 |

Monday, July 14, 2008
Monday,
July 14, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces
another death, Ralph Nader files to be on the ballot in more states,
Robin Long's deportation hearing takes place today and Cynthia McKinney
declares "Yes, Sojourner, there's a lot out of kilter now, but these
two women, Rosa and me, joined by all the men and women in this room,
are going to do our best to turn this country right side up again" as
she wins the Green Party's presidential nomination Saturday in Chicago. Starting with war resistance. The American Family News Network's OneNewsNow
demonstrates just how some people must actually beg to be stupid --
that's the only explanation for their nonsense. They quote a retired
Lt Col Bob Maginnis in the US on war resisters in Canada stating, "The
military is pretty strict on treason -- and if it gets its hands on
these people, it will put them in jail. They'll spend years, I would
expect, in jail. I don't think they're just going to let them go free
unless a new president comes in and grants amnesty -- and of course
we've seen that in the past." "Treason"? What a moron. Desertion is
not treason. As for amnesty and "we've seen that in the past" -- does
he mean Vietnam? We saw no amnesty for desertion (Gerald Ford did
institute a clemency program for deserters and draft evaders -- there
was no amnesty for deserters, not even by Jimmy Carter). Historically,
Andrew Johnson gave amnesty in December 25, 1868, FDR gave amnesty in
1933, Harry S. Truman did four amnesties -- all programs included
deserters. Canadian MP Bob Rae took to the Toronto Star on Saturday to give a much needed history lesson on Canada during Vietnam,
"At the time, those coming over as draft dodgers and deserters knew
they would not be able to return home without facing arrest. It would
be years before a general amnesty would allow that to happen, and it
applied just to the draft dodgers; deserters are still arrested if they
return. The Pearson and Trudeau governments kept the border open,
despite U.S. objections, and refused to allow Canadian border officials
to become agents of American military policy. It strained the
relationship -- as did public statements by Canadian officials about
the war itself -- but it did not break it. The Vietnam generation has
made an extraordinary contribution to the life of the country. In every
walk of life, in every profession, in every community, Canada is a
better place because we decided to become a place of refuge for those
seeking a different political home, even those who were defying
American military law to do so." Meanwhile the Los Angeles Times offers the editorial "Seeking asylum in Canada: The case of U.S. Army deserter Joshua Key should prompt the U.S. to do some soul-searching"
which notes, "Because of the sympathetic reception that Canada gave
U.S. conscientious objectors and deserters during the Vietnam War,
Americans may assume that our gentle northern neighbor will grant
refuge to the perhaps 200 Iraq war deserters who have fled to Canada
and thus spare us the agony of prosecuting them. But times and Canadian
laws have changed. Although Canada declined to help the U.S. invade
Iraq and its public largely opposes the continuing U.S. operations
there, its courts have consistently ruled that U.S. deserters have no
right to asylum. The courts have sensibly concluded that Americans who
volunteer for military service cannot claim to be conscientious
objectors merely because they oppose the war in Iraq, and that soldiers
who wish to challenge the conduct of the war can do so through
established legal procedures at home without fear of persecution." The
editorial notes Canadian Judge Robert Barnes decision regarding Joshua Key's claims for refugee status as well as the motion the House of Commons passed June 3rd) and comes out on the day that Robin Long's hearing takes place. War Resisters Support Campaign - Vancouver notes that hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:30 this morning. Andy Iven (The Province) reports,
"Long's lawyer, Shepherd Moss, will ask the Federal Court this morning
to grant a stay of his deportation order" and notes Vancouver's War
Resisters Support Campaign chair Bob Ages explaining that Long was
never informed that the Canadian Border Services Agency had decided to
deport him prior to his being arrested and quotes Ages asking, "Without
the decision [being communicated], how do you know you are supposed to
appeal?" Chris Cook's Gorilla Radio will feature
Sarah Bjorknas (of Vancouver's War Resisters Support Campaign) as a
guest this evening. She will be speaking about Robin Long. It airs live
on 101.9 FM in Canada ond online from five to six p.m. PST. An interview with Iraq Veterans Against the War Matthis Chiroux taped last Wednesday was aired this morning on WBAI's Law and Disorder. Dahlia
Hashad: Matthis is with Iraq Veterans Against the War and a
conscientious objector himself. Welcome Matthis to Law and Disorder. Thank you ma'am. It's good to be here. Dahlia: Matthis, you're here in New York City protesting. Can you tell us why you're here? Matthis:
I call New York City my home but I'm out in front of the Canadian
embassy today. I am advocating the rights of Corey Glass and other US
war resisters in Canada who may face deportation despite a resoulition
of support from the Canadian Parliament for allowing US war resisters
to stay in Canada. And that is not right. That is not democratic. The
people at large have spoken -- two-thirds of the Canadian people
believe US war resisters should be able to stay and the government is
prepared to act in opposition to that. [. . .] Michael
Smith: Matthis, we hear the chants of anti-war activists in the
background. We wanted to ask you about yourself. What's led you to
the decision to refuse to deploy to Iraq? Matthis
Chiroux: Yes. Well I served for five years in the army. I see a great
need for a defensively postured, professional force that can also
participate in military operations abroad but I see that this force
has been hijacked by those who are not adhering to the Rule of Law
anymore as recorded in the Constitution and I refuse to -- I refuse to
follow illegal orders. Michael Smith: Are you under orders now to deploy to Iraq? Matthis
Chiroux: I am. I am under force reactivization orders. The president
signed a state of emergency orders declared on September 14, 2001. It's
the reason, his authority for calling me back and more or less drafting
me as a veteran to go and fight his war in Iraq which I believe to the
very core of my self as a soldier and citizen that this war is illegal
and I feel bound to refuse to participate. Michael Smith: When are you supposed to ship out? Matthis Chiroux: I was supposed to ship out June 15th.
Instead I made a speech in Washington, DC. I was there actually
informing members of Congress of the plight of war resisters. I met
with members and their staff and I think roughly about 30 offices and I
put forward to them the fact that military members who cannot call
themselves conscientious objectors according to the army's standard are
being left with options by the army and that is 1) deploy as ordered
despite your beliefs and despite what you understand the law to be; 2)
go AWOL -- you know flee the country or, if you stay in the country, go
into hiding and live like a criminal . . . To show your support for Matthis, Iraq Veterans Against the War asks that you: 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 on to crimes. Abeer.
The 14-year-old Iraqi girl who was gang-raped by US soldiers while her
mother, father and five-year-old sister were shot dead in another
ream. Following her gang-rape, she was shot dead. Then US soldiers
attempted to set her corpse her on fire. Those still in the military
when the truth came out (originally the crimes were blamed on
"insurgents") admitted their guilt. Steven D. Green was already out.
He was supposed to be tried recently but they moved the court day due
to a quilting bee. Russel Carollo (Fort Worth Star-Telegram) reveals that "Green's attorneys notified prosecutors that they may use insanity as a defense." In a piece published elsewhere, Russel Carollo (Sacramento Bee) reports
on the paper's findings after examing "120 cases of people whose
backgrounds should have raised the suspicions of military recruiters,
including felony convictions and serious drug, alcohol or mental health
problems. Of those, 70 were involved in controversial or criminal
incidents in Iraq." Mario Lozano Jr. who shot dead Nicola Calipari and
wounded Giuliana Sgrena (he also wounded Andrea Carpani -- not
mentioned in the article) after journalist Sgrena had been released by
kidnappers. Lozano threatened a man with a bat in 1994, his then-wife
reported spousal abuse in 2000 (he was in the military at that time),
he was wanted for questionin in Fairbanks for threatening a man, wrote
bad checks, didn't pay child support. For those who have forgotten, he also blamed his shooting, the death and the two wounded on . . . Sgrena
-- yet another indication that he has problems which should have been
red flags. There are many other cases including the mother of a soldier
whose been charged with drug selling in Iraq and, noting his "history
of drug and mental problems," declares, "Shame on my son, but shame on
all you people out there who are policing this and allowing this to
continue." Turning to some of today's reported violence . . . Bombings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
a Baghdad bombing via hand grenade that claimed the lives of 3 people
and left thirteen more wounded, a Diyala Province bombing that wounded
two members of the "Awakening" Council and a Sulaimaniyah roadside
bombing that wounded two people. Shootings? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports
Iraqi security forces fired on a man (killing him) who was "wearing a
suicide vest" and disguised a woman and 1 police officer shot dead in
Nineveh Province. Reuters notes 1 police officer shot dead in Mosul. Corpses? Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 2 corpses discovered in Baghdad, 2 corpses discovered in Muqdadiyah and 5 in Tel Atta. Reuters notes 1 corpse discovered in Mahaweel ("handcuffed, blindfolded") Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Force -- West Marine died July 13 as the result of a non-combat related incident." Turning to the US presidential race. The Green Party
concluded their convention yesterday. Media attention largely fell
into two categories: silence and snark. Leave it to Aileen Alfandary
to bring in "uninformed" which, for the record, she did on the first
news break of KPFA's The Morning Show where she declared of the Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente
ticket, "This year's Green ticket marks the first time a US has
nominated women of color for both president and vice-president." Uh,
no, Alfandary, it's not. From Friday's snapshot: "What About Our Daughters? explains
that, if McKinney is the nominee, this is the third time two women of
color would be on the ticket with the first being Lenora Fulani and
Maria Elizabeth Munoz in 1992 (New Alliance Party) and Monica Moorehead
and Gloria La Riva (Workers World Party) in 1996." And, no, Alfandary,
she's not a "Hip-Hop artist" -- usually you have to go to the Atlanta
Journal-Constiution to find that sort of lie. She's a "Hip-Hop
activist" (and bills herself as that).
Alfandary continued, "McKinney is African-American, Clemente is Puerto
Rican." Oh really? That's how Clemente self-defines? Here's Clemente explaining it in 2007,
"I am often asked what I am usually by Blacks who are lighter than me,
and by Latinos as dark or darker than me. To anser the ,000 question,
I am a Black Boricua, Black Rican, Puertoriqueoa! Almost always I am
questioned about why I choose to call myself Black over Latina, Spanish
or Hispanic. Let me break it down. I am not Spanish. Spanish is just
another language I speak. I am not Hispanic. My ancestors are not
descendants of Spain, but descendants of Africa. I define my existence
by race and land. (Borinken is the indigenous name of the island of
Puerto Rico.) Being a Latino is not a cultural identity but rather a
political one. Being Puerto Rican is not a racial identity, but rather
a cultural and national one. Being Black is my racial identity."
Amazingly Alfandary made so many mistakes during The Morning Show
while providing McKinney, Clemente and the Green Party convention 49
less seconds than she devorted to a Barack Obama magazine cover (listen
to all Alfandary's news breaks in the program). A political party
holds a convention. They nominate their presidential candidate. And
it's less important to Alfandary than a magazine cover? Is their any
perspective or awarness? (No, there's not. And Ava and I will tackle
it Sunday at Third.) NPR gave the nomination three minutes in a report Sunday by Cheryl Corley (Weekend Edition Sunday).
And just to be clear, the cover is not the issue. Though Amy Goodman
and Aileen Alfandary act like it is, the reality is Obama campaign is
attacking the cover to discredit the article. Back to the Greens. The convention began Thursday "at the Palmer House Hilton in downtown Chicago" and it ran through Sunday. A video of McKinney speaking at the party's Presidential Candidate Forum Friday night can be found here. Kimberly Wilder (On the Wilder Side) has a photo essay of the weekend here
and you'll notice how much Cynthia McKinney looks like her mother,
Leola McKinney, who was among the many attending the convention (as was
Cynthia's father Billy McKinney). Wilder reports
that not only were they, they "switched their registration from
Democratic Party to Green Party" and "were elected to be the delegates
from the Black Caucus. So, Cynthia McKinney's parents went on stage to
cast the GP-US Black Caucus's two votes: both for their daughter". The
voting took place Saturday and involved only one round which Cynthia
won. In her acceptance speech, McKinney noted her son Coy who "grew up
playing on the Floor underneath my desk in the Chamber of the Georgia
House of Representatives. His buddies were the legislators down there,
under the Gold Dome, who were my and my father's colleagues." She
noted her father, "When my father first started out in the world of
politics in Georgia, he began as a Republican, because Georgia
Democrats would not allow Blacks to vote in their primaries. Some of
my father's closest friends today are still Republicans because of that
history. My father served 30 years in the Georgia Legislature as a
Democrat. Because of him, I served 4 years in the Georgia Legislature,
when we were the country's only father-daughter legislative team. And
then I went to Congress and served 12 years working with the Democratic
Party and its current leadership representing the State of Georgia."
