Wednesday,
July 9, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
another death, Barack Obama revists his sexist notion about women
'feeling blue,' and more.
Starting with war
resistance. "But in the meantime, these people need sancturay whether
it's in Canada, in Europe or even in our own communities -- because
increasingly there are AWOL GIs living right amongst us and the
progressive community is providing them refuge in the United States," Gerry Condon explained today on KPFA's The Morning Show, Aimee Allison (Allison co-hosts with Philip Maldari).
Aimee
Allison: This week we've covered the latest on Americans who have left
the US military, deserted the US military, and are awaiting refugee
status in Canada. There have been some victories of late and we
covered one just yesterday
Aimee
Allison: Now Robin Long and Corey Glass are just two former military
members who have gone with their families to Canada and are applying
for refugee status. Robin Long was in the application process still?
Gerry
Condon: Yes, he had been denied his refugee status but then he was in
what's called the pre-removal risk assessment phase which is prior to
possible deportation and he was not informed that they had ruled
against him on that. So he and his lawyer were not allowed to their
legal right to appeal it. So this has happened several times now that
the Canadian Border Services Agency in British Columbia has . . . made
some very, very questionable arrests of US war resisters. Actually, Robin Long was arrested once before under similar circumstances and it seems like somebody in the chain of command there really has an axe to grind against US war resisters
and perhaps some people in the Conservative government eager to set the
precedent of finally actually deporting one of these guys .
Aimee
Allison: Well let's talk about that because have any US war resisters
been deported in this era -- the Iraq War era to date?
Gerry Condon: No, none have been deported yet. There have been -- Although Corey Glass was given until tomorrow -- Thursday -- to leave Canada or face deportation
and that's really sparked a political crisis in Canada over this
issue. But so far, no, there have been no deportations. And we intend
to keep it that way. Nobody should be punished for refusing to
participate in an illegal, immoral war and that's the bottom line.
[. . .]
Aimee Allison: Let's talk about how many people are in Canada in Robin Long's situation.
Gerry
Condon: Right. There are about 200 estimated to be in Canada at this
time. And that includes men and women from all four branches of the US
military and many of them are Iraq veterans. About 50 of them have
applied for refugee status and generally they are being turned down and
then appealing. And this has, you know, come to a point now where,
like I said, we have the support of the large majority of Canadians --
from 70% in Quebec to 52% in Alberta -- and we have the Parliament
behind us. Looks like the courts are starting to turn our direction
finally because this decision last week by the Federal Court in Canada
to . . . order the refugee board to redo the hearing for Iraq veteran
Joshua Key is very significant.
Aimee
Allison: Well today there are actions at Canadian consulates in 14 US
cities and then in Germany as well. Can you tell me a little bit about
what you hope to accomplish and some of the logistics.
Gerry Condon: Well we believe that pressure from people in the US has been very helpful. Courage to Resist,
based in the Bay Area there, of course, has managed to organize 10,000
people in this country to send letters to the Canadian government and
political leaders and I think that really helped actually tip the
balance toward the Parliament's decision finally to formally call for
the government to allow US war resisters to immigrate. One concern
that some Canadians have is that by allowing US war resisters to remain
in Canada, they may be offending the United States and we're here to
tell them that, you know, just like in Canada, the majority of people
in this country, the large majority are against the war in Iraq. want
to see the occupation -- US occupation of Iraq -- come to an end. And
we are happy that Canadians are providing sanctuary for our war
resisters and we're thanking the Canadian people for this and urging
their government to follow the will of the people to do the right thing
and allow US war resisters to remain in Canada.
Aimee Allison: That's Gerry Condon, director of Project Safe Haven, who is organizing support efforts for US war resisters seeking refugee status in Canada.
Allison, co-author of Army Of None with David Solnit, interviewed US war resister Joshua Key and Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist on yesterday's The Morning Show -- the broadcast and today's are archived. Key's interview was noted in yesterday's snapshot as was Robin Long's arrest. Travis Lupick (Georgia Straight) reports the CBSA informed Robin "he would be deported to the U.S. by as early as Monday (July 14)". The Canadian Press quotes
Bob Ages (War Resisters Support Campaign) stating, "This is quite a
bombshell in what we thought was a pretty routine administration
hearing." Rod Mickleburgh (Globe & Mail) notes,
"There had been no warning to Mr. Long that he was in danger of being
sent back to the United States so quickly, and it came as a particular
shock to his lawyer, Shepherd Moss, in light of last week's court
decision upholding deserter Joshua Key's appeal of his failed refugee
application." Allison Cross (Vancouver Sun) explains
Robin took part in yesterday's hearing via "phone from Nelson" and that
"he was told officials had decided in May Long wouldn't be at risk to
torture or punishment if he was returned to the US". The War Resisters Support Campaign issues a press release which includes the following:
"The
actions of the CBSA amounts to harassment," says Lee Zaslofsky,
spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign. "This young man
has complied with his requirements and his whereabouts were well-known.
The Harper government is ignoring the will of the House of Commons and
the Canadian people. It is doing the bidding of the Bush administration
in seeking to remove these soldiers of conscience to face persecution
in the US." Bob Ages, of the Vancouver War Resisters Support Campaign said, "Our legal counsel will be asking that Robin Long be immediately released and members of Parliament will be taking up this matter with the government and the Canadian public."
Oxford Review notes
US war resister Rich Droste took part in the Port Dover Canada Day
parade by providing information and raising awareness on the issue and
the urgency: "Supporters of war resisters are rallying across Canada
this Thursday July 10, the date when resister Corey Glass has been
ordered to leave Canada." Meanwhile Straight Goods joins New Catholic Times in running the "Appeal from Canada's faith communities to the Government of Canada."
There
is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which
includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste,
Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano
Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal,
Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall,
Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve
Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha
Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister,
Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada,
Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen,
Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman,
Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck,
Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine,
Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey,
Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua
Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell,
Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake,
Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres,
Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and
Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada
have applied for asylum.
Moving to Japan where (US) White House spokesperson Dana Perino declread today that
"we
don't have timetables for troop withdrawals, we don't have timetables
for negotiations." Perino was responding to questions about the treaty
the White House wants with Nouri al-Maliki and al-Maliki's floating of
the notion that timetables for US withdrawal may be included in the
treaty. Perino and other White House staff arrived with the Bully Boy
in Japan on July 6th. Asked when Bully Boy had last spoken to
al-Maliki, Perino declared this morning, "he just spoke to him right
before we left. I can't remember what day we left, but the President
had a secure videoteleconfrence" with al-Maliki and US Ambassador to
Iraq Ryan Crocker "checks in with the president daily. Almost."
Perino attempted to spin talk of withdrawal as a positive in a sort
of 'And before the US invasion, no one ever talked in Iraq!' manner. As
though an eviction notice would ever be seen as a sign of progress? In
this morning's New York Times, Campbell Robertson became the first
to get the White House on record regarding al-Maliki's withdrawal
statements. Robertson quoted the White House's Gordon D. Johndroe
stating, "Negotiations and discussions are ongoing every day. It is
important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for
withdrawal, but are discussions on a security horizion that reflects
the Iraqis' increasing capacity, as well as improved conditions on the
ground that should allow for a further reduction of U.S. forces."
Meanwhile Ernesto Londono and Dan Eggan (Washington Post) quote
Mowaffak al-Rubaie (the National Security Advisor of Iraq) stating,
"There should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are
under Iraqi control." Londono and Eggan go on to state that the White
House maintains recent statements by Iraqi officials are "aimed at
local and regional audiences and do not reflect fundamental
disagreements with the Bush administration." Reuters offers
two theories for al-Maliki's floating of the idea. 1) Local elections
are supposed to take place in October (which would go along with the
White House's call that the remarks are aimed at local populations --
Iraqis want all foreign troops out of their country). 2) "Iraq's Arab
neighbours -- sensitive to any U.S. military presence on Middle Eastern
soil -- have long been reluctant to extend full legitimacy to Maliki's
Shi'ite-led government partly because of its heavy reliance on American
soldiers."
Meanwhile 38 year-old AP camera journalist Ahmed Nouri Raziak has been held by the US military since last month and AP has been informed he will be held for at least six weeks. He has worked for AP
Television for five years and was stopped by the US military (or
rounded up, let's be honest) in Tikrit. I can't find a link for this
but will get one for the next entry. AP notes:
"The decision came as a surprise to the AP, which had earlier been led
to believe that the cameraman, Ahmed Nouri Raziak, was likely to be
released because of lack of any evidence against him."
Today one Mosul bombing (there were others) gets some attention from the press. Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) explains
of the bombing that claimed at least 14 lives with thirty-five
wounded, it was "a suicide car bomb that targetedd Nineveh Operations
Command Major General Riyadh Jalal Tawfeeq." AFP quotes
Tauffiq stating, "The bomber drove his car into my convoy in the
Al-Faisaliya neighbourhood of east Mosul. When my guards tried to
arrest him, he detonated his car." Al Jazeera reports, "General
Riyadh Jalal Tauffiq, the head of the security operations in Mosul
and the surrounding province of Ninawa, escaped unharmed when the
suicide bomber drove his car into the convoy on Wednesday." BBC explains, "The victims were his bodyguards and civilians in the area." Al Bawaba offers this perspective, "The violence came as Iraqi officials issued data showing attacks have declined sharply over the past year."
In some of today's other reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
2 Falluja bombing (fifteen minutes apart) which claimed 5 lives and
left seventeen people wounded, a Mosul car bombing claimed the life of
1 police officer, another Mosul bombing wounded one member of the Iraqi
military and a Kirkuk bombing in Kirkuk resulted in "destroying a tower
for Atheer cell phone net company". On the Falluja bombings, RTT adds,
"The incident occurred outside a bank when police and a crowd gathered
in the area after an explosion at 6:30 a.m. local time."
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
Iraqi police and military shot dead 1 person during a raid, 1 police
officer was shot dead in Mosul, one member of the Iraqi military was
injured in a Mosul shooting.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad and 11 in Ramadi. CBS and AP up
the corpse count by 11, noting that twenty-two corpses were discovered
in Ramadi "most of them under concrete in a playing field." Reuters notes 1 corpse ("young girl" was discovered in Kut and 1 in Tuz Khumato.
