Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meeting here on Thursday with representatives of the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, raised the idea of imposing unspecified sanctions on Iran, but she received a decidedly cool reaction from China and Russia.
Her proposal came a day after the Security Council approved a statement criticizing the Iranian nuclear program that was a result of heavy compromise. Previously, she had said that sanctions were a possibility but that it was premature to discuss them.
The above is from Joel Brinkley's "Rice Floats the Idea of U.N. Sanctions on Iran, but China and Russia Reject It" in this morning's New York Times. Shocking, we're sure, but it appears that what Wally termed "THE NAH-NAH-NAH-NO-ONE-LIKES-YOU! STRATEGY" didn't quite pan out for her.
How will things pan out in the Senate today? Remember Arlen Specter's pushing for Russ Feingold's proposal for censure of the Bully Boy to come to a vote. Markus notes John Nicols'
"Russ Feingold's Legal Firepower" (The Online Beat, The Nation):
Congressional Democrats have pretty much abandoned their Constitutionally-mandated responsibility to check and balance the excesses to the executive branch – so much so that the one Democrat who seeks to hold President Bush to account for ordering the warrantless wiretapping of American's telephone conversations accuses for party's leaders of "cowering."
So where is Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold finding support?
Among Republicans. Or, more precisely, among prominent alumni of past Republican administrations.
When the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes as extraordinary session on Friday to consider the Feingold's motion to censure the president for ordering federal agencies to engage in eavesdropping in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's requirement that judicial approval be obtained for wiretaps of Americans in the United States, the dissenting senator will call two witnesses.
Making arguments about the extreme seriousness of the warrantless wiretapping issue -- and the need for a Congressional response -- will be noted constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, who served in President Ronald Reagan's Department of Justice as Deputy Attorney General, and author and legal commentator John Dean, who served at Richard Nixon's White House counsel before breaking with the president to reveal the high crimes and misdemeanors of the Watergate era.
On the same topic, Martha notes Zachary A. Goldfarb's "A Rebuke Rarely Exercised: As a Weapon, a Censure Motion Lacks Muscle" (Washington Post):
The question of censure is once again before Congress. This morning, the Senate Judiciary Committee meets to discuss a resolution introduced by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) that would rebuke President Bush for his secret surveillance program. Old newspaper clippings and historical writings show that censure has a mixed record as an effective means for Congress to express disapproval of presidents.
Thirty-four years after the Adams episode, in March of the second year of the second term of President Andrew Jackson, the Senate rebuked the president in what remains the most famous case of censure.
In the campaign of 1832, Jackson and his opponent, Whig Party leader Sen. Henry Clay, had debated vigorously the merits of the Second Bank of the United States -- whose recharter Jackson had vetoed. After the president was reelected, the Whigs, who held a Senate majority over Jackson's Democrats, demanded a document he had read to his Cabinet regarding the bank.
When the president refused, according to Senate historians, the Senate voted 26 to 20 to declare the president "in derogation" of the Constitution. Jackson responded with a lengthy protest.
That was not the end of the story.
Three years later, Democrats regained the Senate majority and sought to repeal the censure. They called for the 1834 Senate journal to be brought forward, and the "secretary took up his pen, drew black lines around the censure text, and wrote 'Expunged,' " Senate historians have noted. "The chamber erupted in Democratic jubilation. . . . Dressed in the deep black of a mourner, Henry Clay lamented: 'The Senate is no longer a place for any decent man.' "
One reason censure has not had much legitimacy as a tool for rebuke is that it is expressed by a congressional resolution without the force of law, and "you can express a resolution that apple pie and motherhood are good for American life," says professor William W. Van Alstyne of the College of William & Mary law school. Yet it has kept on coming up.
Rod passes on this scheduled topic for today's Democracy Now!:
* EXCLUSIVE: An hour with Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned linguist and political analyst. When the New York Times called him "arguably the most important intellectual alive" Chomsky responded, "What did I say wrong?" His new book is "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy"
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
joel brinkley
democracy now
noam chomsky
john nichols
the washington post
Zachary A. Goldfarb
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
And the war drags on . . . (Indymedia Roundup)
Teach-in on the War in Iraq -- FIU April 5th.
Join the many FIU organizations that oppose the war; come hear professors, students, and veterans speak out against the war in Iraq. There will be workshops to explain how this war affects us in all facets of life including women’s rights, healthcare, military recruitment of students, economics, and others. APRIL 5th ALL DAY from 12 PM -- 8 PM FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAMPUS ROOM GC (GRAHAM CENTER) ROOM: 140..... SEE YOU THERE!!!
Bill asked if we could open with this item. It's Sonja Swanson's "Teach-in on the War in Iraq -- Florida International University April 5th" (Miami Indymedia). We can and will. Students have been making themselves heard all week. In the United States and in France, they've shown that they aren't the apethetic crowd the media portrays them as. Cokie Roberts is probably shocked and we'll use Pinata Roberts to note a non-Iraq war related story.
Because it takes a nation of gas bags to provide you with National (Not Really) Public Radio, Juan Williams did the Cokie duties this week. From Media Matter's "PR's Williams on immigration protesters: 'These kids don't know anything':"
Apparently ignoring the admonishment of NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams roundly dismissed student protestors in Los Angeles, who were among the hundreds of thousands of protesters in cities nationwide demonstrating against legislation set to impose harsher penalties on illegal immigrants, saying on the March 29 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
WILLIAMS: These kids don't know anything. ...
They don't know anything? Well good Lord, get them in front of an NPR microphone immediately! They've already met the basic requirement for all on air NPR "talent."
Juan knows nothing (and never has). That's why he uses the term "illegal." It's not p.c. to call them "undocumented." It is the correct legal term and Juan might want to sit down with Totes (Nina Totenberg) if he's so unaware of the legal correctly term. NPR might want to insist that Juan sit down with Totenberg and possibly sit in on some sort of awareness gathering since he also mocks the students for being "poor" (among other things). Now we all know NPR is flying high on the McMoney windfall. But the way they're spending it, they're going to be begging for donations more so than ever in a few year's time. Let's hope that not only the Latino community but everyone remembers that Juan made fun of students, explained they know nothing (apparently because they are "poor") and generally made a real ass out of himself.
I've been waiting for the consensus of the community. But this has made too angry to continue to wait in silence.
Juan Williams has so grossly overstepped the bounds of reporting that I'll speak for me on this and say NPR will never get another cent from me, never another call, letter or personal appeal to an elected official. They won't discipline Juan Williams for his vile remarks. Real discipline would mean saying, "You're fired." Play discipline would mean saying "You are no longer going on any program to play expert." They won't do either. What he stated was so grossly offensive that it's truly an "Only on Fox" moment; however, he doesn't make the bulk of his money from Fox. NPR, PBS, that's his bread and butter. (And the way he's packed on the pounds in the last decade he should be on a bread butter diet.)
He makes a (false) comparison to the civil rights era. So let's follow that up. Would he be allowed to go on TV and get away with saying, of African-American children, that they don't know anything, that they're poor, etc.? Not today he wouldn't. But somehow he thinks it's okay for him to do so with regards to Latinos.
He gets away with everything, so does Mara Liar-Liasson. He got away with comparing David Letterman on air to John Wayne Gacy (Gacy -- the serial killer). But hey, Dvorkin looked the other way and never commented when, in the midst of the 2004 presidential election, NPR brought on the husband of one Dick Cheney's employees to critique John Kerry. NPR never told listeners about that connection. They presented him as a disinterested commentator. When called on it, they still ignored it. There is nothing public about NPR. And watch and see, the most Williams will get for his highly offensive remarks is a mild dressing down. He'll still be on Fox gassing up the place with his hot air. He'll probably keep his head low for a few months (the way Mara did after she accused Congressmen of being "a disgrace" -- outstanding liarism, Mara) and that's the most that will happen. Were NPR truly public radio, he'd be shown the door (as he should be).
Now would Juan be able to say what he said on Fox "under his own byline" as the NPR guidelines demand? No, he wouldn't. If he did say that in one of their pre-recorded bits, it would be edited out and not make the air. This made the air. This is shameful and it's embarrasing. So NPR's perfectly happy allowing their liarists to go on Fox and practice liarism and they expect that listeners will just have to accept them on NPR because, after all as Cokie proves, inability to do the job properly has never resulted in on air "talent" losing a job.
Enjoy the Krock money while it lasts. My guess is Renee Montange will soon find out that there's far worse 'sacrifices' than having to sleep in a sleazy motel. (With all the sleaze in the NPR recording studios, you'd think she'd be right at home. Ha-ha-ha, back to you Steve. You are listening to NPR made possible by a grant from Wal-Mart . . .)
It's Thursday, it's indymedia roundup. The focus? Iraq. Helen notes (it's in PDF format) Rachel Greg and Sosmo Garvin's "Too many and Counting" (graphics by Don Button and David Jayne, Boulder Weekly). If you're able to view (and want to), it's two pages of facts and graphs. According to their graphs, the largest number of American troop fatalities have been under twenty-two years-old. They also note that the average monthly (monetary) cost of the war (figures from The Institute for Policy Studies) is $5.6 billion. (A half a million more per month than Vietnam cost when the figures are adjusted for inflation.) Per person, the running total (National Priorites Project) is $984 and the total US monetary cost (same source) is $246,236,390,000.
