Yeah, I saw the story. We're not linking. It's nonsense. It does explain a lot, though, doesn't it. Like how the 'movement' in Canada still struggles?
It's a bunch of nonsense. The 'journalist' doesn't even grasp that war resisters who went to Canada during Vietnam included deserters and, no, not all of them were drafted into service.
Whatever was supposed to have been accomplished with the article, nothing was. But in terms of the movement (or 'movement'), until everyone stops repeating this nonsense that Canada took in draft dodgers but not deserters, any real movement building suffers.
The stupidity at this point is the biggest obstacle to building a war resistance movement in Canada. Note the following:
Jeff Enger, a deserter from the Army and therefore excluded from the Presidential pardon, will be sworn in as a Canadian citizen next Friday, one of the many self-exiled American war resisters who "want to make our lives here." However, like other deserters, Mr. Egner would like to be able to travel freely in the country of his birth. The Presidential pardon covered nearly all draft evaders of the Vietnam War period. Mr. Carter postponed a decision on the men who entered but then deserted the armed forces. Jack Colhoun, a leader in the Toronto exile community, is one of those deseters who insist that they would fight in a "just war," or "if the United States were attacked," as Mr. Colhoun put it. The men interviewed, who rerpesent a cross section of the estimated 20,000 to 25,000 American war resisters living in Canada, have in common a yearning for recognition by Americans at home that their actions were an acceptable exercise of principle "in the American tradition," as one said. "We don't expect to be congratulated or anything," said Mr. Egner, a law student at the University of Toronto, "but we believe we acted correctly." They also share a deep conviction that the deserters, as well as the draft evaders, should be pardoned.
Robert Trumbull, "Pardon Brings Cautious Response From Some War Exiles in Canada," New York Times, January 23, 1977. Let's just stay with the Times because I pulled all their articles from that period out of the journals and put them in a folder.
For Sidney and Ruth Schwarzmann of Nassau County, the war in Vietnam did not end when the last troops came home. Or when former President Gerald R. Ford declared his clemency program. Or when President Carter, on his first full day in office, signed a pardon for some Vietnam war resisters. The Schwarzmann's 31-year-old son, Victor, has been living in Canada since 1968, in what amounts to enforced exile, since he faces desertion charges if he returns to the United States. He left the Army after passing his physical, applying for conscientious objector status and being turned down.
That's Paul Wilner's "After Vietnam, a War of Emotions," New York Times, April 3, 1977. In August 1976 when then candidate Jimmy Carter spoke to the American Legion in Seattle, what did he say? "I do not favor a blanket amnesty but for those who violated Selective Service laws, I intend to grant a blanket pardon." He's speaking of the draft. That's all he offered. If you doubt it, go to a real library and pull the rolls of film to look up January 22, 1977 when the Times ran "Evaders In Canada Call Action A Sham: Exclusion of Deserters Is a Source of Bitterness to Exiles Who Say Pardon Will Affect Only 2,000." The author is again Robert Trumbull. Second paragraph in the article:
Jack Colhoun, co-editor of a magazine for the self-exiled Americans in Canada who is a deserter from the Army, branded Mr. Carter's plan "a real sham, sinsiter, almost Nixonesque." [. . .] There is no official figure, since the Canadian Government omits reference to military status in its immigration procedures, but Mr. Colhoun's group estimates that the number is from 20,000 to 25,000 of whom 6,000 to 7,500 are believed to hae become Canadian citizens. After counting out the deserters and those who have taken Canadian citizenship, only about 2,000 of the exiles in Canada, or one of every 10 or 17, will benefit by Mr. Carter's pardon, Mr. Colhoun declared.
Carter's decision was called out for leaving out deserters before Carter took office. In December 28, 1976, Tom Wicker was doing just that from the op-ed pages of the New York Times in "Clemency, It's Not So Simple."
We could go on and on all night. Carter did not pardon deserters. He set out the framework he was using on the campaign trail in 1976. He refused to alter it. Gerald Ford did offer a clemency program for deserters and draft dodgers. You had to jump through hoops and most war resisters found it to be a joke, but he offered it. Carter focused on draft dodgers, not deserters. For those who like to play what-if, if Carter hadn't talked up his 'big plan,' Ford might have issued a pardon. He was considering it. It was reported. But Carter had been elected and was coming in with his 'big plan.' As Elizabeth Holtzman told PBS on the first day of Carter's administration, she hoped he would revist his decision. He didn't. There was that hope. A lot of people were hoping. But he didn't revisit it.
Until the war resistance movement (in Canada and in the US) starts telling the truth about what happened, it's going to be a long muddle. You can find muddles and lies all over the internet, click here for one example, but that doesn't change reality. Canada's not being asked to do anything that they didn't do before. That's the talking point. Until that's established, the counter-argument will always be "There's no draft today!" There's no need for that back-and-forth. It's counter-productive and it wastes time. Canada welcomed draft dodgers and deserters during Vietnam. Today it's being asked to recognize deserters the same way it did during Vietnam. It's not being asked to do anything different or new.
It's that basic.
But even the CBC can't get it right today. Despite reporting on it real time. Here they are playing stupid in 2006: "Tens of thousands of Americans moved to Canada during the war, many of them settling in B.C. As many as half returned to the U.S. after president Jimmy Carter declared an amnesty in 1977." The amnesty was only for draft dodgers and the CBC has no idea how many moved back because there was no official figure kept by the Canadian government on them (dodgers or deserters).
Thing is, while the left wallows in stupidyt, the right-wing does know what happened. They know because the condemned Ford and Carter in real time. They know because they've kept their hatred alive over the issue while the left has failed (repeatedly) to pass it down.
AMY GOODMAN: How does amnesty--didn't Carter give amnesty for resisters? TOD ENSIGN: Well, not exactly amnesty. He set up a program--he gave amnesty to the draft refusers who were more--tend to be more white and middle class. The soldiers, he gave what was called "clemency," and you had to actually go to a military base and apply for it, and then you were given what was called a "clemency discharge," which in some ways was a stigma also, because it told the employer that you were a Vietnam refuser. At any rate, only about 8,000 people actually applied for that program, so it was not a very large program. Remember, there was half a million desertion cases from the Vietnam War, so that was a very large number.