Today the US military announced:
"A Coalition force Soldier was killed in an explosion while conducting
operations in Salah ad-Din July 9. Additionally, two other Soldiers
were wounded in the explosion." The announcement brought the total
number of US service members who have been killed in Iraq since the
start of the illegal war to 4116.
Turning to the US presidential race. Team Nader announces that the "ten states by July 6"
target was reache and the new goal is "15 states by July 20." Ralph
Nader is an independent candidate for president. As such he has to
fight for ballot access. The five that they are going for next are
Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island and South Carolina.
"And to get there, we need to raise $60,000. In eleven days. Here is
what we propose. Donate now - in whatever denomination suits you - $5, $10, $20, $50, $100.
And
if you choose, your name will pop up on our fundraising widget - which
shows every dollar we raise as we approach our $60,000 goal." And Ralph Nader notes:
And
I'm listening now to the debate on the Senate floor over legislation
that will give President Bush new warrantless eavesdropping powers.
The
bill will also grant immunity to telecom companies for cooperating with
Mr. Bush in his illegal warrantless wiretapping on Americans - on any
one of you.
We were taught as young children that in our democracy, under our system of justice, nobody is above the law - nobody.
But this bill puts the President and the telecom companies above the law.
It also conveniently assures a coverup of Mr. Bush's past crimes in this area - of wiretapping and surveillance.
On
the Senate floor, Senator Feingold has just warned his colleagues that
the Senate "will regret that we passed this legislation."
As my home state Senator, Christopher Dodd, said:
"If
we pass this legislation, the Senate will ratify a domestic spying
regime that has already concentrated far too much unaccountable power
in the President's hands and will place the telecommunications
companies above the law."
What does it say that
Senators Dodd, Feingold, Harry Reid, and Patrick Leahy have led the
valiant fight against this bill, but Senator Obama has said he will
vote for it?
Again, this bill gives the
President vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and allows the
government - for the first time ever - to tap into America's
telecommunications networks with no judicial warrant requirement.
President
Bush and the Democrats who support him argue that the
telecommunications companies were only doing what they were told by the
President and were acting as "patriotic corporate citizens."
This is pure hogwash.
First of all, corporations aren't citizens.
Second, the President can't order anyone - citizens or corporations - to break the law.
This legislation, which the Senate is debating right now, sets up a double standard of justice.
Break the law as a citizen, go to jail.
Break the law as a corporation, go to Washington and get immunity.
Remember,
there were telecom companies, such as Qwest, that refused to follow
President Bush's illegal wiretap orders and chose instead to obey the
laws of the land.
The Senate is now poised to bury the rule of law.
What to do?
Join Nader/Gonzalez - the candidacy that will shift the power from the corporations back into the hands of the people.
We strongly oppose the wiretap surveillance legislation that Obama and McCain support.
We stand strongly with the American people and for the Constitution.
The Nader/Gonzalez campaign is now at six percent in the most recent CNN poll.
We're in the middle of a fundraising drive right now to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 45 states by September 20.
For shifting the power from the corporations, back into the hands of the American people.
"We the people" are the first words of the Constitution - we should always remember.
Thank you.
Marcia and Ruth
noticed confusion online regarding Nader's appearances Saturday --
there are two and the one in Richmond is in the afternoon. So we'll
join them in noting Ralph Nader's upcoming events:
Sat. July 12th 1-3pm Nader for President 2008 Rally Richmond, VA Virginia Holocaust Museum 2000 E Cary St. Richmond, VA Contact John: 804-432-1611 Suggested contribution: $10/$5 student Map it **** Sat. July 12th 7:30-10pm Nader for President 2008 Rally Raleigh, NC St Mary's School (Pittman Auditorium) 900 Hillsborough St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Contact: Thomas (919) 828-6236 Suggested contribution: $10/$5 student Map it ***** Sun. July 13th 2-4pm Nader for President 2008 Rally Charlottesville, VA Gravity Lounge 103 South First Street Charlottesville VA 22902 Contact: Michael: 520-906-8661 Suggested Contribution $10/$5 student Map it
Brian Montopoli (CBS News) examines presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Montopoli explores an interview Barack gave to the Christian outlet Relevant magazine.
During the course of the interview, the magazine publisher (Cameron
Strang) sums up a position for Barack which includes this opening,
"You've said you're personally against abortion . . ." To be really
clear, were the person Strang speaking to Dianne Feinstein, Nancy
Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton or any other number of women in
Congress, it would be one thing. But when it's the man who refused to
vote "yes" or "no" and went with "present" while in the Illinois state
legislature, that's a different matter. Equally true is a woman making
that statement may or may not have found herself in the position where
she had to take the theoretical into practice. Though the press
credits the Christ-child with amazing powers, it's highly unlikely that
Barack has ever found himself pregnant. The summary (and the fact that
Barack doesn't object to it) should (at the very least) raise
eyebrows. Roe v. Wade as a scare tactic is not going to work. And one
of the main reasons is Barack won't talk to women. He sneers at
women. When it's time to talk abortion, why is he running to a
'Christian' magazine and allowing that he is "personally against
abortion"? More insulting -- and this is insulting to women, to
pro-choice advocates of both genders and to medical professionals
(especially those in the mental health field) -- is this remark: "I
absolutely can, so please don't believe the emails. I have repeatedly
said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or
even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict,
well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think
that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think
it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where
there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child
to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in
place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions." Barack is an
IDIOT about the law -- obvious when he didn't grasp who the plantiff and defendent were in the landmark case Loving v. Virginia
-- but that series of sentences contains something to offend just about
everyone. A) He's talking about banning late-term abortions which
isn't really something he campaigned on while pretending to be
'liberal.' B) Barack has no medical degree so he doesn't know the
first damn thing about "mental distress." That's insulting to those in
the mental health practice as well as women. Repeating, Barack has
most likely never been pregnant. He sure seems to think he knows a
great deal, doesn't he? Despite being a basically C-average student
most of his life. Marie Cocco (Washington Post Writers Group) breaks it down:
Obama
says that these women should not be able to obtain a late-term
abortion, because just "feeling blue" isn't the same as suffering
"serious clinical mental health diseases." True enough. And totally
infuriating.
During the recent Obama
pander tour -- the one in which he spent about a week trying to win
over conservative religious voters -- the presumptive Democratic
nominee unnecessarily endorsed President Bush's faith-based initiative,
a sort of patronage program that rewards religious activists for their
political support with public grants. Then in a St. Louis speech, Obama
declared that "I let Jesus Christ into my life." That's fine, but we
already have a president who believes this was a qualification for the
Oval Office, and look where that's gotten us.
Obama's
verbal meanderings on the issue of late-term abortion go further. He
has muddied his position. Whether this is a mistake or deliberate
triangulation, only Obama knows for sure.
One
thing is certain: Obama has backhandedly given credibility to the
right-wing narrative that women who have abortions -- even those who go
through the physically and mentally wrenching experience of a late-term
abortion -- are frivolous and selfish creatures who might perhaps
undergo this ordeal because they are "feeling blue."
Robin
Long attended a Vancouver hearing with the Canadian Border Services
Agency by phone from Nelson on Tuesday, when he was told officials had
decided in May Long wouldn't be at risk to torture or punishment if he
was returned to the U.S., said Bob Ages, chair of the Vancouver chapter
of the War Resisters Support Campaign. Just
five days ago, the Federal Court ordered the refugee board to
re-examine war resister Joshua Key's claim for asylum in Canada. Long,
25, was arrested in Nelson on Friday on a nationwide warrant for
violating conditions of his previous release in October 2007. Nelson
police had picked him up for allegedly smoking marijuana in a park when
they discovered he had an outstanding Canada-wide immigration warrant
against him.
Today (July 8), American war resister Robin Long
was told by the Canadian Border Services Agency that he would be
deported to the U.S. by as early as Monday (July 14), according to the
Council of Canadians. This comes less than a week after a different U.S. war resister, Jonathan Key, won a landmark victory in the Federal Court of Appeal overturning the rejection of his refugee claim.
The Canadian Press quotes
Bob Ages (War Resisters Support Campaign) stating, "This is quite a
bombshell in what we thought was a pretty routine administration
hearing." The War Resisters Support Campaign issues the following press release:
On
July 4, former US soldier Robin Long was arrested by police in Nelson,
BC, where he is legally residing, on a warrant issued by the Canadian
Border Services Agency (CBSA). A hearing is scheduled in Vancouver
tomorrow (Tuesday, July 8). The
CBSA is claiming that Long did not report as required to its Kelowna
office by phone last Thursday and that he was staying with various
friends in Nelson without reporting a change of address. Long has
denied the allegations and the CBSA does not dispute that he reported
in on schedule on July 3. Long
has lived openly in Nelson after coming to Canada rather than deploy to
Iraq with his armored unit. He is well known by Nelson residents, and
by the RCMP, who had no trouble locating him on Friday. On
June 3 this year the House of Commons passed a resolution supporting US
war resisters remaining in Canada and called on the government to cease
any removal orders against them. Citizenship and Immigration Minister
Diane Finley has so far refused to implement the will of Parliament. Meanwhile,
on July 4 an appeal court sent the case of Joshua Key, another ex-US
serviceman, back to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The court
instructed the board, which had originally denied Keyes' refugee claim,
to re-examine his application based on its failure to consider the
brutality and illegality of activities in which American soldiers in
Iraq are forced to participate. Polls show that a majority of Canadians support the war resisters being granted permanent residence. "The
actions of the CBSA amounts to harassment," says Lee Zaslofsky,
spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign. "This young man
has complied with his requirements and his whereabouts were well-known.