I'll note, cost for lying a nation into war: Impeachment.
In the meantime Iraqis and troops pay the cost. (As do their friends and families. As do the countries involved. We're all effected by this illegal war of choice.) Last Thursday, the American troops fatality count in Iraq stood at 2320. Currently? 2327. Seven more. Is it worth that to you? Should we have Bully Boy on TV doing "charity" commercials? "For the cost of one life a day, the United States can continue to fight my illegal war . . ."
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
It drags on and it drags on. We passed the three year mark. We're now into the fourth year. And Bully Boy says it's for "future presidents" (real ones, presumably) to decide when it all ends. Really? Is that how it works in a democracy? We vote and that's it. We vote and we have no say until the next election?
That's not how it works in a democracy. We can demand action. We can hold our elected officials responsible at the polls absolutely. But we don't need to wait for an election to make our voices heard. That's what the protests are about, that's what speaking out is about, that's what contacting your officials is about, that's what saying "no" is about. The power of "no" is not to be underestimated.
Bully Boy lied a nation into war with the help of the mainstream media. And on that, we've got two highlights. Carl notes George E. Curry's "The Media's War of Words" (The Chicago Defender):
As the U.S. begins Year 4 of its occupation of Iraq, the media cannot look at its behavior over the past three years and declare victory. In fact, when it comes to telling the truth, many journalists and commentators have surrendered without putting up a fight.
A compilation of the media's greatest hits or, biggest flops has been assembled by the watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and can be found online at [FAIR]. From the outset of the war, the public's watchdogs have been serving as the Bush administration's lapdogs.
Fox News Channel Brit Hume is one of Bush's leading cheerleaders
The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, we got it wrong, Humes said in a speech in Richmond, Va. They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong. [Richmond Times Dispatch 4/25/04]
Fellow conservative Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the Washington Post, sounds a similar alarm.
The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington. [Inside Washington 4/19/03]
One of the newspapers read by Upper Westside liberals in New York was not to be outdone by its Washington competitor. Times reporter David Carr said: Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right. [4/16/03]
The direct link to that piece is "'The Final Word Is Hooray!' Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits" and Rebecca noted it in her "Never Cheerlead An Illegal War" post. We'll note the first verse of the lyrics (to Bachrach and Davis' "Never Fall In Love Again") that Rebecca wrote for that post:
what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
bit of reality to burst your bubble.
that's what you get for all your trouble
mara liasson, never cheerlead a war again.
The professional liarist Mara Liasson. Like a bad case of Herpes, she just doesn't go away, does she?
Mia notes Omar Barghouti's "When is Killing Arab Civilians Considered a Massacre?" (CounterPunch) for some perspective on the cost for Iraqis (among others -- the article focuses on more than Iraq) and the way the media (and the west) avoid dealing with it:
Recent reports from Iraq indicate beyond doubt that the U.S. occupation army has embarked on a new "tactic" from its menu of atrocities, in an attempt to counter the burgeoning Iraqi resistance attacks against its soldiers. "Old-style" massacres of Iraqis have become so commonplace lately that even Iraqi "allies" of the U.S. were forced to unreservedly condemn them.
Among Western governments, alas, silence prevails. After all, the massacre victims are only Arabs. Not only is there an alarming apathy towards the horrifying spread of this phenomenon, but there is also a despicable aversion to calling it by its name. At the same time, many in the West go up in arms condemning the "massacre" of seals, whales, dolphins or a few white men anywhere around the world.
"Modern" massacres, that is the indiscriminate bombing -- which last year included the use of phosphorus -- of Iraqi civilian neighborhoods in "unruly" cities like Falluja and Qa'im, have always been a standard U.S. and British tactic. But those "clean," remotely-executed and hi-tech acts of state terrorism were always easier for the world's only empire and its lackeys to defend and present as "precision" targeting of "the enemy," especially to a pathetically obedient media. The direct, messy murder of civilians, particularly by tying their hands and shooting them in the head, execution style, has not been as common, although it was practiced in several reported incidents in Iraq since the invasion. Now it is being reported more often, but in language that in effect, if not always by intention, leads to sanitizing it, even to normalizing it as a nasty, yet unavoidable, part of "war." If this evasion from using the term massacre is not deliberate, it can only reflect a deep-seated racism among western journalists who cannot use the same ethical or professional standards in reporting the killings of Arab civilians that they normally use when dealing with "white" victims in comparable situations.
Santaization comes in many forms. For instance, how did the press report on the New York Times front page (though not as prominent as other stories on the front page that day) report that Bully Boy wanted war (despite what he told the people), that he and Blair didn't believe that there were WMDs (ditto and British members -- and Europeans -- are quite aware that the same roll out of lies that went on in the United States went on in England via Blair) and that the idea of using a disguised plane to provoke a first action from Saddam Hussein (to which we would then "bravely" respond) was tossed around?
West notes Media Matter's "Media ignored, underreported NY Times disclosure of explosive Bush-Blair memo" (and West noted the prior MM item as well):
In light of these statements, the January 31 memo -- and the Times' verification of it -- is obviously significant. Nonetheless, numerous news outlets have failed to cover the story at all, or in some cases failed to cover it adequately. Fox News has ignored it entirely. A Media Matters for America survey of Fox's full March 27 coverage (6 a.m.-11 p.m. ET) and partial March 28 coverage (6 a.m.-noon ET) failed to turn up a single mention of the memo.
Similarly, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today all declined to run articles on the memo in their March 28 editions. Both the Associated Press and Reuters have failed to report on the story thus far. By contrast, United Press International ran two articles on March 27 -- one on the memo and one on the White House's reaction to the Times piece.
The major networks covered the Times' disclosure of the memo, but their reports varied greatly in the degree to which they conveyed its significance. On the March 27 edition of the CBS Evening News, for instance, anchor Russ Mitchell asked CBS' chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about the document after her report on recent sectarian violence in Iraq. Logan noted that, according to the document, Blair and Bush believed that there was "unlikely to be warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups in Iraq." But even though the Evening News noted the document in this context, the newscast failed to report the other aspect of the memo: that it contradicted Bush's public claims that he wanted to resolve the Iraq issue diplomatically. Earlier in the day, however, CBS Morning News anchor Susan McGinnis noted the Times' disclosure of the memo and described Bush as "reportedly determined to invade Iraq no matter what the outcome of diplomatic efforts."
On the March 23 edition of ABC's World News Tonight, anchor Elizabeth Vargas simply reported that the memo "paints President Bush as eager to provoke Saddam Hussein into war." While she referred to Bush and Blair's discussion of ways to prompt an attack from Hussein and their reported lack of concern about sectarian violence following the Iraq invasion, Vargas made no mention of the document's broader relevance.
By contrast, that morning on ABC's Good Morning America, host Robin Roberts briefly mentioned the memo in her rundown of the day's news and noted that it portrayed Bush as "bent on invading Iraq no matter what." Similarly, on the March 27 edition of NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams introduced a report on the story as follows: "In the weeks before the invasion of Iraq, as President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they were pursuing all options for avoiding a war, a leaked British memo strongly suggests something very different was going on behind closed doors." In the subsequent report, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell noted that Bush and Blair "were officially on a diplomatic track, but a secret memo now reveals they were determined to go to war six weeks before invading Iraq."
Two things. First Micah's comments (which he asked me to summarize -- if I get it wrong, let me know). Direct quote: "The Village Voice is dead." Summary, the Times story this week, not noted by The Village Voice. The Voice falls silent. More puff pieces. James Ridgeway writes of Josh Bolton. Puff pieces of the "Things that make you go hmmm . . ." nature (semi-direct quote). Since the paper was purchased by the syndicate, the life's gone out of it. Summary statement: It's now a lifestyle weekly, not a news weekly. Not surprisng considering what passes for news in some of the other papers the same corp owns.
Micah's feelings are echoed by other members. That's one of the reasons for last Thursday's entry. (The commentary about news and "news" weeklies that just waste everyone's time.) Other than what's gone up here (and possibly a few suggested highlights that didn't make the cut), I haven't read the weekly in years. I do know that members feel that it's gone downhill and I do know that for Micah (who loved that paper) to say it's dead is pretty damning criticism.
Second. I will hear from friends in the mainstream media if I don't note the following. Do not read it as a defense of the mainstream media, do not read it as "We need to just stop holding them accountable!" or any other nonsense. This is their view (and during the Alito hearings, we had two reporters participating in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin who made this point). That's why some don't feel they can go out on limb.
Let's pretend Don van Natta, Jr. is a member of the community. (He's not, he wrote the Times' story so we're using him.) DvNJ would go all out to break the story and that might entail selling his editor and higher ups on the story. (Especially at the Timid.) He sells them on it. The story's printed. And the rest of the press yawns and averts its eyes.
Now that's bad enough in real life if something like that happens to any one of us among our friends. But the press is perceived power. Right away the perception is lowered. Add to that it's not a scoop, an important story, unless the rest of the media agrees. (History can alter that, as has been the case for Robert Parry -- fortunately still alive, luckily for us -- and Gary Webb -- not so fortunate.) It's not just egg on your face. Not for that profession.