And she noted her mother, "My mother is the genteel Southern lady who
keeps our family glued together. A nurse by profession, a nurturer by
instinct, she could patch over all the times I had political
disagreements with my Dad and it ended up being discussed, not only at
the family dinner table, but also on the evening news." She noted the
Democratic presidential primay, "And even though for the first time a
woman and an African-American were being taken seriously in national
primaries, a real discussion of race and gender has been studiously
avoided on all sides." From McKinney's speech (which is posted in full at Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report): In
1851, in Akron, Ohio a former slave woman, abolitionist, and woman's
rights activist by the name of Sojourner Truth gave a speech now known
as "Ain't I a Woman." Sojourner Truth began her remarks, "Well
children, where there is so much racket, there must be something out of
kilter." She then went on to say that even though she was a woman, no
one had ever helped her out of carriages or lifted her over ditches or
given her a seat of honor in any place. Instead, she acknowledged, that
as a former slave and as a black woman, she had had to bear the lash as
well as any man; and that she had borne "thirteen children, and seen
most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's
grief, none but Jesus heard me! And Ain't I a woman?" Finally,
Sojourner Truth says, "If the first woman God ever made was strong
enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together
ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again!" As
it was in 1851, so too it is in 2008. There is so much racket that we,
too, know something is out of kilter. In 1851, the racket was about a
woman's right to vote. In 1848, just a few years before Sojourner
uttered those now famous words, "Ain't I a Woman?" suffragists met in
Seneca Falls, New York and issued a declaration. That declaration began: "We
hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to
insist upon the institution of a new government . . . . But when a long
train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their
duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their
future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women
under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains
them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled." Two
hundred sixty women and forty men gathered in Seneca Falls, NY and
declared their independence from the politics of their present and
embarked upon a struggle to create a politics for the future. That bold
move by a handful of people in one relatively small room laid the
groundwork and is the precedent for what we do today. The Seneca Falls
Declaration represented a clean break from the past: Freedom, at last,
from mental slavery. The Seneca Falls Declaration and the Akron, Ohio
meeting inaugurated 72 years of struggle that ended with the passage of
the 19th Amendment in August of 1920, granting women the right to vote.
And 88 years later, with the Green Party as its conductor, the History
Train is rolling down the tracks. The
Green Party is making history today. According to one source, 45 women
have run for President in primary elections in the United States in the
20th Century; 22 have made it on the ballot in at least one state in
November. Thank you, Green Party, for pulling this history train from
the station. But we make history
today only because we must. In 2008, after two stolen Presidential
elections and eight years of George W. Bush, and at least two years of
Democratic Party complicity, the racket is about war crimes, torture,
crimes against the peace; the racket is about crimes against the
Constitution, crimes against the American people, and crimes against
the global community. The racket is even about values that we thought
were long settled as reasonable to pursue, like liberty and justice,
and economic opportunity, for all. Yes, Sojourner, there's a lot out of
kilter now, but these two women, Rosa and me, joined by all the men and
women in this room, are going to do our best to turn this country right
side up again. McKinney is an actual
nominee, her party's candidate. The Democrats don't have one yet,
they'll hold their convention in August. Barack Obama is presumed to
be the candidate and a new group has sprung up in reaction to him. Progressives Against Obama announces:
"When Barack Obama broke his promise to progressives, and voted for the
FISA Amendments Act, it was with the assumption that progressive voters
would never abandon the Obama campaign, because they had no
alternative. Now a group is organizing disgruntled voters online with
the purpose of proving Obama's assumption to be wrong. Progressives Against Obama have begun to organize online at ProgressivesAgainstObama.com.
" Along with the FISA cave, the organization notes Barack's waffling
position on Iraq, his announcement that he'll expand Bully Boy's
'faith' based funding, his "opposition to full marriage equality" and
his "use of homophobic preacher Donnie McClurkin." The organization's
founder Jonathan Cook declares, "We do not support John McCain, and we
do not support right wing and racist attacks against Barack Obama. As
progressives, we oppose Barack Obama from a progressive perspective.
We intend to hold true to our ideals even as Barack Obama trades them
away for the sake of political power." Gilles d'Aymery (Swans Commentary) advocates
for independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, "The Nader-Gonzalez
ticket is by far the most qualified and experienced to govern the
nation. Their combined expertise, their common sense approach to
problem solving, and their acclaimed honesty appeal to a wide range of
people from all sides of the political divide. Contrary to the two
candidates of the duopoly [Barack and McCain] they are not panderers;
they are not flip-floppers; they do not exploit fear for political
ends; and they have no corporate masters and are not owned by
lobbyists, which allow them to represent the interests of the entire
American people, not the top twenty percent of the population. . . . as
often stated, a vote for Nader is a vote for sanity -- and the country
has never needed more sane and sound policies than since the 1930s." Jesse A. Hamilton (Harford Courant) reports,
"Right about now, the Forces of Nader are adding the familiar name of
Ralph Nader to the Rhode Island presidential election ballot for
November. The state requires 1,000 signatures to do so; his campaign
reported they'll be handing over more than 2,000." Foon Rhee (Boston Globe) notes,
"His campaign also plans to turn in signatures today in South Carolina,
and says he will be well on the way to being on the ballot in 15 states
by next week. In Massachusetts, Nader said he has about 17,000
signatures in hand and is aiming for 20,000. He needs 10,000 valid
signatures to get on the Bay State ballot." Chris Giganti (The Digitel) explains
that 18,500 signatures were gathered in South Carolina and that the
petition was filed this afternoon. Nader was campaigning in North
Carolina this weekend and Rachana Dixit (Charlottesville Daily Progress) reports
he declared that corporations "were never designed to rule us. They
were designed to be our servants, now they have become our masters" and
that he addressed "cutting the military budget, adopting single-payer
national health insurance, completely reversing the United States'
policy in the Middle East, impeaching President Bush and Vice President
Dick Cheney, and cracking down on corporate crime and welfare." This
morning Team Nader summed up the goals and objectives for the immediate future as well as the ones reached over the weekend: Four
days ago we announced our goal of putting Ralph Nader on the ballot in
five more states - for a total of fifteen states - by July 20 and that
we would need to raise $60,000 to get it done. How are we doing? In those four days, we've raised - thanks to you - more than $26,000. Later
today in South Carolina, we will turn in more than 18,000, more than
enough to get us on the ballot. We only need 10,000 valid. South Carolina - check. Later today in Rhode Island, we will turn in more than 2,000 signatures. We need only 1,000 valid to get us on the ballot there. Rhode Island - check. In Massachusetts, we have about 17,000 signatures in hand. We need 10,000 valid. Our goal is 20,000. We're well on our way in Massachusetts.In Missouri, we have 14,000 in hand. We need 10,000 valid. Our goal is 20,000. We're well on our way in Missouri. Our South Carolina road crew is being deployed to Arkansas this week. They should knock out Arkansas by the end of the week. So, by Sunday, July 21, as promised, we will have 15 states in the bag. (See updated map here.) On the political front, McCain and Obama are in a dead heat. (See Rasmussen daily tracking poll here.) CNN's most recent poll puts Ralph at six percent. Ralph has been on the road campaigning, most recently in Charlottesville, Virginia. Check out this news video. And as the panderer Obama moves to the right, many of his supporters are taking a new look at Nader/Gonzalez. Check out, for example, Allison Kilkenny's Huffington Post blog titled The Other N Word. And see also Greg Kafoury's After the Obama Betrayal. Our short term goal - raise the remaining $34,000 by July 20. Help us get there now. Our medium term goal, put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in 45 states by September 20. Our long term goal - change the country. Step by step. Together, we are making a difference. Onward iraq robin long joshua key andy iven chris cook the los angeles times dalia hashad law and disorder russel carollo mcclatchy newspapers
Posted at 03:09 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Robin Long hearing takes place today
************* PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR AND WIDE *****************Greetings everyone, Robin Long is scheduled to be transported to the Lower Mainland from Kamloops sometime tomorrow.Meanwhile, the hearing for his application for a stay of deportation will be at 9:30 am in Vancouver.We will gather at 8:30 am at 701 W. Georgia St. (north side of W. Georgia between Granville & Howe St.)After
drawing the support from the morning commuters, we will attend the
hearing on the 7th floor.Please come out to support Robin and all the
War Resisters if you able, and spread the word!For more information
about the campaign please visit: http://www.resisters.ca/ The above is from the War Resisters Support Campaign - Vancouver and "tomorrow" is today. From Andy Iven's " Deportation looms for U.S. deserter seeking asylum in Canada" ( The Province): Long's lawyer, Shepherd Moss, will ask the Federal Court this morning to grant a stay of his deportation order. Ages
and others are urging Long's supporters to attend a rally outside the
courthouse on Georgia Street at Granville Street at 8:30 a.m., calling
on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to halt Long's deportation. Ages
said Long was shocked that no one from Canadian Border Services Agency
told him that a decision in May on his pre-removal risk assessment went
against him. A Canada-wide warrant for his arrest was issued. Long,
25, who had been living in Nelson since moving from Ontario, thought a
July 4 hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board was going to be a
routine detention hearing. He has been in jail since then. "Without the decision [being communicated], how do you know you are supposed to appeal?" Ages asked.Bob Ages is the chair of War Resisters Support Campaign - Vancouver. Friday afternoon, Liam Lahey (Inside Toronto) reported on Thursday's protests in support of Long and other war resisters: With
similar events taking place on July 10 across Canada, Lee Zaslofsky,
spokesperson for the Toronto-based U.S. War Resisters Support Campaign,
said there is a tremendous amount of concern for the incarcerated Long. “We’re
worried because this is Robin’s second arrest on these trivial
immigration type things and (the Canadian Border Services Agency) may
not have too much tolerance left,” he said. “He was couch-surfing and
he figured ‘I’m in the same area; it’s Nelson, B.C., it’s a small town.
Do I really need to call in every single day I’m moving to another
friend’s house?’ “When they issued a warrant for him ... they knew where to go. He’s not playing games, they’re playing games.” Zaslofsky
said Citizenship and Immigration Canada is spoiling to “score a
deportation so bad” after two stays of removal were awarded by the
Federal Court to Glass and fellow US Army deserter Joshua Key. “They
really want to get (Long) and put a smile on the faces of the guys in
the U.S. Pentagon,” he said. “It’s really a disgrace and I agree with
the NDP MP from Robin’s riding, Alex Atamenko, who regards Long’s
arrest as despicable.” Zaslofsky, a Vietnam War deserter who arrived
in Canada in 1970, added when he came here there was overwhelming
support from the Canadian public for U.S. soldiers and the same
sentiment, by and large, prevails today. “I don’t think the Canadian
people have changed one iota (in attitudes towards war resisters),” he
remarked. “What’s changed is our government and some of the elite
associated with them who are far more interested in cuddling up to the
Bush Administration than most Canadians are.”Chris Cook's Gorilla Radio will feature
Sarah Bjorknas (of Vancouver's War Resisters Support Campaign) as a
guest this evening. She will be speaking about Robin Long. It airs live
on 101.9 FM in Canada ond online from five to six p.m. PST and archives
should allow for podcasting but that's usually the next day and, if I
remember right in one case, it was Wednesday one week. The Los Angeles Times offers the editorial " Seeking asylum in Canada: The case of U.S. Army deserter Joshua Key should prompt the U.S. to do some soul-searching" and this is from the opening: While
Americans were watching fireworks on the Fourth of July, a Canadian
federal judge fired off a legal Roman candle by ruling that an
immigration panel had erred in denying refugee status to a U.S. Army
deserter named Joshua Key. The sparks are still flying Up
There, though, as usual, most Americans haven't taken note. They
should. The judge ruled that Key may be entitled to asylum in Canada
because of evidence that the U.S. may have violated the Geneva
Convention in the conduct of its counter-terrorism operations in Iraq. Because
of the sympathetic reception that Canada gave U.S. conscientious
objectors and deserters during the Vietnam War, Americans may assume
that our gentle northern neighbor will grant refuge to the perhaps 200
Iraq war deserters who have fled to Canada and thus spare us the agony
of prosecuting them. But times and Canadian laws have changed. Although
Canada declined to help the U.S. invade Iraq and its public largely
opposes the continuing U.S. operations there, its courts have
consistently ruled that U.S. deserters have no right to asylum. The
courts have sensibly concluded that Americans who volunteer for
military service cannot claim to be conscientious objectors merely
because they oppose the war in Iraq, and that soldiers who wish to
challenge the conduct of the war can do so through established legal
procedures at home without fear of persecution.In
June, a more lenient Parliament passed a resolution saying the U.S. war
resisters should be allowed to stay. But that resolution was
nonbinding, and the Conservative government led by Prime Minister
Stephen Harper, a Bush administration ally, has announced that it will
begin deporting the deserters as early as this week.Key won't
be among them. He was trained as a combat engineer and spent eight
months in Iraq kicking down doors in house-to-house searches for
terrorists. He says that he fled to Canada with his wife and children
after he told a military lawyer his qualms about what he believed were
human rights abuses by U.S. forces, and that he was told his choices
were to return to Iraq or go to prison. The judge ruled that Key need
not have witnessed war crimes to qualify for asylum. Rather, "officially condoned military misconduct falling well short of a war crime may support a claim to refugee protection.” Anti-corporation
sentiments flourished at Gravity Lounge on Sunday afternoon, where
White House hopeful Ralph Nader stopped by on his independent
presidential campaign tour. "[Corporations] were never designed to
rule us," said Nader, who first appeared on the presidential ballot in
2000. "They were designed to be our servants, now they have become our
masters." Nader drew nearly 3 percent of the popular vote in the
2000 presidential election, when he was the Green Party nominee. He was
not on the ballot in 2004. Speaking for roughly 45 minutes, the
candidate presented 12 "on the table" issues that he said neither
mainstream-party hopeful, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic
Sen. Barack Obama, has addressed. Among those were cutting the
military budget, adopting single-payer national health insurance,
completely reversing the United States' policy in the Middle East,
impeaching President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, and cracking
down on corporate crime and welfare.
