Monday, July 7, 2008.  Chaos and violence continue, a Canadain judge issues a verdict favorable to US war resister Joshua Key, Nouri 'floats' the idea of US withdrawal, the grassroots campaign of Ralph Nader meets their goals, and more.   Starting with war resistance. On Friday, a decision was released in Canada.  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). On Democracy Now! today, Jeffry House explained the decision: "The Refugee Board, the lower court, had said, OK, he did violate the Geneva Conventions, but he didn't commit war crimes, so he's not a refugee. And the federal court said, no, that's too narrow of an understanding of the right of a soldier to refuse improper orders. And they said that if you were ordered to violate the Geneva Conventions on a systematic basis, you have a right to refuse, and any punishment that follows from that refusal will make you a convention refugee and protected by international law." And breaking with tradition of late, Goodman brought on a war resister who went to Canada for the first time since 2006, Joshua Key himself.   Joshua Key: There was one incident in Ramadi, my second time there, which I was on a QRF mission. It was like a SWAT team for the military for some instance. We were on call for a twenty-four-hour timeframe. We got the call late at night, early in the morning. It was--we were going on the banks of the Euphrates River. We took a sharp right turn, and on the left-hand side I see four decapitated Iraqi bodies. When we parked our armored personnel carrier, I was told to get out and find evidence of a firefight or such, if happened. There was this American soldier on the right with American soldiers around him, and he was saying they had lost it there. On the left-hand side, there was American soldiers kicking one of the heads around like a soccer ball. So at that time, I got back inside my APC. The next day, I asked if I could see a written statement or if I could put my--for what I had seen at that location, and I was told it was none of my concern, none of my business. So, that's when I started questioning things. 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, the Cuban News Agency here and AP here.  The Globe & Mail which, despite the UPI citation, did not do a lot of reporting on the story (wire stories from The Canadian Press aren't reporting by Globe & Mail) issues an editorial today which demonstrates that they are incapable of taking the time to read a legal decision and instead want to run with a lot of mistaken garbage put out by bad reporting on the Barnes decision.  "A threshold set to low" gets a link for laughter purposes.  The editorial board reveals their ignorance of the term "counter-insurgency" which they misuse in the first sentence.  House raids are not "counter-insurgency."  The Globe & Mail editorial board demonstrates that not only do they have little understanding of the Barnes decision or of Joshua Key's case, but also that basic English escapes them. Not content to flaunt their ignorance with merely three items, they then want to have a go at what a "refugee" is and only succeed in demonstrating that they are both grammatically and historically challenged.    Saturday Kitchener-Waterloo War Resisters' Support Campaign held a rally and, among the speakers, US war resister Kevin Lee.  Raveena Aulakh (Mercury News) reports Kevin Lee talked about serving in Iraq (2006-2007) and how Lee of NYC didn't agree with what was 'normal' there, found the Iraq War to be illegal and attempted to be discharged and, when that didn't work, decided to self-checkout and go to Canada.  Also speaking was US war resister Dale Landry who, like Lee, came to Canada in 2007.  Michelle Mason's documentary Breaking Ranks was screened as part of the event.  Meanwhile New Catholic Times has posted an "Appeal from Canada's faith communities to the Government of Canada:" Dear Prime Minister Harper and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley: Re: Iraq War resister Corey Glass: July 10 deportation looming We are writing to request your quick action to stop the deportation and removal proceedings against U.S. Iraq War conscientious objector Corey Glass who came to Canada seeking refuge. The federal government's July 10 deportation order against Glass is still in effect, creating enormous stress, anxiety and turmoil for him and for all the conscientious objectors and their families who are hoping the government will be guided by the will of Parliament. This was expressed June 3rd with the passage of a landmark parliamentary motion that called on the Government of Canada to allow U.S. conscientious objectors who have left military service related to the illegal invasion of Iraq, and their immediate family members, the opportunity to apply to remain in Canada as permanent residents, and to immediately cease any removal or deportation actions that may have already commenced against such individuals.  The rightness and justice of Canada's long tradition and proud history of supporting conscientious objectors was further reinforced in 1998 when the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights broadened the international definition of conscientious objection by officially recognizing that "persons (already) performing military service may develop conscientious objections."   Sir and Madam, the government's quick action is urgently required to alleviate the terrible tensions and pressures on those people for whom conscientious objection to war and killing was the only deeply ethical and moral choice they could make.  