What does the press do? Reports. What does it do (on TV, radio and print) , report mainly on what others are reporting. If you broke the story and it doesn't have traction, you didn't do anything. (In the eyes of the press.) And you have risked lowering both your own perceived power and that of the organization you are working for.
That's not a defense. That's not a justification. That's not to say don't criticize. Or that you need to watch your words. That is, however, the way a number of them feel. Judge had a great column in the roundrobin last month and he noted that he'd asked that I note it here (by summarzing it). I said to take it to the round-robin because, friend or not, it's not this site's function to present the Republican point of view (and when I attempted to write it up, that's how it felt). In his column, he explained his perceptions of the Clinton era and why he and some others were genuinely outraged. If I'd done that, I know it would have read as a defense (and I did try twice to write an entry on that before giving up.) We don't make a point to note Republican points of view. We're a site for the left. (With Judge as one of our token Republican members -- he'll laugh when he reads that and not take offense, we've been friends long enough to kid.) However, we do note the mainstream media and we do have members who are a part of it. For that reason, and the nature of the item itself, I thought we should note their take. I am not endorsing their take, I'm not dismissing their take. I'm saying it's their take. They'll need to live with it and we'll need to do what we do.
The peace march that was largely ignored? Francisco's request for coverage resulted in members trying very hard to locate coverage. We have two items on it tonight. First up, Belinda notes Gustavo Arellano's "Peace And Video Games: A visit to an Army recruiting station" (Orange County Weekly):
The blips and flashes of a PlayStation greeted Fernando Suárez del Solar as he entered the Santa Ana Army Career Center on March 15. He cradled a picture of his son Jésus, a Marine lance corporal who died in Iraq in 2003 after stepping on an undetonated cluster bomb dropped by American forces.
About 30 other people squeezed into the tiny recruiting center after Suárez. The office was sparsely decorated. Posters lined the walls. Venetian blinds hung limply. There was a table and a cabinet. An American flag. A rack of pamphlets in English and Spanish stood next to the entrance. And to the side of the rack was a couch and a television topped with toy tanks. A tall, goateed teen sat on a couch, eyes fixed on the television as he thumbed his way through a video combat game.
Suárez and his supporters visited the Career Center two days into their Latino Moratorium March, a trek for peace that started in Tijuana and ends March 27 in San Francisco. Suárez has two simple goals: he wants military recruiters to stop lying to Latino kids about the Iraq War, and he wants Latino parents to understand exactly what’s in store for the average grunt who ships off to Iraq.
Brandon found a March 21st article by Minnie Bruce Pratt. From "'Walking to New Orleans' to show solidarity" (Workers World):
Some marching were neither veterans nor survivors but had either been born in the South or lived there at some time--people who identified their home towns as Jackson, Miss.; Carbondale, Ala.; Macon, Ga.; Memphis, Tenn.; Baltimore; Orlando, Fla.; Houston, Texas; and other deep and border Southern towns—as well as at least 16 states outside the South.
Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in the current Iraq war and drew national attention to the opposition of military families to the war by camping out at President George Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, participated on the march.
Stephen Funk, the gay Filipino Marine who was the first Iraq war resister, marched, as did conscientious objector Sgt. Camilo Mejía. Both Funk and Mejía emphasized the intertwining of injustice--in the hypocritical discrimination of a U.S. "don't ask, don't tell" military that recruits lesbian and gay people as cannon fodder while denying their very identity--and in the fate of Latin@ soldiers driven to enlistment by the poverty draft and immigrants who join the armed services in desperation to get citizenship for themselves and their families.
Note that the article also includes audio links. The peace march took part in that event and, for listeners of RadioNation with Laura Flanders on March 18th, that's where Camilo Mejia was speaking from.
Need more activism? Brady steers us to a report on war resister Ben Griffin. From Alistair Highet's "Observer: Vietnam All Over Again" (Hartford Advocate):
As was reported worldwide, but very poorly here, Griffin was an exemplary soldier with eight years experience with the Parachute Regiment and the SAS, having served in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Macedonia. The 28-year-old told a military review board that he refused to go back to Iraq and fight because U.S. troops treated all Iraqis as "untermenschen," the term that Nazis used to describe the races they thought were inferior. Griffin went on to say that the American military's "gung-ho and trigger-happy mentality" meant that it was impossible for the coalition forces to ever win the trust of Iraqis. "I did not join the British army to conduct American foreign policy," he said.
Apparently, Griffin expected to be court-martialed. Instead, he was discharged from the army, and described by the tribunal hearing his case as a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions."
Let me spell out what this means explicitly. This means that the British army is basically saying, "We agree with this guy, this war is being conducted badly, and we shouldn't have to fight it alongside the Americans."
Though it is unclear what "illegal" acts Griffin is referring to, there are have been several recent reports of atrocities committed by U.S. troops. I refer you to the full account of one in Time magazine's article, "One Morning in Haditha," filed on March 19, in which eyewitnesses claim that U.S. Marines, upset after a colleague was killed by a roadside bomb, ran into a series of houses killing 23 people, 15 of whom were clearly civilians, including women. Nine-year-old Eman Waleed told Time that the Marines entered her living room while her family was still in their nightclothes. "I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest then in the head. Then they killed my granny." Initially, the U.S. military claimed the civilians were killed by a roadside bomb until confronted with Time's information, which included testimony from doctors who saw the bodies in the hospital and confirmed that the civilians were "shot in the chest and the head from close range."
Sunday, Miranda noted one of our permalinks War Resisters Support Campaign and how it contained bios of some war resisters who'd gone to Canada. One of which was Ryan Johnson. Gareth was paying attention, Miranda. Gareth notes that he was going to send this in just for the topic but he's highlighted Ryan Johnson so we can all "get a closer look." From Duncan Campbell's "Soldiers flee to Canada to avoid Iraq duty" (The Guardian of London):
Ryan Johnson, 22, from near Fresno in California, was due to be deployed with his unit to Iraq in January last year but crossed the Canadian border in June and is seeking asylum. "I had spoken to many soldiers who had been in Iraq and who told me about innocent civilians being killed and about bombing civilian neighbourhoods," he told the Guardian.
"It's been really great since I've been here. Generally, people have been really hospitable and understanding, although there have been a few who have been for the war." He is now unable to return to the US. "I don't have a problem with that. I'm in Canada and that's that."
Mr Johnson said it was unclear exactly how many US soldiers were in Canada but he thought 400 was a "realistic figure". He had been on speaking tours across the country as part of a war resisters' movement and had come across other servicemen living underground.
Jeffry House, a Toronto lawyer who represents many of the men, said that an increasing number were seeking asylum. "There are a fair number without status and a fair number on student visas," he said, and under UN guidelines on refugee status they were entitled to seek asylum.
Also paying attention was Zach who found an article about Brandon Hughey and Dan Felushka and we're going to focus on Felushka for this entry (we'll note Hughey Sunday -- I'm not familiar with Felushka and don't believe we've ever noted him before). From Oakland and San Francisco's NBC 11, here's "U.S. Soldiers Head North To Seek Asylum: Canada Gave Asylum To Vietnam War Defectors:"
Dan Felushka joined the Marines because he wanted to be trained by the best, and he believed in the mission.
"We were training for war and we were trained to respond to 9/11," Felushka said. "I was gung-ho for it. Totally into it, into the idea of responding to an attack made against Americans that made sense."
Felushka was based out of Camp Pendleton. He says boot camp was one of the best experiences of his life.
"I loved boot camp," he said. "It was hard. I learned to push myself hard. I liked the training. I met cool guys who I got really close to really fast."
[. . .]
It's similar to how Hughey feels.
"I'm not going to give the ultimate sacrifice or shoot at somebody else or cause grief in their family for the rest if their lives for a cause my government can't even justify," he said. "For me, personally, I couldn't deal with that."
Felushka ultimately left his Southern California Marine troop for similar reasons.
"I wasn't prepared to be put in that situation by the government, having to participate in acts of violence against people without just cause," he said. "They just flat out weren't able to convince me it was justified."
Felushka says leaving was one of the most important decisions of his life.
"The only inalienable right that I have as a human being, regardless of your country of birth, is my right to choose between right and wrong," he said. "It leaves me here with my conscience intact to deal with the rest of my life."
"Is it indymedia?" wondered Zach in his e-mail. "It's a local station and not an NBC report as far as I know. That's independent. But in the end, all that matters is that while so many aren't telling these stories, this station did." I couldn't agree more.
Jeremy Hinzman and people with stories like his and completely different from his, all our a part of the social fabric ripped by this illegal war. Norman Solomon was a guest on KPFA's The Morning Show and Ruth and I spoke about his appearance ("Friday Ms. Lewis interviewed Norman Solomon" which Ruth noted here). A caller wondered about purchasing. She was of the opinion that this was one way for her to make herself heard -- avoid purchasing anything beyond the necessities. Solomon's response was a wise one (no surprise there), everyone needs to do something to say no to this war and if this was her way of saying "no" then she should pursue it.