The Harper government is ignoring the will of the House of Commons and
the Canadian people. It is doing the bidding of the Bush administration
in seeking to remove these soldiers of conscience to face persecution
in the US." Bob Ages, of the Vancouver War Resisters Support Campaign said, "Our legal counsel will be asking that Robin Long be immediately released and members of Parliament will be taking up this matter with the government and the Canadian public." For further information: Lee Zaslofsky, (416) 598-1222; Bob Ages, (604) 760-6786
July 9th posters (hi res JPGs). Select to view/download:
Stop the deportation of Robin Long, Corey Glass and all war resisters!
Join
a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday.
U.S. war resisters Robin Long and Corey Glass both face possible
deportation in the next few days. We will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide
by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!"
Washington DC - 1 pm to 2 pm - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Delegation led by Veterans for Peace national President Elliott Adams.
San Francisco CA - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net
Seattle WA - Noon to 1pm - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com
Dallas TX - 3pm - 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 NY - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org
Philadelphia PA - 11:30am to 12:30pm - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org
Minneapolis MN - Noon to 1pm - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: jrkilgour(at)yahoo.com
Los Angeles CA - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com
Boston MA - 2pm - Copley Square Park (map); Sponsored by Veterans for Peace (Boston Chapter); Contact info: nateg(at)pobox.com
Phoenix AZ - Noon to 1pm - 2415 East Camelback Rd (map). Sponsored by Women in Black Phoenix and End the War Coalition (azpeace.org)
Denver CO - Noon - 1625 Broadway (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Denver. Info: 303-762-8408; spexx(at)mac.com
Miami FL - 200 South Biscayne Blvd (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Miami. Info regarding delegation: VetsForPeace(at)the-beach.net
Chicago IL - Noon - 180 North Stetson Ave (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace Chicago. Info: bobgronko(at)yahoo.com
Raleigh NC - Noon to 1pm - 3737 Glenwood Ave (map). Sponsored by Veterans For Peace (Chapter 908 - Triangle Chapter). Info: 919-789-9056; myerswally (at) gmail.com
War resister supporters in Munich, Germany will also gather the Canadian Consulate there on July 9th. Across Canada, the War Resisters Support Campaign has organized protests on Thursday, July 10th.
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!" Veterans for Peace has also published an open letter to Canadian officials in support of war resisters (PDF).
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.
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
In US political presidential news, independent presidential candidate events coming up? Ralph Nader's upcoming events:
Sat. July 12th 1-3pm Nader for President 2008 Rally Richmond, VA Virginia Holocaust Museum 2000 E Cary St. Richmond, VA Contact John: 804-432-1611 Suggested contribution: $10/$5 student Map it Sat. July 12th 7:30-10pm Nader for President 2008 Rally Raleigh, NC St Mary's School (Pittman Auditorium) 900 Hillsborough St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 Contact: Thomas (919) 828-6236 Suggested contribution: $10/$5 student Map it Sun. July 13th 2-4pm Nader for President 2008 Rally Charlottesville, VA Gravity Lounge 103 South First Street Charlottesville VA 22902 Contact: Michael: 520-906-8661 Suggested Contribution $10/$5 student Map it
There are two events on Saturday and there is some confusion about the timing of them so Marcia and Ruth have noted the events as well. Nader is noted in Toula Foscolos' "Ensuring the balance of power" (Westmount Examiner):
It
is a fundamental principle of democracy to allow many sides of a story
to be heard. The absence of bias lies with taking a neutral position;
by allowing more than just the prevailing opinion to be heard.
Conversation, debate, the dissemination of differing and even opposing
views is the best way for citizens to make informed decisions about
critical issues of importance in their community. The
people in power are not the only ones with an educated opinion.
Citizens are vital sources of intelligent, well-reasoned
recommendations that should be tapped into. They may not have PR people
working for them, but they have just as much right to be heard. A
responsible community paper should allow them the opportunity to do
just that. U.S. veteran
civic activist, Ralph Nader wrote: "Very real personal fulfillment can
be found in citizen action - in clarifying our values as to what is
just and what is unjust, throwing them into the marketplace of ideas,
having them heard out and debated, perhaps having them accepted." Even
when they're not accepted, they need to be heard.
An American soldier was killed Tuesday when a roadside bomb struck his vehicle west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. The
military also reported the deaths of four private contractors in a
similar attack the previous day in northern Iraq. Eight contractors
were injured in that bombing, about 15 miles south of the city of Mosul.
Bilal is free. The Committee to Protect Journalists notes, "Associated Press
photographer Bilal Hussein was freed today from U.S custody in Iraq,
ending a two-year ordeal in which he fended off unsubstantiated
accusations from the U.S. military that he collaborated with Iraq
insurgents." Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) reminds,
"The military never made public its evidence against Hussein" and that
they announced their decision on Monday when they "released a statement
with a slightly gruding tone". "Two years and four days" of
imprisonment, Daryl Lang (Photo District News) calculates, also noting the "five-month judicial process" that ended last week. Robert H. Reid (AP) explains,
"Hussein, 36, was freed at a checkpoint in Baghdad, where he was taken
by the military aboard a prisoner bus. He left U.S. custody wearing a
traditional Iraqi robe and appeared in good health." Dean Yates (Reuters) quotes Bilal stating, "I want to thank all the people working in AP . . . I have spent two years in prison even though I was innocent. I thank everybody." Editorial Photographers United Kingdom & Ireland describes
the scene, "The photographer was embraced by sobbing family members,
including his brother and mother, and spoke to other well-wishers on a
mobile phone as he was showered with flowers and sweets. He later was
honored with a traditional feast." They also quote professor Yassir
Hussein (Bilal's brother) explaining, "I cannot describe my happiness
at seeing him again. The family has been going through a hard time over
the past two years, but now we thank God that we will have some rest." AFP notes
Bilal's Pulitzer Prize win and that he was released at "an entry
checkpoint near Camp Victory near the Baghdad airport" according to US
Maj Matt Morgan. Paul Colford, Associated Press' Director of Media Relations, announced Monday,
"After two years in detention, Bilal Hussein needs time to spend with
his family, to rest and to catch up with the rest of the world."
Bilal is fine. A new journalist is being held prisoner. 38 year-old AP camera journalist Ahmed Nouri Raziak has been held by the US military since last month and AP has been informed he will be held for at least six weeks. He has worked for AP
Television for five years and was stopped by the US military (or
rounded up, let's be honest) in Tikrit. I can't find a link for this
but will get one for the next entry.
"There
should not be any permanent bases in Iraq unless these bases are under
Iraqi control," Rubaie said, referring to negotiations over a bilateral
agreement governing the future U.S. military role in Iraq. The
agreement, if approved, would go into effect when a U.N. mandate
expires in December. "We
would not accept any memorandum of understanding with [the U.S.] side
that has no obvious and specific dates for the foreign troops'
withdrawal from Iraq," Rubaie said.
The
Bush administration has consistently opposed a timetable, arguing that
it would only embolden insurgents. Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House
spokesman, reiterated that argument on Tuesday in Japan, where
President Bush was attending the Group of 8 summit meeting. "Negotiations
and discussions are ongoing every day," Mr. Johndroe said. "It is
important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a
withdrawal, but are discussions on a security horizon that reflect the
Iraqis’ increasing capacity, as well as improved conditions on the
ground that should allow for a further reduction of U.S. forces."
Yesterday's snapshot
noted: "In Toyako, Japan yesterday, Dana Perino and Dan Price took
questions -- no one asked about Iraq. They did so again today in Toyako
and, again, no questions about Iraq. Russia and Zimbabwee were popular
questions but no one could bother giving a damn long enough to ask the
White House what it means when Nouri al-Maliki is floating the idea of
a US withdrawal." That was and is correct. The statement from Johndroe
does not come from the press briefings held by "White House on the
Road." (He did not participate in them.)
Today (remember, the White House is in Japan), White House spokesperson Dana Perino declared:
This is in regards to the negotiations we're having with the Iraqis and
how we want to respond is in the following: The recent Iraqi statements
that you've seen that reflect the ongoing negotiations between the
United States and Iraq we believe reflect the recent positive
developments in Iraq, including the area of security, where Iraqi
forces are currently in the lead in, for example, Basra, Mosul, and
Sadr City -- places that were in horrible shape security-wise just a
little while ago, but because of proactive actions they've improved so
tremendously. We also
believe that the comments coming from the Iraqis are an indication of
the Iraqi government's and the Iraqi security force's increasing
capacity and the improving conditions on the ground for them to be able
to take on more responsibility. This should allow for more what we've
called return on success for our forces. A sovereign Iraqi government
and the Iraqi people are every day more ready, willing, and able to
take on more of their responsibility, and that is exactly what we've
been working for. That's been our objective from the beginning. So
the strategic framework agreement that we are working on would describe
the political, economic, security and then diplomatic relationships
that we would establish with -- between our two nations going forward. Increasingly,
the Iraqis, as you've seen in those three places I've mentioned, such
as Basra, Mosul, and Sadr City, they are taking over combat missions.
That's one of the things that we want so that we can transition our
forces to more overwatch, training, and counterterrorism activities.
And that, again, allows us more return on success, because we can
further reduce our combat troops and have our forces then focused on
some of those other areas. We
have always been opposed, and remain so, to an arbitrary withdrawal
date. We believe that, as we've said before, that any actual troop
withdrawal schedule needs to be based on conditions on the ground. And
we believe the Iraqis agree with us in that regard. We want a sovereign
Iraq to be able to take on more of its own security, more
responsibility, and we have been able to talk to them about some
aspirational time frames for some of those activities, such as taking
over the security control in some of the provinces, like you've seen in
some of the areas. And hopefully soon we'll be turning over that
security control in the area of Anbar. And
so these ideas for aspirational time frames are something that our
negotiators, led by Ryan Crocker, Ambassador Crocker, in Baghdad, will
continue to work on as we work to conclude this round of negotiations.
Perino
state that Bully Boy has not spoken to al-Maliki since embarking on the
current trip (Bush arrived in Japan July 6th) but that "he just spoke
to him right before we left. I can't remember what day we left, but the
President had a secure videoteleconfrence" with al-Maliki. She stated
US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker "checks in with the President daily.