Tod Ensign likes to help. It's a shame when he doesn't know what he's talking about. The clemency program he's referring to was Ford's. Since he's being called out by name, let's note his jumping all over Dalia Hashad on Law and Disorder (scroll down, it's the the June 11, 2007 broadcast) when she pointed out Camilo Mejia's stop-loss was not only uncalled for, Dalia was right. That's because Daliah actually read the damn book. Dalia was not wrong. She actually read the book. She stated Camilo was stop-lossed through 2031. Dalia was jumped on for that comment. Camilo Mejia's book is Road From Ar Ramadi (highly recommended). It should be page 309 (that's from memory, it's in the Afterword by Chris Hedges regardless, but check page 309 first), this appears: "His commitment to the army was extend until the year 2031." If that's wrong, Chris Hedges is wrong, The New Press is wrong. But one thing is not wrong, Dalia Hashad's comments. Again, she read the book. We've noted that before without naming the individual, Mike's noted it, but if we're going to talk about reality and the ones who get it wrong, let's take a moment to defend Dalia who read the book and attempted to discuss it only to be loudly shut down. It wasn't pretty, it wasn't nice. She did not deserve it -- nor was she wrong.
Tod Ensign was wrong. Tod Ensign was wrong when he spoke to Amy Goodman.
Did Carter give amnesty? Tod said, "Well, not exactly amnesty." Carter used "pardon." And specifically stated he didn't approve of "blanket amnesty." An amnesty, Carter stated, "says what you did was right." Which is why he called it a pardon. It applied only to draft dodgers. Tod: "He set up a program--he gave amnesty to the draft refusers who were more--tend to be more white and middle class." Leaving out the word "amnesty" (which Carter rejected), Tod is correct on that. Tod: "The soldiers, he gave what was called 'clemency,' and you had to actually go to a military base and apply for it, and then you were given what was called a 'clemency discharge,' which in some ways was a stigma also, because it told the employer that you were a Vietnam refuser." No. A pardon, a presidential pardon, wipes away 'crimes.' That's what Carter did. The Clemency Program was Ford's. Tod is confusing the two programs. Ford set up The Clemency Review Board, headed by former US Senator Charles E. Goodell. Those wanting to take part in that program had to start by turning themselves into DoD (unless they were in prison already). Carter did not include deserters. Ron Kovic called that out in 1977 stating, "I didn't feel Carter's pardon went far enough. The only way our nightmare and trauma of the Vietnam war and truly heal ourselves as a nation is by granting a total and unconditional amnesty for all resisters of the Vietnam war. I'm definitely going to oppose any war started by any Administration from the point out. I'm definitely going to encourage deserters, and if I go to jail, I'm ready to speak out from jail, if necessary" (New York Times, front page to page ten, April 3, 1977). Tod: "At any rate, only about 8,000 people actually applied for that program, so it was not a very large program. Remember, there was half a million desertion cases from the Vietnam War, so that was a very large number." 500,000 desertion cases? I'd be interested in seeing the footnote on that. He may be lumping in "bad discharges" (the figure most often used for that was 750,000) or he may be lumping in draft dodgers with deserters (by 1971, the figure for the two categories combined was said to be between 70,000 and 100,000). Ignoring his numbers, he's speaking of Ford's program.
Not trying to be sarcastic, does Gerald Ford not have biographers? Do none of them hit the roof as his credit (he's the only president that did a damn thing for Vietnam deserters) is stolen and assigned to Carter? I think Ford's program was a joke. But in terms of what Carter did? Ford's credit's being stolen. And Carter's being cited as a wonderful, amazing person when that's not how his program was seen in real time. The arguments against Carter's pardon (by supporters of amnesty) included that the reasons he gave for pardoning draft dodgers was that they actually applied to deserters. Deserters were more likely to be poor, to be less educated and to be a racial minority (Wicker: "a fourth were black or Hispanic, three-fourths were high school dropouts, and 57 percent were from low-income homes").
Prior to Carter's first day on the job assignment, Time magazine published "Pardon: How Broad A Blanket?" on January 17, 1977:
What Carter promised was a blanket pardon "for those who violated Selective Service laws." This presumably would include all those civilians who fled the country to avoid the draft, simply failed to register or refused to submit to induction. As for those who deserted after induction or enlistment, Carter said each case "should be handled on an individual basis in accordance with our nation's system of military justice." That seemed to imply that military officials, hardly lenient in such matters, would have to process all of these desertion cases and try to decide what was in each person's mind, some four or more years ago, that caused him to desert. This general approach also seems to contradict Carter's frequently expressed concern for the underprivileged in society. As he has noted, the draft evaders are overwhelmingly white and middleclass. A report prepared for President Ford in 1975 placed 87% of them in this category. The deserters are largely poor and disproportionately black--more than 50% low-income and 20% black. In general, the more affluent, better-educated war resisters found the means to avoid service by evading the draft; the underprivileged submitted, turning against the war later, if at all, by deserting.
According to the Univeristy of Texas' online statements, the bulk of the Ford papers on this are open to the public. Charles E. Gooddell headed the committee and, again the bulk of those papers are available to the public ["Open. Some items are temporaryl restricted under terms of the donor's deed of gift, a copy of which is available on request, or under National ARchives and Records Administration general restrictions (36 CFR 1256).]. From their online guide to those papers:
Shortly after assuming office, President Ford created a clemency program to allow the young men who were "convicted, charged, investigated or still sought for violations of the Military Selective Service Act or of the Uniform Code of Military Justice" to contribute a "share to the rebuilding of peace among ourselves and with all nations." On September 16, 1974, Ford issued a proclamation and executive order establishing the Presidential Clemency Board (PCB) to oversee this program and announced the appointment of the nine members of the Board. The President selected his old friend and former congressional colleague Charles Goodell as chairman.
The PCB handled applications for clemency on a case‑by‑case basis. As the number of applications went from 850 in early 1975 to 21,500 by the deadline at the end of March, it became apparent that the original board of nine members and less than 100 staff members was inadequate to complete the task in the specified time. In May 1975 the President authorized nine additional board members and a dramatic increase in staff to keep the work on schedule. The PCB finished its work in September 1975 and turned over all incomplete cases to the Justice Department.
