 and carry some of the loyal audience along with her as well as add new converts resulting (again) in platinum certifications.
Linda had other problems. She was pretty and much was made of her looks. Following her 1975 hit "You're No Good," I swore her off her for a year-and-a-half due to a six-week affair with a guy who couldn't shut up about her looks. There were some guys who were obsessed with her. They liked her music (and may have, indeed, loved her music) but they were obsessed with her beauty. In 1994, Toni got a divorce from a not-so-good marriage and the final straw for her was when, watching TV with her husband one night, she saw Cindy Crawford promoting some fitness thing and her husband patted her on the legs and said, "Ten minutes a day, hon." I completely related to that story and immediately thought of Troy, the Linda obsessed, and how he told me, the night he asked me out, that I looked just like Linda (I look nothing like Linda, I'm a red-haired, Irish-American) and that was quickly followed by a Linda concert I thought 'we' were attending but ended up feeling instead like I had stumbled into a strip show as every man drooled over Linda, including my date. ("Strip show" is not to suggest Linda did anything other than perform a solid concert. I'm referring to the intense reaction from the predominantly male audience.) "Drooled" is probably an understatement. Within a week, I was gifted by him with a little number like the one Linda wore onstage and, by the time he was 'suggesting' I cut my hair like Linda, the affair was over and I had to swear her off as well for sixteen months. "Blue Bayou" was the song that made it possible for me to listen to Linda again. A good thing because you couldn't listen to the radio in late 1977 without hearing the song.
In 1978, I lived with George who was a 'straight' and an accountant. I was going through a phase that Jackson Browne captured best in "The Pretender" -- e.g. "happy idiot." George was fifteen-years-older and what I saw as 'straight' was really just repressed. He'd managed to make it through the sixties on up to 1978 holding it together only to decide, in October 1978, that he needed to 'find himself.' He went off to Maui and took my entire vinyl Linda collection -- 45s and albums -- with him. He was going to open a surf shop or something. Last I ever heard, he'd been busted for dealing. Simple Dreams, indeed.
I say all of that because it's not just Linda's baggage she carries with her today (or, to be more honest, the baggage Rolling Stone placed on her with their tawdry, leering coverage). For some of us, she also carries our baggage. The first sixteen tracks on the collection I can easily identify with sixteen former lovers -- some of which I would prefer to forget. The bulk of which I would prefer to forget.
But she's got the voice to carry that baggage and much more. That was the big surprise when I popped the CD in. There wasn't a track I wasn't familiar with. The shock was in how strong it is and how well it all works together. There aren't many singers who are just singers that hold up in the rock era for me. They have a few songs that work and a body of work that's erratic. Like George, they seem to need to find themselves. Repeatedly. I don't know whether recording Linda is a character she assumed early on or a reflection of her own persona but recording Linda is consistent thematically. (And that's true even when she leaves the rock, pop, folk or country genre.) She's the one standing whether the battle was rewarding or futile. Listening to the collection reminds me of her film appearance in the erratic FM. More Eileen Brennan and Linda Rondstadt and the film would have been a whole lot better. But in her filmed concert appearances, where all she's doing is singing, you actually get why an FM station being 'remade' would be a huge loss, especially in her magnificent performance of "Love Me Tender."
Which brings up two points regarding The Very Best of Linda Rondstadt. One, she does better covers than anyone. I'm not sure whether I'd judge Phil Collins' version of "You Can't Hurry Love" or Kim Wilde's "You Keep Me Hanging On" as the worst Motown cover ever but I certainly place "Tracks Of My Tears" by Linda as the best reworking (I prefer it to the original but I'm not a fan of falsetto which leaves me indifferent to the bulk of Smokey's vocals -- whether it's "Ooh Baby Baby," which Linda also covers to perfection, or his oom-pah-pah "Tears of a Clown," which Linda might consider rescuing at some point in the future). Two, though you'll love the collection, you'll have your footnotes/differences. At 21 tracks, a lot is left off. For some the absence of "Love Has No Pride" may be a heresy. Others will wonder how you leave off a top ten hit (pop chart) like "How Do I Make You"?
If there's rhyme or reason to the selections, I can't figure it out. But I can tell you the selections work together very well -- sequencing of tracks and remastering. The Very Best of Linda Rondstadt doesn't just remind you (or explain to you, if you're new to Linda) why she's got a career, why she's had so many hits and why she's won so many Grammys, it also makes for a solid listening experience, a CD you can keep in the player and know you've got no filler, no tracks to skip over. I'm known for not being a big fan of collections or best ofs. So if I'm recommending this, it really is something. I long for the CD entitled The Excellence of Linda Ronstadt that mixes in something like "Rock Me On The Water" with her amazing performance of "What'll I Do" -- one that shows not only her vocal range in terms of notes, but also the vocal strength and gift that's allowed her to excel in so many genres. The CD booklet includes a track listing that tells you the song's writer(s), the album it was from, chart(s) position and producer. It also includes an essay by David Ritz whose concluding sentence probably says it, "The crowning achievement of Linda Ronstadt's work is that reconnection, that ability to transform any and all music from the ordinary to the divine." She's also 2008 Hit Parade Hall of Fame nominee and you can vote for her here.
On the front page of today's New York Times, Alissa J. Rubin offers "Despair Drives Suicide Attacks by Iraqi Women." Strip away the US military nonsense (apparently provided by an unnamed 'military analyst') and Iraqi MP Sajar Qaduri and you've got a pretty solid article.
"Our Oriental society is not like your Western society. It seems in many of these cases the women have had their husband killed or sent to prison and she feels she has no choice, she is very depressed," declares Qaduri early on, making some sense in the second sentence but, by the end of the article, it's all about "husbands killed." That's problematic for a number of reasons but let's focus on that nonsense of different societies.
The response to occupation is not "different." Whether it's Northern Ireland, Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere, the response is always the same and best summed up by Jackson Browne in his song "Lives In The Balance" -- "And a people who finally can't take anymore so they pick up a gun or a brick or a stone." There is nothing unique to what Brecht charted long ago in "Pirate Jenny." It's an idiotic statement but one that people will probably murmur in agreement with and that really is Qaduir's hopes.
As the article continues, she pushes the notion of profiling women and laments that they can't be "detained" (imprisoned) only from a profile. But if she can't imprison them, she can create "homes" and "shelters" to "put them in". Consider them pretty prisons. And by not calling them prisons, Qaduir may be able to circumvent the remnants of a legal system in Iraq. "It's for your own good," they could tell these 'sick' women -- when the only sickness is the occupation itself.
Qaduir is a quack who wants to use her psuedo 'understanding' to crack down on women. If there's anything worse than your husband being imprisoned in the illegal maze or being killed, it has to be dealing with that while you're farmed out to a detention center posing as 'care'.
The reality is that the response of Iraqis to resist the occupation is a normal response and all the more so when someone they have loved is killed. Want to end 'sucide bombings'? End the illegal war. A condition that's developed from the sickness of the Iraq War will be 'treated,' if Qaduir gets her way, by divorcing it from the very cause and treating the women's response as abnormal when what happened to their husbands was the abnormal thing. Instead, Qaduir's accepting as 'normal' the illegal war, the occupation that goes along with it and all the violence involved. The only 'abnormal' thing to her is that some women might respond in violence. Imagine what she would have recommended for American woman participating in the Revolutionary War.
Qaduir is not the 'fixer,' she is part of the problem. (And apparently the Jane Harman of the Iraqi Parliament.) With all the women and children in Iraq who are homeless, the fact that she wants to create detention centers (posing as 'shelters') to imprison women who fit her profile while ignoring those very much in need of an actual shelter says a great deal.
And she can try to cut off debate with all her claims of 'different' societies until she's blue in the face but she's targeting a group for imprisonment out of her own fear. That's not all that 'different' than the round ups Bully Boy launched of Arab-Americans after 9-11.
The problem is not women whose lives are destroyed resisting the ongoing occupation, the problem is the Iraq War. If "Dr." Qaduri wants to 'treat' something, she might try addressing that instead of attempting to round up widows due to Qaduri's own fear and derangement. Her profile not only reflects the 'US military analysis,' it appears to have been handed her to her by the US military.
Well, gee Qaduri, if 'radicals' and 'terrorists' are reaching out to Iraqis, maybe your problem is that the central government (a puppet government) does nothing to help Iraqis?
If she was truly so alarmed for Iraqi women, she could be advocating for real centers that would make a difference in Iraqi women's lives. But she's not interested in centers or shelters, just in the facade of them that will allow other Iraqis to be imprisoned. Imagine the results that would have.
Someone -- US military, Iraqi forces -- comes to you and tells you that your husband has just been killed (or imprisoned) and along with have to deal with that, you also have to think, "They're going to round me up!"
What an idiot, Qaduir is. She'll make Iraq 'safer' by locking everyone up. The pot's already boiling and the lid's about to blow off but Qaduir is devising additional ways to stoke the tensions.
Rubin's article notes that 43 women are thought to have been suicide bombers since the start of the illegal war and that, so far this year, "11 of the 20 suicide bombings" are thought to have been done by women. (And, as the article notes, some women did not detonate bombs, a remote control device was used. Women being targeted -- as one who went to a police station seeking protection -- goes to the realities that imprisoning widows will never 'fix.')
43 bombings over five years is not a huge number when you realize that it's a rare day when multiple bombings don't explode throughout Iraq. It is hardly an 'epedimic.' And, again, it's not an unusal response to an occupation. That's before you even factor in how many of the 43 women willingly (or knowingly) wore bombs?
The US military's numbers (an undercount more than likely) place December 2006 as one of the 'low' months for bombings in Iraq and they count 65 for that month. (There isn't a breakdown as to 'sucide' bombings -- but there couldn't be -- whether it's a car bombing or a person, they don't know whether the person with the bomb knew it was there.)
63 months have been registered in the illegal war (we're in the 64th). Taking the low number of 65 (the US military counts over 80 in April 2007), and multiplying it by 63 gives you 4095 bombings. 43 is not really a large number in that context.