Yours very truly,  Meridale Dewar (Dr.) Clerk, Canadian Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers); Svetlana S. MacDonald (Dr.) Clerk, Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers); Donald G. Peters, Executive Director, Mennonite Central Committee, Canada; The Very Reverend the Hon. Lois M Wilson, C.C.Ecumenist in Residence, Toronto School of Theology; Nora Sanders. General Secretary, The United Church of Canada; Jean Pfleiderer, President, Board of Trustees, The Canadian Unitarian Council; Terence Finlay, Anglican Archbishop of Toronto (retired) and A.J. Finlay; Rabbi Jordan D. Cohen Temple Anshe Sholom, Hamilton; Gregory Baum, Professor Emeritus, McGill University; John Quinn Managing Editor, New Catholic Times; Ted Schmidt, Editor, New Catholic Times; Tom Harpur, theologian and author; George E. Newman, Diaconate, Diocese of St. Catharines, Ontario; Rob Repicky, Toronto Catholic District School Board; Dave Szollosy, Chaplaincy Team Leader/Blessed Mother Teresa CSS and Councillor - Ward 3/Town of Georgina; John A. Borst, editor, Tomorrow's Trust: A review of Catholic Education; Shaka Abdul-Rashid, Teacher, Nelson Mandela Park Public School; (Fr.) Paul E. Hansen, Redemptorist Fathers Justice Desk; Bernie Hammond, PhD Coordinator, Social Justice and Peace Studies & Director, Centre for Social Concern King's University College at the University of Western Ontario; Friar Ed Debono, Order of Friars Minor; David Walsh, Director, St. Joseph House; Paul Schmidt, Principal, St. Paul SS (Mississauga, Ont.); Friar Rick Riccioli, OFM Conv. Pastor, Franciscan Church of St. Bonaventure; (Rev.) Kevin Lynch, Franciscan, Chair, Inter-church Board of St. Michael's Retreat & Ministries Inc.; Marie-Claire Recurt Teacher University of Toronto Schools; Rev. Allan Baker Newtonbrook United Church; Margaret Ann (Maggie) Plant, DLM, Bright-Chesterfield Pastoral Charge; Oxford Presbytery, London Conference, The United Church of Canada; Douglas Wm. Knott, Retired Deputy General Secretary, Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association; James Loney, Christian Peacemaker Teams; (Fr) Robert Holmes CSB, Basilian Centre for Peace and Justice. Signatories continue to come in.   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    To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").  Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote.  Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.  The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.   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. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).   Turning to Iraq where Doug Smith (Los Angeles Times) reports that the United Arab Emirates has agreed to forgive Iraqi debt and that the amount is said to be four million dollars but may go as high as seven million.  Camilla Hall (Bloomberg News) notes a development in the ongoing illegal war: press reports that puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki intends "to set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of the agreement" the White House and al-Maliki are engaged in devising/scheming. BBC uses the term "floats" to underscore this isn't an actual position, merely a concept, and that al-Maliki might find support for the treaty from Iraq's Parliament if it was carried out.  The puppet has a history of standing up to the White House for a day or two before caving.  (Such as when he said the concrete walls would not go up in Baghdad -- a statement that had the Iraqi military ignoring him and the US continuing to build them.)  It may also be an attempt to soften resistance to the treaties in Iraq just by floating the notion.  Yesterday Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (NPR's All Things Considered) reported the treaty (commonly known as the "Status of Forces Agreement" -- there is another one as well) was "in trouble."  Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) observes, "Many Iraqis, including members of Maliki's own government, view a deal as a surrender of sovereignty to an occupying force. Setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops could ease those fears." James Hider (Times of London) quotes al-Maliki speaking with plenty of wiggle room, ""The current trend is to reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to put a timetable on their withdrawal."   In today's New York Times, Alissa J. Rubin reports on a trip last month to Diyala Province, seemingly calm, but with fighting around the edges (and within as daily violence reports demonstrate -- including today).  Police chief Ghanem al-Khoreishi states he has "lost 1,585 policemen and had 1,650 wounded," that his home has been bombed and that for one four-month period, he was not able to leave the police headquarters (even to go home) due to safety issues.  Zaid Sabah (Washington Post) reports, "A wave of attacks in Baghdad and areas north of the capital Sunday shattered a relative lull in violence, killing 16 people and injuring 15 a day after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki declared that Iraq's government had defeated terrorism."  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Sunday's wave including multiple bombings (with at least 14 dead and at least twenty-nine wounded), 1 person shot dead (another wounded), 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad and  2 "female students" kidnapped in Mosul.   Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .  Bombings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that left four people wounded, a female bomber in Diayal Province who killed herself in 2 other people with fourteen wounded ("mostly women and children"), a Baquba roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives, another that claimed 4 lives with three people wounded, a Mosul mortar attack that left six people wounded, a Kirkuk roadside bombing targeting the home of "Mayor of Sulaiman Bek" which wounded him and "other civilians in the vicinity," and, dropping back to Sunday, an Al Anbar Province car bombing ("targeted Sahwa Council offices") which left eleven "Awakening" Council members wounded. Reuters notes a Samara car bombing that killed the driver and claimed the lives of 4 "Awakening" Council members with nine more wounded.   Shootings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a woman shot dead in Baquba, an "Awakening" Council member shot dead in Baquba, 1 person shot dead in Salahuddin Province with another wounded   Turning to the US race for president. Barack Obama's (presumed Democratic Party nominee) waffle on Iraq is still in the news. As "Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq" (The Third Estate Sunday Review) notes, Tom Hayden took to blog on July 4th insisting that Samantha Power's March interview on the BBC (given while she was still Barack's foreign policy advisor, aired after she resigned) indicated the current waffle (it did) and that Hillary Clinton campaign's and the MSM ignored it (they didn't -- Clinton issued statements, her campaign held a confrence call on the issue -- which David Corn sneared at online at Mother Jones, the campaign made a commerical; the Washington Post and Boston Globe were among the MSM outlets covering it as real news).  Hayden's playing jilted bride was all the more comical when one looks at Panhandle Media and, specifically, his outlet The Nation magazine.  Panhandle Media worked overtime to ignore that BBC interview.  The Nation never mentioned it (though they repeatedly -- and falsely John Nichols -- wrote of Powers after she left the Obama campaign) (she's back with it now). The failure to get the word out (that Power revealed Barack's 'promise' to withdraw combat troops from Iraq wasn't actually a promise and he'd decide what to do if elected) was the fault of the allegedly 'independent' media which IGNORED the interview because they were all in love with Barack.  Apparently in tears that he wouldn't get to wear his wedding dress to Barack's inauguration, Hayden (who couldn't stop citing his own 2007 writing) forgot to inform his readers that among the ones refusing to tell the people about the BBC interview was . . . Tom Hayden himself.  It's a nice day, as Billy Idol once sang, to start again.   Meanwhile Christopher Keating (Capitol Watch) reports on independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, "Despite getting relatively little attention from the national media, presidential candidate Ralph Nader says he is chipping away as his campaign moves toward Election Day on Nov. 4. The Connecticut native's campaign announced that it has reached its goal of being on the ballot in 10 states by July 6. The overall goal is 45 states, which would be an increase from Nader's level of 34 states in 2004."  Team Nader notes:   What to do now? Drop a five spot on the real deal. Donate five dollars for Nader/Gonzalez. Why? Five reasons: Telecom immunity. Gun control. Death penalty. Campaign finance. Faith-based funding. On July 4, the New York Times documented Obama's flip flops on each of these issues and then proclaimed Obama New and Not Improved. When we ask our friends who support Obama about his recent flip-flopping on these and other issues, they say something like this: You have to pander to become President. Or: It doesn't matter where Obama stands on the issues -- it's the symbolism of change that matters. Okay, so if it's the symbolism of change that matters to you, and not the substance, then please go and support Obama. But if you actually want a candidacy that stands steadfast for shifting the power from the corporations back to the people, then please drop a five spot now on Nader/Gonzalez. You'll be supporting a positive, rock solid, steadfast campaign. Already, we're penciled in in ten states. Richard Winger, the King of Ballot Access (and editor of Ballot Access News) predicts that come November, Nader/Gonzalez will be on in 44 to 45 states - up from 34 in 2004). We're at six percent in the most recent CNN poll. If we hit 10 percent, Ralph Nader will be debating the candidate of perpetual war McCain and the panderer in chief Obama in the Google/Youtube debates in New Orleans. (Check out John Nichols this morning calling on Google to let Ralph debate.) If Ralph gets into the debates, we're convinced he'll move above 10 percent. If he moves above ten percent, America will sense a three way race. If America senses a three-way race, why would it be any different from when Jesse Ventura ran for Governor of Minnesota? (Okay, Ralph doesn't wear a boa.) (By the way, in case you missed it, here's Ralph's July 4 riff on patriotism.) All things are looking up. All systems are go. But we need your help to propel this campaign to the next level. Drop a five on the real deal now. Together, we are making a difference. Onward  iraq  joshua key doug smith the los angeles times alexandra zavis npr the new york times alissa j. rubin the washington post zaid sabah mcclatchy newspapers camilla hall democracy now p