People are saying "no" to the war. Thanks to Francisco and Miranda, the community really searched for stories (members always do, but they really put in time this week) that told the stories (stories -- plural) of this war. The stories are out there but they aren't often covered. (Of course Democracy Now! always does a wonderful job of covering them. I say that partly because it is, of course, true and partly because I was really hoping to have time to note something from an interview Amy Goodman did this week. There's not time. And, warning, don't expect much from tomorrow morning's entry/entries, I'm wiped out.) These are stories. Media Matters covers the media coverage. That is their designated role. They do a wonderful job of it. But it does sometimes seem, as Joan put it, as though everyone was covering the same story and "huge numbers goes untold." Francisco asked for coverage of the peace march and members had to look high and low for something that didn't get a great deal of attention. Members found coverage. (We'll continue to note any other coverage members find -- non-attack coverage. Rob found a hideous article and noted it not for it to be highlighted but just to pass on how intense the hatred towards those who speak out is. I'd argue that a graduate student of fifty is either someone who's still learning -- good for him -- or someone who flounders through life as poorly as he writes.) Miranda found one way to put a face on some of the war resisters and it did register. From the west coast to England, Gareth heard and he remembered.
The movement, like the war, has many faces, many stories. We can't control what others do (certainly not the mainstream media), but I'm really impressed with the efforts members put in. Not just the ones who found highlights. I'm impressed with members like Joey and Kansas and Rachel who wrote in to say they hadn't found anything but they were still looking and would advise that if I was looking skip this or skip that because it had nothing. These were long lists of sources they had checked. (Which underscored how little is being told about this war and this movement.) Those are three names that stand out. They weren't the only ones to write in like that. (I'm tired and my apologies for not being able to recall everyone by name on this.)
There are many ways to say "no" and people are making their protests heard. I say all that both because I am so impressed with the community's hard work on this and also because it leads into the additional lyric for this week. (Remember that the next round of voting for songs goes up in the gina & krista round-robin for the second Friday of April.) Say "no"?
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
For I stole California from the Mexican land
Fought in the bloody Civil War
Yes I even killed my brother
And so many others
And I ain't marchin' anymore
-- "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" (written and recorded by Phil Ochs on the album of the same name)
Remember the resolutions towns in Vermont passed to impeach the Bully Boy? Wendy notes an article on one person and one area involved. From Kathyrn Casa's "Impeach! The shot heard 'round the world" (Vermont Guardian):
As patriots go, Dan DeWalt looks the part. With his ponytail and winter beard, a pair of breeches and a musket would put him right into character in 1775.
But it was no act earlier this month when DeWalt fired the opening salvo of his revolution. Only this time, the shot heard 'round the world came not from a rebel in Massachusetts but from a selectman in Vermont. And rather than start a shooting war, it was meant to put a stop to one.
DeWalt, 49, is as mystified as anybody at his international star status as the author of a town meeting resolution, which Newfane voters passed 121-29, calling for the impeachment of Pres. George Bush, in part because he "used falsehoods to lead our nation to war unsupported by international law."
Other cities and towns have passed similar measures, including San Francisco. Newfane was the first of five Vermont towns to do so -- Brattleboro was expected to take it up at representative town meeting on Saturday. At least six Vermont Democratic County Committees have also voted in favor of impeachment proceedings.
But it has been DeWalt -- a carpenter and musician with no television, who reads history books, trolls international shortwave radio broadcasts for news, and until this month had never seen film footage from 9/11 -- who has captured international attention from of the likes of The Economist, the U.K. Guardian and The Toronto Star.
The story of his challenge to Bush has been posted on websites in Australia, South Africa, the Basque region of Spain, and covered throughout the United States, from The Dallas Morning News to CNN and USA Today. By the time the Vermont Guardian caught up with him, he been interviewed 25 times. Reuters had just left and The Boston Globe's photographer was on the way up.
He has also been lambasted and lampooned. The conservative Washington Times saw fit to report his annual income, his marital status, and even his choice of footwear (Birkenstocks). The Associated Press story was posted on "The Terrorism Knowledge Base," a self-proclaimed "comprehensive databank of global terrorist incidents and organizations."
No sooner did the Newfane news hit the wire than reactions started pouring in. Accustomed to companionable leaf-peepers and endorphin-jazzed skiers, postcard-perfect Newfane was suddenly in the midst of political controversy.
Lenore Salzbrunn, the president of the Newfane Business Association who at town meeting had tearfully defended the president, later fretted about tourism cancellations and told a reporter: "We need to stop adding to the negative news about Vermont."
Portland writes, "This is a small item but I would like it included in the indymedia roundup both since it's indymedia and also because Russ Feingold is the only Democrat I will support for President. If he loses the nomination, I'm not sure how I'll vote. I'll probably look into the Green Party and weigh my decision." From "News" (Eugene Weekly):
FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT?
The March 18 demonstration against the Iraq War held in Eugene also marked the kick-off of a Feingold for President campaign in the Northwest.
Among the signs carried by supporters of Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush were: "Russ as President is Fein(gold) With Me," "Reform Elections with Feingold," and "Back Feingold for President to End War."
Russ Feingold, a senator from Wisconsin, is being compared to Oregon's Sen. Wayne Morse of the 1950s and '60s. Morse was one of only two senators who voted against President Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin proposal that turned Vietnam into full-scale war.
"For a thinking electorate," says John Saemann of Eugene, "Feingold is our only alternative. Too many Democrats have chosen the coward's way, supporting Bush's war. Even our Sen. Ron Wyden, who as a college student was a driver for Morse, trashed Morse's principles when he refused to support the Feingold resolution to censure Bush."
For information on the local campaign, contact Saemann at 687-7112 or George Beres at 344-0282.
Noted and included. Remember members can do endorsements. You can write a statement to share like Portland has, or you can just note that you support the candidate of your highlight and we'll note it here. Pru gets the final highlight, Alex Callinicos' "Bush: telling tales from Tal Afar" (Great Britain's The Socialist Worker):
The rescue of Norman Kember and his fellow hostages in Baghdad is a tiny glimmer of light in an Iraqi picture that remains uniformly grim. John Reid's gung-ho remarks on his recent visit to Iraq simply provided further evidence of the defence secretary’s very troubled relationship to reality.
He’s not the only one, of course. George Bush greeted the third anniversary of the outbreak of the war by desperately pointing to what he presented as a US success in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar. "The example of Tal Afar," he told an audience in Cleveland, Ohio, last week, "gives me confidence in our strategy."
Coincidentally the Washington Post has reported in depth on the city as part of a series of very interesting reports on the war in Iraq. Tal Afar, 40 miles east of Mosul, has been a major base of operations for the resistance.
Last summer the US Third Armoured Cavalry Regiment was assigned responsibility for the city. By the time it left in February, attacks had fallen, according to US military intelligence, from six to one a day.
The Third Armoured Cavalry used a combination of building a wall around the city, flooding it with patrols, methodical intelligence work, developing links with the local population, and working closely with Iraqi forces.
But when the Post checked up on Tal Afar after Bush's speech it found that US control had weakened again. Guerrillas were slipping back into the city, sectarian killings and kidnappings were on the increase, and US troops were concentrating on protecting themselves.
Tougher nut
This is a typical picture of the Iraqi war. The occupation forces can stem the tide in a problem area by concentrating elite troops there, but, once they relax the effort because of demands elsewhere, their successes are quickly washed away.
The Post's original report on Tal Afar pointed out, "The biggest problem US troops face in Iraq is Baghdad, a city about 30 times the size of Tal Afar. With the current number of American troops in Iraq, it would be impossible to copy the approach used here, with outposts every few blocks.
"'Baghdad is a much tougher nut to crack than this,' said Major Jack McLaughlin... Standing in the castle overlooking the city, he said, 'It's a matter of scale -- you'd need a huge number of troops to replicate what we've done here'."
This was, of course, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's original folly -- the idea that Iraq could be conquered and held by a small hi?tech force.
Another in-depth Post piece reports, "The biggest difference in Baghdad from two or three years ago is the nearly total absence of US troops on its streets. In a major gamble, the city largely has been turned over to Iraqi police and army troops. If those Iraqi forces falter, leaving a vacuum, US pressure elsewhere could push the insurgency into the capital."
There are other dangers with this policy of "Iraqisation", which is, according to the defence analyst Stephen Biddle, "the main component of the current US military strategy". Writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, he argues that this "throws gasoline on the fire. Iraq's Sunnis perceive the 'national' army and police as a Shia-Kurdish militia on steroids...
"And the more threatened the Sunnis feel, the more likely they are to fight back even harder. The bigger, stronger, better trained, and better armed the Iraqi forces become, the worse the communal tensions that underlie the whole conflict will get."
In fact, of course, what "underlies the whole conflict" is the US conquest of Iraq. It is the occupation forces who reacted to the developing resistance to the occupation by stoking up "communal tensions" among Sunni and Shia Arabs and Kurds.