Regarding e-mails to the public account, it's a laugh filled browse through. Apparently, non-Democrats who thought they could pose as Democrats, inject themselves into a Democratic primary, lie for Barack and against Hillary, think there's some sort of armistice that must take place. Not on my end. Quit asking for highlights. You burned that bridge during the primary. Not just by your vile and disgusting attacks on Hillary (most laughable is the Closet Communist who focused on sick fantasies about Hillary's 'bedtime' behavior and thinks I would give a damn after that about anything) but by pretending you were Democrats. I'm happy to highlight Communists, Socialists, Greens, Democrats. It's all part of the left. But I don't highlight known liars and while you could stay in your political closets all you wanted when you stayed out of political primaries, when you decided to pass yourself off as Democrats, tried to trick people into believing that lie (and many did believe it), you lost any chance of ever being highlighted here again. I see an e-mail from the Closeted Communist who wanted to argue with Ava and insult her back in January. Strange, CC doesn't apologize today. Or mention that Ava was exactly right about the Latino vote in California. CC in NYC just knew better than Ava, as a White. (non-practicing) Jew in Brooklyn, how Latinos in California would vote. Didn't matter that Ava actually lives in California, didn't matter that Ava's a Latina. From Brooklyn, CC could see all and know all. Of course, as it turned out, Ava called California's vote (and the Latino vote) 100% correctly. And, repeating, CC never e-mailed to say, "Ava, you were right, I was wrong." (When Ava, in a polite reply, noted that this community did not support Barack, CC fired back that "all people of color" supported Barack and that Ava was "just another White racist who wouldn't allow any non-White, non-Anglo man" -- note the "man" -- "to get ahead. And you know nothing about Hispanics. I encounter Hispanics in my daily life!" Ava stopped being nice at that point and informed deluded in Brooklyn that she was corresponding with a non-Anglo and that her crap might work in The People's Republic of Brooklyn, but it wasn't going to play far outside of it. Those exchanges, by the way, are pinned on the wall above this computer monitor, for when I need a good laugh.) In fact, after CC was revealed to be not so psychic, we never heard from that CC again. Now she's back wanting a highlight. Not happening. In her case, it's not only the fact that she posed as a Democrat, it's also the fact that she was flat out rude and insulting to Ava and, prior to that, she needed some advice on raising her profile which Rebecca was kind enough to give out for free. (Rebecca's field was p.r., she gave expert advice at no-cost.) After Rebecca went through what to do at great length, the woman did follow Rebecca's advice, but she never wrote back to say "thank you" or even acknowledge that Rebecca had been more than gracious. I don't tolerate bad manners anymore than I tolerate political closets. There is no armistice, there is no amnesty. Those who pretended to be Democrats because they loved Barack Obama (or just wanted to tear apart the Democratic Party) will not be linked to here again. I don't promote known liars. And if you were affiliated with a group or the leader of a group, they're days of promotion vanished with your 'antics.'
But considering that 23 CCs wrote in this morning, apparently July 4th is followed by Forgiveness Day? If so, it's not marked on my calendar and, even if it was, I wouldn't choose to celebrate. You made your sick beds, lie in them.
A music piece by Kat goes up after this.
The following community sites have updated since Friday morning*:
* Kat's posting at her site after her review goes up and Cedric and Wally are working on a joint-post right now but I want to get this posted (now that Flickr's finally uploaded the illustration).
Declare your independence from the flip-floppers McCain and Obama. Drop $4 now on Nader/Gonzalez for the Fourth of July weekend. Thank you. As you enjoy your Fourth of July weekend with friends and family, keep an eye on Nader/Gonzalez: Ralph Nader will appear on CNN and C-Span this weekend. Steve Scully's interview of Ralph will run on C-Span twice on Sunday night at 6:30 and 9:30 p.m. EST. You can also watch on line now here. CNN's Rick Sanchez interview with Ralph will run on Saturday night. Ralph is a huge sports fan. Check out Dave Zirin's recent interview with Nader on sports here.And Dan Patrick's Sports Illustrated interview here. When Ralph Nader was growing up in Winsted, Connecticut, his hero was Yankee slugger Lou Gehrig. Gehrig was known as the Iron Horse for his stamina and persistence. (Now you know where Ralph gets it.) Ralph is campaigning in Hawaii this weekend. See story here. Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in Nevada. See story here. We here at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign are pumped about the possibilities this summer. Ralph is polling at 6 percent. We'd like to bump it to ten percent and get Ralph into the Presidential debates. We're shooting for 45 states by September. And the possibilities of a three way race. Two flip floppers. And the real deal. So, drop four dollars now on the real deal. And declare your independence from the flip-flopping, corporate controlled McCain and Obama. Together, we are making a difference. Have a safe and happy holiday weekend. Onward The Nader Team
Except for the photo, that was in yesterday's snapshot but Micah and Howard both e-mailed to say that was Nader's best non-official picture.
Friday, July 4, 2008. Chaos and violence continue (if little reported), .Barack can't eat his waffles but he can waffle, Ralph Nader takes his presidential campaign to the people and more.
Starting with war resistance. Brett Clarkson and Jason Buckland (Toronto Sun) report US war resister Corey Glass, scheduled to be deported from Canada July 10th, is believing nothing "until he receives a DD 214 -- a form from the US department of defence that confirms he has been discharged from active duty service -- he can still be charged when he returns to the U.S." Lindsey Weibe (Winnipeg Free Press) reports that supports of US war resisters staged a sit-in at the "Pembina Highway office of Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge yesterday".
Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States. Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th. We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced). We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
It's Fourth of July weekend. Reuters made it through it without filing a single "Factbox" report of the violence. Not everyone had the day off . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 Baghdad roadside bombings resulting in four people being wounded. And dropping back to Thursday, MNF announced today, "Two local nationals were killed and one was wounded when an explosion occurred near the Yarmouk Hospital in west Baghdad at approximately 8:55 p.m., July 3."
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 Iraqi civilian shot dead and two more wounded by US forces as they were driving on a highway and that they shot dead the a six-year-old girl, wounded four of her brother and her mother as they stormed into the home of Hasen Atiyah al-Iqabi in Baquba.
Turning to the US presidential race. Barack Obama? Arab News notes, "For Obama, who recently changed his positions on campaign finance and a wiretapping law, the suggestion that he was also changing course on a central premise of his candidacy holds particular peril. While Obama has long said he would consult commanders in the field when withdrawing troops, that point might have been lost on many Democratic primary voters who supported his call to end the war." What's going on? A bit of reality on War Hawk Barack. Suzanne Goldenberg (Guardian of London) puts it this way, ".Barack Obama was yesterday fending off charges from right and left that he had abandoned the core premise of his candidacy - the withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office - in an attempt to attract voters from the political centre." Suzanne's a little out of it. So were Katrina vanden Heuvel and Arianna Huffington on ABC's This Week last Sunday. Withdrawal in 16 months? That's 'so January 2008.' Barack promised withdrawal of all (combat) troops within 10 months in a speech in Houston, Texas. Always one to carry water for Barack, Tom Hayden immediately penned "End the War in 2009" (which popped up online at The Nation, Feb. 20th and elsewhere a bit later). Hayden: "In his victory speech in Texas Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to end the Iraq war in 2009, a new commitment that parallels recent opinion pieces in The Nation. Prior to his Houston remarks, Obama's previous position favored an American combat troop withdrawal over a sixteen-to-eighteen-month timeframe. He has been less specific on the number and mission of any advisors he would elave behind." (The Texas primary was in March. Barack was in Texas campaigning, for any more confused than usual by Tom-Tom's bad-bad writing.) Texas community members saw the 10 month 'promise' pushed in advertising as well as on the campaign trail. Those were his words (and Tom-Tom notes 'words matter') so let's all drop the nonsense that Barack's plan was 16 months (or at least leave the lying to Katrina who's become so very good at it). Goldenberg's uninformed, ignorant or lying -- take your pick. In her piece (dated tomorrow), she traces the uproar to Thursday when Barack said he might 'refine' his Iraq 'plan.' If that's when the uproar started, is Arianna Huffington psychic? Arianna was calling him out for 'refining' on Iraq Sunday on This Week. More water carrying from the allegedly 'independent' Guardian of London (which never wrote about the Downing Street Memos because 'independence' did not include informing people that Tony Blair lied England into an illegal war -- no time for 'truth-telling' while Blair was in office at any rate.) CNN reports that presumed GOP presidential candidate John McCain and the RNC are calling Barack a "flip-flopper" and they quote Barack's 'clarification' where Barack lies and says he has always said 16 months. No, Barack, you went to ten months in February. AP reports he celebrated the 4th of July in Butte, Montana (Kansas, he's done with you, he got what he needed) eating a hot dog. Tom Baldwin (Times of London) observes, "Grassroots activists whose energy and donations have helped to propel Barack Obama towards the White House are suddenly choking on the bitter pill of disillusion.
In less than a month since clinching the Democratic nomination, he has performed a series of policy pirouettes to assuage concerns about his candidacy among a wider and more conservative electorate." Geoff Elliott (The Australian) points out, "Barack Obama has started a dramtic reversal of the policies that helped him defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination, softening hardlines stances on the Iraq war and troop withdrawals.
Campaigning in North Dakota, Senator Obama said that while the US could not sustain a long-term presence in Iraq, his trip to the Gulf nation this month might prompt him to "refine my policies" on the war." John Bentley (CBS News) quotes Brian Rogers of the McCain campaign stating, "Today, Barack Obama reversed that position, proving once again his words do not matter. He has now adopted John McCain's position that we cannot risk the progress we have made in Iraq by beginning to withdraw our troops immediately without concern for conditions on the ground. Now that Barack Obama has changed course and proven his past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him on taking John McCain's principled stand on this critical national security issue. If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-on-one meeting with Gen. Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago." Jonathan Weisman (Washington Post) terms it Barack exploring "the possibility of slowing a promised, gradual withdrawal from Iraq". NPR has two audio reports here. How bad it is? A friend just called to laugh at ____'s latest nonsense. In place of a now killed feature for Third, we may address ____'s latest nonsense and his plethora of lies throughout the campaign. Poor ____, it's even harder to airbrush out reality today than it was following his expulsion from the Red Family commune in his "smash the state" days (when he fancied himself Chris Jones in Wild In The Street).