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.

Shootings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an armed clash in Baquba that left 1 "civilian" wounded and 1 person shot dead in Mosul.

Kidnappings?

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 "female students" were kidnapped in Mosul.

Corpses?

Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Saturday that 3 corpses were discovered in Baghdad. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad today.

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.

In other Iraqi news, Jalal Talabani, president of Iraq, has stated the PKK needs to "abandon northern Iraqi soil if they refuse to stop their attacks against neighboring Turkey." New content at The Third Estate Sunday Review:


Truest statement of the week
A note to our readers
Editorial: The real change choice
TV: Nonreality programming
Judge Robert Barnes rules in Joshua Key's appeal
The missing editorial
Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq
Letters to An Old Sell Out: About Latin America
Letters to An Old Sell Out: Where's the honesty?
Stop the racism
Highlights



Pru notes Chris Bambery's "Iraqi oil to be handed to the West" (Great Britain's Socialist Worker):

Global oil corporations are set to return to Iraq, some five years after the US-led invasion of the country that plunged it into chaos.
US and European oil multinationals are scrambling to grab Iraq's vast oil resources. Now the Iraqi puppet government is set to award contracts to Chevron, BP, Shell, Total, Exxon Mobil, and BHP Billiton.
Iraq holds the second biggest oil reserves in the world and the six oil fields being divided up contain between a third and two thirds of those reserves. If exploited they would boost the volume of Iraq's oil by 60 percent.
The terms of the contracts on offer remain secret – though it has been revealed that the oil firms have drafted the terms themselves.
US advisors attached to the Iraqi oil ministry told the New York Times that US government lawyers and private sector consultants provided template contracts and detailed suggestions on drafting the contracts.
The Iraqi government claims they are standard "technical service contracts". But in the oil industry these would be normally given to specialist companies with geological, construction or drilling expertise, or ones that install a particular piece of technology.
The big oil companies do not carry out such work. The “technical service contracts” are actually a means of handing over Iraq’s state-controlled oil resources to the multinationals – a privatisation in all but name.
There was no bidding process. BP was simply granted the Rumaila field and Shell the Kirkuk field.
Although the contracts are only for two years, an extension clause grants the oil companies the rights to future contracts.
Inside Iraq there is growing concern – even among government supporters in parliament – that the country’s wealth is being plundered and handed over to the oil giants.
For 40 years BP, Exxon Mobil, Total and Shell together ran the Iraq Petroleum Company, formed in 1912, which controlled Iraq’s oil. Its head office was in London’s Oxford Street.
The oil fields were finally nationalised in 1972 and there is widespread support within Iraq for keeping the oil in Iraqi hands.
Even before the 11 September 2001 attacks, George Bush’s administration had planned for an attack on Iraq and in order to gain control of its oil.
Now those plans are coming to fruition – at the cost of the Iraqi people.
» email article » comment on article » printable version
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
If you found this article useful please help us maintain SW by » making a donation.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
mcclatchy newspapers
the socialist worker
the third estate sunday review