During the year of its existence, the PCB disposed of 14,514 cases. For each case, they determined whether or not the individual deserved clemency and, if so, whether he should be required to complete a period of alternative service. Alternative service involved working for a non‑profit organization in a job promoting the national health, safety, or interest. Of the civilian clemency applicants, more than four out of every five received outright pardons, only a few were denied clemency, and the remainder were assigned to alternative service before receiving their pardons. Only slightly more than one‑third of military applicants received outright pardons, 7 percent were denied clemency, and the remainder participated in the alternative service program.
While the PCB claimed to have succeeded in its assigned task, many people disputed this statement. Only about 19 percent of the eligible people even applied for the program. Many draft evaders and deserters attacked the program for not going far enough and demanded an unconditional amnesty. At the same time many people in the military and in veterans organizations were unhappy with any form of amnesty or clemency.
In his first act as president, Jimmy Carter pardons those who peacefully evaded the draft by travelling abroad or failing to register. Military deserters, however, have not been included in the blanket pardon. In the two-tiered system, deserters can apply for a limited pardon to be reviewed on a case by case basis. CBC Radio's Barbara Frum talks to one frustrated military deserter who would like to go home again.
Any Democrat who runs for public office gets targeted with the smear that they were pardoned. Bill Clinton was, John Kerry was. And the right-wing gets all excited, "Carter pardoned them!" And then those with knowledge pass on the reality. Kerry was discharged, there was no need for a pardon. Had he not been discharged, he would have been covered by Ford's program because he would have been a deserter. (Kerry was discharged, he wasn't a deserter.) Bill Clinton did not evade the draft. He registered. He wasn't called up. There was no reason for him to be in Carter's pardon. As Jane Fonda correctly says in Sir! No Sir!, the right keeps going back to it. The left needs to as well because too many damn lies have taken hold. When we don't even know which president did what, too many lies have taken hold. When we don't even know that Canada welcomed deserters during Vietnam, too many lies have taken hold. The right-wing never stops talking about Vietnam (including revisionary tactics) but what does the left do? Not a whole damn much if we can't even get the basic facts right. Fonda's right that we do need to keep going back because until we do enough to get it right, we're not learning anything, we're not passing on anything. And we are certainly not accomplishing anything.
It's over, I'm done writing songs about love There's a war going on So I'm holding my gun with a strap and a glove And I'm writing a song about war And it goes Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Na na na na na na na I hate the war Oh oh oh oh -- "I Hate The War" (written by Greg Goldberg, on The Ballet's Mattachine!)
Two Thursdays ago, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 4113. Tonight? 4116. Just Foreign Policy lists 1,236,604 as the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the Iraq War up from 1,225,898. Like last week, it still reads 1,225,898 last week. Maybe that's where the White House is getting their 'violence is down' talking point?
Thursday,
July 10, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, US war resister Corey
Glass' good news, a Mosul assassination attempt was a flop yesterday
but today . . ., Turkey's prime minister visits Iraq today for a
two-day visit and apparently checks out early, the Green Party
Convention kicks off in Chicago, and more.
Starting
with war resistance. There are celebrations in Canada today but before
we get to that, two journalists get the facts right at the top and
deserve note. Patrick Arden (Metro) opens with, "Canada was a safe haven for 60,000 U.S. military draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam War." Ian Austen (International Herald Tribune) also grasps and conveys
the basics, "During Vietnam, Pierre Trudeau, the Liberal prime
minister, welcomed American deserters and draft dodgers, declaring that
Canada 'should be a refuge from militarism.' Americans who arrived were
generally able to obtain legal immigrant status simply by applying at
the border, or even after they entered the country." Adding a detail,
prior to Trudeau's 1969 declaration, some were being advised to fly in
because you could not be immediately turned back the way you would be
if you tried to enter through a land border. London Topic notes
a 5:00 pm rally this evening in Victoria Park for US war resisters
attempting to be granted safe harbor in Canada and among those
participating will be MP Irene Mathyssen who states of Judge Robert Barnes' decision in US war resister Joshua Key's case,
"The federal court is filling the void that is left by the lack of
political will demonstrated by Immigration Minister Diane Finley."
Demonstrations were scheduled to take place throughout Canada. They
found a celebratory note with some late breaking news. The CBC reported
that US war resister Corey Glass, due to be deported as early as today,
"can stay in Canada while the court reviews and decides on his
applications for leave and judicial review -- process his lawyer said
could take months"; and they quoted him declaring, "I was shocked. I
was just enjoying my last little bit of time I had in Canada." AP and Canada's GMA pointed out
that Glass "is one of about 200 American deserters believed to have
come to Canada to avoid service in Iraq. So far, Canadian immigration
officials and the courts have rejected efforts to grant them refugee
status." Canwest News Services (via Ottawa Citizen) quotes
Glass stating, "I had my bags ready and had moved out of my apartment.
So I'm in the process of looking for another apartment." Colin Perkel (The Canadian Press via CNews) quotes
attorney Alyssa Manning stating, "The fact that the stay was granted in
both cases means that the Federal Court judge decided that there was a
serious issue to be decided in both of the applications. There is a
strong indication that leave will be granted." Perkel also notes the
one carrying on the spirit of Pierre Trudeau today, MP Olivia Chow,
stating that the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen
Harper needs "to stop wasting taxpayers' money" by refusing to
implement any program (or heed the motion the House of Commons passed June 3rd)
because "[i]n the meantime, we're wasting thousands and thousands of
dollars throwing people in jail and attempting to deport them." Amnesty International updated their call for Glass not to be deported noting the latest developments. Kevin Connor (Toronto Sun) quotes
the government's spokesperson for citizenship and immigration, Danielle
Norris, stating, "His deportation has just been stayed -- it doesn't
mean he can stay and he hasn't been granted refugee status." Liam Lahey (Inside Toronto) notes
attorney Manning explaining that "Glass still needs three decisions to
go his way in order to be on the path to permanent Canadian
citizenship. The federal court first has to decide to hear his case.