Ralph Nader is opposed to the illegal war and has always been opposed to it. He called it before it started and throughout. He has not waffled like Saint Barack. Yesterday he spoke at the University of Hawaii-Manou. Craig Gima (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports:
In a news conference before the speech, Nader said Hawaii voters are being marginalized by the major candidates.
"When political candidates do not campaign in a state, voter turnout suffers," Nader said, adding that he has campaigned in all 50 states in the last two elections.
Nader said he supports the Akaka Bill and native Hawaiian rights, and said Hawaii should be a model for the rest of the country in renewable energy.
"This is the only place in the world where every form of renewable energy occurs," he said.
Nader also said that if elected he would push for universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour and the repeal of what he called the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.
Derrick DePledge (Honolulu Advertiser) notes that no presidential candidate has campaigned in Hawaii since Richard Nixon in 1960, notes Nader is already on the ballot in Hawaii for the presidential election and quotes him explaining, ""I didn't start running for president until the doors started closing in Washington against consumer, environmental, labor and other citizen groups. So when you don't have a chance to have a chance to improve your country on Capitol Hill and before the regulatory agencies, you either close up shop and go to Monterey and watch the whales or you go into the electoral arena." Third Party Watch covers it here. Ahead of the apperance KHNL, AP and KITV reported on it. Thursday the Reno Gazette Journal reported Nader's campaign had turned in their signatures to be on the ballot in Nevada. The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that the campaign collected 12,000 signatures -- far more than needed to qualify. KRNV reports that if the Democrats attempt any of the manuevers they did in 2004, the Nader campaign will fight it.
When Ralph Nader was growing up in Winsted, Connecticut, his hero was Yankee slugger Lou Gehrig. Gehrig was known as the Iron Horse for his stamina and persistence. (Now you know where Ralph gets it.)
Ralph is campaigning in Hawaii this weekend. See story here.
When [Corey] Glass was discharged from active service in December 2006, he was put in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), [US army Major Nathan] Banks said, for soldiers who have served active duty but have time left on their military contract. Glass, who signed up in 2002, would have IRR status until 2010.Of the 1.7 million U.S. military personnel who have served in Iraq since the start of the war, a little more than 5,000 have been from the IRR., Banks said."His chances of getting called up are slim to none," Banks said. But that chance is still there, he acknowledged. Glass said until he receives a DD 214 -- a form from the U.S. department of defence that confirms he has been discharged from active service duty -- he can still be charged when he returns to the U.S. He said military lawyers have told him if he shows up to Muster, he will be charged for AWOL desertion."The only contact the Army has had with me is they called my mother to tell her what a disgrace I was," he said of his mom, Lisa, who lives in Indiana.
That's from Brett Clarkson and Jason Buckland's "Resister still wary of U.S. " (Toronto Sun) and Clarkson and Buckland are obviously 'in the tank with the Pentagon'. That last part was sarcasm (they're not 'in the tank' -- see previous entry for what I'm referring to). Staying with the topic of war resistance in Canada, Lindsey Wiebe's "Activists target Bruinooge's office" (Winnipeg Free Press) notes:
Half a dozen Winnipeggers staked out the Pembina Highway office of Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge yesterday to support American war deserters seeking refuge in Canada. "These people are refusing to serve in Iraq on conscientious grounds," said Michael Welch, a peace activist who helped organize the rally in front of Bruinooge's strip-mall office."I do definitely feel that there is a call to stand in solidarity with them."
Michael Welch is planning to be at Bruinooge's office at 4 p.m. and said that he will not leave voluntarily until Citizenship and Immigration Minister Diane Finley rescinds the order to deport Corey Glass.
Thanks to you, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in ten states, as promised, by July 6.
Our goal - 45 states by September 15.
We must now thank all of our roadtrippers. (Pictured above - our Illinois road trip crew turning in their signatures last week.)
You help fund them.
But they go out - day in and day out - and collect the necessary signatures to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
Our nationwide team has been busting it all around this country.
Today, our crew in Nevada will turn in 12,000 signatures - more than twice the 5,000 needed.
As they say - what was collected in Nevada, stays in Nevada.
And as a result, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in that key swing state.
Thank you and congratulations Nevada road trip crew.
Finally, why we are doing all of this?
We are doing this because we have no alternative.
McCain is the candidate of perpetual war.
Obama is the corporate Democrat and panderer in chief. (Still doubt it? Check out this article in the New York Times documenting his flip-flop on telecom immunity and the political fallout.)
Let's keep our eye on the ball.
And get it done.
By the way, Ralph is in Honolulu, Hawaii tonight for a campaign speech and rally. If you are in the area, please stop by.
Onward
The Nader Team
PS: We invite your comments to the blog.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.
********* e-mails and apparently didn't check out the notice to the left. I'll publish any damn e-mail I want.
***** wants me to know that Corey Glass is "inactive, not discharged," that ABC News was "working with the Pentagon," and wants to lecture me about research.
My job isn't to do whatever you want, however you want.
I'm getting real sick of the ineffective Canadian 'helpers' to begin with. For instance, a wife of a war resister could have become a citizen years ago. If she had, she, her children and her husband would be safe -- all of them. But somehow no one bothered to explain that to her, no 'helper.' I don't know if it's ignorance or a desire to 'see it through' on the part of the left in Canada. But someone should have told her, "The minute you become a citizen, no one is going to deport your husband. The minute you're a citizen, they can't touch ___. If they try to deport him, it will be, 'Canadian government breaking up home.'" But that was never conveyed. Now why is that?
Considering all the CRAP the bulk of you put out when you speak to the media and ALL the DAMAGE it does, **** needs to take his criticism back across the border, *****, and shove it up his ass.
How many times are 'helpful' Canadians going to speak to the press and LIE that Canada, during Vietnam, "took in draft dodgers so we should take in today's war resisters"?
How about you focus on patrolling your own 'movement' in Canada because, from the United States, you're not doing a great deal that qualifies as 'helping'.
Flipping through the April through June 1969 volume of my journal, what do I see? I see a New York Times article I clipped and pasted in all those years ago. The date of it is May 23, 1969. The reporter is Jay Walz, the title is "Canada to Admit Any U.S. Deserter." (Subtitle "Border Officials No Longer to Decide on Entries.") Do you get it, *****?
Do you need the first ____ing paragaraph?
OTTAWA, May 22 -- The Government decided today to allow United States military deserters to enter Canada and, unless they are otherwise ineligible, to let them stay.
"Let them stay." Gee, *****, the title of a recent documentary.
And here's the thing, you rude ass, all the 'helpful' ones saying, "Draft dodgers were let in!"? They're not doing to a damn thing to help today.
There is no draft today.
Canada allowed US deserters to enter the country, to have landed immigrant status and they were not at risk of deportation.
Instead of addressing that historical reality, the 'helpers' in Canada can be found in one damn article after another saying, "Well we let draft dodgers stay."
A meme's taken hold that hurts today's war resisters. The battle today would be SO MUCH easier if people could stick to historical facts. There would be no need to play the crap-ass game of, "We let draft dodgers stay then so now we should let deserters."
Canada welcomed US war resisters -- whether they were evading the draft or whether they were deserting. The draft wasn't an issue for the Canadian government, Canada had no draft. The argument should have been -- all along -- "We let deserters stay during Vietnam, it's time to do the same today." Instead, because 'helpers' refuse to do that, all the right-wing outlets in Canada toss out the meme of "The difference is that back then there was a draft and we were just welcoming draft dodgers."
The draft didn't matter at all. Not in terms of what the Canadian government did. Draft evader, deserter, you could receive landed immigrant status. If you were a deserter, there was no Q&A to determine whether you were deserting after being drafted or if you enlisted, there was no statement you had to swear to that you were drafted.
So why don't you work on getting out the truth in Canada and leave me the ___ alone?
I've watched this process unfold since the start of the illegal war and watched in shock as history was rewritten. The bulk of the people I've helped go to Canada in this illegal war stay underground. And the reason is because I've stated repeatedly, "I don't know what they're doing and I don't think they know what they're doing." "They" meaning the 'helpers.'
But I've bit my tongue here on the 'helpers' and figured, "That's the Canadians job to worry about." I'm not going to bite my tongue when some rude 'helper' wants to sound off about things he knows nothing about. (Go back and read those entries, you dumb ass, I stated we would be addressing the spin at Third on Sunday.) Want to fire back across the border, let's have at it.
And let's tell the truth about one of the reasons Canadians aren't being honest. There was a huge split in the war resister movement back in the day. Not usually among the war resisters themselves, but among the 'helpers.' Prior to the policy of 1969, there were a lot of 'helpers' who didn't want to do a damn thing to help deserters. They wanted to focus on draft evaders because (a) they saw themselves as taking down a US military policy and (b) draft resisters were judged to be more 'sympathetic.'
As someone involved in the underground railroad back then, I damn well know who was a draft evader and who was a deserter. I can flip through any volume of the journal and find names, presented in the press today as 'draft dodgers,' who were in fact deserters.
I don't know why that is. Maybe some think it makes them more 'respectable.' (Some I'm still in touch with tell me they're told to, quote, "cool it.") But I know that those of us helping people get into Canada back then think today that some of the deserters need to come out of the damn closet already and quit posing as 'draft dodgers.'
I know that anyone with half a brain would have grasped that -- with no draft today -- you don't waste time talking about some stupid draft. I know that anyone with half a brain would have gathered Vietnam deserters in Toronto for a press conference where they stated, "We deserted and we were allowed to stay." That's the only thing that would have put a rest to this LIE that Canada only accepted draft dodgers.