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.

linda ronstadt
carly simon
joni mitchell
judy collins
carole king
rolling stones
diana ross
david ritz
trinas kitchen
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
kats korner
the common ills

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*:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
Trina's Trina's Kitchen;
Ruth's Ruth's Report;
and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZ


* 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).

The Nader Team notes:


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.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.








the new york times
alissa j. rubin
like maria said paz
kats korner
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
trinas kitchen
the daily jot
cedrics big mix
mikey likes it
ruths report
sickofitradlz

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".      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    To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").  Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote.  Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.  The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.   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. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).   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.   Corpses?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad.   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.   The Nader Team notes:     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

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."

Which is actually a follow up to the paper's "U.S. deportee gains local support:"

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.

Jillian notes this from the Ralph Nader campaign:

Need Roadtrippers Now

Ralph Nader said on ABC's This Week that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign will be on at least 45 states in November.

Well, time to get it done.

Need a summer job?

We've got one for you.

Become a Roadtripper for Ralph.

Collect signatures to put the Nader/Gonzalez team on the ballot.

Optimum profile for a Roadtripper for Ralph - energetic, youthful spirit, personable, fun loving, adventure seeking, democracy warrior.

Check out Ralph making the pitch for more roadtrippers in this video.

Interested? Contact mark@votenader.org.

By the way, in case you didn't notice, on Saturday, we launched our campaign to raise $40,000 in ten days - by July 6.

You did it in six days.

Kaboom!

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.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
corey glass
brett clarkson
jason buckland
lindsey wiebe

********* 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.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

iraq
corey glass
jay walz
the new york times

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    To pressure the Stephen Harper government to honor the House of Commons vote, Gerry Condon, War Resisters Support Campaign and Courage to Resist all encourage contacting the Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -- 613.996.4974, phone; 613.996.9749, fax; e-mail finley.d@parl.gc.ca -- that's "finley.d" at "parl.gc.ca") and Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, 613.992.4211, phone; 613.941.6900, fax; e-mail pm@pm.gc.ca -- that's "pm" at "pm.gc.ca").  Courage to Resist collected more than 10,000 letters to send before the vote.  Now they've started a new letter you can use online here.  The War Resisters Support Campaign's petition can be found here.   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. Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline [(877) 447-4487], Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. In addition, VETWOW is an organization that assists those suffering from MST (Military Sexual Trauma).       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 . . .   Bombings?   The Turkish Press notes a Baghdad car bombing outside Al-Yarmukh Hospital which claimed 4 lives and left ten people wounded.  Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 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.   Kidnappings?   Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that Diyala Province was the location for two kidnappings on Thursday, 1 cab driver and 1 truck driver.   Corpses?   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 noting Time'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."   Team Nader announces:   Ralph Nader said on ABC's This Week that the Nader/Gonzalez campaign will be on at least 45 states in November. Well, time to get it done. Need a summer job? We've got one for you. Become a Roadtripper for Ralph. Collect signatures to put the Nader/Gonzalez team on the ballot. Optimum profile for a Roadtripper for Ralph - energetic, youthful spirit, personable, fun loving, adventure seeking, democracy warrior. Check out Ralph making the pitch for more roadtrippers in this video. Interested? Contact mark@votenader.org. By the way, in case you didn't notice, on Saturday, we launched our campaign to raise $40,000 in ten days - by July 6. You did it in six days. Kaboom! 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     TV notes.  Bill Moyers Journal will 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. NOW on PBS notes: A reminder: There is no NOW on PBS on July 4, 2008.  However, on the website we do have an insightful interview with a North Korea expert commenting on the thawing of relations between our country and North Korea, including a look ahead and analysis of McCain's and Obama's reactions.   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