If that happens, he'll get another hearing at and if that decision
comes down in Glass' favour, he'd then be allowed to argue his
deportation order anew with immigration officials." In the US, UPI reports,
"News of the judicial reprieve was greeted favorably by protesters in
Washington, who gathered outside the Canadian Embassy to show support
for Glass and other war resisters living in Canada." CTV News notes that the news has led to celebrations and today's planned demonstrations "will now celebrate the news" but, War Resisters Support Campaign's
Lee Zaslofsky explain, "We're also going to try to put pressure on the
government to resolve this whole thing on war resisters instead of
dealing with it one court at a time." Which brings us specifically to
US war resister Robin Long. Rod Mickleburgh (Globe and Mail) explains,
"Mr. Long, 25, was arrested and taken into custody by Nelson police
last Friday on a warrant from the Canada Border Services Agency. The
CBSA alleged that he had violated his release conditions by failing to
inform them of his address changes in the charming Interior city, home
to several other U.S. deserters seeking to remain in Canada. With no
work permit allowing him to earn money, Mr. Long had been 'couch
surfing' at the residences of friends. He was further shocked on
Tuesday to learn for the first time that authorities were planning to
deport him almost immediately, despite a key Federal Court ruling last
week ordering the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to reconsider
another deserter's failed refugee claim." Jack Keating (The Province) adds,
"The surprise decision was revealed by a Canada Border Services lawyer
at an Immigration and Refugee Board Hearing in Vancouver on Tuesday.
Long, 25, is being held in the Nelson city jail after being arrested by
police last Friday on an outstanding immigration warrant." Lahey pins down July 14th as the day Long faces deportation. Meanwhile Steve Clarke, Federal Liberal candidate for Simcoe North, writes "Gov't can't keep ignoring motion concerning war objectors: Clarke" to the Orillia Packet & Times.
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 Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived. China's Xinhua quotes
him stating, "I assure the people of Iraq that you will always find us
besdie you to overcome those difficulties." "Difficulties" was
undefined but most press reports are focused on the fact that this is
the first visit by a Turkish prime minister in eighteen years. CNN notes
that Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki called the "two-day visit"
"historic" and states the pact the two countries have now entered
involves "military and border security issues, . . . economis and
energy." Hurriyet quotes
Erdogan stating, "As the first Turkish prime minister visiting Iraq
after 18 years, I am pleased to be here with my brothers and sisters. .
. . I am confident that from now on we will not wait for another 18
years before a Turkish prime minister visits Iraq. The agreement we
have signed on Thursday for the establishment of a high strategic
cooperation council is a symbol of our determination to promote
relations." Despite CNN stating it was a two-day visit, the Turkish Press reports
the visit is over and that the prime minister "returned to Turkey from
Iraq where he met top Iraqi officials on a one-day formal visit in
Baghdad on Thursday." They note that along with al-Maliki, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan was also received by Jalal Talabani (Iraq's President),
Tariq al-Hashimi and Adil Abd al-Mahdi (the two vice-presidents) and
Mahmoud al-Mashhadani (the Speaker of Parliament). Mehmet Ali Birand (Turkish Daily News) observes
the interest in the visit by all parties (including the US), "Kurds
have been very successful in fortifying their status during the
Sunni-Shiite conflict. They got constitutional recognition for their
autonomous zone as well as increased their influence over the central
government. The northern Iraqi administration has acquired internal and
external prestige by becoming the only stable region in Iraq. The Kurds
have played their cards well."
In other news from Iraq, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) explores
IRAMS (Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions) which the US military is
stating has become the weapon of choice in attacks by resistance
fighters with "at least 21 peoplce, including at least three U.S.
soldiers" dying from them so far in 2008; while Sally Buzbee (Los Angeles Times) explores
the growing season in Iraq during a time "of drought and sand storms
across Iraq -- a dry spell that has devastated the country's crucial
wheat crop and created new worries about the safety of drinking
water." Patrick Cockburn (Independent of London) interviews
the ever-present Ahmed Chalabi who states that if the treaty being
worked out between the White House and Nouri al-Maliki does not include
immunity from prosecution for mercenaries they will "likely" be
targeted by Iraqi forces: "The Iraqi forces will follow them with
vigour because they are not popular in Iraq. People haven't forgotten
about the Iraqis who were killed by private security men in Nisour
Square."
In the US, Tony Fratto entertained the
press corps with the White House briefing. He noted that Gens David
Peteraues and Raymond Odierno were being voted on (promotions) in the
US Senate and his glee over that but the reporters present weren't
interested in that or anything else Iraq related. Reuters reports
the Petraeus vote was 95 for and two against and on Odierno (Lieface of
Baghdad), 96 for and one against. Senator Tom Harkin voted against on
both votes. Senator Robert Byrd voted against on Petraeus. Staying on
the topic of the US Senate, James Risen (New York Times) details why US Senator Byron L. Dorgan accuses General Jermoe Johnson of lying to the Senate Armed Services Committee
when providing testimony in April of last year on KBR's work supplying
water to US forces during which time Johnson denied that there was
"widespread problems with water supplied by KBR" despite "the
Pentagon's inspector general" stating that there was (and, yes, there
were huge problems).
In other reported violence (yes, KBR's actions were violence):
Bombings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and left four more
wounded, a Baghdad car bombing that killed the bomber as well as two
bystanders and left eleven people wounded.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
two doctors ("husband and wife") were wounded in a shooting in Kirkuk
and Brig Gen Riyadh Jarallah Kashmula ("Head of Iraqi Identity and
Civil Affairs Department" and "a cousin of Durald Kashmula Governor of
Nineveh") was assassinated in Mosul. Reuters notes
Kashmula was shot dead "outside his office" and that another person was
shot dead in Mosul. Today a successful assassination attempt in Mosul,
yesterday a failed one. Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) explains yesterday's attack:
"A suicide bomber detonated his car outside a regional traffic police
building in Mosul, where Lt. Gen. Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, the chief of the
Iraqi military command for the city, was holding a meeting. Genreal
Tawfiq was not hurt, but five of the eight killed were civilians, and
41 people were wounded, including seven of his bodyguards, Iraqi
officials said."
Meanwhile, the Green Party's confention began today and runs through the weekend (July 10th through July 13th). It's taking place in Chicago. Pacifica Radio will broadcast
a three hour special on Sunday "as the convention comes to a close)
that will stream online at the Pacifica website (noon to 3:00 p.m. EST;
11:00 a.m. to 2 p.m. Central and 9:00 a.m. to noon PST). Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) notes some initial press coverage. Vying for the party's presidential nomination are Kat Swift, Kent Mesplay, Jesse Johnson and presumed nominee Cynthia McKinney.