Once that press conference took place, it would no longer be a question of asking Canada (wrongly) to expand the welcome they gave during Vietnam to 'include' deserters. (Canada also took in deserters in the eighties. Does today's movement know a damn thing about that or what country the deserters came from? From this side of the border, it doesn't appear that they do.) By telling the historical truth, the argument would be: We took in deserters then and we need to do so now.
If you can't grasp the difference, then you're an idiot. As it's argued today, you're asking people to add-on to what they did before -- to add the category of 'deserter' to what Canada has welcomed in the past. The reality is Canada welcomed deserters during Vietnam. Instead of making the strongest case possible, you start from a position of weakness and beg Canadians to 'expand' a category -- a category that already exists.
Pierre Trudeau's son is trotted out for a press conference and he doesn't even know what his father did? How the hell does that happen? Exactly how are the 'helpers' helping anyone? There's Junior going on about how his father allowed 'draft dodgers' to stay in Canada. When he did that weeks ago, I didn't call him out. My mouth dropped in shock -- at his words and at the failure of any 'helper' to correct him. But I took the attitude of, "Oh, well, that's their problem, that's their issue." But you want to e-mail and slam me when you don't even know what I've written?
Canadian 'helpers' have had five years to get their act together and they still can't do it. They can't even tell the basic truths such as "We welcomed deserters during Vietnam."
It reminds me a great deal of the 'help' the 'helpers' provided in the early seventies (on through 1978) which was no help to deserters. Deserters were basically forming their own collective/union (Amex-Canada was one of the locales) and they were repeatedly told (by 'helpers') that they were 'hurting the cause' and that they needed to take 'a lower profile.' How did that work out?
It worked out that deserters got no amnesty from the US. (Ford's program was a joke. Carter ignored them.) It worked out that some deserters now pass themselves off as draft evaders because we must not have any 'conflict' in the movement. It's time to stop 'smoothing' over the truth for the egos of the 'helpers.'
You want to help, *****? You start calling out everyone who lies and denies that Canada welcomed deserters during Vietnam.
You want to help, ******? Stage a symposium in which 'helpers' examine how they didn't help war resisters in the seventies. 1969 was the change that found deserters and draft dodgers officially and legally welcomed in Canada. What happened after that?
A lot of tsk-tsking at deserters who took their grievances with the US public. A lot of telling them they were hurting the 'movement' (what ___ing movement?). Telling them that demanding amnesty [from the US government] was hurting the 'movement.' Making them feel that they were damaging something (there was nothing to damage -- at that point the 'movement' was nothing but a way to bump up the local economy and boost tourism). And bit by bit, 'helpers' succeeded in clamping down. As a result, a Vietnam deserter going into the US today faces likely imprisonment. Way to go, Canadian 'helpers,' you were so 'smart,' you were so 'wise,' and so very damn 'helpful.'
Nixon had been pardoned. After that, there was no reason anyone couldn't have been. But it would have required real resistance, real work and real demonstrations. But deserters trying to do just that were repeatedly told to 'pipe down' and warned that they were 'hurting' the movement. This went on well past the end of the war in Vietnam.
Now I call out the 'movement' in the US regularly and bite my tongue on Canada but not when I get some 'video artiste' ranting at me (for something I didn't do) in an e-mail. When that happens, biting my tongue ends.
The ABC News report was a report. If you didn't like it, hold a press conference and we'll cover that. Are the 'helpers' in Canada today so stupid that they don't even know how to get press?
Calling out an American broadcast network gets media attention (in Canada and it travels back to the US). My goodness, what idiots. Is it true, it is false? Go back to what I wrote and trying reading it, you dumb ass.
But in terms of publicity, ABC News reported something. Call it out and get publicity. Don't waste my time with your insulting private e-mails. How pathetic. If you're symbolic of the 'best' of the 'helpers,' no wonder nothing's been accomplished.
The media's not interested in "I refuse to serve in the illegal war." They were never overly interested in that topic to begin with. In the US, by the time Camilo Mejia was first being reported on, they'd lost interest in the topic. They want conflict. A father and son who support one another but have differences over a stand? It's conflict. The media will report that. They'll do it as a human interest story but it will get the story out at a time when NO stories are getting out. A war resister is reported on falsely? That would be conflict.
The media does not exist to tell the same story over and over. That's why the 'campaign' reporters 'invent' details regularly. They drum up the conflict (creating it when it's not there). Instead of e-mailing me, dumb ass, try grasping what the media situation/environment is and figuring out that your let-me-make-charges-and-hide-in-private-in-an-e-mail is a waste of time.
You want attention to war resisters (which I've already given)? Make some damn news. All the MSM is interested in at this point is human interest stories. They want family conflicts. They want families ripped apart. That's the only way they're covering war resisters unless there is some actual news. Such as? Asserting that a major American broadcast network got the story wrong will get media attention. No wonder you 'helpers' fail repeatedly while trying to get attention to the cause of war resisters -- you don't even grasp the media situation or how to use it to get the stories out.
And when your own 'movement' can't get the facts straight on how Canada welcomed deserters during Vietnam -- can't get that well reported in real time, historical fact into the conversation today -- why don't you work on that and stop e-mailing me your whines and carping?
If you think you're 'helping' anyone, you're kidding yourself. Because after five years the 'movement' in Canada will not demand that their media get the facts right. But ***** wants to gripe at me for noting an ABC report -- while ignoring what I actually wrote including that we'd be addressing it at Third on Sunday. (Only now, I'm so pised, I don't think we will.)
I supported war resisters during Vietnam. It didn't matter whether they were avoiding the draft or leaving the service. (Then, as now, I never advised anyone to leave. That is a huge decision with lifelong implications and only the resister can make that decision. If they've made that decision, I'm happy to help -- then and now.) That's true of a very small few actually helping today (you could put Lee, Gerry and Shirley on that small list).
ABC reported on Corey Glass which is a hell of a lot more than most did -- in Canada or the US. (Especially in the US.) It resulted in more attention to war resisters than we've seen in recent months. Is ABC right or wrong? One thing ABC is not, on this story, is working with the Pentagon. I don't know the reporter but I got a call from a friend at ABC that they were about to post that online. While I was writing that, I was just waiting for the URL and for it to go up at ABC News. If the report's wrong (and read the entries that covered it because I'm noting spin in those, ****), it's not because someone was "working with the Pentagon." ABC went after that story, they weren't fed it. The report may or may not be correct (again -- we were going to address that at Third -- as I noted repeatedly in those entries, but now, I don't think so) but the reporter was not 'in the tank.' That's a bunch of paranoid crap. You can call the story out without pinning motives on the reporter credited.
But, ****, you don't want to call the story out. Not publicly. You just want to rant at me in an e-mail.
Why don't you police things on your side of the border?
***, I'm not in the mood for your garbage, don't dump it on me. I'm not in the mood for your paranoid ravings that ABC deliberately set out to lie for the Pentagon. That's a flat out lie and you're just making insane claims that you can't back up.
You've got more than enough to police in Canada, why don't you focus on that?
And why don't you try learning what the hell you're talking about before you e-mail me? I didn't report a damn thing. This is a resource/review. If you Google "The Common Ills" and "resource/review," you'll see at least 58 search results turn up. If I wanted to be a reporter, I would've done that years ago, you dumb ass.
Forget that you don't know a damn thing about me, you don't know a damn thing about this site. So why don't you do your research before boring people with your conspiracy theories, your crackpot 'facts' and your whines and insults?
This is a private conversation in a public square (as Gina long ago noted). We didn't ask for your input, we don't need it. You're just another person failing a supposed 'movement' and wanting to pretend you've done a damn thing. In the words of Stevie Wonder, "You Ain't Done Nothing." I'm being kind and putting "***" where you name should be. Whine to me again, I'll call your ass out publicly. That's what the note to the left means, TRY READING.
In the time you wasted trying to abuse me privately ("Do not publish this e-mail"), you could have actually done something. Equally true is unlike yourself, I haven't tried to make a buck off this illegal war or make a 'name' for myself. While I will never hurt for money, you can't deny that you've advanced yourself as much as you've 'advanced' the cause of war resisters. Lot of people making bucks off the illegal war and they're not all in the defense industries.
If you don't like ABC's report, you take it up with them. I'm sure they'll laugh their asses off at your claim that the they're in the tank with the Pentagon on that story. I guess from Canada, you can peer into the offices of ABC News and also hear all conversations taking place?
Again, for community members, the Third story is now killed. I'm killing it. I'm not going to take *****'s abuse -- for something I didn't even do -- and turn around and waste my time on this story. In my own work (off-line), I've always been happy to go into an unknown situation. But I've always refused to work again with people who've burned me. Going into an unknown situation is one thing, going into a known bad situation is another. One thing is common sense, the other is stupidity. I am many things but I am not willfully stupid. The one thing I've always been able to do is learn from my mistakes.
It's not that a 'video artiste,' piss-ant wanted to criticize what I did, it's that he wanted to slam me for something I never did. There's a big difference and I'm not in the mood for that crap. I will gladly own any mistake I make. I will apologize. I have no problem saying "I was wrong" and anyone who knows me can tell you that. But criticize me for what I did and I will ponder it, I will apologize, I will examine it at length. Invent things that I didn't do, and that's another story.
Reporters who are mentioned here write in all the time and I read it. I don't get my 'little feelings' hurt if they're cursing. I've dished it out, they can have their say and I will consider it and mull it over. But that's about something I did. I will not be someone's sin eater for something I never did. I will not read an e-mail of charges against me for something I never did and play 'fair.' If **** bothers me again with more of his abuse, I won't only name him here (he's not a reporter, but he is a public person), I will call out his 'work.' I'm not in the mood for it. I'm not in the mood for crackpot theories about what ABC News did and I'm not in the mood for lies about what I supposedly did. (And he's so historically ignorant that he doesn't even know what's going on. How typical. It should be flashback time, circa 1977, for anyone paying attention.)
I have no respect for someone who not only lies and insults me but then wants to end his e-mail with "just asking you to look into this more." As a very good friend said years ago, when Rex Reed wrote her a letter of apology after doing a piece trashing her, "I had more respect for him when he hated me." What a little kiss ass.