Almost." She tried to spin the Iraqi's talk of a US withdrawal
positively ("how far they've come in a year") and said "we want that,
too" (responsibility) once they 'prove' they're ready. (The same old
song & dance.)
Pressed as to whether the end of July was
still a target for the treaty (not all that long ago the White House
was stating that they would have it before July 4th), Perino stated
that "we don't have timetables for troop withdrawals, we don't have
timetables for negotiations." Well thank goodness there's a timetable
for Bully Boy's exit (January 2009) or he might hang around in quagmire
status as well.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US State Dept isn't
sure what talks with Iraq are determining, the US military announces another
death, war resister Joshua Key explains what the recent court decision means for
him, and more.
Aimee Allison: What does it mean on the heels of this recent decision
in Canada that you've won the right to at least make your case to authorities in
Canada to stay permanently with your wife and four children?
Joshua Key: Well I look at it as the way things were going it was
getting pretty iffy so I look at it as a big win cause it will make our steps go
forward and we can keep progressing and it gives hope for here.
Aimee Allison: So tell us about the process you've been in. You've
been in Canada for more than two years now and are applying for refugee status.
In other words, you have to make the argument to authorities in Canada that as a
refugee you have a right to apply and stay safely in that country because to
return you would be to put you in danger. Talk more about this process and
where you are in the process right now.
Joshua Key: We've been here for three and a half years. We've been
in the refugee process since we've been here. I went to the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada and was denied. Then I went to an appeals court and
then I got the verdict for that and I won so now it goes back to the Immigration
and Refugee Board to argue it there again. And that's where I'm at right
now.
Aimee Allison: Talk to me about how your wife and four kids are
doing?
Joshua Key: Well they're doing good. I mean, we -- I mean like I
look at my wife honestly misses back home so does my children they miss seeing
their families their grandma and grandpa and their aunts and uncles. So it's
hard on that sense. On the sense of just living, it's probably like living back
home to a big extent just a lot more rules here but we keep going.
Aimee Allison: And when you came to Canada, you obviously --
particularly because your book The Deserter's Tale that you co-wrote with
Lawrence Hill -- talks explicitly about what you call war crimes that you
witnessed in Iraq and tell us a little bit more about what you keep in your mind
that keeps you fighting to stay in Canada?
Joshua Key: Well I look at it as it was an illegal and immoral war.
I knew that after my time there. It took me a long time to realize what
exactly were doing. But with me being in Canada it gives me an easier sense of
living. I suffer with Post Traumatic Stress but I know I did the right thing by
leaving and walking away and coming somewhere and then fighting not just to stay
in Canada but to eventually hoping to get the Iraq War done with.
Aimee Allison: And are there other people with your same situation in
Canada? How many of them? How many people are there?
Joshua Key: There's I would say thirty in my exact situation. I
don't know the exact current numbers. There's presumably a lot more hiding in
Canada which I've met myself. But it's -- there's a lot of us in the same boat
right now that's fighting to survive, fighting to live in peace on that
sense.
[. . .]
Aimee Allison: I want to talk to you a little bit about your
experiences in the mililtary which have led you to take such a serious step of
leaving the country and trying to stay in Canada permanently. What was it that
you saw or experienced in Iraq that crystalized your opposition to war and
really led you to take the step that you're taking now?
Joshua Key: There was many different occassions, many different
scenarios in Iraq that made me come up with my decision. When I first went to
Iraq I believed in the mission and was there for weapons of mass destruction and
the evil tyrant Saddam Hussein. It took months for my mind to get changed and
that was basically for our actions that we were doing -- conducting and raiding
homes, traffic control points. And you know one incident really sticks with me
and it was always does, nightmares and everything, but we were on a QRF mission
which was like a quick reaction force for the army. We were in Ramadi, Iraq and
we were called out about two o'oclock in the morning to calm down some kind of
an uprising or such. We were on the banks of the Eurphrates River. We were
going and we took a sharp right turn, on the leftside of our armored personel
carrier, I seen four decaptiated Iraqi bodies When we parked our APC I was told
to get out and see if I could find evidence of a firefight and such. When I got
out there was already American forces on the ground. I don't know who they were
with. To the right of me one was in the middle and he was screaming that they
had lost it there. There were other soldiers around him, sort of comforting
him. I looked to the lefthand side and I seen soldiers kicking one of the heads
around like a soccer ball. I got inside of my APC and told my team leader I
would have nothing to do with that. Nothing was said the next day I said
'Where's the mission statement? Can I see the mission statement?' add what I
seen to that mission statement? And I was told that it was none of my concern
and none of my business. And that's when I realized it was my concern and my
business cause I was the one there doing it.
Aimee Allison: That's Joshua Key a former private first class in the
US army who left in 2005 to Canada with his family and is trying to stay there
and be granted refugee status. I'm also joined by Jeff Paterson, project
director of Courage to Resist. Joshua, Americans, it has been said, are
"fatigued" about discussion about the war. They're "fatigued." They don't
want to hear about it and, in fact, the discussion about the Iraq War has been
very limited even in the presidential campaign. What do Americans need to know
about what's happening right now?
Joshua Key: They need to know the truth. They need to know the truth
and the exact reason why Americans are dying there? Why is it? It might be a
question people don't want to ask. It might be a question people avoid. It's
always the truth that people avoid. But I think it needs to be there and it
needs to be brought more attention exactly what's happening to American soldiers
there. So.
Aimee Allison: And are you working closely with groups such as
Courage to Resist from Canada who are trying to support your case and
others?
Joshua Key: I work with a little bit here and there. I sort of look
at myself as I'm all over the place. But any organization that is fighting for
us to be here or fighting for the Iraq War to end, I try to be involved
with.
Jeff Paterson will hopefully be included in a snapshot later in the week.
Included meaning quoted at length. Courage to Resist is an organization we link to
and note (and will note it this snapshot shortly) but so that Elaine doesn't get stuck with grabbing a topic (she handled critiquing Jeffry House's appearence on Democracy
Now! yesterday brilliantly), one comment by Paterson needs to be noted
today. ". . . And, like in the Vietnam war, have an amnesty program so these
people can come back without military tribunals and this stockade prison time
and dishonorable discharges. . . That was the first thing Jimmy Carter did when
he became president. So there's a basis for that to happen again." No. People need to know what happened before so they can
know what is possible (and expand beyond that). But we need to be factually
correct. When we aren't, it allows the argument to be discredited. Jimmy
Carter didn't grant amnesty to deserters during Vietnam on his first day in the
White House. (Or ever.) What he did do was grant amnesty to draft dodgers.
Gerald Ford was the president who offered a conditional clemency that applied to
draft dodgers and deserters. We have been covering this at Third
repeatedly because it is important. You can see "Editorial: What did happen, what can happen"
(June 29th), "Editorial: What's your acceptance level?" (June
22nd), "Where are the demands? Where is the knowledge?"
(June 15th), "Editorial: Know Your History! You Have The Right!
" (June 8th). You'll find out about Ford's program in those. You will find
about Jimmy Carter's refusal to do anything for deserters. You will find out
his 'excuses' and how Tom Wicker (New York Times) and others called him
out for that in real time. Mike and I have repeatedly
covered what Ford did and what Carter did and have provided multiple links. Click here for Mike doing just
that in May. You can go to this May 23rd snapshot and find the following:
"Just a day after Jimmy Carter's inaguration, he followed through
on a contentious campaign promise, granting a presidential pardon to those who
had avoided the draft during the Vietnam war by either not registering or
traveling abroad. The pardon meant the government was giving up forever the
right to prosecute what the administration said were hundreds of thousands of
draft-dodgers. . . . Meanwhile, many in amnesty groups say that Carter's pardon
did too little. They pointed out that the president did not include deserters
-- those who served in the war and left before their tour was completed -- or
soliders who received a less-than-honorable discharge. Civilian protesters,
selective service employees and those who initiated any act of violence also
were not covered in the pardon."
Then US House Rep Elizabeth Holtzman was among the four guests
(and, in the seventies, with demands being made, there were two women and two
men brought on for the report) and stated, "I'm pleased that the pardon was
issued, I'm pleased that it was done on the first day and I'm pleased that
President Carter kept a commitment that he made very clear to the American
people. I would have liked to have seen it broader, I would like to have seen
it extended to some of the people who are clearly not covered and whose families
will continue to be separated from them . . . but I don't think President Carter
has closed the door on this category of people."
Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford had two different programs. There's no reason
to confuse the two (though one historian did just that in 2000 and that appears
to be why so many are confused today). That is not a minor point. Iraq Veterans Against the
War Matthis Chiroux announced June 15th that he would not report to duty (as
he'd stated he wouldn't on May 15th). Chiroux had completed his tours of
duty and been honorably discharged. Then he was told he was being called back
in and sent to Iraq. Gil Kaufman (MTV News) does an indepth
exploration of what this meant in terms of day to day life for Matthis.
Chiroux left the military after being discharged and intended to go to college,
"he assumed the GI Bill benefits he earned would help pay for college but was
'horrified' to learn in January that because of his salary in the Army and his
stationing overseas, he was going to be denied federal and state tuition
assistance. He also found out that he was not eligible for subsidized student
loans because of his GI Bill benefits. In the end, his benefits as a veteran
totaled around $1,000 a month, not even enough to pay for his apartment in
Brooklyn. If Chiroux had not served in the military, he said he would have been
eligible for Pell Grants that might have helped him pay the $7,500 he laid out
in January for school." For those not familiar with the Pell Grant system, they
are "grants" -- meaning no repayment. So serving in the military meant Matthis
couldn't qualify for those and the GI Bill wasn't paying for his college
expense. He had to take out loans for $7,500 and then was informed ("three
weeks after school started") that he needed to :withdraw from classes and report
to Fort Jackson on March 8." Army flack Major Nathan Banks -- in the limelight
so often these days, tells MTV that Chiroux is a deserter. Actually, if Matthis
is considered AWOL -- a big if -- it would take thirty days after he was
considered AWOL for him to be classified as a "deserter." So someone might want
to train their spokesmodels a bit more before deploying them to the press.