And Micah notes this from Team Nader: We need your help to build our campaign online Posted by Jacob Sweeney on Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM Dear supporters, I wrote to you two weeks ago asking you to help us Top the Charts at YouTube for our "7 Things You Can't Say in '08: In Memory of George Carlin" video. Your response was overwhelming and our video rocketed--over 28,000 views! You
helped make the video so popular that YouTube featured us in their
YouChoose '08 Presidential Race playlist all weekend. Those are the
kinds of wins that we need to grow our grassroots movement and to force
the mainstream media to cover the Nader/Gonzalez campaign. Ralph Nader may still use a typewriter, but the rest of us on the campaign team are super-charging our keyboards
and preparing to win some key victories online. When the mainstream
media shuts the Nader/Gonzalez campaign out, it's you--our
supporters--who can help us get the message out through the blogosphere, social networks, and online news communities. But we need your help right now to push us to the next goal. Ralph
has no shortage of friends in real life, but we are currently behind
the other candidates when it comes to "friends" on sites like Digg.com, YouTube, Facebook, and MySpace. And we need your help to catch up (and fast!). Here's all you have to do to make a huge difference: If you already have an account on Facebook, or MySpace, just add us as a friend. That's it, you're done. If you already have an account on Digg.com, add us as a friend and start digging our stories as often as you can. That will help push us up on the Digg the Candidates page. And, if you already have an account on YouTube, please subscribe to our channel and help spread our videos around by sharing them with friends, family, and colleagues. If
you don't have an account on any of these sites--what better reason to
give it a try? Pick one. Create an account. And then join a network of
thousands of Nader/Gonzalez supporters all around the country. Please take a moment to do this right now. Yes, now! It'll
only take five minutes and it will make a huge difference. Showing a
groundswell of support online is key to breaking through the mainstream
media blockade, and puts us one step closer to those Presidential
debates. I'll update you on our progress over the coming days. Thank you! -- Jacob Sweeney Social Networking Coordinator Nader for President 2008 jacob@votenader.org http://myspace.com/votenader08 http://www.facebook.com/ralphnader http://youtube.com/votenader08 http://digg.com/users/RalphNader08
P.S. So far we have raised over $22,000 towards our July 20th fundraising goal of $60,000 to put Nader/Gonzalez on the ballot in five more states. Please contribute whatever you can to help out, and spread the word as far as possible.  The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqrobin longjoshua keyandy ivenliam laheyiraqchris cookthe los angeles times
Posted at 03:09 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Jim Muer, on the job to nowhere
Jim Muir of the BBC just knows he's got a story.
He's got less than he thinks and less than he reveals at the top.
Puppet of the occupation Nouri al-Maliki was misquoted! He never said
"withdrawal"! BBC listened to the tape! Muir then runs the statement of
what al-Maliki reportedly said against what the BBC says he actually
said (we didn't quote the statement in real time, we're not quoting it
now -- as the Times of London's James Hider pointed out when
the story was breaking, the idea was being floated). So as Muir settles
down, you find out about the differnt wording . . . "Withdrawal" was
added . . . By al-Maliki's office. Translation, he wasn't misquoted. If
his office added "withdrawal" to the statement they released -- and he
hasn't fired his office -- they were acting on his instructions. As
Muir admits in a sentence in the tenth paragraph: "An official
suggested the written version remained the authoritative one, although
it is not what Mr Maliki said." Yes, that is how it works. The notion
was still floated by al-Maliki. Muir goes on to note the country's NSA
but strangely seems unaware of other's in al-Maliki's cabinet who made
statements. Nothing the White House's refusal to allow flag draped coffins to be photographed (in order to keep the dead out of sight), the New York Times offers an editorial entitled " Witnessing the War Dead, From Afar:" The
muting of bad war news, which started at the Pentagon, is now an issue
as well at Arlington National Cemetery. A public affairs director at
the cemetery was recently fired after complaining that rules were
tightened to isolate the media 50 yards away — well beyond the point at
which news organizations could hear, never mind photograph or
videotape, burial ceremonies. The Pentagon says it is only following
the wishes of families and that it has not changed its procedures. But
there are serious reasons to doubt both protestations. In US presidential campaign news, Rachel notes this from Team Nader: Two New Nader Videos Posted by The Nader Team on Friday, July 11, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM Here's is your task for today. Drop a $20 bill on Nader/Gonzalez. Why $20? Because we want to get to $20,000 by the end of the day. On our way to 15 states. And $60,000. By July 20. We are now at over $15,000. In just two days. So, $20,000 by the end of the day shouldn't be a heavy lift. (If we get there early, take us to $25,000. We're easy.) On our way to 15 states. And then 45 states. By September 20. Nader/Gonzalez is the positivo campaign. Two rules here at Nader/Gonzalez headquarters: Rule Number One: No whining. And Rule Number Two: Get it done. It's not that we don't take our world seriously. We do. But whining and negativo man attitude doesn't get us where we need to go. Which is 45 states by September 20. Take the telecom immunity/spying bill that Obama voted for, McCain dodged, and Bush signed into law. It's an unconstitutional law. Did we whine and cry about it? No, we did not. We spoke out against it. We're running this campaign, in part, to defend the Fourth Amendment and the Constitution. And we've produced an awesome video denouncing the new law. Or take ballot access. Our
young roadtrippers are busting it all around the country to leap the
ballot access hurdles the Democrats and Republicans have erected to
make life miserable for us. But we refuse to be miserable. Check out this neat video about our roadtrippers in Nevada. No whining there. We tried to get on the ballot in 2004 but only made it on 34 states. (We're shooting for 45 this time around.) Why only 34 states? One reason: The Democrats organized an underground campaign to knock us off. When we say this, people don't believe us. But
just yesterday, a grand jury in Pennsylvania indicted twelve Democratic
political operatives for the illegal use of millions of dollars in
taxpayers' funds, resources and state employees for political campaign
purposes. (See Nader/Gonzalez press release here.) The
grand jury found that as many as 50 Democratic House Caucus staff
members contributed “a staggering number of man-hours” to successfully
knock Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2004. A House Democratic employee testified before the grand jury that “everybody was working on this.” “A veritable Army” of Democratic staffers were enlisted in the effort to deny Nader ballot status, the grand jury found. It
was virtually a caucus-wide endeavor and many of the employees spent an
entire week on the Nader petition challenge, the grand jury found. This is a scandal of immense proportions. And twelve Democrats in Pennsylvania now stand charged with crimes. Attorneys
General Oregon, Illinois and Ohio - three states where Democrats
successfully knocked us off in 2004 - should launch similar
investigations. This year, we're not taking no for an answer. We're building our funds to secure ballot access and to fight back if they come after us again. So, please, drop a $20 bill now on Nader/Gonzalez. We're fighting not just for 2008 - but for future generations of independent citizen activists, candidates and campaigners. (In
case you missed it, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals knocked out a
requirement that only residents of Arizona be allowed to petition in
the state. Ralph Nader challenged this requirement as unconstitutional
We're hoping to carry this victory to other states that have similar
requirements. See story here.) We're a positivo locomotive. We've got the Big Mo. Nothing will stop us now. 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.
Posted at 03:07 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Sunday, July 13, 2008
And the war drags on . . .
************* PLEASE CIRCULATE FAR AND WIDE *****************Greetings everyone,Robin Long is scheduled to be transported to the Lower Mainland from Kamloops sometime tomorrow.Meanwhile, the hearing for his application for a stay of deportation will be at 9:30 am in Vancouver.We will gather at 8:30 am at 701 W. Georgia St. (north side of W. Georgia between Granville & Howe St.)After drawing the support from the morning commuters, we will attend the hearing on the 7th floor.Please come out to support Robin and all the War Resisters if you able, and spread the word!For more information about the campaign please visit: http://www.resisters.ca/ The above is from the War Resisters Support Campaign - Vancouver. So Robin Long's hearing is taking place Monday morning. Jenny Gross (Bloomberg News) notes an article in the New York Times on war resistance. The article, starts on A6 and continues on A8, is Ian Austen's " U.S. Soldiers No Longer Find Haven In Canada:" During the Vietnam War, the Liberal prime minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 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 Canada.But while the current Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has not backed the Iraq war, it has shown little sympathy for American deserters. During a recent parliamentary debate, Laurie Hawn, a Conservative from Alberta, asked, "Why do they not fight it within their own legal system instead of being faux refugees in Canada?"No American deserter of the Iraq war has been deported by the Canadian government, but that is not for lack of effort. Immigration authorities have ordered about nine deserters to leave Canada, leading to public battles in the courts.(Yes, that is the article noted in the Thursday snapshot.) Meanwhile the Montreal Gazette editorializes " Too much compassion can erode the rule of law" which asserts decisions are being made willy-nilly and with no concept of . . . They don't say. They're willy-nilly themselves. They note Joshua Key: U.S. Army Private Joshua Key deserted, came to Canada, and claimed refugee status, saying that in Iraq he had witnessed looting and violations of human rights. His refugee claim was rejected, but a judge allowed him to stay in Canada anyway.The editorial is focused on different cases of refugee claims (Key is the only war resister they use as an example) and they appear to assert that the claims are made without foundation. Case law and precedent -- two terms they never stumble upon -- would qualify as foundation. They fret over the US reaction (apparently meaning the current administration installed in the White House since popular opinion swung against the illegal war years ago and has only continued). It's a serve-yourself-buffet of thoughts -- none of which are ever fully developed. The strongest 'argument' against refugees they semi-present is their fear of US reaction. Amanda Miller writes the Windsor Star and mounts an actual argument: "There is nothing wrong with any American military deserter trying to get refugee status in Canada to avoid the illegal war that was started by George W. Bush on false pretenses." There's more to her letter and the Montreal Gazette should study it because the editorial board and Miller have agreement on some issues but the difference is Miller advances an argument on those points. W. Peters Wahnapitae writes The Sudbury Star to disagree with their editorial advocating that war resisters should remain in Canada. Wahnapitae does not disagree with that conclusion, just on where the stance is coming from: "I am sick and tired of the practice of 'quiet diplomacy,' which is turning our eyes to torture and doing nothing or virtually nothing. Let the U. S. rant and rave all it wants -- we have seen them do this all the time when they don't get their way. Stand up to a higher standard, refugee board. " Friday, the Vancouver Province argued against safe harbor for war resisters and noted Robin Long: "Canadian anti-war groups and others opposed to the deportation of war resister Robin Long are well-meaning. But, in our view, they are misguided. Long, 25, wasn't being persecuted. He wasn't being tortured in some Third World country. He left the U.S. military and fled to Canada three years ago to avoid being sent to Iraq." The editorial claims "generosity" is a quality of Canadians and, while that may be true elsewhere, it is in short supply on that editorial board. Since the paper seems rather cold-blooded, let's make the argument for them briefly in the currency terms they worship: Accepting deserters and draft dodgers during Vietnam boosted the local Canadian economies in numerous ways including tourism. Not only will a war resister with asylum means that family members of the resister will most likely visit (ones who would otherwise never go to Canada), it means friends will as well. During Vietnam, family member visits that were parents or a parent could and often did mean a trip to the local grocery store where too much was purchased -- in the way that parents always worry and fuss over their children who are away from home. That's not counting mementos purchased or meals and lodging while in Canada. Trudeau made the decision on ethical grounds and it's sad that The Province only looks for dollar signs, but there it is. War resisters today are not as large an influx of individuals but they are an influx and refugee status and work permits would further help the local economies. Trudeau's decision during an illegal war that the bulk of the war was against gave Canada huge standing around the globe, raised the country's profile and also encouraged tourism. The same could happen today. Harper might want to consider how the decision made clear that Canada was no one's little sibling to be bossed around -- not by the US, not by the UK -- and how that also raised the country's profile. They're just there to try and make the people free,But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.Just more blood-letting and misery and tearsThat this poor country's known for the last twenty years,And the war drags on.-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale) Last Sunday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war hit the 4,114 mark. And tonight? 4118. Just Foreign Policy's counter estimates the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war to be 1,236,604 (counter hasn't been updated since last week). In some of the weekend's reported violence . . . Bombings? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing that wounded six people, another that wounded four, a Mosul roadside bombing that claimed 1 life and a Falluja roadside bombing that wounded "the head of the anti-terrorism" which was followed by a second roadside bombing that claimed the lives of 4 police officers with five more wounded (and by the resignation of "head of Falluja police Colonel Faisal Al-Zobayee"). McClatchy's Mohammed Al Dulaimy reported Saturday 2 Baghdad roadside bombings that wounded eight people, a Baghdad car bombing that wounded Brig Gen Faris Amir (whose car the bomb was attached to), and a Sulaimaniyah bombing that claimed 2 lives, a Kirkuk roadside bombing which was an apparent assassination attempt on Col Ahmed Al Shemirani and resulted in 1 woman dead and three people wounded (including Al Shemirani). Shootings? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack "on a soccer field in Dhuluiya" which claimed the lives of 1 police officer and 1 "Awakening" council member and left three people ("including a nine-year-old child) wounded. Reuters notes 1 "member of the political office of Shabak minority group" was shot dead outside of Mosul on Sunday and 1 person was shot dead in Mosul today. Corpses? Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad. McClatchy's Mohammed Al Dulaimy reports 1 corpse discovered in Baghdad and 7 in Nineveh Province. Turning to the military's waiver program which has lowered recruitment standards repeatedly. Russel Carollo (Sacramento Bee) reports on the paper's findings after examing "120 cases of people whose backgrounds should have raised the suspicions of military recruiters, including felony convictions and serious drug, alcohol or mental health problems. Of those, 70 were involved in controversial or criminal incidents in Iraq." The man who has come to be the poster boy of the waiver program is not mentioned in the article: Steven D. Green. Another version written by Carollow and published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ("Applicants' run-ins with law taint recruiting in Midland") notes Green at the top: MIDLAND — Pfc. Steven D. Green, accused of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and murdering her family, entered the Army with a criminal record for minor offenses that included possession of drug paraphernalia. But a yearlong examination by The Sacramento Bee found that Green’s court record was not the worst among former and current Midland residents applying for the military since the Iraq war began, and he’s not the only one to later be charged with committing offenses in the military. Unlike other courts approached by The Bee, the Midland Municipal Court retained records of all military requests for searches — requests that are routine when someone applies to join the military. Those records provide a rare look at a microcosm of the more than 250,000 applicants for military service every year.[. . .]When Green applied for the Army in 2005, a court record noted that he owed outstanding fines and "must contact court immediately." The following year in Iraq, Green drank before going to a house he’d previously visited, where he emerged from a room to tell fellow soldiers, "I just killed them. All are dead," according to an affidavit from an FBI agent. Green was discharged from the Army "due to a personality disorder," the affidavit says. A federal court in Kentucky charged him with sexually assaulting and murdering Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi and killing her parents and a sibling. Two months ago, Green’s attorneys notified prosecutors that they may use insanity as a defense.Abeer wasn't raped, she was gang-raped. The two other soldiers taking part in the gang-rape have confessed and fingered Steven D. Green as the ringleader. The first article does note Mario Lozano Jr. who shot dead Nicola Calipari and wounded Giuliana Sgrena (he also wounded Andrea Carpani -- not mentioned in the article) after journalist Sgrena had been released by kidnappers. Lozano threatened a man with a bat in 1994, his then-wife reported spousal abuse in 2000 (he was in the military at that time), he was wanted for questionin in Fairbanks for threatening a man, wrote bad checks, didn't pay child support. For those who have forgotten, he also blamed his shooting, the death and the two wounded on . . . Sgrena -- yet another indication that he has problems which should have been red flags. There are many other cases including the mother of a soldier whose been charged with drug selling in Iraq and, noting his "history of drug and mental problems," declares, "Shame on my son, but shame on all you people out there who are policing this and allowing this to continue." Returning to the New York Times Sunday edition, the front page offers Steven Lee Myers' " U.S. Consdering Stepping Up Pace Of Iraq Pullout" which, if you go beyond the headline, really translates as "more troops needed for Afghanistan." That would be the nearly seven-year-old war that accomplished nothing and couldn't have from the start. Barack Obama sees that, from his repeated remarks, as one region that needs more troops, as opposed to one that US troops need to leave. Another useless war that has and can accomplish nothing. But will apparently drag on forever. (And enrich the war lords the US returned to power.) Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Ali Hameed contribute " Province Leaders Say Iraqis Not Ready to Handle Security." That goes on A8 and offers "the Anbar Provincial Council" arguing that Al Anbar Province is not ready to be handled by its own inhabitants and no transfer should take place until after the elections. The elections are scheduled for October whether they take place or not -- this is a White House defined 'benchmark' that has long been delayed -- only time will tell. Withing the region, there is a split between the council and members of the "Awakening" Council -- it's a power struggle with the latter feeling the requested delay is nothing but a way to influence the upcoming elections. Al Anbar Province is a border province and an influx of Iraqi refugees (presumably from that province only, unless the rules for voting have been changed) from Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia could also effect the outcome -- a point not made in the article. (I'm not speaking of a mythical return. I am noting the refugees are following the news on the upcoming elections and it is possible that some from that province might consider crossing back for voting only.) Movement continues to be restricted in Baghdad. Usama Redha (Babylon & Beyond, Los Angeles Times) reports a neighborhood in Baghdad was walled off overnight: "The wall consists of gloomy concrete chunks, 12 feet high, set side by side to enclose my neighborhood. Seven miles of it went up overnight. We call it 'The Black Night'." And The Gulf Times reports that "a major crackdown" on Diyala Province is about to commence. New content at Third this morning: Truest statement of the weekTruest statement of the week IIA note to our readersEditorial: Who did you get into bed with?TV: The dog days of summer and the dogsRoundtableDVD: Stop-LossBarack Obama on human rights, 'Screw 'em'What's The Progressive lying about now?One year later, Barack answers the questionAre children allergic to Barack?Who's driving in the Indycar Race!!!!HighlightsAnd The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqand the war drags ondonovanjoshua keyrobin longrussel carollomcclatchy newspapersthe new york timesrobert f. worthian austenthe los angeles timesusama redhathe socialist workerthe third estate sunday review
Posted at 11:57 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Cynthia McKinney, Let her shine
Kimberly Wilder notes this video of presumed Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. As Austin Cassidy's Independet Political Report notes, "With Green Party delegates poised to select a presidential nominee this morning, NewsBlaze runs down the contenders and their standings, saying that 'with 419 votes needed to win the nomination, former George Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney leads the delegate race with 304.5 delegates'." In what should be a day that focuses some attention on the Green Party's convention (going on through tomorrow) and taking some civic pride in their nominee (whether it's McKinney or someone else), the reality of our non-democracy comes through best at, where else?, Aging Socialite's Cat Litter Box where Cynthia's presumed victory translates into "Can McKinney Really Hurt Obama?" Everything is not about the Christ-child. Cynthia McKinney seems to be on the verge of receiving the nomination of a national political party. That is news. That is news all by itself. That is something to celebrate. Whether you plan to vote Green or not, that is something very big. The honor is reduced when the immediate response is, "What does that mean to Barack!" Cynthia McKinney is a politician with a history of experience and a history of results. She was crucified not once, but twice by the party 'leaders' in the Democratic Party and, both times, written off for dead. Her presumed victory speaks to her strength and her abilities. As a woman, her anticipated victory later today is something all (women and men) should take pride in. That would be true if it were 2004 but it is especially true after the Democratic primary this year when women were dragged through the mud, were targeted with attacks and were slammed and lectured to. As an African-American, what a statement she makes. She says you can be authentically yourself and not attempt to alter yourself to curry votes or favors. She says you can pick up the torch for racial equality and carry it further. Cynthia McKinney is not merely her race but neither does she run from her race. That's a very positive and needed statement in the country today. For those who value the speaking of truth, it's a huge victory. Her assumed nomination today translates into so many things including issues because she has run an issue based campaign. What should be celebrated as embodying the best that country strives for does not need to be turned into, "How's she's going to hurt Obama!" Can we not take the time, regardless of who we plan to vote for or if we plan to vote, to take pride in the accomplishments and gains that Cynthia makes and represents? Or are we so divided as a country (and on the left) that we can only see it in terms of ourselves and our own self-interests? The Green Party represents one more choice in a nation where choice continues to dwindle. You don't have to be a Green or planning to vote Green to celebrate the hard work Cynthia has put into her campaign and the huge obstacles she overcame for not toeing the line. Today is a strong day for democracy. Presumably, Cynthia will be elected her party's nominee. In a year, it should be noted, when the DNC is attempting to prevent a floor vote at their own convention. Unless it's a drive-by, we're not read by John McCain supporters, but even McCain supporters should be able to see Cynthia's win as good for America. They might not agree with anything she stands for (since they would largely be Republicans), but just in terms of what democracy is supposed to stand for and the fact that we are supposed to root for and value democracy, they should be able to take a moment to take some pride in her accomplishment. It's really funny, if you think about the end of the Democratic primaries, when some party 'healers' wanted to preach the line that it said something about the country but, strangely, none of them are trotting out the argument for Cynthia. Regardless of whom you plan to vote for (or if you plan to vote), we should all be able to set aside our likes and dislikes to appreciate what Cynthia has accomplished. A moment should be manageable for everyone to leave their own political opinions to the side and appreciate her victory. The Greens are going to be excited (rightly) and some of that will be personal excitement for their party (as it should be) but it's also going to include what is being said about democracy. It'll be a real shame if members of the 'big' parties show off that they're actually smaller of heart and pride in democracy than third party members. (Though that might not be surprising, it will be a shame.) I'm fully aware that any press -- especially for a third party -- can be seen as good press but I'm appalled that before Cynthia even has the nomination, it's already time to trot out the "what does this mean for ___" columns. Before a single piece is written noting what it means for Cynthia, or what it means for America, or what it means for democracy, it's time to toss her up against a man and wonder if she'll hurt him? That devalues her, that devalues America and it devalues democracy. I don't care for sports, so I'll go to another form of analogy. It's as though today Cynthia was announcing her engagement and someone had to stand up right after and say, "Guess what? I'm pregnant!" Are the gas bags that small and petty that Cynthia (and the Green Party) can't even have a moment after months of hard work? It is a Saturday. It is a slow news day. And it is appalling that the presumed nominee can't even shine for one day without fear of what it means to somebody else. Sometimes it just means that it's her turn to shine and it's hard to believe that if the "her" wasn't in there, everyone would rush so to ignore the candidate. For gas bags who need guidance, the angles are Cynthia McKinney, democracy and America. There's no need to pit her against your hero to have an angle. That's not only insulting, it's rather aggressive. Not surprising when you consider the way attacks on women were publicly embraced this year. Did the gas bag set greet McCain's nomination with "What will this mean for the Democrats!" I don't think so, maybe they did. But they damn well took the time to also note McCain in his own right. When the primaries ended, the coverage took time to celebrate Barack's presumed victory. Is it only when the candidate's a woman that we deny her the right to be her own person? That we refuse to bask in the moment? It's really starting to look that way and another 'angle' can be what the response to Cynthia's victory says about America (reality as opposed to dream). This is her day, let her shine. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. Since yesterday morning, the following community websites have updated: Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix; Kat's Kat's Korner; Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man; Mike's Mikey Likes It!; Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz; Wally's The Daily Jot; Trina's Trina's Kitchen; Ruth's Ruth's Report; and Marcia's SICKOFITRADLZCorrection, Wally's heard me griping as I wrote this and he and Cedric are going to post Saturday night. (This is written ahead of time and Mike is kind enough to post it after everyone's posted.) So look for Wally and Cedric tonight and they hope to somehow address the topic of the non-response to Cynthia. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqcynthia mckinneygreen partylike maria said pazkats kornersex and politics and screeds and attitudetrinas kitchenthe daily jotcedrics big mixmikey likes itthomas friedman is a great manruths reportsickofitradlz
Posted at 10:42 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Bob Rae does what needs doing (and does it well)
Forty years ago, American conscription created a lottery that meant a generation -- my exact contemporaries -- did not have the luxury I had of expressing political opinions without having to disobey the law. Many were able to get their requirement of service deferred. Some enlisted and then deserted, others just came to Canada as visitors and never left. It was a different time then. Immigrants were not legally barred from applying for landed immigrant status from within Canada, and immigration officials were given much discretion in allowing young men through without asking too many questions about draft status or military service. That is not to say that decisions were taken lightly. At the time, those coming over as draft dodgers and deserters knew they would not be able to return home without facing arrest. It would be years before a general amnesty would allow that to happen, and it applied just to the draft dodgers; deserters are still arrested if they return. There was a sense of a deep inner conflict in each decision. Families left behind, parents bewildered, loyalties and values divided, often in ways that proved impossible to resolve. The Pearson and Trudeau governments kept the border open, despite U.S. objections, and refused to allow Canadian border officials to become agents of American military policy. It strained the relationship -- as did public statements by Canadian officials about the war itself -- but it did not break it. The Vietnam generation has made an extraordinary contribution to the life of the country. In every walk of life, in every profession, in every community, Canada is a better place because we decided to become a place of refuge for those seeking a different political home, even those who were defying American military law to do so.The above is from Bob Rae's " Why U.S. war resisters deserve refuge in Canada" ( Toronto Star) proving that not everyone has forgotten what actually happened and that some can make an argument that is effective and factual. 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. On the front page of the New York Times, Alissa J. Rubin contributes " Iraqi Shiites Reclaim a Village Razed by Sunnis" about Al Etha in Diyala Province: Now, after nearly two years, 60 of the families have returned, offering a glimpse both of the tentative new peace that is becoming visible in many places throughout Iraq and of the tremendous difficulties ahead. The displaced return not only to destroyed houses, but also destroyed lives.Rubin sees peace emerging. (She's not stating "Peace has come!") I see a people who feel wronged returning and the resentment breeding all over again (on both sides, Shi'ites and Sunnis). She's a reporter and she's offering her visual observations in an article worth reading. [Revolutions (rebellions and resistance) was one of my areas of emphasis in poli sci and I see something completely different taking place. And you can add in the impact on the elections -- if they take place -- in October.] The article should be read with Campbell Robertson's " Iraqi Forces Raid Mosque With Links To Sadrists" and the thing to concentrate on there is how will that help 'peace'. (Answer: It won't. It will only give the illusion of peace and allow more resentments to fester.) Alan Feuer's "With Final Word of Soldiers' Deaths, More Tears, More Sorrow, Some Relief" covers the reactions to the news that US soldiers Alex R. Jimenez and Byron Fouty are no longer missing, classified as MIA or POWs. We noted the news in yesterday's snapshot. We'll quote Byron's mother Hillary Meunier here: "They said we'd never find him, but I have a sense of relief that at least he's back on American soil. I've believed for quite some time that Byron had passed on, that they had killed him. I had a small shread of hope but, in my heart of hearts, I knew that he was gone." Others were noted yesterday. (Hillary Meunier was noted from an interview published yesterday but conducted before she knew her son's body had been discovered.) Do not read this as an insult to Ralph Nader's campaign or to him but I've made the decision (and will take any flack for it -- complain to me not Beth) that we're not noting him today. That has nothing to do with him. It has to do with today being Cynthia McKinney's day. The Green Party is holding its convention this weekend (it ends on Sunday) and that's really not be noted by most outlets you'd assume you could count on for coverage. Ralph's not usually noted by them either. The community is for Ralph. There's no "the majority is for . . ." Giving Cynthia her due today takes nothing away from Ralph. But the Democratic outlets (that we once wrongly assumed were actually left outlets) can't make time for Cynthia. We're not going to repeat that error here. The next entry will note Cynthia in some form. It is her day. It being her day does not detract or minimize anyone else. It is merely giving her the due she's earned. (Is expected to earn when she receives the nomination today.) I had said yesterday that we'd note Jason Wallace today and I think we still can since he's a Green. It's his day today as well. Ava and I caught some of the 'public affairs' programs yesterday and no one seems to know that a political party in this country is holding their convention. Doesn't know or doesn't care? Wallace is running for Illinois' 11th Congressional district's seat in the House of Represenatives and this is his campaign's " Veterans issues personal for Wallace:" Contacts: Tanya Austin, Campaign Manager, 309-532-3446, tanya.austin@electwallace.us Brandon Punke, Media Relations Coordinator, 309-826-6605, media@electwallace.us Normal, IL - Veterans issues are of key importance to 11th Congressional district Green Party candidate Jason Wallace. Wallace, the only veteran in the race, is calling for several key changes in the government's approach to caring for those who have served in the United States military. These include changes in funding and coverage as well as his support for the idea of replacing Silver Cross in Joliet with a VA hospital. Jason Wallace personally recognizes the frustrations that can be encountered by veterans when trying to obtain benefits. As a member of the Air National Guard, Jason was activated twice to serve in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom for a total of seventeen months. While serving in Kuwait, Jason volunteered for the base Honor Guard and earned the Air Force Meritorious Unit Award, Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with valor, and the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. Wallace feels that his personal experience in the military gives him an advantage over his opponents in understanding the problems veterans encounter. Wallace commented that "while I appreciate the service of Debbie Halvorson's stepson in the armed forces, my own military career of six years has allowed me to personally experience the realities of the VA." Wallace calls for complete, mandatory funding for the VA. This is an idea that is supported by voters in the district. According to a question posed on the February 5th 2008 primary ballot in 23 counties, 1.14 million people voted yes when asked if the federal government should fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide care to those who were honorably discharged. Over ninety percent of voters in Lasalle and Grundy counties approved the referendum. Wallace added, "I will provide all of our veterans with free health care so that they can seek the medical care they need anywhere in the district, state, or country. Furthermore, while I support the idea of turning Silver Cross into a VA hospital, it would be useless if the system continues to be chronically under funded." For more information on Jason Wallace, please visit http://www.electwallace.com/ ### I assume it's obvious that I'm ticked off about the lack of coverage. If you 'consumed' 'news' yesterday -- especially from Panhandle Media -- think about how much coverage Barack or McCain got and ask yourself if you even heard that the Green Party was holding their convention? The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. bob raeiraqalissa j. rubinthe new york timesalan feurcampbell robertson
Posted at 05:41 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Friday, July 11, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, 2 US soldiers classified
MIA/POW are discovered dead, the Green Party convention kicked off yesterday and
runs through Sunday and more.