There is massive evidence, accepted even by the US army, that the Iraqi interior ministry is running sectarian death squads. The authors of Iraq’s suffering are the occupiers and their creatures.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Tomorrow morning (which is already today for many people, not just European members but also east coast members), the gina & krista round-robin goes out. If you want a sneak peak, read Elaine's "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best we have" which also contains news of Polly's newsletter. (And I'm so tired, I mispelled "contains" four times before I got it right. Seriously, do not expect much tomorrow morning.) For commentary on another one of Bully Boy's wars, read Cedric's "Afghanistan the forgotten 'liberation'" which also includes his opinion of Katrina vanden Heuvel's recent column. Lastly, but not leastly, thank you (big time) to Kat because without her "Kat's Korner: Etta James Takes It All The Way" we would have gone three nights in a row without any evening posts. I'm sorry about the lack of evening posts. (It's so late, we may not even be able to consider this one.) I'm usually better at balancing activism and other responsibilities but when I speak to college students or high school students, I do ask them to think about what they can do. And often it comes down to trade offs. "If you will do this . . ." The demonizing of immigrants has meant that markers were called in. (That's not a complaint. I'm glad to do it. And if someone's calling in a marker, it means they've already done something I've asked of them.) But it's been a crazy week. I have no idea what Ava and I will review on Sunday because I haven't seen any TV. The DN! entries have all been dictated and, on that, I'm sorry, I knew it was indymedia roundup, I knew in some way it was Thursday, but I wasn't connecting it to the new edition of The Black Commentator. We'll grab Margaret Kimberly's latest tomorrow (and thanks to those who e-mailed to remind me.) Thank you also to Ava and Jess because they went through the e-mails and created a folder just for indymedia roundup suggested highlights to make it easier to do tonight's entry. (They've also handled the majority of the e-mail duties.) Walter, if you're reading this before you check your e-mail, your highlight came through with only a name (Bill Anderson) and a title -- the rest fof your e-mail is a maze of numbers and letters. If you'll note your highlight again or just where you found it, we'll highlight it. The title alone makes it sound like something the community would be interested in. By the way, I'm not sure if a member mentioned a showing (I belive Friday night) of Sir, No, Sir in an e-mail or if this came up in a conversation I had this week. (I'm about to fall over.) If there's a showing of it and you were trying to get it highlighted, please put "Sir, No, Sir" in your e-mail title and we'll note it by the DN! entry tomorrow if not before.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
democracy now
amy goodman
indymedia
media matters
ben griffin
stephen funk
cindy sheehan
sonja swanson
duncan campbell
george e. curry
media matters
minnie bruce pratt
camilo mejia
radio
radionation with laura flanders
laura flanders
alistair highet
gustavo arellano
russ feingold
eugene weekly
kathyrn casa
richard gregg
cosmo garvin
don button
david jayne
omar barghouti
bill anderson
ryan johnson
dan felushka
war resisters support campaign
alex callinicos
the socialist worker
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
kats korner
etta james
the morning show
andrea lewis
norman solomon
kpfa
ruths public radio report
i aint marchin anymore
phil ochs
ncb11
ncb 11
Join the many FIU organizations that oppose the war; come hear professors, students, and veterans speak out against the war in Iraq. There will be workshops to explain how this war affects us in all facets of life including women’s rights, healthcare, military recruitment of students, economics, and others. APRIL 5th ALL DAY from 12 PM -- 8 PM FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY SOUTH CAMPUS ROOM GC (GRAHAM CENTER) ROOM: 140..... SEE YOU THERE!!!
Bill asked if we could open with this item. It's Sonja Swanson's "Teach-in on the War in Iraq -- Florida International University April 5th" (Miami Indymedia). We can and will. Students have been making themselves heard all week. In the United States and in France, they've shown that they aren't the apethetic crowd the media portrays them as. Cokie Roberts is probably shocked and we'll use Pinata Roberts to note a non-Iraq war related story.
Because it takes a nation of gas bags to provide you with National (Not Really) Public Radio, Juan Williams did the Cokie duties this week. From Media Matter's "PR's Williams on immigration protesters: 'These kids don't know anything':"
Apparently ignoring the admonishment of NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin, NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams roundly dismissed student protestors in Los Angeles, who were among the hundreds of thousands of protesters in cities nationwide demonstrating against legislation set to impose harsher penalties on illegal immigrants, saying on the March 29 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
WILLIAMS: These kids don't know anything. ...
They don't know anything? Well good Lord, get them in front of an NPR microphone immediately! They've already met the basic requirement for all on air NPR "talent."
Juan knows nothing (and never has). That's why he uses the term "illegal." It's not p.c. to call them "undocumented." It is the correct legal term and Juan might want to sit down with Totes (Nina Totenberg) if he's so unaware of the legal correctly term. NPR might want to insist that Juan sit down with Totenberg and possibly sit in on some sort of awareness gathering since he also mocks the students for being "poor" (among other things). Now we all know NPR is flying high on the McMoney windfall. But the way they're spending it, they're going to be begging for donations more so than ever in a few year's time. Let's hope that not only the Latino community but everyone remembers that Juan made fun of students, explained they know nothing (apparently because they are "poor") and generally made a real ass out of himself.
I've been waiting for the consensus of the community. But this has made too angry to continue to wait in silence.
Juan Williams has so grossly overstepped the bounds of reporting that I'll speak for me on this and say NPR will never get another cent from me, never another call, letter or personal appeal to an elected official. They won't discipline Juan Williams for his vile remarks. Real discipline would mean saying, "You're fired." Play discipline would mean saying "You are no longer going on any program to play expert." They won't do either. What he stated was so grossly offensive that it's truly an "Only on Fox" moment; however, he doesn't make the bulk of his money from Fox. NPR, PBS, that's his bread and butter. (And the way he's packed on the pounds in the last decade he should be on a bread butter diet.)
He makes a (false) comparison to the civil rights era. So let's follow that up. Would he be allowed to go on TV and get away with saying, of African-American children, that they don't know anything, that they're poor, etc.? Not today he wouldn't. But somehow he thinks it's okay for him to do so with regards to Latinos.
He gets away with everything, so does Mara Liar-Liasson. He got away with comparing David Letterman on air to John Wayne Gacy (Gacy -- the serial killer). But hey, Dvorkin looked the other way and never commented when, in the midst of the 2004 presidential election, NPR brought on the husband of one Dick Cheney's employees to critique John Kerry. NPR never told listeners about that connection. They presented him as a disinterested commentator. When called on it, they still ignored it. There is nothing public about NPR. And watch and see, the most Williams will get for his highly offensive remarks is a mild dressing down. He'll still be on Fox gassing up the place with his hot air. He'll probably keep his head low for a few months (the way Mara did after she accused Congressmen of being "a disgrace" -- outstanding liarism, Mara) and that's the most that will happen. Were NPR truly public radio, he'd be shown the door (as he should be).
Now would Juan be able to say what he said on Fox "under his own byline" as the NPR guidelines demand? No, he wouldn't. If he did say that in one of their pre-recorded bits, it would be edited out and not make the air. This made the air. This is shameful and it's embarrasing. So NPR's perfectly happy allowing their liarists to go on Fox and practice liarism and they expect that listeners will just have to accept them on NPR because, after all as Cokie proves, inability to do the job properly has never resulted in on air "talent" losing a job.
Enjoy the Krock money while it lasts. My guess is Renee Montange will soon find out that there's far worse 'sacrifices' than having to sleep in a sleazy motel. (With all the sleaze in the NPR recording studios, you'd think she'd be right at home. Ha-ha-ha, back to you Steve. You are listening to NPR made possible by a grant from Wal-Mart . . .)
It's Thursday, it's indymedia roundup. The focus? Iraq. Helen notes (it's in PDF format) Rachel Greg and Sosmo Garvin's "Too many and Counting" (graphics by Don Button and David Jayne, Boulder Weekly). If you're able to view (and want to), it's two pages of facts and graphs. According to their graphs, the largest number of American troop fatalities have been under twenty-two years-old. They also note that the average monthly (monetary) cost of the war (figures from The Institute for Policy Studies) is $5.6 billion. (A half a million more per month than Vietnam cost when the figures are adjusted for inflation.) Per person, the running total (National Priorites Project) is $984 and the total US monetary cost (same source) is $246,236,390,000.
I'll note, cost for lying a nation into war: Impeachment.
In the meantime Iraqis and troops pay the cost. (As do their friends and families. As do the countries involved. We're all effected by this illegal war of choice.) Last Thursday, the American troops fatality count in Iraq stood at 2320. Currently? 2327. Seven more. Is it worth that to you? Should we have Bully Boy on TV doing "charity" commercials? "For the cost of one life a day, the United States can continue to fight my illegal war . . ."
They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)
It drags on and it drags on. We passed the three year mark. We're now into the fourth year. And Bully Boy says it's for "future presidents" (real ones, presumably) to decide when it all ends. Really? Is that how it works in a democracy? We vote and that's it. We vote and we have no say until the next election?
That's not how it works in a democracy. We can demand action. We can hold our elected officials responsible at the polls absolutely. But we don't need to wait for an election to make our voices heard. That's what the protests are about, that's what speaking out is about, that's what contacting your officials is about, that's what saying "no" is about. The power of "no" is not to be underestimated.
Bully Boy lied a nation into war with the help of the mainstream media. And on that, we've got two highlights. Carl notes George E. Curry's "The Media's War of Words" (The Chicago Defender):
As the U.S. begins Year 4 of its occupation of Iraq, the media cannot look at its behavior over the past three years and declare victory. In fact, when it comes to telling the truth, many journalists and commentators have surrendered without putting up a fight.