Thursday, July 3, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, war resistance in
Puerto Rico (long going on) becomes more public, the White House continues to
twist arms in Iraq, sexism watch and more.
Starting with war resistance. Corey Glass is a US war resister in Canada.
Yesterday, Russell Goldman (ABC News) reported: "Unbeknownst to him and
his legion of supporters, Glass, 25, was actually discharged from the U.S. Army
shortly after he went AWOL in 2006. . . . According to U.S. Army documents and
officials Glass was discharged from the California National Guard on Dec. 1,
2006, four months after he arrived in Canada and six months after he failed to
show up to a required muster." Matthew Campbell (Globe & Mail)
reports, "Like thousands of other discharged American soldiers, once back in
the United States Mr. Glass coulld still be called up as part of the Indvidual
Ready Reserve, a program in which former soldiers can be forced to re-enter
service." War Resisters
Support Campaign's Lee Zaslofsky terms the announcement by
the military "spin." David Wylie (Canwest News Service) notes
that the announcement did not derail a planned event tonight in Toronto where
supporters are to gather at the May Robinson Building. UPI notes
the recent poll which found 64% of Canadians are in
favor of allowing US war resisters safe harbor status. Workers World
files "Iraq veteran faces deportation, wins support" observes, "The
struggle to make Canada a sancurary for war resisters takes on greater
importance as more soldiers refuse to return to Iraq. The increasing support
for resisters demonstrates widespread opposition to the war and determination to
stop it the simplest way: by helping the troops refuse to fight." They also
note that IVAW
chair Camilo Mejia wrote a letter of support for war resisters in Canada which
noted that "it is because of what we saw and experienced [in Iraq] that we
support our brothers and sisters seeking a new home in Canada. They are
avoiding participation in a criminal, illegal and immoral occupation so that
other families can live in peace in their own land. They are doing the right
thing! . . . We call upon the Canadian government to implement the motion
stopping all deportations of U.S. war resisters and allowing them to stay in
Canada, not only because it is your duty to the people you represent to heed to
their will, but also because it is a clear statement of support and solidarity
for the people of Iraq."
As Camilo's letter makes clear, Corey Glass is not the only US war resister
in Canada and he is also not necessarily in the clear. But all war resisters in
Canada (and in the US) deserve support. In the US, Courage to Resist is planning
"July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates
nationwide:"
Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian
consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve
of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the
June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities
to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW
(map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA
San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info:
510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info:
206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North
St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and
Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to
1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info:
212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market
St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info:
215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth
Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm -
550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA.
Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other
Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami,
Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to
Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage
to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates:
"Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help
organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United
States. Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic
motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the
Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned
courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National
Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th. We will ask that the
Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the
demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations,
and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease
deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war
resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe
Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San
Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more
to be announced). We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters
to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by
resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
And in the US, AP's "Mothers
of 2 US soldiers say their sons left bases to hide in Puerto Rico,"
addresses Maria Santiago and Luz Eneida Morales -- two women in San Juan,
Puerto Rico who have stated their two sons are there, not going back to the US
military and that the police need "to stop searching" for the men. Hiram Lozada
is representing the two families. Santiago states she went to Fort Campbell
("last March) and she and her son returned to Puerto Rico while Morales went to
her son's base in Colorado and returned to Puerto Rico with him.
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael
Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck
Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess,
Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin
Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross
Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther
Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara
Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera,
Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin
Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala,
Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey
Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark
Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo
Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders,
Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel,
Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris
Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian
Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La
Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war
resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
Friday is July 4th, in the US, the day of independence. Kelly Dougherty
(IVAW) reflects, "Just a few days ago Independence Day came and went, and
did anyone notice? June 28th was the day the US returned sovereignty to Iraq in
2004, and it should be a day of celebration, a day when Iraqis mark their equal
status among nations, just as America did more than two centuries ago. But even
when, finally, the Iraqi people are truly able to steer their own course and run
their country as they see fit, I doubt that June 28th will be celebrated as a
true Independence Day in Iraq. Would we be celebrating if our Declaration of
Independence had been edited by King George III? What if Britain maintained
troops and military bases inside our major cities? Would we mark the day this
'independence' began with fireworks and parades?"
As Dougherty explains, there is no independence in Iraq for Iraqis. Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times)
reporting on the efforts by the White House to push through a treaty and
notes that the complications include "political currents in both countries.
Iraqi officials facing elections in the fall do not want to be seen as
capitulating to the United States." The White House is pushing the notion that
they want a "Status Of Forces Agreement" and not a treaty. By not calling it a
"treaty," they hope to bypass the US Senate and the Constitutional provision
that the Senate must ratify all treaties. In Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki already
stated he would follow Iraq's Constitution and send the treaty to Parliament.
(However, this is the same al-Maliki who pushed through last year's United
Nations renewal of the authorization for the occupation -- after promising the
Parliament that doing so in 2006 was a mistake he wouldn't make again.) With
the White House timeline now 'iffy' (they want the treaty by the end of this
month), Rubin reports that Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zerbari has began
pushing the notion of a "memo." Doug Smith and Raheem Salman (Los Angeles
Times) report that (regardless of what is called) the Iraqi Parliament
isn't too high on the agreement and quote MP Rashid Azzawi stating, "He was like
an American negotiator and not an Iraqi one. He didn't specify many details"
and MP Nassar Rubaie declaring, "It is an unequal convention between an occupier
and an occupied country." Again, as Kelli Dougherty noted, the Iraqis have no
independence today. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post)
quotes Mirembe Nantongo ("U.S. Embassy spokeswoman") stating that the White
House and it's occupied, client-state of Iraq are speaking to one another with
"a constructive spirit." Raghavan also notes Zebari's excitement over the
possiblity that Iraq might maybe, fingers-crossed, deep breath, control their
own airspace . . . if the White House lets them. Hiba Dawood (UPI) surveys the landscape
and notes an Al-Basaer editorial entitled "Al-Maliki's dilemma between Tehran
and Washington" which Dawood sums up as: "Maliki, the paper said, is in a state
where he must choose between his old ally and main support, Iran, or his new
ally that placed him at the premiership, the United States. The influential
Sunni newspaper said that satisfying the United States means accepting the
establishment of 50 permanent military bases, handing over Iraq's oil wealth to
American companies, granting amnesty to thousands of U.S. troops and security
contractors as well as granting the United States authority over Iraq's land and
airspace. The paper said that among the various Iraqi political blocs opposing
the status-of-forces agreement, only the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front supports
it because it would deter Iranian influence in Iraq." While everyone pretends
the White House is playing it above-board on this issue, James Glanz and Richard
A. Oppel Jr.'s "Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil
Deal" (New York Times) details Henry Waxman's House committee's
findings that the US State Dept, despite denials to the contrary, actively
assisted Hunt Oil in their contract with the Kurdish region of Iraq -- a
contract called out by the central government in Baghdad and one that benefits
Ray L. Hunt ("a close political ally of President Bush"). Meanwhile Reuters notes that the TSCs (technical
support contracts) that were no bid, that the US State Department had a role in
(despite denying) and which still have not been signed are in jeopardy with
"payment terms" being one of the issues for the Iraqi Parliament.
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
a Baghdad home bombing targeting Iraqi Parliamentarian Shatha al-Musawi (of
the "majority Sunni bloc") which "destroyed the house" (the house was empty),
"damaged two adgjacent houses and injured four civilians" and a Nineveh Province
roadside bombing left two police officers injured. Reuters notes a Tikrit roadside bombing that left five
convoy guards injured, and a cafe bombing outside of Hilla claimed 4 lives.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that "late
Wednesday" unknown assailants shot dead a police officer in Nineveh Province and
left another person wounded. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in a Mosul armed
clash, another person shot dead in Mosul "inside a computer games arcade" and 1
police officer shot dead in Mosul as well.
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 4 corpses
discovered in Baghdad. Reuters notes the US military says the bones of 2
corpses were discovered in Samarra but that local officials state it was "14
decaying corpses" and they note (with no conflicting accounts) 2 corpses were
discovered in Suwayra.
On the sexism front, notice the new target? We don't highlight Maureen Dowd
at this site. I'm not a Dowd fan. But, if you missed it, it's time for Bash
the Bitch and it's Dowd's turn. Maybe you didn't notice that? Maybe you think
David Brooks or Frank Rich just isn't deserving of calling out for their own
problems -- which really do exceed Dowd's. (And for the record, leaving facts
aside, Dowd can out-write either of them -- both of whom also leave facts
aside.) It's brewing. You saw Judith Miller take the fall not just for her own
bad work but for Michael Gordon and a hundred others. Now it's time to throw
another woman on the fire and it appears it will be Maureen Dowd. Can
____ honestly say he's referred to a male journalist being "spanked" before?
Can ____ pretend that they've focused on any male the way they're focusing on
Dowd now? Watch them try to if anyone calls them out. More than likely, no one
will. Dowd's not above criticism. But we're not talking about criticsm. We're
talking about (nod to Blondie) "Rip Her To Shreds" and note the "her." Dowd's
got a twice-weekly column. Are we honestly supposed to believe that anything
she could do the MSNBC no-stars don't out do her on? There's a free floating
rage over a number of issues and it appears it's about to glom on Dowd. As
usual, the woman's male peers will remain exempt. And let's see when anyone
will stand up and say: "That's about enough." I doubt they will. And this
nonsense of you have to like Dowd to defend her is nonsense. All you have to
support is fairness and equality. But that's never existed online and let's
stop pretending it will by magic. In the meantime try to pretend that Dowd's
actions are worse than Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, et al. And try to
pretend that sexual degredation that's aimed at her would be used to 'critique'
a man. (That's not a tone argument. We came up with Todd S. Purdum 'cupping' the story here in
response to all the 'knee pads' nonsense about Elisabeth Bumiller. It's noting
that, regardless of the 'tone' you choose to use, you apply it fairly regardless
of gender or you're a sexist pig.) If it's summer, it's Bash The Bitch.