Starting with war resistance. Patrick Arden (Metro) reported earlier this week on the
NYC demonstrations to show support for Canadian war resisters and noted Matthis
Chiroux:
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."
On IVAW, Joy Wiltermuth (Downtown Express)
profiles Fabian Bouthillette who "is the secretary and outreach coordinator
for Iraq Veterans Against the War's New York chapter, which shares space with
the War Resisters' League in Noho, at 339 Lafayette St." as he lays out his last
night years (he enlisted at 18). He explains, "I'm a guy who grew up ppor. It
was just that simple. . . I was quick to jump on it [leaving the Navy -- he did
not self-checkout]. I was not going to work hard to support the war machine
anymore. Once I came to that realization, I could no longer do it."
Meanwhile in Canada, Judge Robert Barnes' decision in US war resister
Joshua Key's case last week opens up a number of possibilities for war
resisters. Dee Knight (Workers World) reports
on the latest and also provides the background such as: "Joshua Key went to
Canada with his wife Brandi and their four small children following 16 months
living underground in the United States after he decided not to return to Iraq.
He served as a combat engineer in Iraq for eight months in 2003. His book, 'The Deserter's
Tale,' has been an international best seller. He said he and his family have
felt support from 'about 95 percent of the Canadian people'."
Last night we were noting continued failure of
the war resistance 'movement' to get across the point (or even be aware of it)
that Canada gave asylum to deserters during Vietnam (and didn't ask: "Were you
drafted or did you enlist?") and reviewing real time press noting war resisters
(who were deserters) like Jeff Enger, Jack Colhoun, Victor Schwarzmann who did
make lives for themselves in Canada. And it's all wiped away/ignored by today's
'movement' which continues to blater on about "draft dodgers" when there is no
draft today so it's really not pertinent to the discussion but certainly does
allow the right-wing to dismiss calls for asylumn by insisting, "Well that was
draft dodgers. There's no draft today!" Today, the the Wall St. Journal's offered the editorial "AWOL in Canada" which shows 'reason' and
'sympathy' by stating, "Vietnam-era draft dodgers were breaking the law, but at
least they could claim to be avoiding conscription. Today's U.S. soldiers and
reserves are volunteers, who enlist knowing full well that they could be sent
overseas and into combat." Repeating: Five years the 'movement' has wasted.
Five years of gas bagging about a draft -- when there is no draft today. Five
years of insisting that Canada took in draft dodgers -- when there are no draft
dodgers today. Five years of blathering on about crap that doesn't matter. The
only point today's 'movement' should have made regarding Canada granting asylum
to today's war resisters was: "They should because they welcomed deserters
during Vietnam." That's not a difficult sentence. And, unlike what the
'movement' offers today, it is factually correct. Until the basics are correct
-- until they are stressed over and over -- the 'movement' will continue to
muddle along. "Almost 40 years ago we accepted deserters from an illegal war"
is the talking point the movement in Canada should be using and the US side
should be noting, "Hey, 40 years ago, they accepted deseters from an illegal
war." Canada is not being asked to do anything it hasn't done the past.
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.
Early this morning, Patrick Donahue (Bloomberg News) reported AP was stating -- but the DoD has not
confirmed -- that Alex Jimenez and Byron Fouty's corpses have been discovered
while David Aguila (AP) cited Fouty's
step-father as confirmation that the corpses of both were "found in the Iraqi
village of Jurf as Sakhr." Jeannie Nuss and Milton J. Valencia (Boston
Globe) speak with Ramon "Andy" Jimenez (Alex's father) who states that,
in his grief, "It comforts you when you accept something, and Alex did what he
wanted to do." Korie Wilkins (Detroit Free Press)
quotes Byron's friend Ashley Tremble stating, "What was important [for him]
was the here-and-now. There is no bad to Byron" while his mother Hilary Meunier
states, "A part of me believes he's already gone, but I still have hope." And
please note, there's no mention of his body being found in Wilkins' article. David Aguilar spoke with his step-father Gordon
Dibler who said Byron's corpse was found on Thursday. Boston's NECN has video of the family of Alex
Jimenez gathering and lighting candles. O'Ryan Johnson (Boston Herald) quotes
Ramon Jimenez stating of his son, "He always had the hope that he would return
back to the city. But due to the nature of where he was, it was difficult for
him to return alive." Mark E. Vogler (Eagle Tribune) reports
that, in Lawrence, "American flags fly at half staff on municipal buildings
throughout the city today in honor of the late Army Sgt. Alex Jimenez." This
afternoon the US Dept of Defense released a statement: " The Department of Defense today announced the deaths of two
soldiers previously listed as "Missing-Captured" while supporting Operation
Iraqi Freedom. On July 10, the Armed Forces Medical Examiner positively
identified human remains recovered in Iraq July 9 to be those of two soldiers
who had been previously listed as 'Missing-Captured.' . . . Jimenez and Fouty were part of a patrol that was
ambushed by enemy forces south of Baghdad on May 12, 2007. They were assigned to
the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th
Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y. The Department of Defense
previously announced the names of soldiers killed in the attack. They were Pfc.
Joseph J. Anzack, Jr., 20, of Torrance, Calif.; Sgt. 1st Class James D. Connell,
Jr., 40, of Lake City, Tenn.; Pfc. Daniel W. Courneya, 19, of Nashville, Mich.;
Cpl. Christopher E. Murphy, 21, of Lynchburg, Va.; and Sgt. Anthony J. Schober,
23, of Reno, Nev."
On Saturday an attack took place outside Mahmudiya. Damien Cave (New York Times)
reported: "A cooridnated attack on seven American soldiers
an Iraqi Army interpreter Saturday morning south of Baghdad left five of them
dead and three missing". Initial reports, based on what the US military was
saying, included that five US service members were killed. The US military
corrected this on Sunday: 4 US soldiers died as did 1 Iraqi translator. Three
US soldiers are still missing. Scott Canon (McClatchy Newspapers)
reported that approximately 4,000 US service members were
searching for the 3 missing soldiers on Sunday. Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times)
reports that at least one of the five dead had "gunshot
woundes, though it was unclear whether he was shot before or after blasts
enveloped the soldiers' two vehicles in flames, said U.S. Army Lt. Col.
Christopher Garver, a military spokesman." Joshua Partlow (Washington Post)
notes that the group was "parked in two Humvees in an area
12 miles west of Mahmudiyah" when the attack took place with "a roadside bomb .
. . followed by gunfire, officials said. The two vehicles went up in flames and
were spotted 15 minutes later by a surveillance drone, after a nearby unit that
heard explosions could not make contact with the Humvees. The extent of the
damage made it difficult to identify the slain soldiers." Stephen Farrell and Tom Baldwin
(Times of London) note that the Islamic State in
Iraq has claimed, via a website, responsibility for the raid and that they have
the three missing US soldiers. Scott Canon (McClatchy Newspapers)
noted that the grop has "offered no proof". CBS and AP
report that the group claiming to have the three American
soldiers issued a warning: "'If you want their safety do not look for them,'
the Islamic State of Iraq said on a militant web site. 'You should remember
what you have done to our sister Abeer in the same area,'
the statement said, referring to five American soldiers who were charged in the
rape and killing of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi
and the killings of her parents and her younger sister last year. Three
soldiers have pleaded guilty in the case." AFP notes that, in June of
last year, two US soldiers were captured and their "bodies . . . were later
found outside a power station south of Baghdad, mutilated and bearing signs of
torture." That attack was also seen as resulting from the gang-rape and murder
of Abeer in Mahmoudiyah on March 12, 2006 and, as Gregg Zoroya (USA Today)
reported last September, Justin Watt came forward with what
he was hearing about Abeer and her family when the June attack on US soldiers
took place. Though the statement put up by the group claiming to have the 3
missing US soldiers is cited often in part, most outlets have avoided noting the
mention of Abeer. (But then many avodied reporting on the Article 32 hearing
last August or much that has happened since. As CBS and AP noted, 3 US soldiers
have confessed to their part. Steven D. Green, who has been portrayed as the
ringleader in press accounts as well as the testimonies of those who have
pleaded guilty, maintains he is innocent.) Julie Rawe and Aparisim Ghosh (Time)
reported last June, "Abeer's brother Mohammed, 13, told
TIME he once watched his sister, frozen in fear, as a U.S. soldier ran his index
finger down her cheek. Mohammed has since learned that soldier's name: Steven
Green."
ICCC has moved the two over the total for deaths in Iraq since the start of
the illegal war bringing that total to 4118. The third missing soldier was Joseph
Anzack who was later found dead (and it listed in the DoD announcement). As for
Steven D. Green? Green's scheduled trial was postpone for a quilting bee and,
apparently, hasn't been rescheduled even though that was months ago. (All other
US soldiers involved in the incident entered pleas of guilty.)
On the subject of Iraqi women, Zaineb Naji tells her story at Baghdad Life
(Wall St. Journal) and explains that the decrease in violence
(that's how she judges it) means some tentative steps back towards the time
before the start of the Iraq War, "After sectarian violence increased after the
Samarra shrine bombing in February 2006, fundamentalist insurgents and Shiite
militias started to forbid women to drive cars, saying it was unacceptable
according to Islamic law. They threatened to kidnap women drivers or kill them
and leave their bodies by the road. They also said women would have a similar
fate if they didn't wear the traditional Islamic clothing -- an abaya and a
hijab (head scarf). So women, including me, stopped driving. I stopped driving
even in my neighborhood, which made me feel depressed because I felt like I had
lost one of my rights. I had always worn a hijab, but women who didn't started
to wear one to protect themselves. Not driving affected my work as a reporter
and it was difficult to use other means of transportation, such as taxis or
buses. I couldn't take my children to school or pick them up, or even go
shopping alone. In the early 1950s, Iraq was one of the first Arab countries
that allowed women to drive cars. During the Hussein regime, women drivers were
very common on the streets and women even drove public buses or tractors in the
countryside."