Today is introductions and receptions. Tomorrow will provide several
news conferences with Congressional and public office candidates (first
at nine in the morning) with a Presidential Candidates' Forum beginning
at seven p.m. The presidential candidates will hold their press
conference at nine a.m. on Saturday. Saturday afternoon will have the
roll call vote, the v.p. acceptance speech and presidential nominee
acceptance speech followed by a press conference featuring the ticket.
Presumed nominee Cynthia McKinney has picked her running mate: Rosa
Clemente. Clemente declares,
"I hope that my Vice Presidential run will inspire all people to
recognize that they have more than two choices. The time has come to
stop talking about what we have to do, but do it by building a 3rd
party. I hope you join me on this journey." Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report notes
that Democrat Drew Pritt has launched a blistering attack at McKinney.
As we said throughout the Democratic primary, if it's not your
political party, butt the hell out. It's a real shame some Greens
couldn't adopt the same policy during the Democratic Primary but
instead acted as cheerleaders for Barack (Ted Glick for starters).
Speaking to Green Party Watch Radio,
Kat Swift encouraged people to contribute to Cynthia so that she might
qualify for federal matching funds. The Green Party asked the four
candidates to fill out a questionnaire. It's shocking that with the
Iraq War over five years old it doesn't even qualify for a question.
Asking 'your thoughts' on "Middle East Policy, including Iraq, Iran,
and Israel" is not asking about the Iraq War. Note all candidates
repsonses are in PDF format. Johnson responds, "Diplomacy is key." Mesplay responds
at length but speaks of the "admitted mistake: poor intelligence."
After that and his apparently mistaken belief that WMDs were found in
Iraq, I'm not interested in quoting him, use the link if you're
interested. Cynthia responds,
"In 2006, I voted no on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no
exit date. I consistently opposed every regular and supplemental
appropriation meant to fund the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have
participated in International War Crimes Tribunals (in Brussels, Spain
and Malaysia) designed to bring to justice the Bush-Cheney
administration. I was targeted by AIPAC and others for my opposition
to the Israeli occupation of and genocidal policies toward Palestine."
McKinney's referring to the House Resolution "On Prevailing in the
Global War on Terror Bill" (June 12, 2006 for the vote). Her record in
the US Congress allows her to cite many votes and she repeatedly voted
(in all of them) against the illegal war -- going all the way back to
HR 114 in October 2002. Should McKinney be the nominee, she would
likely be one of two candidates who were in Congress in 2002 and voted
on the original resolution. While McKinney voted against it, presumed
GOP nominee John McCain voted for it (in the Senate). Mark Blumenthal (National Journal) writes
of polling and his thoughts are mainly useless; however, someone might
want to ask him where Cynthia McKinney is in his discussion? She's
expected to be the nominee Saturday night. She's been expecte to be
the nominee since at least January. John McCain and Barack Obam are
not yet their party's nominee. So what's the excuse for leaving
Cynthia out? You'd think the press -- having rubbed themselves raw as
they got off on their own sexism -- would be making an effort at this
point to be inclusive. But don't just call out the MSM, what's Yes! Magazine's pathetic excuse for Erik Leaver's crap called "Presidential Candidates on Foreign Policy" that does not cover Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader but includes John McCain? Answer: There is no excuse and Yes! is struggling for readers. Crap like this explains why. (A topic we'll return to tonight.)
Ryan Teague Beckwith (News Observer) notes
Nader will be in Raleigh, Carolina Saturday night (St. Mary's School
auditorium from 7:30 to 10:00 p.m.) and that he needs 500 signatures to
qualify for the North Carolina ballot which should not be difficult
since Nader "was the top write-in candidate in North Carolina" in
2004. Matt Holmes (Charlottesville WCAV) notes Nader's Virginia Sunday rally, "Nader
will be in Charlottesville on Sunday. He'll hold a rally at Gravity
Lounge at 2pm. The campaign suggests a $10 donation for the general
public, $5 for students who attend." Nader will be in Richmond,
Virginia Saturday as well, at the Virginia Holocaust Museum from one
p.m. to three p.m. And he became the first presidential candidate in
nearly 50 years to campaign in Hawaii last week (1960 was the last time
a presidential candidate campaigned in Hawaii).
Were
you drawn to the Nader website because Obama broke his word to you on
FISA/Telecom? Or was it because his vote not only immunized and
concealed blatantly criminal conduct, but helped lay the legal
foundation for a future police state? Or perhaps it was simply his new
fundraisers, where the price of admission exceeds $30,000?
No
matter. You are here now. Seduced and abandoned. We all know the stages
of grief, but we are also serious people, and we are not at a funeral,
we are in a fight, a fight for justice in our country and our world.
For
now -- at least -- stand with Ralph Nader. Our campaign has far more
promise than you have been led to believe. With only a modest increase
in our poll numbers, Obama and McCain will be debating Nader this fall.
Google and YouTube are sponsoring a debate in New Orleans, and the bar
is set at 10% support. Nader is at 6% and growing. Such an event could
bring a seismic shift in our politics, because the public is far more
progressive than the corporate media would have us believe.
Nader's platform is the real center.
There
remains a more tantalizing possibility: Such a debate could create a
genuine 3-way race. Today, 14% of voters say they would support Nader
if he was competitive, and forcing open one debate could open them
all.
You know that Nader is responsible for
seatbelts and airbags, but did you also know that he led the campaign
against nuclear power, an effort that has blocked the construction of
new nuclear plants in America for more than 30 years? You may know that
he is largely responsible for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act,
and the Freedom of Information Act, but did you know that in recent
years he secured cheap, generic AIDS drugs for India?
Nader
became an American hero when be brought General Motors to its knees by
exposing their campaign to intimidate and smear him for having written
about auto safety. Since then, he has founded more than 100 public
interest groups. His impact and accomplishments dwarf those of his
opponents. His is a story worth repeating, and his campaign is worthy
of your support.
Those most impressed with
Nader are those who have known him the longest. He will never flatter
you, never pander to you, never betray you.
In
Winnipeg, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver and many other cities and towns,
Canadians will be urging the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister
Diane Finley to implement the June 3rd parliamentary motion. It called
for an end to deportations of U.S. Iraq War conscientious objectors -
including Corey Glass, Robin Long and others who have come seeking
refuge - and extending the opportunity for all to apply to remain in
Canada as permanent residents. The full list of actions (updated hourly) can be viewed at [here].