Turning to the US race for president, Dominic Lawson (Independent of London)
reflects on Primary Barack and the flip-flops that have ensued of late,
"Those who actually supported Obama during this process now divide neatly, if
unevenly, into two groups. The first, smaller, group is full of buyer's
remorse. The blogosphere is hissling like a catherine wheel with their anger
with Obama, obviously, but above all with themselves. The second, much bigger
group, continues to buy Obama's story. They argue that everything and anything
is justified if it helps to get a Democrat back in the White House; some of them
add that 'of course' Obama doesn't believe any of the things he is now saying to
woo the 'redneck states' and that once in the White House he will revert to his
'true beliefs'. To this group we must address a simple question. How do you
know what Obama really believes in, other than his own destiny -- and, of
course, his conscience?" As Brian Montoli (CBS News) observes today, "What a
difference a presidential campaign makes." Yeterday, Montopoli was notingTime's report of the religious right
coming together in Denver to support Senator John McCain (the presumptive GOP
nominee).
Meanwhile Hillary Supporters Vote Nader lists four reasons
why: "(1) Single Payer Health Care will be back on the table, (2) The Wasteful,
Bloated and Secretive Military Budget will be brought back to the forefront of
the American People's minds. (3) Renewable Energy and American Jobs back on the
front burner. (4) Persecution Protection From Corporate and Political Criminals
will be spotlighted. This includes: Net Neutrality, Telecom Spying and the
outrageous lies that put the American and Iraqis People in harms way, destroyed
the US economy and our children's future. McCain and Obama have taken all these
issues off the table." This as Honolulu's KITV notes Ralph Nader will be at the University of
Hawaii tonight while Barack "has no immediate plans to campaign here" and the
McCain campaign says "Hawaii is not on his schedule."
Thanks to you, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in ten states, as
promised, by July 6.
Our goal - 45 states by September 15.
We must now thank all of our roadtrippers. (Pictured above - our
Illinois road trip crew turning in their signatures last week.)
You help fund them.
But they go out - day in and day out - and collect the necessary
signatures to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
Our nationwide team has been busting it all around this
country.
Today, our crew in Nevada will turn in 12,000 signatures - more than
twice the 5,000 needed.
As they say - what was collected in Nevada, stays in
Nevada.
And as a result, Nader/Gonzalez will be on the ballot in that key
swing state.
Thank you and congratulations Nevada road trip crew.
Finally, why we are doing all of this?
We are doing this because we have no alternative.
McCain is the candidate of perpetual war.
Obama is the corporate Democrat and panderer in chief. (Still doubt
it? Check out this article in the New York
Times documenting his flip-flop on telecom immunity and the political
fallout.)
Let's keep our eye on the ball.
And get it done.
By the way, Ralph is in Honolulu, Hawaii tonight for a campaign
speech and rally. If you are in the area, please stop by.
The
man who has become the symbol of a movement to block the deportation of
American soldiers avoiding Iraq service is not actually in the U.S.
military, ABC News reported yesterday. Corey
Glass, an Iraq veteran who deserted the American National Guard and
fled to Toronto in 2006, was apparently discharged later that year, ABC
News said. Mr. Glass failed to secure refugee status earlier this year,
and is currently facing deportation. A rally on his behalf will nonetheless go ahead in Toronto's Parkdale neighbourhood today, organizers say. Like
thousands of other discharged American soldiers, once back in the
United States Mr. Glass could still be called up as part of the
Individual Ready Reserve, a program in which former soldiers can be
forced to re-enter service.
The above is from Matthew Campbell's "U.S. veteran seeking asylum in Canada not technically a deserter, report says" (Globe & Mail) and Russell Goldman's "Canada Ready to Deport U.S. Deserters" (ABC News) and, as we noted yesterday,
"Corey Glass should inquire about his IRR status before attempting to
visit or return to the US." The War Resisters Support Campaign's Lee
Zaslofsky terms the military's statements to ABC "spin" and you have to
wonder if he's hitting the issue no one's grasping and Campbell just
doesn't get it? (That's the topic we're covering at Third
this Sunday.) It is indeed "spin." Lee should know what he's talking
about having lived through the period so let's assume Campbell's the
one who dropped the ball -- in fairness, did anyone in Panhandle Media (US) bother to cover this?
Protesters
are gathering in Toronto's Parkdale community tonight to oppose the
Conservatives' decision to deport Glass, despite Parliament passing a
non-binding motion on June 3 calling for an end to deportation
proceedings against Glass and other war resisters.
That's at 7:00 pm, at the May Robinson Building (20 West Lodge) in Toronto.
Here's the press release from the War Resisters Support Campaign:
With no word yet from the federal government, neighbours, concerned citizens, residents of Toronto's Parkdale community, and Iraq War resisters will hold a rally to stop the deportation of Corey Glass, 7 p.m., Thursday, July 3 at the May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge (1 block east of Lansdowne, north of Queen W.) Glass joined the Indiana National Guard in 2002 and was told he would not have to fight on foreign shores but in 2005 was sent to Iraq. "I signed up to defend people and do humanitarian work such as helping out when there was a hurricane or tornado. I should have been in New Orleans after Katrina, not in Iraq," he said. "We have seen an outpouring of support from the residents of Parkdale for Corey and all the conscientious objectors living in our neighborhood," said Dirk Townsend, President, Parkdale Residents Association, one of the endorsing organizations. "Many organizations and people have come together to help organize this rally. We can only hope the government is listening and will take action and bring a halt to the deportation order," he concluded. The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on the federal government to respect the democratic decision of the Canadian Parliament. On June 3rd Parliament passed a motion calling for an end to deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other war resisters. On June 27, AngusReid published its poll results showing three in five Canadians (64%) in favour of giving U.S. soldiers the opportunity to remain in Canada as permanent residents.
UPI notes the recent poll which found 64% of Canadians are in favor of allowing US war resisters safe harbor status. That's the poll noted Tuesday:
The Angus Reid Poll finds:
"A majority of Canadians would agree with the decision to let American
military deserters stay in Canada as permanent residents, a new Angus
Reid Strategies survey reveals. . . In the online survey of a
representative national sample, three-in-five Canadians (64%) say they
would agree to give these U.S. soldiers the opportunity to remain in
Canada as permanent residents. Quebec (70%) houses the highest
proportion of respondents who agree with the motion, while Alberta
(52%) has the fewest supporters. A gender breakdown reveals that while
both males and females would agree to let U.S. military deserters
remain in Canada, females are much more sympathetic (69% versus 57%)."
But
John Schum, who has been practising military law in the U.S. since
1992, said last night Glass has only been discharged from the service's
active duty, placing him in the reserves, and can be called back to
fight at any time. Schum
also said that if the U.S. military is pursuing the return of Glass --
who faces deportation on July 10 -- there's a good chance there are
already plans to deploy him back to Iraq.
Some you can
count on for silence when the topic is war resisters, others you can
count on to cover it. A few others, very few. One is Workers World
which always makes the time. This is their "Iraq veteran faces deportation, wins support" and Braeden noted it.
The
Canadian government is facing a surge of pressure and protest by
supporters of U.S. war resisters in Canada as it moves to deport the
resisters, even after a majority vote in Parliament that it "should
immediately cease any removal or deportation actions." The pressure and
protest campaign is having an impact: The first resister the Canadian
government ordered to leave, Corey Glass, saw his deadline to leave
extended from June 12 to July 9. Since then Glass and others facing
deportation have publicly announced plans to stay, with widespread
Canadian support. Supporters
across Canada and the U.S. have sent thousands of letters to Canadian
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (email pm@pm.gc.ca) and Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley (email finley.d@parl.gc.ca)
demanding that the resisters be allowed to stay. In the U.S. the
campaign is led by Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War,
Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven. Gerry
Condon of Project Safe Haven noted that Amnesty International has also
weighed in, stating that Corey Glass should be considered a
conscientious objector and that if he were returned to the U.S. to be
court-martialed and imprisoned, AI would consider him a prisoner of
conscience. Veterans for
Peace is encouraging its 7,000 members to contact the Canadian
government directly through a July 2 International Phone-In to Canadian
Immigration Minister Finley. The War Resisters Support Campaign, based
in Toronto and Vancouver, expects thousands of calls from both Canada
and the U.S. on July 2. (See resisters.ca/actions.html.) In
addition, vigils and delegations to Canadian consular offices
throughout the U.S. are planned on July 9, led by VFP, Courage to
Resist and Project Safe Haven. Courage
to Resist is also spearheading a letter-writing campaign. Find sample
letters and contact information at www.couragetoresist.org/canada. Camilo
Mejia, national chairperson of Iraq Veterans Against the War, sent a
powerful open letter to Canada supporting the resisters. He wrote on
behalf of IVAW that “it is because of what we saw and experienced [in
Iraq] that we support our brothers and sisters seeking a new home in
Canada. They are avoiding participation in a criminal, illegal and
immoral occupation so that other families can live in peace in their
own land. They are doing the right thing!” The
letter concluded: "We call upon the Canadian government to implement
the motion stopping all deportations of U.S. war resisters and allowing
them to stay in Canada, not only because it is your duty to the people
you represent to heed to their will, but also because it is a clear
statement of support and solidarity for the people of Iraq." In
addition to the Parliamentary resolution, a poll in early June by
Canada AM on Canadian television recorded that 63 percent of Canadians
favor letting U.S. war resisters stay. The
struggle to make Canada a sanctuary for war resisters takes on greater
importance as more soldiers refuse to return to Iraq. The increasing
support for resisters demonstrates widespread opposition to the war and
determination to stop it the simplest way: by helping the troops refuse
to fight. Articles copyright
1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this
entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this
notice is preserved.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.