A compilation of the media's greatest hits or, biggest flops has been assembled by the watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and can be found online at [FAIR]. From the outset of the war, the public's watchdogs have been serving as the Bush administration's lapdogs.
Fox News Channel Brit Hume is one of Bush's leading cheerleaders
The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, we got it wrong, Humes said in a speech in Richmond, Va. They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong. [Richmond Times Dispatch 4/25/04]
Fellow conservative Charles Krauthammer, a columnist for the Washington Post, sounds a similar alarm.
The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington. [Inside Washington 4/19/03]
One of the newspapers read by Upper Westside liberals in New York was not to be outdone by its Washington competitor. Times reporter David Carr said: Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right. [4/16/03]
The direct link to that piece is "'The Final Word Is Hooray!' Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits" and Rebecca noted it in her "Never Cheerlead An Illegal War" post. We'll note the first verse of the lyrics (to Bachrach and Davis' "Never Fall In Love Again") that Rebecca wrote for that post:
what do you get when you cheerlead an illegal war?
bit of reality to burst your bubble.
that's what you get for all your trouble
mara liasson, never cheerlead a war again.
The professional liarist Mara Liasson. Like a bad case of Herpes, she just doesn't go away, does she?
Mia notes Omar Barghouti's "When is Killing Arab Civilians Considered a Massacre?" (CounterPunch) for some perspective on the cost for Iraqis (among others -- the article focuses on more than Iraq) and the way the media (and the west) avoid dealing with it:
Recent reports from Iraq indicate beyond doubt that the U.S. occupation army has embarked on a new "tactic" from its menu of atrocities, in an attempt to counter the burgeoning Iraqi resistance attacks against its soldiers. "Old-style" massacres of Iraqis have become so commonplace lately that even Iraqi "allies" of the U.S. were forced to unreservedly condemn them.
Among Western governments, alas, silence prevails. After all, the massacre victims are only Arabs. Not only is there an alarming apathy towards the horrifying spread of this phenomenon, but there is also a despicable aversion to calling it by its name. At the same time, many in the West go up in arms condemning the "massacre" of seals, whales, dolphins or a few white men anywhere around the world.
"Modern" massacres, that is the indiscriminate bombing -- which last year included the use of phosphorus -- of Iraqi civilian neighborhoods in "unruly" cities like Falluja and Qa'im, have always been a standard U.S. and British tactic. But those "clean," remotely-executed and hi-tech acts of state terrorism were always easier for the world's only empire and its lackeys to defend and present as "precision" targeting of "the enemy," especially to a pathetically obedient media. The direct, messy murder of civilians, particularly by tying their hands and shooting them in the head, execution style, has not been as common, although it was practiced in several reported incidents in Iraq since the invasion. Now it is being reported more often, but in language that in effect, if not always by intention, leads to sanitizing it, even to normalizing it as a nasty, yet unavoidable, part of "war." If this evasion from using the term massacre is not deliberate, it can only reflect a deep-seated racism among western journalists who cannot use the same ethical or professional standards in reporting the killings of Arab civilians that they normally use when dealing with "white" victims in comparable situations.
Santaization comes in many forms. For instance, how did the press report on the New York Times front page (though not as prominent as other stories on the front page that day) report that Bully Boy wanted war (despite what he told the people), that he and Blair didn't believe that there were WMDs (ditto and British members -- and Europeans -- are quite aware that the same roll out of lies that went on in the United States went on in England via Blair) and that the idea of using a disguised plane to provoke a first action from Saddam Hussein (to which we would then "bravely" respond) was tossed around?
West notes Media Matter's "Media ignored, underreported NY Times disclosure of explosive Bush-Blair memo" (and West noted the prior MM item as well):
In light of these statements, the January 31 memo -- and the Times' verification of it -- is obviously significant. Nonetheless, numerous news outlets have failed to cover the story at all, or in some cases failed to cover it adequately. Fox News has ignored it entirely. A Media Matters for America survey of Fox's full March 27 coverage (6 a.m.-11 p.m. ET) and partial March 28 coverage (6 a.m.-noon ET) failed to turn up a single mention of the memo.
Similarly, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today all declined to run articles on the memo in their March 28 editions. Both the Associated Press and Reuters have failed to report on the story thus far. By contrast, United Press International ran two articles on March 27 -- one on the memo and one on the White House's reaction to the Times piece.
The major networks covered the Times' disclosure of the memo, but their reports varied greatly in the degree to which they conveyed its significance. On the March 27 edition of the CBS Evening News, for instance, anchor Russ Mitchell asked CBS' chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about the document after her report on recent sectarian violence in Iraq. Logan noted that, according to the document, Blair and Bush believed that there was "unlikely to be warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups in Iraq." But even though the Evening News noted the document in this context, the newscast failed to report the other aspect of the memo: that it contradicted Bush's public claims that he wanted to resolve the Iraq issue diplomatically. Earlier in the day, however, CBS Morning News anchor Susan McGinnis noted the Times' disclosure of the memo and described Bush as "reportedly determined to invade Iraq no matter what the outcome of diplomatic efforts."
On the March 23 edition of ABC's World News Tonight, anchor Elizabeth Vargas simply reported that the memo "paints President Bush as eager to provoke Saddam Hussein into war." While she referred to Bush and Blair's discussion of ways to prompt an attack from Hussein and their reported lack of concern about sectarian violence following the Iraq invasion, Vargas made no mention of the document's broader relevance.
By contrast, that morning on ABC's Good Morning America, host Robin Roberts briefly mentioned the memo in her rundown of the day's news and noted that it portrayed Bush as "bent on invading Iraq no matter what." Similarly, on the March 27 edition of NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams introduced a report on the story as follows: "In the weeks before the invasion of Iraq, as President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they were pursuing all options for avoiding a war, a leaked British memo strongly suggests something very different was going on behind closed doors." In the subsequent report, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell noted that Bush and Blair "were officially on a diplomatic track, but a secret memo now reveals they were determined to go to war six weeks before invading Iraq."
Two things. First Micah's comments (which he asked me to summarize -- if I get it wrong, let me know). Direct quote: "The Village Voice is dead." Summary, the Times story this week, not noted by The Village Voice. The Voice falls silent. More puff pieces. James Ridgeway writes of Josh Bolton. Puff pieces of the "Things that make you go hmmm . . ." nature (semi-direct quote). Since the paper was purchased by the syndicate, the life's gone out of it. Summary statement: It's now a lifestyle weekly, not a news weekly. Not surprisng considering what passes for news in some of the other papers the same corp owns.
Micah's feelings are echoed by other members. That's one of the reasons for last Thursday's entry. (The commentary about news and "news" weeklies that just waste everyone's time.) Other than what's gone up here (and possibly a few suggested highlights that didn't make the cut), I haven't read the weekly in years. I do know that members feel that it's gone downhill and I do know that for Micah (who loved that paper) to say it's dead is pretty damning criticism.
Second. I will hear from friends in the mainstream media if I don't note the following. Do not read it as a defense of the mainstream media, do not read it as "We need to just stop holding them accountable!" or any other nonsense. This is their view (and during the Alito hearings, we had two reporters participating in the roundtable for the gina & krista round-robin who made this point). That's why some don't feel they can go out on limb.
Let's pretend Don van Natta, Jr. is a member of the community. (He's not, he wrote the Times' story so we're using him.) DvNJ would go all out to break the story and that might entail selling his editor and higher ups on the story. (Especially at the Timid.) He sells them on it. The story's printed. And the rest of the press yawns and averts its eyes.
Now that's bad enough in real life if something like that happens to any one of us among our friends. But the press is perceived power. Right away the perception is lowered. Add to that it's not a scoop, an important story, unless the rest of the media agrees. (History can alter that, as has been the case for Robert Parry -- fortunately still alive, luckily for us -- and Gary Webb -- not so fortunate.) It's not just egg on your face. Not for that profession.
What does the press do? Reports. What does it do (on TV, radio and print) , report mainly on what others are reporting. If you broke the story and it doesn't have traction, you didn't do anything. (In the eyes of the press.) And you have risked lowering both your own perceived power and that of the organization you are working for.
That's not a defense. That's not a justification. That's not to say don't criticize. Or that you need to watch your words. That is, however, the way a number of them feel. Judge had a great column in the roundrobin last month and he noted that he'd asked that I note it here (by summarzing it). I said to take it to the round-robin because, friend or not, it's not this site's function to present the Republican point of view (and when I attempted to write it up, that's how it felt). In his column, he explained his perceptions of the Clinton era and why he and some others were genuinely outraged. If I'd done that, I know it would have read as a defense (and I did try twice to write an entry on that before giving up.) We don't make a point to note Republican points of view. We're a site for the left. (With Judge as one of our token Republican members -- he'll laugh when he reads that and not take offense, we've been friends long enough to kid.) However, we do note the mainstream media and we do have members who are a part of it. For that reason, and the nature of the item itself, I thought we should note their take. I am not endorsing their take, I'm not dismissing their take. I'm saying it's their take. They'll need to live with it and we'll need to do what we do.