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.
That's tomorrow (and Paterson
discussed it on The Morning Show today) Raleigh, North Carolina has
been added and its demonstration will take place from noon to one at 3737
Glenwood Avenue. 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. The War Resisters Support
Campaign noted yesterday that, "On July 4, former US soldier Robin
Long was arrested by police in Nelson, BC, where he is legally residing, on a
warrant issued by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). A hearing is
scheduled in Vancouver tomorrow (Tuesday, July 8). The CBSA is claiming that
Long did not report as required to its Kelowna office by phone last Thursday and
that he was staying with various friends in Nelson without reporting a change of
address. Long has denied the allegations and the CBSA does not dispute that he
reported in on schedule on July 3."
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.
Yesterday, puppet of the occupation Nouri
al-Maliki floated the idea that a treaty -- (popularly called "Status of Forces
Agreement") needed to replace the UN mandate that provides legal cover to the
occupation which expires Dec. 31st -- with the White House might need to include
a withdrawal timeline. Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) interviews "a
prominent leader in Mr. Maliki's political paty" (Ali al-Adeeb) who tells her,
"We think that what is suitable for withdrawal is when our soldiers are ready
and well armed to take the responsibility." Meanwhile CBS and AP report that Mouwaffak
al-Rubaie (Iraq's National Security Adviser) has declared, "We will not accept
any memorandum of understanding that doesn't have specific dates to withdraw
foreign forces from Iraq." Memo? It's the treaty. Call it a SOFA (wrongly) or
a memo (the White Houe's preferred choice in recent weeks). Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times)
provides the basics, "The talks are focused on two accords. One would
provide a framework for future diplomatic, economic and security relations. The
other, known as a Status of Forces Agreement, would provide a legal basis for
U.S. troops to remain in the country." US Congress members Bill Delahunt and Rose DeLauro explain the basics in
the Washington Post today noting "constitutional scholars
testifying before the oversight subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee have stated 'the authority to fight' that the administration seeks
from Iraq does indeed require congressional approval. Requiring international
legal approval of combat is what makes this agreement anything but what the
administration incorrectly calls it: a 'status of forces agreement.' . . . If
the U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31, so does domestic authority for our troops
to fight, along with their immunity from Iraqi prosecution. This is precisely
the 'legal vacuum' that constitutional scholars Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathway
detailed in an April 5 op-ed, 'The War's Expiration Date'. . . " Delahunt and
DeLauro are advocating that the UN mandate be renewed for six months which would
carry it into 2009 and allow the next US president to determine what to do as
opposed to Bully Boy tying the hands of everyone to follow with a treaty on his
way out the door. Despite the fact that al-Maliki floated the idea of a US
withdrawal being part of the treaty yesterday, White House reporters traveling
with Bully Boy have not bothered to even ask about the issue. In Toyako, Japan
yesterday, Dana Perino and Dan Price took questions -- no one asked about Iraq.
They did so again today in Toyako and, again, no questions about Iraq. Russia
and Zimbabwee were popular questions but no one could bother giving a damn long
enough to ask the White House what it means when Nouri al-Maliki is floating the
idea of a US withdrawal. At the US State Dept yesterday, press spokesperson
Sean McCormack was asked and insisted "this falls in the categoy of ongoing
negotiations. And I'm not going to talk about every single development -- every
single development within the -- in the negotiations. I've seen Prime Minister
Maliki's remarks. I've seen some reports about it. . . . I know our negoiators
have talked about timelines. I'll let them talk about timelines. I'm not going
to do it." Which should have resulted in headlines this morning of "State
Department Reveals White House Talking Timelines." Today the press flack
director, Gonzalo R. Gallegos, was sent out to address journalists and was asked
about Iraq's National Security Advisor's remarks. "Well, I'll tell you,"
Gallegos responded. "You know the US Government and the Government of Iraq are
in agreement that we -- the US Government -- we want to withdraw. We will
withdraw. However, that decision will be conditions-based. You know [US]
Ambassador [to Iraq Ryan] Crocker said before we're looking at conditions, not
calendars here. We're making progress and are committed to departing as
evidenced by the fact that we have transferred over half of the country's
provinces to provisional Iraqi control. and we're planning on removing the
fifth and final surge brigade at the end of the month here, if things go
according to plan." When asked if this was statying "you're opposing any
timetable in this agreement," Gallegos responded, Well I've said what I've said
there." Asked about the Memorandum of Understanding and what it was about,
Gallegos refused to term or name (the treaty) and instead insisted that,
whatever it is, "we're working towards. I think when we reach it, we have made
it very clear that we are going to be open about it and discuss and describe it
to you all in great detail." In other words, after the fact, the American
people can know what the White House has imposed on al-Maliki (and imposed on
the US) and the Constitution and Congress will be circumvented and the law
broken. If you doubt that, Gallegos clarified, "So when we get to there, when
the agreement is finished, wrapped up and done, we'll be discussing it more
broadly with you all." Speaking at the Fort Lewis Army base today, US
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates echoed McCormick from yesterday ("depends on
the situation on the ground"). Meanwhile AFP reports King Abdullah II of Jordan's
trip to Iraq this week has been postponed.
Bombings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a
Bahgdad roadside bombing that wounded five people, a Salahudding roadside
bombing which "targeted Tikrist police chief" resulted in 1 guard being killed
and a Kirkuk roadside bombing resulted in two people being wounded. Reuters notes 4 contractors killed in a roadside
bombing outside of Mosul Monday.
Shootings?
Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a
group of men and women protesting the Labor Ministry over not receiving their
salaries resulted in "guards of ministry of labor and social affairs" firing
indiscriminately and ten people being wounded in Baghdad, Entisar Ibrahim was
shot dead in Baghdad and, dropping back to Monday, Dr. Salih Abed Hassoun ("dean
of college of law of Al Qadisiyah University") was shot dead. Reuters notes 2 people shot dead in "Mosul on Monday"
and, also on Monday, "a member of the Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic party" was shot
dead in Tal Afar.
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division
-- Baghdad Soldier died as a result of an improvised explosive device that
struck his vehicle west of Baghdad at approximately 9:30 a.m. July 8." This
announcement brings the total number of US service members killed in Iraq since
the start of the illegal war to 4115.
Turning to the US presidential race. Anthony Schinella (Massachusetts' Belmont
Citizen-Herald) reports on a poll the paper conducted online to
determine public support for the presidential candidates (with the exception of
Bob Barr and Ralph Nader, all about to be listed are the presumptive
candidates -- Barr's running for the Libertarian Party and has secured the
nomination, Nader is running as an independent). Who won? John McCain (GOP)
with 60%. Barack Obama (DNC) won 28% of the vote. (Remember Barack lost
Massachusetts to Hillary Clinton even with Governor Who, John Kerry and Ted
Kennedy prosituting themselves out for Barack.) Cynthia McKinney polled at 1%.
Bob Barr polled at 4% and Ralph Nader at 7%. As Ruth noted yesterday,
"independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader has a rally coming up Saturday at the Virginia
Holocaust Museum. They are asking for donations of $10 ($5 for students) and
it will run from one in the afternoon until three." The Richmond Times Dispatch adds to call
(434) 432-1611 for details. Sue Sturgis (Raleigh Eco News) notes,
"An attorney who formerly served on staff at the U.S. Department of Labor, Nader
founded the consumer and environmental watchdog organization Public Citizen in
1971. He went on to start dozens of other advocacy groups including the Clean Water
Action Project and Multinational Monitor magazine. . . . In this
race as in his past White House bids, Nader is criticizing the Democratic
nominee's willingness to court the right, highlighting Sen. Barack Obama's
recent flip-flopping on telecom immunity, gun control,
the death penalty, campaign finance and faith-based funding. . . . Charges of
pandering aside, Nader's environmental platform is much more
earth-friendly than either Obama's pro-coal and pro-nuclear positions, or
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's, which focuses solely on a
market-based cap-and-trade approach to greenhouse gas emissions. Nader calls for
the adoption of a carbon pollution tax, rejects nuclear power in favor of solar
energy, and seeks stronger protections against toxic pollution. He also promises
to work to end corporate personhood, perhaps the most
fundamental challenge to abusive power in America."
Meanwhile Brian (Memoirs of a Godless Heathen)
explains he's changed his support in the presidential race: "Thus, I can no
longer throw in my support for Obama. He can no longer count on my vote (the
very first one I will ever cast) in November. I am now supporting Ralph Nader
for President. Mr. Nader is the most compatible with my sensibilites. His
unyielding advocacy for freedom of the American people make him the most
desirable of all the candidates. So am I wasting my vote? I don't think so. I
realize that Nader will not win, but voting for the winner is not what a voter
should strive for. I am voting for the person who I believe can best do the
job. This November, I will have the satisfaction of voting for someone I like,
rather than the lesser of the two evils. I may be just one vote, but breaking
the hold of this two-party system requires people like me to make the choice to
do so. Will I be helping John McCain's campaign? No, because I will not be
voting for John McCain. If Ralph Nader was not my choice, I would not vote,
plain and simple. Thus, I am not taking a vote away from Obama, since I
wouldn't have voted for him anyway." Meanwhile Cedric's "More distance from Barack" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! TOO GOOD FOR THE PARTY!" note just
how much space Barack is trying to put between himself and Democrats.
On July 4, former
US soldier Robin Long was arrested by police in Nelson, BC, where he is legally
residing, on a warrant issued by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA). A
hearing is scheduled in Vancouver tomorrow (Tuesday, July 8). The CBSA is claiming that Long did not report as
required to its Kelowna office by phone last Thursday and that he was staying
with various friends in Nelson without reporting a change of address. Long has
denied the allegations and the CBSA does not dispute that he reported in on
schedule on July 3. Long has lived
openly in Nelson after coming to Canada rather than deploy to Iraq with his
armored unit. He is well known by Nelson residents, and by the RCMP, who had no
trouble locating him on Friday. On
June 3 this year the House of Commons passed a resolution supporting US war
resisters remaining in Canada and called on the government to cease any removal
orders against them. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Diane Finley has so
far refused to implement the will of Parliament. Meanwhile, on July 4 an appeal court sent the case of
Joshua Key, another ex-US serviceman, back to the Immigration and Refugee Board.