From life on the ground in Iraq to in the air. Iraq does not control their
air space currently and the treaty being discussed by the White House and the
puppet government in Baghdad had one puppet so excited that maybe Iraq could
control its own air space! So what's going on in the air in the meantime. The Jerusalem Post reports the back and
forth in Iraq as to whether Irsraeli Air Force has been utilizing Iraqi air
space to prepare "for a possible attack against Iran in its airspace" (the
article has the latest official statement from Iraq as "no" it is not
happening). UPI carries the denials from the US
government and the Israeli government. On claims, Ann Scott Tyson and Dan Eggan (Washington
Post) report the latest claim of success just around the corner -- Lt
Gen James Dubik Happy Talked Congress yesterday: "The ground forces will mostly be done by middle of
next year; their divisions, brigades and battalions are on a good timeline."
Can you die from a whopper? I believe Bully Boy's false claims of yellow
cake uranium demonstrate that many can.
In some of today's reported violence . . .
Bombings?
Reuters notes a Mosul roadside bombing that left six
people wounded, a suspected bombing attempt outside Samarra that led to 4
suspects being shot dead by Iraqi police.
Shootings?
Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an attack on
a Baghdad checkpoint this afternoon "and casualties are still unknown."
Corpses?
Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Iskandariya
today and 1 in Hilla yesterday.
Turning to the race for US president, Drew Pritt denies masturbating in
public. Yesterday's snapshot note Austin Cassidy's Independent Political
Report article on Drew Pritt's attack on presumed Green Party
presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney. Pritt only continued his
attack after the article published by taking to the comments section
repeatedly. Insisting, "I do not stomp squirrels, or masturbate in public, or
do the other things I am accuesd of," and blaming malicious gossip on any rumors
to the contrary, he then goes on to repeat an obvious lie, that his hero Jesse
Johnson will be "denied a nomination, by a woman who used the Green Party
REPORTEDLY to pay off her debt, before she switched parties." That is a lie.
It's an ugly lie. And while whining about the meaness towards him, Drew Pritt
wants to lie about McKinney. Democratic Party member Pritt (who's run for
several state offices in Arkansas) maintains, "If the Green Party is to thrive
it has to appeal to progressives like myself. Cynthia McKinney does not appeal
but repels." Again, Democrats need to stay out of the selection of the Green
Party's presidential nominee. He does not know what he's talking about
(McKinney's "HIGH WATER MARK" is not 3%, she's defined victory -- if she's the
nominee -- as 5%). If any Greens are offended by Pritt's attempts to derail
their own selection (and they should be), hopefully, they'll remember that in
2012 because a number of 'high profile' Greens damn sure didn't feel bad about
butting into the Democratic primary. Kimberly Wilder (On The Wilder Side)
annouces the "hope to have video up sometime today" of the ongoing Green
Party Convention taking place in Chicago through Sunday and notes, "There is a
great feeling that Cynthia McKinney will be the next candidate." Regardless of
whom the nominee is, the acceptance speech will be made Saturday and a press
conference with the presidential and vice-presidential nominee will be held
after. Yesterday, Kat Swift's questionnaire response was not mentioned. It had
not been posted. It still hasn't. ("Questionnaire from Kat Swift will be posted shortly.") Since
she has publicly asked people to donate to Cynthia's campaign, it may not end up
posted. The convention isn't just about the national ticket. On the charitable
side, Green Party 2004 v.p. nominee Pat LaMarche is overseeing
"donations for area shelters" and states, "I would like for folks with less
agreeable resting places for their heads to know that Greens came to town and
that we did not forget them." A noble effort and one that the big-money RNC and
DNC might consider emulating. Green Party Congressional candidate Steve Alesch spoke
yesterday at the start of the convention. Patrick Ferrell (Suburban Chicago News)
notes that was one of two "high-profile positions at the group's national
convention" for 2 "local Green Party candidates" and explains the other, IVAW's
Jason Wallace, was slotted for "a Friday morning speech" and "selected to serve
as the convention's election administrator. In that role he will oversee the
casting of delegate votes for the presidential and vice presidential nominations
as well as the approval of the national party platform." Tuesday Jason
Wallace's campaign announced: "Veterans issues are of key importance
to 11th Congressional district Green Party candidate Jason Wallace. Wallace,
the only veteran in the race, is calling for several key changes in the
government's approach to caring for those who have served in the United States
military. These include changes in funding and coverage as well as his support
for the idea of replacing Silver Cross in Joliet with a VA hospital. . . .
Wallace calls for complete, mandatory funding for the VA. This is an idea that
is supported by voters in the district." [The press release will run in full
tomorrow, there isn't room for it in the snapshot.] Ron (Green Party Watch) reports: "Jason Wallace,
Illinois candidate for the 11th district CD, noted that he is running in one of
the top five competitive races in America. Wallace noted that his campaign is
committed to run for ten thousand dollars only, 10K in 08, versus the
multimillion dollar campaigns his Republican and Democrat opponents are working
with. Education is probably his number one issue, and he has seen first hand the
impact of underfunded education on middle class families. Wallace is also a
member of Veterans for Peace, attended Winter Soldier, Wallace was serving in
the Iraq 'Occupation'. The war is obviously a big issue for Wallace. Wallace
also wants to make his district in Illinois a leader in the production of "green
manufacturing"."
Though the votes haven't been made (let alone counted) National Journal states: "Road to the
White House features Bob Barr, and will cover Green Party WH candidate Cynthia
McKinney's Green Party Convo speech (C-Span, SUN, 6:30 pm/9:30 pm)." (The other
Cynthia, the evil faux-gressive, will be on The Chris Matthews Show so
she'll probably make time for a hate-out to McKinney.) The Minneapolis Star Tribune notes,
"Former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney's trek back from defeat takes her to Chicago
this weekend and an improbable political rebirth. She is expected to be
nominated as the presidential candidate for the Green Party of the United States
and could appear on the ballot in as many as 36 states." Grist magazine picks up on McKinney's v.p. choice,
"Yesterday hip-hop activist Rosa Clemente accepted McKinney's invitation to run as the VP
candidate. More to come on the Green ticket soon." NYC IMC offers, "Clemente, born in the South Bronx, is
a graduate of SUNY Albany and Cornell Univeristy." What About Our Daughters? explains that,
if McKinney is the nominee, this is the third time two women of color would be
on the ticket with the first being Lenora Fulani and Maria Elizabeth Munoz in
1992 (New Alliance Party) and Monica Moorehead and Gloria La Riva (Workers World
Party) in 1996. Deanna Taylor (Dee's 'Dotes) observes,
"It will be interesting to see how Cynthia McKinney's choice affects her chances
for obtaining the GPUS Presidential nomination." Wake Me Now advocates for Cynthia,
"Former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who seems poised to capture the
Green Party presidential nomination, in Chicago, this month, 'is at this
juncture in history the only vehicle through which
progressives can both register their outrage at Barack Obama and begin
the process of rebuilding a mass, Black-led movement for real social change.'
Meanwhile, the frequency of Obama's Right turns seem to increase in direct
proportion to the nearness of the general election. 'Surely no one with a brain
any longer believes that Obama is a closet progressive, or even a genuine
liberal.' The question is, How many progressives will put their votes and
resources to honorable use?" Matt (The Underview) notes Cynthia
McKinney will be among his guests on Shared Sacrifice Saturday which airs "from Noon to
2:00 PM mountain time" and is also downloadable. Rick Pearson (Baltimore Sun) sums up
Cynthia's positions on the issues: "In her presidential campaign,
she has pushed for a quick end to the Iraq War and has promoted impeachment
proceedings against the Bush administration. She also has advocated a 10-point
human rights plan that includes integrity in the nation's voting system, full
employment and reparations to African Americans over slavery--which has been a
plank in the Green Party platform." Cynthia's campaign site has reposted an essay by Vivian Berryhill
which asserts, "Securing the Green Party's 2008 standard-bearer position
would bestow on McKinney the historic title of 'first' African American woman to
be on the ballot as a viable candidate of a major party for President of the
United States. That title alone will not only lessen the aura surrounding Barack
Obama's position as the 'first' African American male presidential nominee, but
she may also siphon off just-enough left-wing, African American, and women
voters, to sink both their chances for victory in the Fall." The one and only Roseanne weighed in Wednesday at her
site (Roseanne World) stating: "for president GREEN PARTY. . . .the
party for feminists. Let's replace pelosi with sheehan as soon as possible, and
then as fast as we can replace the entire woman hating democrat party with a
green ecofeminist progressive socialist one that really works and is not afraid
to make campaign finance reform a priority." 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).
Barack Obama is the presumed Democratic Party nominee. Susan (Random Thoughts) notes Tom Hayden's July 4th
moment of "WHAT'S WRONG WITH HIS EYES!" (Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby
-- the response is "He has his father's eyes.") and advises, "Well, Tom, maybe
you SHOULD have critically looked at Obama's slipperiness on this and many other
issues before making a fool out of yourself." I have to disagree with Susan on
this because if Tom Hayden couldn't make a fool out of himself, what
would he have to offer at this point? Yes, I really agree with Susan (though
Tom-Tom has nothing left to offer) and Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) also
notes Hayden and Hayden's (drug induced?) belief that a 'movement' exists
for Barack and it can and will (didn't happen with FISA) pressure him: "Nothing
of that nature will occur, because Hayden and other progressives are not
organizing to make it occur. They are too concerned with remaining 'for' Obama.
Not only are Hayden's and Fletcher's peculiar 'movements' without political
content - they emerge like magic, requiring none of the hard work of
organizing. And just how were those popular 'rising expectations' that Hayden
speaks of supposed to express themselves? Progressives waited until it was far
too late to bring these 'expectations' - to whatever extent they exist - to bear
on the candidate. Obama coasted through the primaries with virtually no dissent
from his loyal progressives, and now sees his way clear to publicly dismiss
them, so as to never again be 'tagged as being on the Left'." Tom-Tom's probably
hopping from foot to foot and straining to contain himself -- it's truly been
years (decades) since he received so much attention. Black Agenda
Report -- Ford, Margaret Kimberly and Bruce Dixon -- are not 'waking up,'
they always called it like it was and if Tom-Tom needs tuturing, he might try
contacting them. In the meantime, he can read Kimberley's latest: "All hell
broke loose and tongues wagged endlessly and needlessly because of an
accurate statement made by
the candidate first husband and former president Bill Clinton. 'It is wrong that
Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and
how he had been against the war. There's no difference in your (Obama's) voting
record, and Hillary's, ever since. Give me a break. This whole thing is the
biggest fairy tale I've ever seen'. The words
fairy tale resonated in millions of ears, but the validity of Clinton's comments
were lost on a public incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction, or trivia
from substance." Added note, the Green Party will be discussing impeachment at
their convention. "Calls for impeachment have become so common in the last few
years that we forget how recently it has entered the political arsenal. Once
viewed as a blunderbuss, it is now used as a bludgeon." That's from Jo Freeman's review of David E. Kyvig's The Age of
Impeachment (link goes to her own site, it's also available at Senior Women Web
here). In terms of the current administration,
you can refer to Jason Leopold's latest at The Public Record.
While the Green Party convention goes on, Bill Moyers Journal explores the GOP and, no doubt, has
Cynthia, Ralph and Bob Barr penciled in for an upcoming show in order to
maintain the PBS diversity mandate. Tonight also provides a new feature "What's
your vision for the future of the American Dream?" It's a segment tonight
(tonight in most markets) and will also be an online feature. Click here for YouTube video.
Ralph Nader is running for president. Check the transcript of "Election 2008: Presidential Candidate Ralph
Nader" (Washington Post) and Team Nader notes:
Here's is your task for today.
Drop a $20 bill on Nader/Gonzalez.
Why $20?
Because we want to get to $20,000 by the end of the day.
On our way to 15 states.
And $60,000.
By July 20.
We are now at over $15,000.
In just two days.
So, $20,000 by the end of the day shouldn't be a heavy
lift.
(If we get there early, take us to $25,000. We're easy.)
On our way to 15 states.
And then 45 states.
By September 20.
Nader/Gonzalez is the positivo campaign.
Two rules here at Nader/Gonzalez headquarters:
Rule Number One: No whining.
And Rule Number Two: Get it done.
It's not that we don't take our world seriously.
We do.
But whining and negativo man attitude doesn't get us where we need to
go.
Which is 45 states by September 20.
Take the telecom immunity/spying bill that Obama voted for, McCain
dodged, and Bush signed into law.
It's an unconstitutional law.
Did we whine and cry about it?
No, we did not.
We spoke out against it.
We're running this campaign, in part, to defend the Fourth Amendment
and the Constitution.
And we've produced an awesome video denouncing the new
law.
Or take ballot access.
Our young roadtrippers are busting it all around the country to leap
the ballot access hurdles the Democrats and Republicans have erected to make
life miserable for us.
But we refuse to be miserable.
Check out this neat video about our roadtrippers in
Nevada.
No whining there.
We tried to get on the ballot in 2004 but only made it on 34 states.
(We're shooting for 45 this time around.)
Why only 34 states?
One reason: The Democrats organized an underground campaign to knock
us off.
When we say this, people don't believe us.
But just yesterday, a grand jury in Pennsylvania indicted twelve
Democratic political operatives for the illegal use of millions of dollars in
taxpayers' funds, resources and state employees for political campaign purposes.
(See Nader/Gonzalez press release
here.)
The grand jury found that as many as 50 Democratic House Caucus staff
members contributed "a staggering number of man-hours" to successfully knock
Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2004.