Meanwhile Patrick Arden does something amazing. In "Army deserters fight for a haven in Canada" (Metro),
he tells the truth and does so from the start: "Canada was a safe haven
for 60,000 U.S. military draft dodgers and deserters during the Vietnam
War." Arden goes on to report:
At
one of 14 rallies held in U.S. cities yesterday, anti-war demonstrators
lined up in front of the Canadian Consulate here to protest the planned
deportation of Corey Glass, a 25-year-old National Guard sergeant who
served in Iraq before deserting while on leave in 2006. Hours later,
Glass won a reprieve from a court deciding whether to hear his case. The
protesters expressed hope over the Canadian parliament’s passage last
month of a non-binding resolution to stop deportation proceedings, but
they were also distressed by Monday’s arrest of an AWOL U.S. soldier in
British Columbia. [ . . ] Wearing
his dog tags and waving a copy of the U.S. Constitution, Matthis
Chiroux is a sergeant in the Army’s Individual Ready Reserve. Last
summer he was honorably discharged after five years of active duty that
included a stint in Afghanistan. In February he received a reactivation
order. "I was supposed to
report for deployment to Iraq on June 15," said Chiroux, 24, who
intends to stay in Brooklyn. "They'll have to arrest me."
Glass,
25, can stay in Canada while the court reviews and decides on his
applications for leave and judicial review -- processes his lawyer said
could take months. Glass told CBC News that he had his bags packed and had moved out of his apartment, ready to be deported. "I was shocked. I was just enjoying my last little bit of time I had in Canada," he said. But the ruling comes on the heels of a news report that questioned whether Glass is actually a war resister. ABC
News reported recently that according to U.S. Army documents and
officials, Glass was actually discharged from the California National
Guard Dec. 1, 2006, four months after he arrived in Canada. "He
is not considered absent without leave. He is not considered a
deserter," Maj. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman told ABC News. "He is
running for no reason. He is fully welcome in the United States. I
cannot believe this is a big deal in Canada." But Glass disputed Banks' interpretation of his status. AP and Canada's GMA note,
"He is one of about 200 American deserters believed to have come to
Canada to avoid service in Iraq. So far, Canadian immigration officials
and the courts have rejected efforts to grant them refugee status."
Geraldine
Sadoway, one of the lawyers for Mr. Glass, said the Iraq war veteran
who served with the National Guard will remain in Canada while the
court reviews and decides on his applications for leave and judicial
review. Meanwhile, Canadian
anti-war groups and supporters of American army deserters from the war
in Iraq are stepping up their fight to keep war resister Robin Long
from being deported to the U.S.
Mr.
Long, 25, was arrested and taken into custody by Nelson police last
Friday on a warrant from the Canada Border Services Agency. The
CBSA alleged that he had violated his release conditions by failing to
inform them of his address changes in the charming Interior city, home
to several other U.S. deserters seeking to remain in Canada. With no
work permit allowing him to earn money, Mr. Long had been "couch
surfing" at the residences of friends. He
was further shocked on Tuesday to learn for the first time that
authorities were planning to deport him almost immediately, despite a
key Federal Court ruling last week ordering the Immigration and Refugee
Board of Canada to reconsider another deserter's failed refugee claim. "His
removal is imminent," CBSA lawyer Rick Lengert told a board hearing
that approved Mr. Long's continued detention for one more week. The
CBSA later agreed to make no move to have him deported until next
Monday. Nelson police chief Dan Maluta admitted that his department's cells are far from comfortable.
The
surprise decision was revealed by a Canada Border Services lawyer at an
Immigration and Refugee Board Hearing in Vancouver on Tuesday. Long,
25, is being held in the Nelson city jail after being arrested by
police last Friday on an outstanding immigration warrant. Last
month MPs voted 137-110 that U.S. soldiers who fled to Canada to escape
the war in Iraq should be allowed to stay here permanently.
The
House of Commons passed a motion to recognize conscientious objectors
of the illegal war in Iraq and allow them and their families to apply
for permanent resident status in Canada. It also called for an end to
deportation proceedings against them.
The Stephen Harper
government has chosen to ignore the motion, and I would ask my
Conservative opponent (Simcoe North MP Bruce Stanton) and his
colleagues to reconsider this unprincipled position.
Their
refusal to act is egregious in view of the very strong moral claim of
these conscientious objectors. The Iraq-U. S. war is not sanctioned by
the United Nations. Many people who agreed to one tour of duty are
being sent back to Iraq without choice. Some signed up for the National
Guard to serve domestically only to be sent to Iraq against their will.
Others went willingly to Iraq in the belief they were participating in
a noble cause, only to discover that the rhetoric of their government
is at odds with reality When speaking to another motion passed by the
House of Commons in 2005, Harper said, "The prime minister has the
moral responsibility to respect the will of the House..." I only ask
that the prime minister heed his own words today and respect the will
of the House of the House of Commons on this very important motion
pertaining to basic human rights.
Five years ago, the Liberal
government made the principled decision not to participate in the War
in Iraq. Harper was very critical of that decision and made it clear
that, if he were prime minister, Canada would have gone to war. Harper
got it wrong then, but he can make the right decision now and respect
conscientious objectors and their families for making their own, very
difficult, principled decisions.
In his very last speech in the
House of Commons, our former MP, Paul DeVillers, said there should be
no distinction between a person avoiding the draft and the one who
refuses to join an unauthorized war. He called for treatment of U. S.
war resisters today like that accorded to resisters of the Vietnam War.
Paul was right, as are the majority of our elected parliamentarians who
supported the recent motion to recognize conscientious objectors of the
illegal war in Iraq.
The United Nations International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights requires that conscientious objectors be
given protection by signatory states. It is time the government did
what is right and lived up to this important agreement. It is time the
government respected the will of Canadians as expressed by the majority
of members in the House of Commons. And it is time the Simcoe North MP
and his Conservative colleagues adopted a position on conscientious
objectors that is more in line with Canadian values and less beholden
to the discredited Bush administration.