The court instructed the board, which had originally denied Keyes' refugee
claim, to re-examine his application based on its failure to consider the
brutality and illegality of activities in which American soldiers in Iraq are
forced to participate. Polls show that a majority of Canadians support the
war resisters being granted permanent residence. "The actions of the CBSA amounts to harassment," says
Lee Zaslofsky, spokesperson for the War Resisters Support Campaign. "This young
man has complied with his requirements and his whereabouts were well-known. The
Harper government is ignoring the will of the House of Commons and the Canadian
people. It is doing the bidding of the Bush administration in seeking to remove
these soldiers of conscience to face persecution in the US." Bob Ages, of the Vancouver War Resisters Support
Campaign said, "Our legal counsel will be asking that Robin Long be immediately
released and members of Parliament will be taking up this matter with the
government and the Canadian public."
The above is a press release
from The War Resisters Support Campaign. US
war resister Joshua Key will be interviewed from Canada on KPFA's The
Morning Show today at 11:00 a.m. EST, 10:00 Central and 8:00 PST. (The
interview will take place in the second hour of the show -- that's the time
being listed, not when the show begins.) Aimee Allison and Philip Maldari
co-host The Morning Show. With David
Solnit, Aimee Allison co-wrote Army Of None.
Meanwhile, Nick Kyonka's "U.S. deserter counts down final
hours" (Toronto Star) profiles Corey
Glass and reveals the level of 'information' in Canada:
Other conversations at the bar involve what Glass
calls "normal chit-chat." Family life, work, childhood stories and – of course –
politics, both Canadian and American. "Hopefully this war will be over when (Barack) Obama
gets elected," says one resister. "Then this won't be an issue any
more." Glass says the best Grossman's
evenings have been when the group put aside talk of war and politics. He recalls
a night soon after he arrived when resisters from across the country were in
town for a national meeting, and the whole group went to the bar after. "At that
point, everything was looking good," he said. "The whole (legal) process was
ahead of us, nothing really bad had happened ... It was just like a normal day,
hanging out with friends." Whether
those days are behind him for good, Glass won't know until this
week. He does know that if he's
allowed to stay, he expects to join the others at Grossman's for years to
come. "I'd love to live in Toronto,"
he says. "This is my home now."
Barack will end the illegal war?
Reality travels slowly to Canada. Always has. Here's another bit of reality for
war resisters in Canada: Should Barack become president, it doesn't mean a damn
thing for you.
There is no pressure on Barack to do a damn thing for war
resisters. In 1968, pressure was brought to bear on nominees, in 1972 ditto.
When Gerarld Ford was president (a Republican -- who came into office on Tricky
Dick's resignation) there was enough pressure to result in his clemency program.
Jimmy Carter offered amnesty to draft dodgers only but did offer something.
Where's the pressure today? Not on Barack. Even Bob Herbert in today's New York Times (a Barack Booster of the
largest degree) moans from the floor, curled up in the fetal position, at all of
Barack's flip-flops, at Barack's decision to cater to the right (because where
are Democrats going to go). Here's Herbert, shocked to be waking up alone in
bed: "There's even concern that he's doing the Obama two-step on the issue that
has been the cornerstone of his campaign: his opposition to the war in Iraq."
Concern? Try awareness setting in. He was never 'anti-war.' Herbert's column is
"Lurching
With Abandon" -- and we'll provide a link for laughter only -- or, as I
prefer to think of it, the answer to the Shirelle's musical question: "Will You
Still Love Me Tomorrow?" Poor Bob, woke up alone in bed and in the wet spot --
after so many months running the Barack Fan Club from the op-ed pages of the
Times. And even now, so wounded the morning after, he can't see the biggest
problem.
Some will always cut Barack slack. The Barack 'movement' in
Canada will keep them in line. The same 'movement' that does so in the US. The
real problem is Barack is a magazine cover with no definition to the millions of
Americans (the majority of Americans) who skipped party primaries but will vote
in November. Caving on FISA, on Iraq, pushing the death penalty for children
(and for crimes that do not involve murder), go down the list. His fan club can
defend him until they climax from their self-induced frenzy, it won't change the
fact that the magazine cover is now a flip-flopper and caver to a huge number of
Americans. That's the danger Bob Herbert can't put into words while fretting
over his steady in print today.
It's really pathetic to hear war
resisters today root on any candidate. They were a lot smarter during Vietnam
but they weren't treated as child wards -- and treated as such by Americans in
Canada (legally) who were running a Barack fan club. For war resisters in
Canada, it doesn't matter whether the illegal war ends. There is no return to
the US without punishment because there has been no efforts to pressure the
presidential candidates. There was a lot more maturity during Vietnam -- on both
sides of the border -- and lot less searching for a Daddy figure to worship. If
you doubt that, read the article and note the
Vietnam era deserter referred to as a "draft resister." Not in the mood for
the crap or the lies this morning. Or the inability of so many to show some damn
maturity. If you're still confused (or immature), check out the Washington Post's editorial today entitled "Mr.
Obama on Iraq: His hint of softening on his unrealistic withdrawal plan is only
sensible." Which is just the encouragement a candidate who stands for
nothing needs to cave even further.
Five years after it began,
the war in Iraq has been a complete disaster. And it remains illegal. A recent
poll indicates that 82 per cent of Canadians oppose the Iraq war, with 59 per
cent of Americans backing our government's decision to refuse to
participate. Many of the U.S. war
resisters seeking refuge in Canada, like Joshua Key, have served in Iraq where
they witnessed widespread abuse and human rights violations. These young men and women show incredible courage for
refusing to be a part of it, and should be allowed to stay in Canada. But Rosie
DiManno dismisses their accounts, explaining that "this is what combat troops
do." Thankfully, the Geneva
Conventions don't share that logic. If only more soldiers like Key had the
chance to share their experiences, we might be moved to do more to end the war
in Iraq instead of making excuses for it. James Clark, Toronto
The Canadian government, which is under pressure from
US officials, is considering deportation of these soldiers to the US; however,
more than 64 percent of the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament are
against deportation proceedings against the American deserters.
The major U.S.
organization representing 7,000 U.S. veterans has issued a public "Thank You" to
the people of Canada and an appeal to the government on behalf of Corey Glass
and other U.S. Iraq War conscientious objectors seeking refuge. Veterans for Peace (VFP) whose members fought in WW
II, the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars says: "Thank you, Canada, for providing a
safe haven for young American men and women who, although they were in the
military, decided they could not in good conscience participate in the illegal
and immoral U.S. war and occupation of Iraq." Expressing concern over the possible deportation of
Corey Glass and other conscientious objectors, VFP warns that "if they are
forced to return to the United States, they will be imprisoned only because they
refused to fight in an immoral war." VFP is joining with Courage To Resist and Project Safe
Haven to organize actions at the Canadian Embassy and Consulates in 13 U.S.
cities on Wed., July 9. The War
Resisters Support Campaign is calling on peace movements and concerned citizens
in Britain, France, Germany and around the world to urge the Canadian Government
to respect the June 3rd historic parliamentary motion calling for an end to
deportations and the opportunity for conscientious objectors to apply to remain
in Canada as permanent residents.
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.
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).
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.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may
match your contribution total up to $250.
And Kayla notes
the opening to Ralph Nader's "Independence
Day" (Nader - Gonzalez '08):
One day
when I was about eight years old, my mother tossed one of her frequent "out of
the blue" questions at me: "Ralph, do
you love your country?" "Yes, mother,"
I said, wondering where she was going with this. "Well, I hope when you grow up, you'll work hard to
make it more lovable." Thus, began my
education in the patriotism of deeds, the patriotism of advancing justice.
Today (PDF format warning) the US military announced:
"A Multi-National Division – Baghdad Soldier died as a result of an
improvised explosive device that struck his vehicle west of Baghdad at
approximately 9:30 a.m. July 8."
Yesterday,
puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki floated the idea that a treaty
-- (popularly called "Status of Forces Agreement") needed to replace
the UN mandate that provides legal cover to the occupation which
expires Dec. 31st -- with the White House might need to include a
withdrawal timeline. Sabrina Tavernise's "Iraqi Favors Short Security Pact With U.S." (New York Times) offers:
Mr.
Maliki's office said in a statement that the "current trend is toward
reaching a memorandum of understanding" that would extend the presence
of American troops for a period of time. While the statement used the
words "scheduled withdrawal" about American troops, it did not seem to
mean that a precise timetable for troops to depart was being negotiated. Ali
al-Adeeb, a prominent leader in Mr. Maliki's political party, said in a
telephone interview that while there were many options for withdrawal
and several end points under discussion, "We think that what is
suitable for withdrawal is when our soldiers are ready and well armed
to take the responsibility." The
issues being negotiated are prickly: How much control, if any, should
Iraqis have over American security operations? Should American soldiers
have the right to detain suspects without Iraqi approval?
She's
describing a treaty, not a Status of Forces Agreement. The White House
calls it a SOFA in an attempt to circumvent the Senate and the
Constitution. Alexandra Zavis' "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timetable" (Los Angeles Times) provides an overview:
The
talks are focused on two accords. One would provide a framework for
future diplomatic, economic and security relations. The other, known as
a Status of Forces Agreement, would provide a legal basis for U.S.
troops to remain in the country. Negotiators
from both sides have said that progress is being made but that
outstanding differences might make it impossible to complete a
comprehensive Status of Forces Agreement in time to put it into effect
by the end of the year. A number of possible bridging measures are
being explored. "The current
orientation [of the talks] is to reach a memorandum of understanding
either to withdraw the forces, or to set a timetable for their
withdrawal," Maliki's office quoted him as saying in response to
questions from Arab ambassadors in Abu Dhabi. Many
Iraqis, including members of Maliki's government, view a deal that
allows for a long-term American military presence as a surrender of
sovereignty to an occupying force. Setting a timeline for the
withdrawal of U.S. troops could ease those fears.