The peace march that was largely ignored? Francisco's request for coverage resulted in members trying very hard to locate coverage. We have two items on it tonight. First up, Belinda notes Gustavo Arellano's "Peace And Video Games: A visit to an Army recruiting station" (Orange County Weekly):
The blips and flashes of a PlayStation greeted Fernando Suárez del Solar as he entered the Santa Ana Army Career Center on March 15. He cradled a picture of his son Jésus, a Marine lance corporal who died in Iraq in 2003 after stepping on an undetonated cluster bomb dropped by American forces.
About 30 other people squeezed into the tiny recruiting center after Suárez. The office was sparsely decorated. Posters lined the walls. Venetian blinds hung limply. There was a table and a cabinet. An American flag. A rack of pamphlets in English and Spanish stood next to the entrance. And to the side of the rack was a couch and a television topped with toy tanks. A tall, goateed teen sat on a couch, eyes fixed on the television as he thumbed his way through a video combat game.
Suárez and his supporters visited the Career Center two days into their Latino Moratorium March, a trek for peace that started in Tijuana and ends March 27 in San Francisco. Suárez has two simple goals: he wants military recruiters to stop lying to Latino kids about the Iraq War, and he wants Latino parents to understand exactly what’s in store for the average grunt who ships off to Iraq.
Brandon found a March 21st article by Minnie Bruce Pratt. From "'Walking to New Orleans' to show solidarity" (Workers World):
Some marching were neither veterans nor survivors but had either been born in the South or lived there at some time--people who identified their home towns as Jackson, Miss.; Carbondale, Ala.; Macon, Ga.; Memphis, Tenn.; Baltimore; Orlando, Fla.; Houston, Texas; and other deep and border Southern towns—as well as at least 16 states outside the South.
Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in the current Iraq war and drew national attention to the opposition of military families to the war by camping out at President George Bush’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, participated on the march.
Stephen Funk, the gay Filipino Marine who was the first Iraq war resister, marched, as did conscientious objector Sgt. Camilo Mejía. Both Funk and Mejía emphasized the intertwining of injustice--in the hypocritical discrimination of a U.S. "don't ask, don't tell" military that recruits lesbian and gay people as cannon fodder while denying their very identity--and in the fate of Latin@ soldiers driven to enlistment by the poverty draft and immigrants who join the armed services in desperation to get citizenship for themselves and their families.
Note that the article also includes audio links. The peace march took part in that event and, for listeners of RadioNation with Laura Flanders on March 18th, that's where Camilo Mejia was speaking from.
Need more activism? Brady steers us to a report on war resister Ben Griffin. From Alistair Highet's "Observer: Vietnam All Over Again" (Hartford Advocate):
As was reported worldwide, but very poorly here, Griffin was an exemplary soldier with eight years experience with the Parachute Regiment and the SAS, having served in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Macedonia. The 28-year-old told a military review board that he refused to go back to Iraq and fight because U.S. troops treated all Iraqis as "untermenschen," the term that Nazis used to describe the races they thought were inferior. Griffin went on to say that the American military's "gung-ho and trigger-happy mentality" meant that it was impossible for the coalition forces to ever win the trust of Iraqis. "I did not join the British army to conduct American foreign policy," he said.
Apparently, Griffin expected to be court-martialed. Instead, he was discharged from the army, and described by the tribunal hearing his case as a "balanced, honest, loyal and determined individual who possesses the strength of character to have the courage of his convictions."
Let me spell out what this means explicitly. This means that the British army is basically saying, "We agree with this guy, this war is being conducted badly, and we shouldn't have to fight it alongside the Americans."
Though it is unclear what "illegal" acts Griffin is referring to, there are have been several recent reports of atrocities committed by U.S. troops. I refer you to the full account of one in Time magazine's article, "One Morning in Haditha," filed on March 19, in which eyewitnesses claim that U.S. Marines, upset after a colleague was killed by a roadside bomb, ran into a series of houses killing 23 people, 15 of whom were clearly civilians, including women. Nine-year-old Eman Waleed told Time that the Marines entered her living room while her family was still in their nightclothes. "I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest then in the head. Then they killed my granny." Initially, the U.S. military claimed the civilians were killed by a roadside bomb until confronted with Time's information, which included testimony from doctors who saw the bodies in the hospital and confirmed that the civilians were "shot in the chest and the head from close range."
Sunday, Miranda noted one of our permalinks War Resisters Support Campaign and how it contained bios of some war resisters who'd gone to Canada. One of which was Ryan Johnson. Gareth was paying attention, Miranda. Gareth notes that he was going to send this in just for the topic but he's highlighted Ryan Johnson so we can all "get a closer look." From Duncan Campbell's "Soldiers flee to Canada to avoid Iraq duty" (The Guardian of London):
Ryan Johnson, 22, from near Fresno in California, was due to be deployed with his unit to Iraq in January last year but crossed the Canadian border in June and is seeking asylum. "I had spoken to many soldiers who had been in Iraq and who told me about innocent civilians being killed and about bombing civilian neighbourhoods," he told the Guardian.
"It's been really great since I've been here. Generally, people have been really hospitable and understanding, although there have been a few who have been for the war." He is now unable to return to the US. "I don't have a problem with that. I'm in Canada and that's that."
Mr Johnson said it was unclear exactly how many US soldiers were in Canada but he thought 400 was a "realistic figure". He had been on speaking tours across the country as part of a war resisters' movement and had come across other servicemen living underground.
Jeffry House, a Toronto lawyer who represents many of the men, said that an increasing number were seeking asylum. "There are a fair number without status and a fair number on student visas," he said, and under UN guidelines on refugee status they were entitled to seek asylum.
Also paying attention was Zach who found an article about Brandon Hughey and Dan Felushka and we're going to focus on Felushka for this entry (we'll note Hughey Sunday -- I'm not familiar with Felushka and don't believe we've ever noted him before). From Oakland and San Francisco's NBC 11, here's "U.S. Soldiers Head North To Seek Asylum: Canada Gave Asylum To Vietnam War Defectors:"
Dan Felushka joined the Marines because he wanted to be trained by the best, and he believed in the mission.
"We were training for war and we were trained to respond to 9/11," Felushka said. "I was gung-ho for it. Totally into it, into the idea of responding to an attack made against Americans that made sense."
Felushka was based out of Camp Pendleton. He says boot camp was one of the best experiences of his life.
"I loved boot camp," he said. "It was hard. I learned to push myself hard. I liked the training. I met cool guys who I got really close to really fast."
[. . .]
It's similar to how Hughey feels.
"I'm not going to give the ultimate sacrifice or shoot at somebody else or cause grief in their family for the rest if their lives for a cause my government can't even justify," he said. "For me, personally, I couldn't deal with that."
Felushka ultimately left his Southern California Marine troop for similar reasons.
"I wasn't prepared to be put in that situation by the government, having to participate in acts of violence against people without just cause," he said. "They just flat out weren't able to convince me it was justified."
Felushka says leaving was one of the most important decisions of his life.
"The only inalienable right that I have as a human being, regardless of your country of birth, is my right to choose between right and wrong," he said. "It leaves me here with my conscience intact to deal with the rest of my life."
"Is it indymedia?" wondered Zach in his e-mail. "It's a local station and not an NBC report as far as I know. That's independent. But in the end, all that matters is that while so many aren't telling these stories, this station did." I couldn't agree more.
Jeremy Hinzman and people with stories like his and completely different from his, all our a part of the social fabric ripped by this illegal war. Norman Solomon was a guest on KPFA's The Morning Show and Ruth and I spoke about his appearance ("Friday Ms. Lewis interviewed Norman Solomon" which Ruth noted here). A caller wondered about purchasing. She was of the opinion that this was one way for her to make herself heard -- avoid purchasing anything beyond the necessities. Solomon's response was a wise one (no surprise there), everyone needs to do something to say no to this war and if this was her way of saying "no" then she should pursue it.
People are saying "no" to the war. Thanks to Francisco and Miranda, the community really searched for stories (members always do, but they really put in time this week) that told the stories (stories -- plural) of this war. The stories are out there but they aren't often covered. (Of course Democracy Now! always does a wonderful job of covering them. I say that partly because it is, of course, true and partly because I was really hoping to have time to note something from an interview Amy Goodman did this week. There's not time. And, warning, don't expect much from tomorrow morning's entry/entries, I'm wiped out.) These are stories. Media Matters covers the media coverage. That is their designated role. They do a wonderful job of it. But it does sometimes seem, as Joan put it, as though everyone was covering the same story and "huge numbers goes untold." Francisco asked for coverage of the peace march and members had to look high and low for something that didn't get a great deal of attention. Members found coverage. (We'll continue to note any other coverage members find -- non-attack coverage. Rob found a hideous article and noted it not for it to be highlighted but just to pass on how intense the hatred towards those who speak out is. I'd argue that a graduate student of fifty is either someone who's still learning -- good for him -- or someone who flounders through life as poorly as he writes.) Miranda found one way to put a face on some of the war resisters and it did register. From the west coast to England, Gareth heard and he remembered.