Articling
lawyer Alyssa Manning, who was acting for Glass, said she was
"definitely thrilled" at the deportation stay, which would likely last
at least two months and much longer if the court actually agrees to
hear the applications. "The
fact that the stay was granted in both cases means that the Federal
Court judge decided that there was a serious issue to be decided in
both of the applications," Manning said. "That's a strong indication that leave will be granted." [. . .] Glass
said he had mixed emotions in light of friend and fellow deserter Robin
Long, who is now in jail in British Columbia awaiting deportation to
the U.S. Like Glass, Long also failed to win refugee status in Canada. "It's bittersweet. It's awesome. But there's really no celebration until he gets out of jail," Glass said. Federal
New Democrat MP Olivia Chow said it was time for Prime Minister Stephen
Harper's Conservative government "to stop wasting taxpayers' money" and
offer some kind of residence program for the war dodgers before the
courts force them to do so. "In
the meantime, we're wasting thousands and thousands of dollars throwing
people in jail and attempting to deport them," Chow said.
Update:
The Federal court agreed not to forcibly remove Corey Glass on July 10.
Corey now has the opportunity to submit new applications to remain in
Canada. A final decision has not yet been made as to whether or not he
will be allowed to remain indefinitely.
The
Canadian authorities intend to deport US serviceman James Corey Glass
on 10 July. He fled to Canada to avoid being sent back to Iraq because
of his conscientious objection to the war there. If they deport him, he
risks being court-martialled and jailed for between one and five years.
Amnesty International would consider him a prisoner of conscience.
Corey
Glass joined the National Guard in 2002, and was assigned to
non-combatant duties. His unit was later ordered to deploy to Iraq,
where he completed five months of active service in 2005.
According
to a statement outlining his position, he had concerns about the
legality of the war before he was deployed to Iraq. While serving
there, he developed further serious objections to the war, including
what he saw as the abusive treatment of civilians by US forces, and the
military system's failure to address these abuses. He said he had
reported his concerns to his superiors and asked to be relieved of
duty. His request was denied but he was given two weeks' leave. He
refused to return to his unit and went absent without leave (AWOL) in
February 2006.
In August 2006 he
went to Canada, where his application for protection as a refugee was
rejected. His subsequent applications to remain in Canada were also
denied and he was ordered to leave Canada.
Corey
Glass has spoken out publicly about his objection to the Iraq war, and
has become a member of a Canadian organisation, the War Resisters
Support Campaign, which works to persuade the Canadian government to
offer sanctuary to US military personnel who want to come to Canada
because of their opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
US
law recognizes the right to conscientious objection only on grounds of
opposition to war in any form. Corey Glass would not qualify, because
his objection is only to the Iraq War. Other US soldiers with similar
objections, who have sought to register their conscientious objection
and apply for non-combatant status, have been turned down.
Corey Glass would be the first US conscientious objector known to have been deported from Canada.
TAKE ACTION:
Please send a message immediately
urging the authorities to cease any removal or deportation proceedings which may have been commenced against James Corey Glass;
pointing
out that US law recognizes the right to conscientious objection only on
grounds of opposition to war in any form, and Corey Glass was unable to
apply for conscientious objector status because his objection was
solely to the Iraq war;
explaining that,
although he went absent without leave, Corey Glass took reasonable
steps to secure his release from military obligations, and asked to be
relieved of duty, so Amnesty International would consider him a
prisoner of conscience if he were jailed on his return to the USA.
WRITE TO:
The Right Honorable Stephen Harper Prime Minister of Canada 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Fax: 613 941 6900 Email: Harper.S@parl.gc.ca or pm@pm.gc.ca Salutation: Dear Prime Minister
FURTHER BACKGROUND:
Amnesty
International has recognised as prisoners of conscience a number of US
soldiers refusing to deploy to Iraq because of their conscientious
objection to the war. They include Camilo Mejía, who was sentenced to
one year's imprisonment and Kevin Benderman, who was sentenced to 15
months' imprisonment.
Amnesty
International believes the right to refuse to perform military service
for reasons of conscience is part of freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, as recognised in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, to which Canada is a state party.
Amnesty
International considers a conscientious objector to be any person who,
for reasons of conscience or profound conviction, either refuses to
perform any form of service in the armed forces or applies for
non-combatant status. This can include refusal to participate in a war
because one disagrees with its aims or the manner in which it was being
waged, even if one does not oppose taking part in all wars.
Wherever
such a person is detained or imprisoned solely for these beliefs,
Amnesty International considers that person to be a prisoner of
conscience. Amnesty International also considers conscientious
objectors to be prisoners of conscience if they are imprisoned for
leaving the armed forces without authorization for reasons of
conscience, if they have first taken reasonable steps to secure release
from military obligations.
Amnesty
International opposes the forcible return of any person to any country
where he or she would face a substantial risk of becoming a prisoner of
conscience.
"We
have not yet received the reasons for the decision but we are relieved
and delighted," Glass's lawyer, Alyssa Manning, said yesterday. The
decision doesn't mean Glass can remain in Canada permanently, said
Danielle Norris, a spokesman with citizenship and immigration. "His deportation has just been stayed -- it doesn't mean he can stay and he hasn't been granted refugee status."
Gerry Condon was interviewed on KPFA's The Morning Show yesterday and Joshua Key and Jeff Paterson (project director of Courage to Resist) by Aimee Allison and the broadcasts are archived and streamable online [for those needing text, see yesterday's snapshot for Condon's remarks, the day before for Key's]. Allison co-hosts the program with Philip Maldari and co-authored Army Of None with David Solnit.
Posted by The Nader Team on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 09:17:00 AM
Ladies and gentlemen.
Today, it is July 9.
And thanks to you, we have met deadline one - get Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in ten states by July 6.
Now, on to deadline two:
Fifteen states by July 20.
That's five more states - Missouri, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Rhode Island and Arkansas.
All by July 20.
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.
You will be supporting Albert, Nicole, David and Deborah.
They
are four of more than 50 valiant roadtrippers - who have spanned out
around the country to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot.
Thanks to them - and thanks to you - we are on our way toward our goal of 15 states by July 20.
In
South Carolina, we need 20,000 signatures. Fourteen of our
roadtrippers, led by Albert Marino, David Peyton and Tom Hanson
(pictured above), collected 3,500 signatures over the July 4 weekend.
We now have 14,000 in hand. We need another 6,000 in five days. Come on, Carolina, help get us there now.
In
Massachusetts, we need 20,000 signatures. We have 12,000 in hand and
need another 8,000 in the next 10 days to push us over the top. Bay
Staters - push us over the top.