First,
the editorial failed to recognize congressional obligations, imposed by
the Constitution, on governing the use of our armed forces. The Post
argued that barring a "formal commitment to defend Iraq from external
aggression," congressional approval of the agreement is not required.
Yet constitutional scholars testifying before the oversight
subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have stated that
"the authority to fight" that the administration seeks from Iraq does
indeed require congressional approval. Requiring international legal
approval of combat is what makes this agreement anything but what the
administration incorrectly calls it: a "status of forces agreement." The
U.N. mandate provides the last legal thread of domestic U.S. authority
for combat because "enforcing relevant U.N. resolutions" was one of the
two activities cited by the 2002 vote in Congress authorizing the use
of force against Iraq (the other being to dispose of the threat posed
by Saddam Hussein). If the U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31, so does
domestic authority for our troops to fight, along with their immunity
from Iraqi prosecution. This is precisely the "legal vacuum" that
constitutional scholars Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway detailed in an
April 5 op-ed, " The War's Expiration Date," on washingtonpost.com. We
have proposed an alternative that would serve our interests and those
of the Iraqis far better: extending the U.N. mandate in Iraq for six
months, as has been done before, so that the new president and Congress
can work with Iraq's leaders to determine the next agreement. Second,
The Post failed to appreciate the exclusivist manner in which the
administration has pursued this agreement. Congress was broadsided by
the "declaration of principles," outlining the negotiating parameters,
signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in
November. Lawmakers have since been denied access to information on the
U.S. negotiating position and even on U.S. goals. This is a key reason
that not just Democrats but also Republicans have expressed
reservations.
Angela K. Brown's "Military program helps sex assault victims" (AP) explores an attempt to address sexual assault -- the program doesn't impress me but we'll note these statistics:
Last
year, 2,688 sexual assaults were reported by women and men in the
military -- compared to 2,947 reported in 2006 and 2,374 in 2005,
according to the Department of Defense. Officials said changes in the
method of reporting data make it difficult to compare numbers year to
year. Since 2005, victims
can choose to report assaults confidentially. The assault is recorded,
but there is no investigation and the chain of command is not notified.
The victims, however, can still receive medical treatment, counseling
and other services.
Lizette Alvarez' "After the Battle, Fighting the Bottle at Home" (New York Times) is a lengthy front page article exploring returning home with PTSD and being left to 'manage' on your own. Anne Flaherty (AP) explores
a UC at Santa Barbara study which found that gays and lesbians serving
in the US military do not risk 'unit coehesion' and we'll note this
from the article:
Navy Vice
Adm. Jack Shanahan said he had no opinion on the issue when he joined
the panel, having never confronted it in his 35-year military career. A
self-described Republican who opposes the Bush administration's
handling of the Iraq war, Shanahan said he was struck by the loss of
personal integrity required by individuals to carry out "don't ask,
don't tell."
US war resister Joshua Key will be interviewed from Canada on KPFA's The Morning Show
today at 11:00 a.m. EST, 10:00 Central and 8:00 PST. (The interview
will take place in the second hour of the show -- that's the time being
listed, not when the show begins.) Aimee Allison and Philip Maldari
co-host The Morning Show. With David Solnit, Aimee Allison co-wrote Army Of None.
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.
Join a vigil and delegation to a Canadian consulate near you on Wednesday, July 9th to support war resisters! On the eve of Corey Glass' possible deportation, we will demand, "Dear Canada: Abide by the June 3rd resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" More details and cities to be confirmed soon!
Washington DC - Time TBA - 501 Pennsylvania Ave NW (map). Sponsored by Veterans for Peace. Info: TBA San Francisco - Noon to 1pm - 580 California St (map). Sponsored by Courage to Resist. Info: 510-488-3559; courage(at)riseup.net Seattle - Time TBA - 1501 4th Ave (map). Sponsored by Project Safe Haven. Info: 206-499-1220; projectsafehaven(at)hotmail.com Dallas - Time TBA - 750 North St Paul St (map). Sponsored by North Texas for Justice and Peace. Info: 214-718-6362; hftomlinson(at)riseup.net New York City - Noon to 1pm - 1251 Avenue of the Americas (map). Sponsored by War Resisters' League. Info: 212-228-0450; wrl(at)warresisters.org Philadelphia - Time TBA - 1650 Market St (map). Sponsored by Payday Network. Info: 215-848-1120; payday(at)paydaynet.org Minneapolis - Time TBA - 701 Fourth Ave S (map). Info: TBA Los Angeles - Noon to 1pm - 550 South Hope St (map). Sponsored by Progressive Democrats LA. Info: pdlavote(at)aol.com Help organize a vigil at one of these other Canadian Consulates: Atlanta, Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Miami, Anchorage, Houston, Raleigh, Phoenix, or San Diego. Please contact Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559. Veterans for Peace issued a joint call with Courage to Resist and Project Safe Haven for July 9th vigils at Canadian Consulates: "Dear Canada: Do Not Deport U.S. War Resisters!" Contact us if you can help organize a vigil, or can otherwise get involved. Locations of the 22 Canadian Consulates in the United States. Recently on June 3rd the Canadian Parliament passed an historic motion to officially welcome war resisters! It now appears, however, that the Conservative government may disregard the motion. Iraq combat veteran turned courageous war resister, 25-year-old Sgt. Corey Glass of the Indiana National Guard is still scheduled to be deported July 10th. We will ask that the Canadian government respect the democratic decision of Parliament, the demonstrated opinion of the Canadian citizenry, the view of the United Nations, and millions of Americans by immediately implementing the motion and cease deportation proceedings against Corey Glass and other current and future war resisters. Join Courage to Resist, Veterans for Peace, and Project Safe Haven at Canadian Consulates across the United States (Washington DC, San Francisco, New York City, Seattle, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles confirmed--more to be announced). We mailed and delivered over 10,000 of the original letters to Canadian officials. Please sign the new letter, "Dear Canada: Abide by resolution - Let U.S. war resisters stay!" http://www.couragetoresist.org/canada
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Megan Bean, Chris Bean, Matthis Chiroux, Richard Droste, Michael Barnes, Matt Mishler, Josh Randall, Robby Keller, Justiniano Rodrigues, Chuck Wiley, James Stepp, Rodney Watson, Michael Espinal, Matthew Lowell, Derek Hess, Diedra Cobb, Brad McCall, Justin Cliburn, Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Peter Brown, Bethany "Skylar" James, Zamesha Dominique, Chrisopther Scott Magaoay, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Jose Vasquez, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Clara Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Stephen Funk, Blake LeMoine, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Logan Laituri, Jason Marek, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Wilfredo Torres, Michael Sudbury, Ghanim Khalil, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, at least fifty US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
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:
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.
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).
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.
After the Army, he assumed the GI Bill benefits he earned would help pay for college but was "horrified" to learn in January that because of his salary in the Army and his stationing overseas, he was going to be denied federal and state tuition assistance. He also found out that he was not eligible for subsidized student loans because of his GI Bill benefits. In the end, his benefits as a veteran totaled around $1,000 a month, not even enough to pay for his apartment in Brooklyn. If Chiroux had not served in the military, he said he would have been eligible for Pell Grants that might have helped him pay the $7,500 he laid out in January for school. A Veterans Administration representative at his college told him that his struggle to pay tuition was a typical story for young veterans. "Then, three weeks after school started, I got hit with my forced-reactivation orders, just three days after I took out my loans for school. I was told to withdraw from classes and report to Fort Jackson on March 8," he said. When he first read the order, Chiroux -- thinking he might be able to do some good in Iraq by getting the word out about stateside anti-war veterans groups to those on the front lines — fully intended to fulfill his duty. "But then I realized that what I was thinking about was extraordinarily dangerous," he said. "Deploying for peace is almost suicidal. If Iraq is an illegal war -- which a lot of veterans I've met, and people in the military, think it is -- then by keeping my oath of enlistment I would do no good by going there, and I'd only be adding to the problem despite noble intentions." Chiroux called the military to explain his loan situation and said he was told that while the Army could not get his loans nullified, they could delay his redeployment until June 15. By the end of April, he felt he couldn't go to Iraq and began hatching a plan to flee the country and hide out in Spain. As he put his studies on hold to spend several months speaking to members of Congress in Washington about his plight, Chiroux's second deployment date came and went. Technically, he said, he's not AWOL because he feels he's essentially a civilian, and he's heard nothing from the Army since he failed to report. The Army sees it differently, though. "The way he's going about it by not showing up puts him as a deserter and someone who is AWOL," Army spokesperson Major Nathan Banks said. "We won't go after him, but if he applies for a federal grant or school loans, certain jobs or gets a traffic ticket, he will be arrested and processed for being a deserter, and he will probably get a dishonorable discharge. He's digging his own hole." Banks said Chiroux's best bet is to file as a conscientious objector and explain his reasons for not wanting to serve. Quon added that if a soldier wishes to claim conscientious objector status, they must first report to their mobilization site and submit an application, which is then reviewed by a General Court Martial.
IVAW members Matthis Chiroux and Kris Goldsmith have been pounding the pavement in Washington DC, with the help of IVAW's DC chapter, to get members of Congress to support Matthis in his refusal to deploy to Iraq. Matthis was honorably discharged from the Army in 2007 after five years of service, but he received orders in February 2008 to return to active duty from the IRR for deployment to Iraq.
On Sunday, June 15th, the day he was due to report for active duty, Matthis stood with his father and supporters in DC and reaffirmed that he is refusing his orders on the grounds that the Iraq war is illegal and unconstitutional.
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.
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. [The attacks continued on Monday, wire services reported, when a suicide bomber blew herself up near a market in the city of Baquba, killing as many as 9 people and wounding a dozen others.]