Bill Moyers Journalwill
reair the program revolving around Tomas Young, an Iraq War veteran and
a member of IVAW, including interviews with Ellen Spiro and Phil
Donahue who made the documentary Body of War which tells Young's story which is strong way to note the Fourth of July. The Journal's
Michael Winship shares his thoughts on the Fourth of July in an online
essay entitled "What Patriotism Is, and Is Not" and below is an excerpt:
Which
brings me to what I think was an unusual and especially fine expression
of American patriotism. It's the June 19 closing argument of Air Force
Reserve Major David J.R. Frakt, arguing for the dismissal of charges
against Mohammed Jawad, a young detainee at Guantanamo, charged with
throwing a hand grenade that wounded two GI's and their interpreter in
Afghanistan. Frakt argued that Jawad should be released because sleep
deprivation -- two weeks’ worth -- was used to torture him. You can
read it on the website of the ACLU
(http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/35753res20080619.html). Frakt
stood before the military commission upholding the inviolability of the
American principle of due process, even for an alleged enemy of the
United States. "Under the Constitution all men are created equal, and
all are entitled to be treated with dignity," he said. "No one is
'undeserving' of humane treatment. It is an unmistakable lesson of
history that when one group of people starts to see another group of
people as 'other' or as 'different,' as 'undeserving,' as 'inferior,'
ill-treatment inevitably follows… "After
six and a half years, we now know the truth about the detainees at
Guantanamo: some of them are terrorists, some of them are foot
soldiers, and some of them were just innocent people, caught in the
wrong place at the wrong time. But the detainees at Guantanamo have one
thing in common -- with each other, and with us -- they are all human
beings, and they are all worthy of humane treatment." Thus,
in the face of adverse public opinion and White House opposition, Frakt
bravely defended a constitutional principle as all-encompassing,
including under its protections even those who might seek to destroy us
and the very constitutional principles for which we stand. In fact, he
said, “It is a testament to the continuing greatness of this nation,
that I, a lowly Air Force Reserve Major, can stand here before you
today, with the world watching, without fear of retribution,
retaliation or reprisal, and speak truth to power. I can call a spade a
spade, and I can call torture, torture." To me, that makes Major David Frakt a patriot and this a great country. Happy Fourth of July.
Tomorrow is the Fourth. New entries will be posted here. I will do a snapshot of some form. It may got late in the evening. Kat
plans to have a CD review posted (probably late -- and that's dependent
upon her having time to write it when we all get on the plane later
today) and that would be one of two (she says possibly three) CD
reviews that would go up this weekend. Thank you to Elaine for grabbing a topic in "Barack's sweetheart deal" -- she did a wonderful job with it. Rebecca' "lies and truth" explores the illegal war and the presidential candidates. Marcia's "This and that" also explores the campaigns. As does Ruth's "Who called the Iraq War 'a severe scar on our democratic fabric'?" Mike notesCedric's "Teaching 'progressives'" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TEACHING 'PROGRESSIVES' TO READ!" (joint-post) which is a reply to Tom Hayden's e-mail whine to Cedric. Also Ruth's "Ruth's Report" went up Sunday and Bonnie e-mailed to ask for it to be mentioned again ("Great report" enthuses Bonnie). I think that covers everything. All community newsletters will be published this weekend at their usual times.
Lastly, on the front page of the New York Times this morning is James Glanz and Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "Panel Questions State Dept. Role in Iraq Oil Deal"
which details Henry Waxman's House committee's findings that the US
State Dept, despite denials to the contrary, actively assisted Hunt Oil
in their contract with the Kurdish region of Iraq -- a contract called
out by the central government in Baghdad and one that benefits Ray L.
Hunt ("a close political ally of President Bush"). From the article:
In
an e-mail message released by the Congressional committee, a State
Department official in Washington, briefed by a colleague about the
impending deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government, wrote: "Many
thanks for the heads up; getting an American company to sign a deal
with the K.R.G. will make big news back here. Please keep us posted."
Negotiations
are complicated by political currents in both countries. Iraqi
officials facing elections in the fall do not want to be seen as
capitulating to the United States. At the same time, they are eager for
some form of agreement to prevent any rapid departure of American
forces. In the United States, President Bush has pushed hard for a
deal to be completed by July 31. But Democrats in Congress are
reluctant to sign off on an agreement before the presidential
elections, and Republicans are split.
The above is from Alissa J. Rubin's "Iraq Hints at Delay in U.S. Security Deal" in this morning's New York Times.
Rubin covers the basics throughout and (for the Times -- meaning
officials are worshipped and their word gospel) does a strong job. Of
the stories this morning, Rubin's the only one who tackles the
elections -- not just in the US but the allegedly
finally-going-to-take-place-in-October Iraq elections. The treaty
(which is usually called a Status of Forces Agreement -- which it is
not) is not popular with the Iraqi people and signing one prior to the
elections could harm those pushing it. Signing it and approving it
because, in Iraq, Parliament is supposed to approve it. If they don't,
it would not go through. That's actually how the US Constitution
mandates it be done in the United States as well but the White House
thinks that by calling it a Status of Forces Agreement, they can bypass
a Constitutional provision. Congress is not in agreement with that
non-legal 'reading' of the law and that dispute with the White House
includes Democrats and Republicans. There is bi-partisan objection to
the White House attempt to circumvent the Senate and violate the US
Constitution.
No link for McClatchy.
Some articles we don't link to. We don't link to some reporters. That's
just the way it goes. You can use the link on the left and you'll be
taken to the main page for their Iraq section. You shouldn't make it
through very many sentences before grasping why we're not linking. If
you haven't gotten it by the time MT is informing that the treaty is
just like other SOFAs, you just won't get it today.
Rubin notes
that a "memo" is now being pushed. Hoshyar Zebari is among the pushers.
"Memo" is thought to be short-term but probably desirable just because
it sounds so 'minor.' Doug Smith and Raheem Salman's "Iraq official cites progress on U.S. security pact" (Los Angeles Times) explores that and also offers reaction within the Iraqi Parliament:
Acknowledging
that remaining differences could delay an agreement, he [Zebari] said
the government had short-term options, such as a memorandum of
understanding to keep U.S. troops in the country under existing rules. [. . .] Zebari
briefed members of parliament on the negotiations Tuesday. He said
Wednesday that he thought he had been able to dispel some of the
misunderstanding. But some ministers weren't satisfied. "He was like
an American negotiator and not an Iraqi one," said Rashid Azzawi of the
Iraqi Islamic Party, part of the main Sunni bloc. "He didn't specify
many details." A supporter of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada Sadr said there was still a consensus in parliament to reject the agreement. "It is an unequal convention between an occupier and an occupied country," said Nassar Rubaie, chief of the Sadr bloc.
Yes,
who is Zebari working for? And who is giving the Iraqis legal advice?
Other than the US. The US government is offering legal advice . . . on
a treaty that the US wants Iraq to enter into . . . with the US. It's a
conflict of interest to put it the most mildly.
U.S.
Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said that she could not comment on
the ongoing negotiations but added that they were taking place in "a
constructive spirit." Negotiations
began in March on the two U.S.-drafted pacts: a status-of-forces
agreement that governs the legal protections and responsibilities of
U.S. troops, and a strategic framework for the overall U.S.-Iraqi
political and military relationship. Despite
the progress, many hurdles remain that could delay the signing of the
pacts, Zebari said. For instance, the two sides differ on the authority
and level of independence of U.S. troops in future military operations. But
Zebari said U.S. negotiators were open to the idea of Iraqis
controlling their own airspace, as long as they have proper air power
and technology.
"Their own airspace". Who is
representing the Iraqis and advising the Iraqis in this because it
looks like they think they're buying the Brooklyn Bridge when they're
actually getting nothing?
In a little noted AP article entitled "Mothers of 2 US soldiers say their sons left bases to hide in Puerto Rico,"
readers learn that Maria Santiago and Luz Eneida Morales two unnamed
women in San Juan, Puerto Rico has stated their two sons are there, not
going back to the US military and that the police need "to stop
searching" for the men. Hiram Lozada is representing the two families.
Santiago states she went to Fort Campbell ("last March) and she and her
son returned to Puerto Rico while Morales went to her son's base in
Colorado and returned to Puerto Rico with him.
TM:
I'll support him if he wins. I won't support him if he loses. [Laughs]
No, I don't support anybody. It's not my thing. And if I did, I
wouldn't say who it was publicly. I'll give you a hint who I'm voting
for in November. It rhymes with Seder. BSN: Oh, Ralph Nader. You don't worry about possibly wasting your vote? TM:
No, I sort of disagree with people who blame him for taking votes away
from Gore in 2000. Gore still won the popular vote. Nader wasn't the
reason why he lost the election. The Supreme Court cost him the
election. Plus, you don't know that all those people who voted for
Nader would've gone for Gore. I've met Ralph Nader
and I like him. And I've met John McCain, and he's a great guy, too. I
haven't met Barack, but I have met Oprah Winfrey. I would love to see
some change, and whatever the country decides, I'm behind it.
Richard Winger (Ballot Access News) reports,
"On July 2, the Missouri Secretary of State's office announced that the
Constitution Party petition has the required 10,000 signatures needed
for ballot access. The Constitution Party is the only party likely to
submit a successful petition in Missouri this year. It is likely that
independent Ralph Nader will also meet the requirement. The Libertarian Party had already been on the Missouri ballot automatically."
Wednesday,
July 2, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Corey Glass gets big news,
'discussions' in Iraq (at the direction of DC), attacks on Iraqi judges
continue, and more.
Starting with war resistance. In a
dramatic development for US war resister Corey Glass, currently
residing in Canada, there are no charges against him. May 21st was when Corey Glass was told he would be deported.
Corey Glass is an Iraq War veteran and a US war resister. He went to
Canada seeking asylum -- the kind of welcoming Canada provided to war
resisters ("draft dodgers" and "deserters") during Vietnam. After being
told he was being deported, he's been 'extended' through July 10th. June 3rd Canada's House of Commons voted (non-binding motion) in favor of Canada being a safe harbor for war resisters. This morning Russell Goldman (ABC News) reported:
"Unbeknownst to him and his legion of supporters, Glass, 25, was
actually discharged from the U.S. Army shortly after he went AWOL in
2006. . . . According to U.S. Army documents and officials Glass was
discharged from the California National Guard on Dec. 1, 2006, four
months after he arrived in Canada and six months after he failed to
show up to a required muster." Goldman quotes Corey stating, "I had
absolutely no idea that I had been discharged. This is insane. This
is so weird. There are no warrants? No one is looking for me?"