In Missouri, we need 20,000 signatures. As of today, we have collected 12,000. We need another 8,000 in the next ten days. Missouri - show us the money.
In
Rhode Island, we just flew in five roadtrippers for Ralph to launch our
New England team. They will be led by Nicole Brooks (pictured here) and
Deborah Schagen. After Rhode Island, this team will help push us over
the top in New Hampshire and Maine. Little Rhody, let's get it done.
And you'll help us meet our goal of $60,000 by July 20.
And we'll put your name in lights (if you choose).
Remember you can keep giving whenever you feel the urge - right up to the legal limit of $4,600 per person.
You might feel the urge, for example, this afternoon if Obama and McCain vote for the telecom immunity bill.
Again, thanks for your strong support.
Together, we are making a difference.
Onward
The Nader Team
PS: We invite your comments to the blog.
Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250.
If
you're not noticing, war resisters is a very big topic in the news. You
need to be paying attention to who is bothering to cover it and who is
busy working out their Obama obsessions while begging you for more
money because they're unable to maintain their jobs without being
panhandlers (hence, Panhandle Media).
It's such a news topic that The Nation offers an 'online exclusive,' Will de Nova's "Canada's War Resisters"
-- and you know it's online because the term Katrina banned from print
("war resisters") pops up in the title. But the story opens with the
'struggle':
Former Private Kimberly Rivera is a long way from home. Since
moving to Toronto with her family a year and a half ago, the
26-year-old Iraq War veteran and mother of two has confronted struggles
both personal and political: estrangement from her family back in
Texas, long periods of unemployment and, above all, the imminent threat
of deportation. Kimberly
would not have it any other way. To Canada's first female defector from
the United States military, her adopted home is a "peaceful
environment, somewhere I can raise my family, somewhere I can be me". The
American military calls people like Kimberly "deserters". To their
supporters in Canada and the US, they are "war resisters."
War resisters is the term. It has been used for years. It was used throughout Vietnam in the MSM. That's how pathetic Panhandle Media
is, a spoiled brat gets put in charge of a magazine she can't handle
and she's so historically ignorant (and so fearful that it will 'hurt'
the Democrats in elections) that she bans a term from print and
everyone has to take their articles elsewhere (on this topic -- as well
as non election topics). de Nova gets an 'online exclusive' and has to
waste time explaining a term that a trip through the archives of any
major daily newspapers will demonstrate is a term with widespread and
historical use.
[And if you're laughing at Democracy Now!
this morning -- as usual -- enjoy it. If you're wondering why three
journalists and a diplomat bring up Mark Thatcher repeatedly but none
of them know what happened to Thatcher -- well that's the state of Panhandle Media. Click here for Thatcher reality.]
But Mr. Maliki's once enfeebled government, emboldened by several recent military successes, is eager to assert its sovereignty. The Iraqi demands have put Mr. Bush in a politically awkward spot. The
president has explicitly opposed any binding timetables -- either from
the Iraqis or from the war's critics here at home -- but he also
pledged less than a month ago to abide by the will of Iraq's leaders. "You
know, of course, we're there at their invitation," Mr. Bush said in
Paris during his recent European tour. "This is a sovereign nation." This
new Iraqi confidence is easy to overstate, and many of the statements
simply prove that Iraq’s democracy has matured to the point that
elected leaders there must pander to important constituencies, even if
they quietly acknowledge the need for American military support for the
foreseeable future.
It's a strange sort of analysis in
that it leaves out why al-Maliki might float the notion domestically
(Iraq is supposed to hold elections in October). Stronger Times coverage can be found in Sabrina Tavernise's "Iraq Military Commander Survives Suicide Bomb Attack:"
A
suicide bomber detonated his car outside a regional traffic police
building in Mosul, where Lt. Gen. Riyadh Jalal Tawfiq, the chief of the
Iraqi military command for the city, was holding a meeting. General
Tawfiq was not hurt, but five of the eight killed were civilians, and
41 people were wounded, including seven of his bodyguards, Iraqi
officials said. Mosul, home
to many former military officers loyal to Saddam Hussein, continues to
be violent as attacks in much of Iraq have declined. An aggressive
sweep of the city by the American military and the Iraqi Army in the
spring brought the number of attacks down, but violence still flares.
James Risen's "General Misled Lawmakers on KBR Work, Senator Says" (New York Times) details why US Senator Byron L. Dorgan accuses General Jermoe Johnson of lying to the Senate Armed Services Committee
when providing testimony in April of last year on KBR's work supplying
water to US forces during which time Johnson denied that there was
"widespread problems with water supplied by KBR" despite "the
Pentagon's inspector general" stating that there was (and, yes, there
were huge problems). On the front page of the Washington Post, Ernesto Londono's "U.S. Troops in Iraq Face A Powerful New Weapon"
explores IRAMS (Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions) which the US
military is stating has become the weapon of choice in attacks by
resistance fighters with "at least 21 peoplce, including at least three
U.S. soldiers" dying from them so far in 2008. Sally Buzbee's "Drought threatens Iraq's crops and water supply" (Los Angeles Times)explores the growing season in Iraq:
It's
been a year of drought and sand storms across Iraq -- a dry spell that
has devastated the country's crucial wheat crop and created new worries
about the safety of drinking water. U.S.
officials warn that Iraq will have to increase wheat imports sharply
this winter to make up for the lost crop -- a sobering proposition with
world food prices high and some internal refugees already struggling to
afford food. "Planting ...
is totally destroyed," said Daham Mohammed Salim, 40, who farms 120
acres in the al-Jazeera area near Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad.
"Even the ground water in wells is lower than before."
Senators Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold
were among those voting against the proposal and standing up for the
rights of the people. (Links under names go to the senators statements
on their opposition to expanding spying on Americans, Feingold provides
audio as well as text.)
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.
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.
robin long
joshua key
patrick arden
rod mickleburgh
colin perkel
jack keating
kevin connor
kpfa
the morning show
aimee allison
philip maldari
jeff paterson
the new york times
the los angeles times
steven lee myers
sally buzbee
the washington post
ernesto londono
sabrina tavernise
james risen
will de novi
allison cross
travis lupick
dan eggan
campbell robertson
toula foscolos
alexandra zavis
iraq
veterans against the war
corey
glass
bill
delahunt
rosa
delauro
pbs
nick
kyonka
bob
herbert
lizette alvarez