The above, noted by Lloyd, is from Zaid Sabah's "Relative Calm in Iraq Ends as Attacks Take 16 Lives" (Washington Post). While the Post explores reality, the New York Times offers "Iraq City Has Brittle Clam and War Scars." Minus Damien Cave, Alissa J. Rubin again ventures outside Baghdad ("But in late June, a New York Times reporter and photographer traveled to the provincial capital," of Diyala Province "driving in old Iraqi cars with an interpreter to see how much had changed.") It's an improvement over December 23, 2007's "In a Force for Iraqi Calm, Seeds of Conflict." She quotes Ghanem al-Khoreishi, a police chief, who speaks of having "lost 1,585 policemen and had 1,650 wounded." It would be interesting to know the timeline for those figures. (That's not questioning those figures.) Had al-Khoreishi (whose home has been bombed and had to remain at the police headquarters for four months straight due to safety concerns) been bumped up earlier in the article, it would be stronger. It would also provide the contrast (early on) the article needs between the descriptions Rubin offers (nothing wrong with the descriptions other than they set the stage for a story that never comes) and what you arrive at if you read to the final third.
A roadside bomb targeting a leader of a minor Kurdish political party killed seven people in a part of northern Diyala province that Kurds want to incorporate into their semiautonomous region. Mohammed Ramadhan Esa of the National Kurdistan Party was injured, but the explosion killed his wife, three of his children, his sister-in-law and two guards, police said. Three other people were wounded. A car bomb went off near the entrance of Shaab neighborhood in north Baghdad, killing six people and injuring 14, including three police officers. In Iskandariya, about 25 miles south of Baghdad, a leader of the concerned citizens group, the U.S.-funded neighborhood security force, was killed in a bombing. An area north of Sadr City was sealed off Sunday after gunfire erupted Saturday night. Witnesses said a joint U.S.-Iraqi force conducting an operation in the area, once a stronghold of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada Sadr, exchanged fire with several gunmen.
I now have two questions for people who want me to vote for Obama. One from Nader: "What is your breaking point -- the point at which your party has finally gone too far in violating your values?" The other: "Who have you voted for in the last 20 years who has been more progressive after being elected than he or she was during their campaign?"
Miguel asks that this campaign video be noted again.
The Canadian Press notes the finding of Judge Robert Barnes of Canada's Federal Court, issued Friday, which found that, contrary to the Immigration and Refugee 'Board''s opinion, "Officially condoned military misconduct falling well short of a war crime may support a claim to refugee protection." ["Board" because the full committee does not hear the claims or the appeals, one person does.] The individual's case under review was Joshua Key who stated, "It's quite a statement."
Earlier Canada's Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey who were the first US war resisters to go to Canada this decade and attempt to receive refugee status. In refusing to hear their appeals, the Court allowed the lower courtss findings to stand. Key was among those cases of appeal winding their way through the Canadian court system following the Immigration and Refugee 'Board' turning down his claim for asylum. Judge Barnes' decision does not reverse the finding of the 'Board,' it merely requires that it re-examine the decision (and the 'board' has ten days to appeal to decision).
The War Resisters Support Campaign has issued a press release and appear to have left out a word or too when offering Jeffry House's legal summary of the judge's opinion: "summarized the decision saying that the court found that Key was required to systematically violate the Geneva Conventions as part of his military service in Iraq and that he was justified in doing so." Something's missing before "and that he was justified in doing so."
Judge Barnes did not find that anyone was justified in violating the Geneva Conventions. A better take would be House "summarized the decision saying that the court found that Key was required to systematically violate the Geneva Conventions as part of his military servince in Iraq and that was justified in REFUSING to do so." Without "refusing" in there, the summary makes no sense and does not reflect either Judge Barnes' legal opinion issued Friday or what he can legally do.
Barnes' opinion rests on recognized, acceptable legal human behaviors, it does not reject Geneva, it does note that Geneva Conventions but it also notes other standards (and states the standards the "Board" used were "too restrictive"). He did not find that someone "was justified" in violating Geneva. He did find that someone could be justified in refusing any action that was "contrary to the basic rules of norms of human conduct." Barnes found that the "Board" had issued a decision which stated that there were "violations of the Geneva Convention prohibition against humilitary and degrading treatment".
From Barnes' decision, "The authorities indicate that military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates eitehr combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee claim where that is proven reason for refusing to serve." The decision does cite Hinzman's case (Hinzman v. Canada, 2006) as well as the Immigration and Refugee Board's findings on Jeremy's claim:
It is apparent to me that the Board in Hinzman did not have before it the kind of evidence that was presented by Mr. Key and, therefore, neither the Board nor Justice [Anne] Mactavish were required in that case to determine the precise limits of protection afforded by Article 171 of the UNHCR Handbook. I do not consider Justice Mactavish's remarks to be determative of the issue presented by this case -- that is, whether refugee protection is available for persons like Mr. Key who would be expected to participate in widespread and arguably officially sanctioned breaches of humanitarian law which do not constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Judge Barnes points out that if Key had returned the US military any review (by the US military) would have been unlikely ("may not have been realistic") because he would have been deployed back to Iraq.
From the decision:
In November, 2003, Mr. Key returned to the United States on a 2-week furlough. He was then suffering from debilitating nightmares. Instead of reporting back to his unit, Pte. Key anonymously sought legal advice from a Judge Advocate General (JAG) representative who apparently told him to return to duty in Iraq or face imprisonment. Pte. Key elected to desert and he and his family relocated to Philadelphia. On March 8, 2005, the family came to Canada and they initiated their claims for refugee protection three days later." The justice further found, "The idea that a refugee claimant in such circumstances ought to be returned to his home country to face such a dilemma is repugnant and inimical to the futherance of humanitarian law.
Barnes notes that the "Board" found Key credible and "truthful" but also found his objection to the Iraq War was not "religiously motivated. Rather what Mr. Key objected to were the systematic violations of human rights that resulted from the conduct of the United States Army in Iraq and the requirement that he participate. The Board summarized Mr. Key's evidence concerning these events and compared his experiences to the observations of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) detailed in its report from 2003. It is apparent that the Board found Mr. Key's experiences to be consistent with the ICRC findings". Judge Barnes wrote that an error was made by the 'Board' when they found "that refugee protection for military deserters and evaders is only available where the conduct objected to amounts to a war crime, a crime against peace or a crime against humanity."
Again, there's at least one word missing in the War Resisters Support Campaign's press release when they summarize Jeffry House's summary of Judge Barnes' decision. PDF format warning, the decicision can be found online here (23 pages).
UPI notes, "The Friday ruling may pave the way for other American deserters who try to claim refugee status in Canada, The Globe and Mail in Toronto reported." Tu Thanh Ha (Globe and Mail) points out, "However, the ruling didn't address another legal hurdle faced by American deserters: proving that they'll face undue hardship if sent back to the United States." Brett Clarkson (Toronto Sun) observes, "It's also the first time a court in Canada has sided with the deserters' movement, which has won both the support of Parliament and a majority of Canadians, according to various recent polls, but has been rebuffed by the Immigration and Refugee Board and Harper government." R. Robertson (Indybay Media) covers the decision here. Joe Schneider (Bloomberg News) covers it here, CBC covers it here, BBC here and AP here.
US war resister Corey Glass is scheduled to be deported July 10th. He is not mentioned in the decision. He is mentioned in some press on this news. What Glass needs to do (what House needs to do) is file a motion to stop the deportation based on recent reports, ask for an emergency hearing, present the press accounts and Brett Clarkson as a witness (to testify only to what he has reported, not to break any journalistic ethics), argue that Glass is not a deserter, that the deportation order needs to be dropped and immediately start the citizenship process for Glass. This was going to be explained in a lengthy piece for Third noting (a) what is currently going on re: US military and (b) the historical nature. After the nasty e-mail Friday, we killed the article. And before the dumb ass e-mails again, I've stated what needs to be done. That is the legal route to IMMEDIATELY go. If any pause is taken, if any wait and see is taken, Glass will likely lose out. I include that not for the 'helpers' but for the war resister Corey Glass -- who does not appear to be being 'helped.'
They're just there to try and make the people free, But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me. Just more blood-letting and misery and tears That this poor country's known for the last twenty years, And the war drags on. .- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war hit the 4,113 mark. And tonight? 4114. The US military announced today: "A Multi-National Corps – Iraq Soldier died of non-battle related causes in Baghdad July 5. An investigation into the cause of death is under way." Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,236,604 up from 1,225,898 since they last updated.
Reported violence over the weekend? McClatchy's Iraqi correspondents were working so we'll note them.
Bombings?
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reported Saturday a Friday Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 2 lives and left eight people wounded, a Baghdad roadside bombing (Saturday) that wounded two people, a Friday home bombing in Diyala Province that left a family of six wounded and an Al Anbar Province roadside bombing (Saturday) which "targeted Khalid Abu Mihahid a leader of the Islamic party in Faulljua" and wounded him and "two of his guards." Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports today a Baghdad car bombing which claimed 6 lives and left fourteen wounded, another Baghdad car bombing that wounded five people, a Diyala Province bombing that claimed 7 lives and left three wounded and another that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier with three more Iraqi soldiers injured and a Kirkuk bombing that left four Iraqi police officers injured.
An Iraqi correspondent files "Resettlement!!" at McClatchy's Inside Iraq about the US offer of 'resettlement' which resulted in several Iraqi journalists attending a briefing today:
At the beginning of the meeting, faces were optimistic. Some of the journalists attended with many question marks and they wanted helping them to start the most difficult step. Most of the questions were about the aid that the program would provide especially the issues that concern housing and finding jobs, but unfortunately the answersabout these two questions were disappointing for them. Those journalists were comparing American's aid with the aid that submit toIraqi refugees from some European countries like Sweden, Holland and Germany which provided Iraqi refugees with accommodation and salaries for years.
kpfa
the morning show
joshua key
aimee allison
philip maldari
robin long
allison cross
rod mickleburgh
travis lupick
the new york times
the washington post
ernesto londono
dan eggan
campbell robertson
toula foscolos
the los angeles times
alexandra zavis
iraq
veterans against the war
corey
glass
sabrina
tavernise
bill
delahunt
rosa
delauro
pbs
nick
kyonka
bob
herbert
lizette alvarez
npr
camilla hall