A House Democratic employee testified before the grand jury that
"everybody was working on this."
"A veritable Army" of Democratic staffers were enlisted in the effort
to deny Nader ballot status, the grand jury found.
It was virtually a caucus-wide endeavor and many of the employees
spent an entire week on the Nader petition challenge, the grand jury
found.
This is a scandal of immense proportions.
And twelve Democrats in Pennsylvania now stand charged with
crimes.
Attorneys General Oregon, Illinois and Ohio - three states where
Democrats successfully knocked us off in 2004 - should launch similar
investigations.
This year, we're not taking no for an answer.
We're building our funds to secure ballot access and to fight back if
they come after us again.
So, please, drop a $20 bill now on
Nader/Gonzalez.
We're fighting not just for 2008 - but for future generations of
independent citizen activists, candidates and campaigners.
(In case you missed it, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals knocked
out a requirement that only residents of Arizona be allowed to petition in the
state. Ralph Nader challenged this requirement as unconstitutional We're hoping
to carry this victory to other states that have similar requirements.
See story
here.)
We're a positivo locomotive.
We've got the Big Mo.
Nothing will stop us now.
Together, we are making a difference.
Onward |
Posted at 03:39 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Facts do matter, war resistance should grasp that
Vietnam-era
draft dodgers were breaking the law, but at least they could claim to
be avoiding conscription. Today's U.S. soldiers and reserves are
volunteers, who enlist knowing full well that they could be sent
overseas and into combat. Military recruiters don't hide this detail.
In return for their service, volunteers often get substantial education
and other benefits. Fulfilling their service tour is part of the deal.War
is hell, and no doubt some of these deserters are responding to the
trauma of their experience. But a military can't succeed in its mission
if soldiers can decide on their own when and whether to obey orders.
The Army officially describes desertion or going AWOL as "crimes that
not only affect the soldier, but in a time of war, put other soldiers'
lives at risk. Not only do these crimes go against Army values, they
degrade unit readiness." This is why, in previous eras, deserters were
simply shot.The Harper
government's decision to send the Yanks home shows respect for the U.S.
military and our rule of law. It also honors those Canadians who are
serving, and dying, as part of the NATO force in Afghanistan. American
deserters need to return and face their responsibilities.The above is the Wall St. Journal's editorial " AWOL in Canada."
Is it correct? To listen to today's 'movement,' it is. Repeatedly we
have noted that Canada welcomed war resisters. Over and over. Just last night, we were walking through it again. If the 'movement' would wake the hell up, then we could all laugh at the Wall St. Journal
for getting it so wrong. Those of us who have TOLD THE TRUTH still can
laugh. But a lot of people can't. Because they have LIED over and over.
They have refused to tell the truth. Then there are people who feel
they can be 'leaders' without ever bothering to learn what happened.
That's the sort of 'leader' I want flying the plane home tomorrow, a
'leader' who decides to be a pilot and feels no need to study! (Yes,
that was sarcasm.) The 'movement' has had five years to get their act
together and they still can't. The Wall St. Journal is wrong. But not a
lot of people can point that out because they've spent the last five
years stamping their feet and insisting, "Well Canada welcomed draft
dodgers!" Yes, little children (and old people who blew their brains on
drugs), Canada did. And yes, it also welcomed deserters. And that last
one, that's the one that applies to today. That's the one the
'movement' should have been stressing for five years instead of WASTING
everyone's time with talk about the draft. A draft that is no more. By
repeatedly ignoring that Canada welcomed BOTH deserters and draft
dodgers, the 'movement' has created this nonsense argument. Again,
they've had FIVE YEARS to get their damn act together and still can't.
They can't tell you what Ford did and what Carter did. They apparently
love them some Jimmy so they give him credit for things HE DID NOT DO.
Facts be damned. In fact, if today's 'movement' has a slogan, that's probably it: "Facts be damned." I'm
really sorry that today's 'movement' thought they could get by without
facts, thought there was no need to educate themselves or others. This isn't the only editorial in the US that's been discussed. It's just the first to make it into print. More may follow. Five
years the 'movement' has wasted. Five years of gas bagging about a
draft -- when there is no draft today. Five years of insisting that
Canada took in draft dodgers -- when there are no draft dodgers today.
Five years of blathering on about crap that doesn't matter. The
only point today's 'movement' should have made regarding Canada
granting asylum to today's war resisters was: "They should because they
welcomed deserters during Vietnam." That's not a difficult sentence. And, unlike what the 'movement' offers today, it is factually correct. Factually correct. Facts are facts. But prepare for the stupidity, here's " Most Canadians say: Let war resisters stay" ( Northumberland Today): As
a member of the Individual Ready Reserve, Glass could still be recalled
to active duty, possibly in Iraq, at any time until July 2010 and be
forced to serve past that date, through the "stop loss" program.Often
described as the "back-door draft", stop-loss legislation allows the U.
S. military to unilaterally extend soldiers' contracts for an
indefinite period of time (in one case, for over 25 years), even after
they have already completed their required tour of duty. Many other
resisters in Canada also face a fate similar to Glass's if the Harper
government continues to ignore Parliament and the majority of Canadians.They
are wrong. Corey Glass is wrong. From another article (the one noted
last night that we're not linking to because it's one error after
another), Glass is quoted stating, "My MOS (Military Occupation
Specialty) typically gets stop-lossed because of the nature of the job
that I was trained to do. And we get stop-lossed a lot." "We" may but
there's no indication that Corey Glass was. What he thinks has happened
is that he may be in the IRR. The IRR is not stop-loss. By his
own statements of what he thinks has happened to him, Corey Glass has
not been stop-lossed. (He signed up in 2002 -- an 8-year contract
presumably which would mean his contracts hasn't expired.) By his own
statements, he appears to have been placed in the IRR. Elaine
was going to grab this topic but now 'editorial boards' are repeating
this LIE so we have to address it here. (She'll still address it
tonight.) Someone should have taken him aside and explained the
facts to him. If he's unable to grasp the facts, keep him away from the
press. Camilo Mejia was stop-lossed. Before his contract
expired, right before, he was informed he had been stop-lossed and was
being extended. The IRR is not "stop-loss." The IRR has a long
history. After you are discharged, you are in the IRR. The IRR is being
abused for a number of reasons today -- including the fact that the
Iraq War is not a national emergency. But Corey Glass was not
stop-lossed and floating the possibility that he might be -- might be!
-- is as much a waste of time as all the other nonsense. And some
editorial board wants to make a case on he might be stop-lossed? Are
the facts too much work? Is it just so much better to 'invent' and
'create'? Heaven forbid anyone deal with the actual facts and merits,
right? He deserted with time still on his contract. He signed up
in 2002, he deserted in 2006. He may now be in the IRR (he may not be).
He has not been stop-lossed. Facts are facts. Here's Tom Squitieri's " Army expanding 'stop loss' order to keep soldiers from leaving" (January 5, 2004, USA Today) reporting on stop-loss: The
Army will announce as early as Tuesday new orders that will forbid
thousands of soldiers from leaving the service after they return this
year from Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts in the war against
terrorism, defense officials said Monday.The
"stop loss" orders mean personnel who could otherwise leave the
military when their volunteer commitments expire will be forced to
remain to the end of their overseas deployments and up to another 90
days after they come home. "Stop movement" orders also bar soldiers
from moving to new assignments during the restricted period. The orders
do not extend any unit's stay overseas.Although
the orders cover all the approximately 160,000 returning troops, the
Army said it estimates only about 7,000 of the returnees will have
their time in the service involuntarily extended. Most deployed
soldiers are not affected because they have service obligations that
extend beyond their current deployments, Army Col. Elton Manske, chief
of the Army's Enlisted Division, said Monday."This
decision is really being driven by the readiness of units and the
absolute intent to keep the units themselves intact down to as low as
the squad and crew level, so we are assured of putting the best
fighting force on the battlefield," Manske said.That's stop-loss. Your contract is not up, you have not been discharged. Individual Ready Reserve is what Adam Kokesh,
Cloy Richards and others were in when the military tried to crack down
on them. They had been discharged. They were in the IRR. It's the same
thing with Matthis Chiroux currently. The IRR and stop-loss are two
different policies. Corey Glass was in the National Guard, he falls under the army. You can click here
for the army's policies re: IRR. In Canada and in the US, Corey Glass
has been called a liar because the army says he is discharged and not a
deserter. If Corey Glass' status changed, it changed without his
knowledge. Glass did not lie on that. But when he then appears to not
know the difference between stop-loss and IRR, he just invites laughter
from the right-wing -- begs for it. And some 'leader' in the Canadian
'movement' should have sat him down and explained it to him. In the US
especially, pro-war bloggers with military experience will pounce on
his statements. They will go to town on him. He invited it. No one
needs speculation about what might happen after 2010. Since Glass
wasn't smart enough to take the army's claim (true or false) and build
a case for staying in Canada with that, his whole story is speculation
after the point he self-checks out. You don't need to pile on further
speculation by saying "And, this one time, at IRR camp, they said that
in two years, I might be stop-lossed." And the 'movement' invites nonsense arguments. Wall St. Journal
is unaware that deserters were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam,
neither's the bulk of the 'movement' and neither is Courtney Whalen.
From Whalen's " Orillians rally for U. S. war resisters: Group urges Ottawa to let ex-soldiers remain in Canada" ( The Packet and Times): While
he said he empathizes with the war resisters, Stanton said the
situation Canada is facing today is different than that of the Vietnam
War, when individuals had no choice about joining the military. At that
time, Canada welcomed so-called draft dodgers."There is a process there they can go through to become conscientious objectors," said Stanton.He will present the Orillia and Midland petitions to the House of Commons when it resumes in the fall."I
think it's a political issue that's worth spreading the news," said
Vivien Abbott. "I think there are quite a number of us who don't feel
it's worth sacrificing some principles for showing friendship to the
Bush administration."Do we need to repeat it? Canada
welcomed deserters. The draft made no difference -- Canada didn't have
a draft. During Vietnam -- draft dodger or deserter, you could get
asylum in Canada (after 1969) and there was no, "You're a deserter?
Well did you freely enlist or were you drafted?" questions. It didn't
matter. How many times is the 'movement' going to play AND be stupid?
This should have been established in 2003. It should have been
established in 2004. It is 2008 and the 'movement' still hasn't
provided the basic education required to fight that revisionary lie.
History is on war resisters in Canada's side. The truth is on their
side. It's too damn bad the 'movement' isn't on their side. All this
time later and the lie continues. Dee Knight's " Canadian court reopens door for U.S. war resisters" ( Workers World): A
Canadian court on July 4 ordered Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board
to review U.S. war resister Joshua Key’s claim for asylum. In a ruling
that could affect many other U.S. war resisters, the court said,
"Military action which systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates
either combatants or non-combatants is capable of supporting a refugee
claim."The court
concluded that the Immigration and Refugee Board imposed "a too
restrictive legal standard" on Key. In a clear statement affecting
other U.S. war resisters, the court also found that "similarly situated
individuals" should have their refugee claims reviewed.Key's
lawyer, Jeffry House, said the ruling is "a huge victory for numerous
soldiers who are here [in Canada] and maybe others who are thinking of
coming here." House himself is a Vietnam-era war resister. A
spokeswoman for Canadian Immigration Minister Diane Finley said her
ministry was reviewing the court decision, which adds another layer of
pressure to let the war resisters stay.The
decision could not come at a better time. A large-scale campaign is
under way in both Canada and the U.S. to press the Canadian government
to stop the deportation of Corey Glass, slated for July 10. Glass would
be the first U.S. war resister to be deported from Canada. The
Toronto-based War Resisters Support Campaign has led a massive effort
in Canada to force the Canadian government to stop his deportation and
respect a majority vote in Parliament on June 3 that called on the
government to stop deportation of U.S. war resisters and let them stay
permanently.A national
poll in June showed that 64 percent of Canadians favor letting the war
resisters stay. Meanwhile, in the U.S., vigils and demonstrations are
taking place at Canadian consulates in 14 cities, organized by Courage
to Resist, Veterans For Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War and
Project Safe Haven.Elliott
Adams, the national president of Veterans For Peace, will visit the
Canadian Embassy in Washington July 10 to deliver an "Open Letter to
the Canadian People and their Government." The letter says, in part:"U.S.
soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who have refused to participate
in this war have shown great moral courage. Unlike many governments
around the world, these war resisters are respecting international law
and following their own consciences. They witnessed war crimes with
their own eyes. They were sickened by the racist attitudes that the
U.S. military fostered toward the Iraqi people. Some are struggling
with the psychological wounds of war, commonly known as Post Traumatic
Stress Syndrome."So it
is from the bottom of our hearts that we thank the many Canadians who
have sheltered our war resisters," the letter says, and concludes with
a strong demand that the Canadian government respect the Parliamentary
vote and the will of the Canadian people, and let the war resisters
stay.Joshua Key went to
Canada with his wife Brandi and their four small children following 16
months living underground in the United States after he decided not to
return to Iraq. He served as a combat engineer in Iraq for eight months
in 2003. His book, "The Deserter's Tale," has been an international
best seller. He said he and his family have felt support from "about 95
percent of the Canadian people."Key's
lawyer, Jeffry House, said there are about 200 U.S. war resisters in
Canada now. While that is "no comparison to the later period of the
Vietnam War," he said, it does compare with the early Vietnam War
period. "Early on during Vietnam there were only a small number, but
later the doors opened more widely," he said. "By November 1969
[Canadian Prime Minister] Trudeau declared Canada 'should be a refuge
from militarism,' and the doors opened and people flooded in." More
than 50,000 U.S. war resisters found refuge--or a new home--in Canada
during the Vietnam War.According
to Gerry Condon of Project Safe Haven, making it possible for war
resisters to stay in Canada is an integral part of building the GI
resistance.Articles
copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of
this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided
this notice is preserved.Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011Email: ww@workers.orgSubscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.netSupport independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.phpI'm dictating this around links I put in earlier. And really want to be done with it. But it needs to be noted that Workers World
has been one of the few outlets to get it right throughout. That's
because they have a historical basis and background. And no need or
desire for political closets. In a nation that treats Communism like a
dirty word (now more than ever), Workers World has demonstrated the
power in that political party and the knowledge in the party as well.