According to Major Nathan Banks, the US military does not consider
Glass AWOL or a deserter, there are no charges against Glass and Glass
is out of the military.
Events planned are still being
held. Corey Glass is not the only US war resister in Canada and he is
also not necessarily in the clear. In the US, Courage to Resist is
planning "July 9th actions at Canadian Consulates nationwide:"
Join
a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday,
July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible
deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd
resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help
organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta,
Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston,
Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at
510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage
to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian
Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us
if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States. Recently
on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to
officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the
Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat
veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of
the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th. We
will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision
of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the
view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately
implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey
Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to
Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian
Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New
York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be
announced). We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original
letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear
Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
Canada's War Resisters Support Campaign will hold a "Rally to Stop the Deportation of Parkdale Resident Corey Glass"
July 3rd, begins at 7:00 p.m. (with doors opening at six p.m.) at the
May Robinson Building, 20 West Lodge, Toronto: "In 2002, Corey joined
the Indiana National Guard. He was told he would not have to fight on
foreign shores. But in 2005 he was sent to Iraq. What he saw there
caused him to become a conscientious objector and he came to Canada. On
May 21, 2008, he got his final order to leave Canada by July 10, 2008.
Then on June 3 Parliament passed a motion for all the war resisters to
stay in Canada. However the Harper government says it will ignore this
motion." They are also asking for a July 2nd call-in. Diane Finley is
the Immigration and Citizenship Minister and her phone numbers are
(613) 996-4974 and (519) 426-3400 -- they also provide her e-mail
addresses minister@cic.gc.ca ("minister" at "cic.gc.ca") and finled1@parl.gc.ca ("finled1" at "parl.gc.ca").
There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste,
Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano
Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal,
Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall,
Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve
Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha
Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister,
Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck,
Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine,
Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum.
Turning to Iraq, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports
that, unlike the US Congress, the Iraqi Parliament is postponing the
summer vaction. Zavis reports that this is said to be in response to
the allegedly upcoming provinical elections and the failure to pass the
legislation that the US White House wants. For those remember last
summer, the Iraqi Parliament was under criticism last year for taking a
summer break. They ended up taking one resulting in some harsh
criticism from inside the US. Meanwhile Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) paints
a portrait (intentionally or not) of Iraqis being conned: Hoshyar
Zebari (Iraq's Foreign Minister) declares that immunity for contractors
has been lifted and Iraq might have control of their own air space and
. . . . Who is advising Iraqis on these contracts? Attorneys for the
White House? The US State Department? Doubt it? James Hider (Times of London) speaks
with a contractor who explains what the 'law' says and the 'reality':
"But bringing to book any Western security guards accused of shooting
civilians would be difficult, the contractor noted. 'If it's someone
like Blackwater, nine times out of ten the individual is spirited out
of the country'." Zebari was talking it up in Baghdad again today. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post) reports
that Zebari declared at a Baghdad press conference today, "We have
reached a comfortable stage of negotiations and the differences have
been narrowed." As Raghavan and the Los Angeles Times' Doug Smith and Raheem Salman
all note, Zebari is talking 'concessions' already (on both sides!).
That would put the US client-state in an even weaker position. And is
anyone else starting to note that 'progress' always 'happens' when
Jalal Talabani is absent? Fresh from having the Mayo Clinic unplog his
arteries, the ever-expanding Jalal Talabani is back in the news. BBC reports
that yesterday, in Athens, Jalal (attending a conference, he wasn't
there for sunbathing) shooks hands with Irsrael's Defense Minister Ehud
Barak. And that Talabani's office quickly issued a "statement [which]
said he was responsding to a request from Mr Abbas and was acting as
leader of his Kurcihs party and deputy president of the Sociliast
International, not as Iraq's president." Finishing the Talabani
portion, Turkish Daily News reports
he "was elected to a vice-chairmanship in the Socialist International
over the leader of the main opposition Republican People's Party, or
CHP, who avoided attending the summit in Greece and therefore was not
nominated". On the issue of the treaty, Watching America has translated Palestinian Writer's piece (written for al Jazeera):
The
first step in getting Iraq out from underneath its catastrophe is the
withdrawal of American troops. . . . The most stunning of those who
fear for an Iraq in which the Americans leave are those who want to
sign a security agreement with the Bush administration, or an
American-Iraqi treaty which is now on the agenda and of which some
items have already been leaked. It gives the right for the occupation
to stay in Iraq for an indefinite amount of time of up to several
years, or even a permanent occupation. And with a permanent occupation
would come a permanent catastrophe that would be renewed and
everlasting. Signing a security agreement or a
militay/political/security treaty alongside the crime that is the
proposed oil agreement would require a hand in treachery to Iraq, to
Arabs and to Muslims, under any and all circumstances.
Meanwhile the United Arab Emirates' The National sees talk
that the Sunni bloc -- (Tawafaq Front) boycotting for a year now --
might return to the Iraqi Parliament as a sign of optimism. Remember
that in a few weeks. (False hopes always die hard.) Closer to
reality, Sabrina Tavernise reported
today: "Another judge was the target of an intimidation campaign on
Tuesday, at least the sixth in two days, in a trend that has alarmed
Iraq's judiciary. A bomb was placed near the house of Judge Qusay
al-Bayati, of the Court of Appeals in eastern Baghdad. The judges
previously attacked were on the same court. The bomb was defused and
did not explode."
Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a US military camp in Baghdad was the target of an attack early this
morning which started with exchanges of gunfire and then had "two 107mm
rockets" fired at it (according to the US military) and 2 civilians
were killed when the US returned fire, three Baghdad roadside bombings
resulting in 2 deaths and nine people wounded
Turning
to the US presidential race. Barack Obama continues to attempt to
prove he is patriotic. Meanwhile this is how Ralph Nader described the
country to Jim Lehrer (PBS' NewsHour) in 2000,
"Well there are ups and downs. Obviously the slavery period was
counteracted by the antislavery movement, women got the right to vote,
workers got the right to form trade unions. They built the middle
class. As they say, they gave us our weekend, they gave us benefits.
The farmers' popular progressive movement against the banks and
railroads companies that leavened power more; it gave people a chance
to have more voice. So I think we have to look back at our history and
say why is it every time concentrated power got too much and social
justice movements opposed them, and the dominant business community
opposed a social justice movement and finally lost, America was better
as a result. Everybody benefited, including the businesses because
democracy tends to expand markets." In 2000 at this time, Nader was
coming in at four-percent in most polls. The most recent CNN-Opinion
Research Poll found him to be holding at 6%.
On the
Iraq War, while Barack wants credit for a speech he 'gave' in 2002
(online recording is a 're-creation'), what has he done since? While
Barack was supporting Bully Boy's illegal war throughout 2004 and
stating repeatedly that he didn't know how he would have voted if he
had been in the Senate, Ralph Nader knew where he stood in 2004: "Every
day our exposed military remains in war-torm Iraq, we impreil U.S.
security, drain our economy, ignore urgent domestic needs, and prevent
Iraqi demonstratic self-rule. We need to announace a withdrawal of our
troops, not increase them." In May of 2004, speaking to the Council
of/for/from Foreign Relations, he would explain (in the belly of the
beast): "After 9-11, it's now become quite clear that whatever emphasis
there was on the al Qaeda apparatus, there was a superior emphasis on
removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq. What's interesting about this is
the following. It illustrated -- in ways perhaps never before
illustrated in our country -- the fragility of our democratic
institutiatons. Here is a nation run by a tottering dictator presiding
over a diplated army, with troops not willing to fight for him,
surrounded by hostile Kurds to the north, hostile Shiites to the south,
surrounded by three very powerful countries compared to his military
ability: Iran, Turkey and Israel. And had he directed one aggressive
threat toward any of them, they would have obliterated his regime. And
yet Iraq under Hussein was viewed as a threat to the United States?
But what was most troubling was the lack of any deliberative process by
the US Congress which was stampeded into this situation, lack of any
deliberative or investigative process by the mass media which clicked
their heels and loved the graphics that they were given, and without a
deliberative attentiveness to the perceived concerns of the American
people. Before the invasion of Iraq, we tried to have Bush meet with
one or more distinct groups in our country who had knowledge and were
concerned about the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen of these groups, with
very little press attention, wrote open letters to President Bush in
February and early March, asking for a meeting. They included letters
signed by the National Council of Churches, former military officers,
former intelligence officials, student groups, women's peace advocates,
a business group, labor group. I don't know of any other impending
hostility that had such an ecumentical coming-together, expressing
doubt and opposition to the pending move. None of these letters were
answered by the White House. There were no meetings. President Bush,
being the messianic militarist that we've come to know so well, was not
interested in meeting with anyone who was critical of his proposed Iraq
policies. That was a severe scar on our democratic fabric."
Meanwhile Steve Holland (Reuters) notes Barack's "flexibility" and "nuance on Iraq". Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report), endorsing Cynthia McKinney (presumed Green Party nominee), observes,
" The true voices of peace speak clearly, in simple language. 'The U.S.
should withdraw all troops and mercenaries from Iraq in as orderly a
fashion as possible,' says former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia
McKinney, candidate for the Green Party's presidential nomination.
'This withdrawal should be quickly accomplished, since the troops and
the equipment were all pre-positioned in the area to start with, at the
start of the invasion'."
iraq
corey
glass
workers
world
iraq
veterans against the war
matthew
campbell
david
wylie
brett
clarkson
abc
russell
goldman
ellen
spiro
phil
donahue
michael
winship
bill
moyers journal
tomas
young
pbs
now
on pbs
james
glanz
richard
a. oppel jr.
the
new york times
alissa
j. rubin
the
los angeles times
doug
smith
raheem
salman
the
washington post
sudarsan
raghavan
brian
montopoli
kam williams
tim meadows
alexandra zavis
sabrina tavernise