It's that knowledge base -- and the efforts to share it -- that help
explain why Workers World does not make the same repeated mistakes that
so many other outlets do. Lewis notes this from Team Nader: We Welcome Disillusioned Obama Supporters Posted by Greg Kafoury on Wednesday, July 9, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM
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. Gregory Kafoury  The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq tom squitieri joshua key corey glass the wall street journal dee knight courtney whalen
Posted at 03:38 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Patrick Donahue (Bloomberg News) reports AP is stating -- but the DoD has not confirmed -- that Alex Jimenez and Byron Fouty's corpses have been discovered. David Aguila (AP) cites Fouty's step-father as confirmation that the corpses of both were "found in the Iraqi village of Jurf as Sakhr." O'Ryan Johnson (Boston Herald) reports: Jimenez
was assigned to the hard-charging 10th Mountain Division that was
operating inside Iraq hot spots when the battalion was ambushed by
insurgents in May 2007. Five men were killed and three captured."He
always had the hope that he would return back to the city. But due to
ther nature of where he was, it was difficult for him to return alive,"
said Ramon Jimenez, the soldier's father, through a translator.The
bodies of Alex Jimenez and Pfc. Brian Fouty were discovered in the Jurf
As Sakhr region of Iraq and flown back to the United States, where
their dental records were used to confirm the identities, a source
close to the families said. The source said the bodies of both men are
now at Dover Air Force Base. Prior to yesterday, the bodies of only one
of the captured men, Pfc. Joseph Anzac, had been found and identified.ICCC has moved the two over the total for deaths in Iraq since the start of the illegal war bringing that total to 4118. A McClatchy Iraqi correspondent notes the rations program in " Corruption" ( Inside Iraq): Two
days ago, I was talking about few house issues with my wife when she
told me that my brother paid about 100$ just to buy flour to our
family. I was surprised to know that because I usually never asked
about the house needs since I know my youngest brothers take care of
such things. I asked her about the reason because as far as I know, we
get more than our need of flour through the ration food card. She told
me that no family in my neighborhood didn't receive one kilo during the
last three months because the agent of the ministry of trade who
provide part of the neighborhood with the food hadn't receive any for
the last three months.At
the same day (Wednesday), I attended a conference about fighting
corruption in the governmental establishments. The officials talked
about the big efforts they do to fight what they called (the cold
terror) which according to their point of view funds the (hot terror).I
wonder why the officials don't start with the most important ministry,
the ministry of trade since it is concerned with the most important
part of Iraqis' life. The Washington Post offers " Election 2008: Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader" which is a transcript of an online exchange: Staten
Island, N.Y.: Mr. Nader, what exactly is your plan for withdrawal from
Iraq, and how long do you think it would take to implement it? Thank
you.Ralph Nader: The
Nader/Gonzalez plan for the military and corporate withdrawl from Iraq
would be on a six-month timetable. During that period, we urge
UN-sponsored elections, continuation of humanitarian aid, since we owe
it to the devestated Iraqi people, and negotiations with the three
groups: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds regarding a level of autonomy within
the overall framework of a unified Iraq. All three groups want a
unified Iraq but they want some autonomy. By returning Iraq and the oil
back to the Iraqis, the bottom will fall out of the insurgency since
its only objective is to evict the invader/occupier._______________________Pikesville,
Md.: I am a 28-year-old father, husband, student and educator. Would
you be in favor of repealing No Child Left Behind? Do you believe -- as
many educators do -- that NCLB punishes lower-income students/schools
while rewarding the schools that already have a wealth of money and
community support? Explain.Ralph
Nader: The Nader/Gonzalez campaign favors repeal of the No Child Left
Behind law. Narrowly-based multiple choice standardized tests rupture
the relationships between teachers and students and forces the teachers
to teach to the test which themselves are of poor design. States are
gaming the law, violating it and the overwhelming number of teachers
are opposed to it - for good reason. There are far better ways to
stimulate higher qualities of education and their assesment._______________________New
York: Many people I've spoken to have seen your presidential campaigns
as nudging elections toward the republican candidate and not nearly
achieving the votes needed to get third-party status. Can you explain
why they're wrong, or why this time will be different?Ralph
Nader: As long as liberal voters continue to vote for the Democratic
party no matter how badly the party behaves, so long as the Republicans
are worse, the Democratic nominee will take these liberal votes for
granted and move toward right-wing positions and also move toward the
corporate interests that are tugging at the candidate. The only way
this can change is if liberal or progressive voters signal to the
Democratic nominee that they have somewhere else to go. That somewhere
else can be the progressive Nader/Gonzalez campaign otherwise the
liberal/progressive voters will be in a trap and will be taken for
granted. This is already happening with the liberal progressive voters'
relationship with Barack Obama. So it is up to these voters to generate
leverage instead of surrender.We'll come back to Iraq but while we're on Ralph Nader, who is running for president, Oliver notes Nader's " Hey Rush, Get Off Welfare:" Posted by Ralph Nader on Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 04:05:00 PM  Listen to Ralph Nader's audio message here According to press reports, Rush Limbaugh will be making $38 million a year.
For eight years. Rush is making this money by being a radio talk show host. On public property. That would be - the public airwaves. Owned by the American people. For which Rush - and his affiliated companies - pay no rent. Rush Limbaugh is on welfare. Corporate welfare. The public airwaves belong to the American people. The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to be our trustee. The people are the landlords. The radio and TV stations and the corporate giants who own them are the tenants. Rush's show is syndicated on over 650 radio stations. Rush has enormous leverage over these stations. They pay no rent. And therefore, he pays no rent. Here's the problem: Since
the Radio Act was passed in 1927, the corporate tenants have been more
organized and more powerful than the tens of millions of listeners and
viewers. The result? Rush Limbaugh and his corporation get to use the public's valuable property for free. No payment of rent. Zero. Nada. Nothing. This freeloading on the backs of the American people is called corporate welfare. Rush Limbaugh is the Kingboy of corporatist radio. And it's past time he set a corporatist example for his peers and - pay rent to the American people for using their property. It's past time Rush Limbaugh takes himself off the corporate welfare rolls. Rush need not wait for the FCC and Congress to do the right thing and order him to pay. He can lead by example. And
pay voluntary rent - for the hours and hours every month Rush occupies
on the hundreds of stations that carry his show every weekday. And by the way, this fits well within Rush's so-called conservative philosophy. Payment of rent for the use of public airwaves owned by the American people is the conservative position. Real conservatives oppose corporate welfare. Note the Cato Institute's position. Real
corporatists feed off the public trough - from the hundreds of billions
of dollars in corporate welfare gushing out of Washington, D.C. every
year - your tax dollars. So, Rush, today I ask you - which side are you on? Freeloading? Or paying rent for the public property you have been using free for so many years? Today, I mailed a letter to Rush asking him to get off welfare. The letter is posted at votenader.org. Take a look. And then let Rush know what you think. You can e-mail Rush at: ElRushbo@eibnet.com Tell him - hey Rush, I agree with Ralph Nader. Get off welfare. Start paying rent. Onward Ralph Nader PS: We invite your comments to the blog. Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250. Lloyd notes Dana Milbank's " Putting Her Foot Down and Getting the Boot" ( Washington Post): When
Gina Gray took over as the public affairs director at Arlington
National Cemetery about three months ago, she discovered that cemetery
officials were attempting to impose new limits on media coverage of
funerals of the Iraq war dead -- even after the fallen warriors'
families granted permission for the coverage. She said that the new
restrictions were wrong and that Army regulations didn't call for such
limitations.Six weeks after
The Washington Post reported her efforts to restore media coverage of
funerals, Gray was demoted. Twelve days ago, the Army fired her."Had
I not put my foot down, had I just gone along with it and not said
regulations were being violated, I'm sure I'd still be there," said the
jobless Gray, who, over lunch yesterday in Crystal City, recounted what
she is certain is her retaliatory dismissal. "It's about doing the
right thing."Now mark your calendars so you remember the latest military brass claim. From Ann Scott Tyson and Dan Eggan's " U.S. General: Iraqi Forces to Be Fully Ready in '09" ( Washington Post): Iraq's
army and police will be fully manned and operational by mid-2009,
possibly as early as April, the top U.S. general in charge of building
Iraqi security forces said yesterday, signaling the prospect that Iraqi
forces could assume primary combat responsibilities in the country
while U.S. troops shift to a supporting role.Asked
when Iraqi ground forces could handle security so U.S. troops would not
have to, Lt. Gen. James Dubik told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that the
strength of Iraq's ground forces had grown significantly. "The ground
forces will mostly be done by middle of next year; their divisions,
brigades and battalions are on a good timeline," Dubik said in
testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. "Could be as early
as April. Could be as late as August," said Dubik, who until last week
led the effort to train Iraqi forces.Yes, you've heard
it all before. No, it's never been true so far. By the way, to deal
with something here, that doesn't make Ann Scott Tyson or Dan Eggan
liars. They are reporters. There's apparently some barrier in Canada
that allows dumb asses to think that reporters are psychics. The two
did their job even if they stopped there. They didn't stop there. The
next paragraph: While U.S.
commanders' predictions on Iraqi security forces have proven
excessively optimistic in the past, the general's assessment is central
to the debates in Washington and Baghdad over a timeline for when Iraqi
forces can take charge of security, allowing the bulk of the
approximately 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq to withdraw. Had
they left that off, they still would have done their jobs. Adding that
paragraph, that perspective and information, makes them good reporters.
But it's not their job to track down things that don't have to do with
their story. For example, if someone gave them a quote and then later
spoke to an attorney and found out that the quote they gave was wrong,
that wouldn't be the reporters (or any reporter's) fault. There is apt
media criticism. But to make it you probably need to understand what
the media is actually supposed to do ideally. If this isn't clear to you, you didn't e-mail about a stupid article last night. Check out Elaine tonight because I've been about as nice on this topic as I can be and Elaine
will let it rip tonight. (And good for her.) I realize journalism is
confusing -- especially with Panhandle Media, especially with Panhandle Media that employs Lyndon La Rouche-trained 'journalists' to cover Barack Obama. Bad enough The Nation prints them, CounterSpin
interviews them. Lying is not new to someone trained by LLR and
Panhandle Media has no standards. Skip the New York Times, nothing
worth reading. Check out Rebecca's " british government pays for war crimes" and Mike's " More lies from The Progressive and the Falluja slaughter." If you're confused as to the LaRouche-y, a friend asked that we note James Kirchick's " Robert Dreyfuss, Lyndon LaRouche, and The Nation" ( The New Republic) and I'd forgotten until CounterSpin decided Drey-Drey was just the guy-guy to drool over. : Robert Dreyfuss, a contributing editor to The Nation, has written a piece this week entitled "Hothead McCain." I wonder if Dreyfuss would use a similar descriptor for his longtime former employer, the convicted felon and political cult-leader
Lyndon LaRouche. Though Dreyfuss officially left the employ of LaRouche
(in the sense that he does not currently write for LaRouche's
publications, at least not under his own byline), his politics clearly
haven't changed much from the tinfoil hat variety characteristic of the
8-time fringe presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist. Dreyfuss
still spends his days feverishly slumped over his keyboard warning of
neocon conspiracies and shilling for authoritarian regimes--hallmarks
of any good LaRouchite. Now, he just gets published in ostensibly
respectable magazines like The Nation. CounterSpin will
have him on today -- along with the White woman who thought it was okay
to appropriate the works of women of color. It's cute the way CounterSpin no longer just rolls around the gutter but actively rubs urine into its own flesh. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraq patrick donahue oryan johnson dana milbank the washington post ann scott tyson dan eggen like maria said paz mikey likes it sex and politics and screeds and attitude james kirchick
Posted at 03:37 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
Thursday, July 10, 2008
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. We called out the CBC, let's call out the US. Here's Democracy Now! serving up misinformation in 2006: 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.
Now Carter's papers are a joke -- you will discover he decided to reinstate Selective Service registration in October of 1979 even though he would announce it in his January 1980 State of the Union speech. But you have the realtime coverage on PBS (the program that is now The NewsHour) and you can watch it online, you can read it online. And though the CBC is shaky on that era today, they do have archives. (We link to it on the permalinks to the left.) You can watch their " Amnesty -- but not for all" from January 21, 1977 online and here's their text summary of the report: 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? The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. iraqi hate the warthe balletmikey likes itrobert trumbullpaul wilnertom wickerdalia hashadlaw and disorderdemocracy nowamy goodmansir! no sir!
Posted at 11:16 pm by thecommonills
Permalink
|
 |
|
|
|
|