The movement, like the war, has many faces, many stories. We can't control what others do (certainly not the mainstream media), but I'm really impressed with the efforts members put in. Not just the ones who found highlights. I'm impressed with members like Joey and Kansas and Rachel who wrote in to say they hadn't found anything but they were still looking and would advise that if I was looking skip this or skip that because it had nothing. These were long lists of sources they had checked. (Which underscored how little is being told about this war and this movement.) Those are three names that stand out. They weren't the only ones to write in like that. (I'm tired and my apologies for not being able to recall everyone by name on this.)
There are many ways to say "no" and people are making their protests heard. I say all that both because I am so impressed with the community's hard work on this and also because it leads into the additional lyric for this week. (Remember that the next round of voting for songs goes up in the gina & krista round-robin for the second Friday of April.) Say "no"?
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
For I stole California from the Mexican land
Fought in the bloody Civil War
Yes I even killed my brother
And so many others
And I ain't marchin' anymore
-- "I Ain't Marchin' Anymore" (written and recorded by Phil Ochs on the album of the same name)
Remember the resolutions towns in Vermont passed to impeach the Bully Boy? Wendy notes an article on one person and one area involved. From Kathyrn Casa's "Impeach! The shot heard 'round the world" (Vermont Guardian):
As patriots go, Dan DeWalt looks the part. With his ponytail and winter beard, a pair of breeches and a musket would put him right into character in 1775.
But it was no act earlier this month when DeWalt fired the opening salvo of his revolution. Only this time, the shot heard 'round the world came not from a rebel in Massachusetts but from a selectman in Vermont. And rather than start a shooting war, it was meant to put a stop to one.
DeWalt, 49, is as mystified as anybody at his international star status as the author of a town meeting resolution, which Newfane voters passed 121-29, calling for the impeachment of Pres. George Bush, in part because he "used falsehoods to lead our nation to war unsupported by international law."
Other cities and towns have passed similar measures, including San Francisco. Newfane was the first of five Vermont towns to do so -- Brattleboro was expected to take it up at representative town meeting on Saturday. At least six Vermont Democratic County Committees have also voted in favor of impeachment proceedings.
But it has been DeWalt -- a carpenter and musician with no television, who reads history books, trolls international shortwave radio broadcasts for news, and until this month had never seen film footage from 9/11 -- who has captured international attention from of the likes of The Economist, the U.K. Guardian and The Toronto Star.
The story of his challenge to Bush has been posted on websites in Australia, South Africa, the Basque region of Spain, and covered throughout the United States, from The Dallas Morning News to CNN and USA Today. By the time the Vermont Guardian caught up with him, he been interviewed 25 times. Reuters had just left and The Boston Globe's photographer was on the way up.
He has also been lambasted and lampooned. The conservative Washington Times saw fit to report his annual income, his marital status, and even his choice of footwear (Birkenstocks). The Associated Press story was posted on "The Terrorism Knowledge Base," a self-proclaimed "comprehensive databank of global terrorist incidents and organizations."
No sooner did the Newfane news hit the wire than reactions started pouring in. Accustomed to companionable leaf-peepers and endorphin-jazzed skiers, postcard-perfect Newfane was suddenly in the midst of political controversy.
Lenore Salzbrunn, the president of the Newfane Business Association who at town meeting had tearfully defended the president, later fretted about tourism cancellations and told a reporter: "We need to stop adding to the negative news about Vermont."
Portland writes, "This is a small item but I would like it included in the indymedia roundup both since it's indymedia and also because Russ Feingold is the only Democrat I will support for President. If he loses the nomination, I'm not sure how I'll vote. I'll probably look into the Green Party and weigh my decision." From "News" (Eugene Weekly):
FEINGOLD FOR PRESIDENT?
The March 18 demonstration against the Iraq War held in Eugene also marked the kick-off of a Feingold for President campaign in the Northwest.
Among the signs carried by supporters of Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush were: "Russ as President is Fein(gold) With Me," "Reform Elections with Feingold," and "Back Feingold for President to End War."
Russ Feingold, a senator from Wisconsin, is being compared to Oregon's Sen. Wayne Morse of the 1950s and '60s. Morse was one of only two senators who voted against President Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin proposal that turned Vietnam into full-scale war.
"For a thinking electorate," says John Saemann of Eugene, "Feingold is our only alternative. Too many Democrats have chosen the coward's way, supporting Bush's war. Even our Sen. Ron Wyden, who as a college student was a driver for Morse, trashed Morse's principles when he refused to support the Feingold resolution to censure Bush."
For information on the local campaign, contact Saemann at 687-7112 or George Beres at 344-0282.
Noted and included. Remember members can do endorsements. You can write a statement to share like Portland has, or you can just note that you support the candidate of your highlight and we'll note it here. Pru gets the final highlight, Alex Callinicos' "Bush: telling tales from Tal Afar" (Great Britain's The Socialist Worker):
The rescue of Norman Kember and his fellow hostages in Baghdad is a tiny glimmer of light in an Iraqi picture that remains uniformly grim. John Reid's gung-ho remarks on his recent visit to Iraq simply provided further evidence of the defence secretary’s very troubled relationship to reality.
He’s not the only one, of course. George Bush greeted the third anniversary of the outbreak of the war by desperately pointing to what he presented as a US success in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar. "The example of Tal Afar," he told an audience in Cleveland, Ohio, last week, "gives me confidence in our strategy."
Coincidentally the Washington Post has reported in depth on the city as part of a series of very interesting reports on the war in Iraq. Tal Afar, 40 miles east of Mosul, has been a major base of operations for the resistance.
Last summer the US Third Armoured Cavalry Regiment was assigned responsibility for the city. By the time it left in February, attacks had fallen, according to US military intelligence, from six to one a day.
The Third Armoured Cavalry used a combination of building a wall around the city, flooding it with patrols, methodical intelligence work, developing links with the local population, and working closely with Iraqi forces.
But when the Post checked up on Tal Afar after Bush's speech it found that US control had weakened again. Guerrillas were slipping back into the city, sectarian killings and kidnappings were on the increase, and US troops were concentrating on protecting themselves.
Tougher nut
This is a typical picture of the Iraqi war. The occupation forces can stem the tide in a problem area by concentrating elite troops there, but, once they relax the effort because of demands elsewhere, their successes are quickly washed away.
The Post's original report on Tal Afar pointed out, "The biggest problem US troops face in Iraq is Baghdad, a city about 30 times the size of Tal Afar. With the current number of American troops in Iraq, it would be impossible to copy the approach used here, with outposts every few blocks.
"'Baghdad is a much tougher nut to crack than this,' said Major Jack McLaughlin... Standing in the castle overlooking the city, he said, 'It's a matter of scale -- you'd need a huge number of troops to replicate what we've done here'."
This was, of course, US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's original folly -- the idea that Iraq could be conquered and held by a small hi?tech force.
Another in-depth Post piece reports, "The biggest difference in Baghdad from two or three years ago is the nearly total absence of US troops on its streets. In a major gamble, the city largely has been turned over to Iraqi police and army troops. If those Iraqi forces falter, leaving a vacuum, US pressure elsewhere could push the insurgency into the capital."
There are other dangers with this policy of "Iraqisation", which is, according to the defence analyst Stephen Biddle, "the main component of the current US military strategy". Writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, he argues that this "throws gasoline on the fire. Iraq's Sunnis perceive the 'national' army and police as a Shia-Kurdish militia on steroids...
"And the more threatened the Sunnis feel, the more likely they are to fight back even harder. The bigger, stronger, better trained, and better armed the Iraqi forces become, the worse the communal tensions that underlie the whole conflict will get."
In fact, of course, what "underlies the whole conflict" is the US conquest of Iraq. It is the occupation forces who reacted to the developing resistance to the occupation by stoking up "communal tensions" among Sunni and Shia Arabs and Kurds.
There is massive evidence, accepted even by the US army, that the Iraqi interior ministry is running sectarian death squads. The authors of Iraq’s suffering are the occupiers and their creatures.
© Copyright Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original and leave this notice in place.
Tomorrow morning (which is already today for many people, not just European members but also east coast members), the gina & krista round-robin goes out. If you want a sneak peak, read Elaine's "Peace comes from being able to contribute the best we have" which also contains news of Polly's newsletter. (And I'm so tired, I mispelled "contains" four times before I got it right. Seriously, do not expect much tomorrow morning.) For commentary on another one of Bully Boy's wars, read Cedric's "Afghanistan the forgotten 'liberation'" which also includes his opinion of Katrina vanden Heuvel's recent column. Lastly, but not leastly, thank you (big time) to Kat because without her "Kat's Korner: Etta James Takes It All The Way" we would have gone three nights in a row without any evening posts. I'm sorry about the lack of evening posts. (It's so late, we may not even be able to consider this one.) I'm usually better at balancing activism and other responsibilities but when I speak to college students or high school students, I do ask them to think about what they can do. And often it comes down to trade offs. "If you will do this . . ." The demonizing of immigrants has meant that markers were called in. (That's not a complaint. I'm glad to do it. And if someone's calling in a marker, it means they've already done something I've asked of them.) But it's been a crazy week. I have no idea what Ava and I will review on Sunday because I haven't seen any TV. The DN! entries have all been dictated and, on that, I'm sorry, I knew it was indymedia roundup, I knew in some way it was Thursday, but I wasn't connecting it to the new edition of The Black Commentator. We'll grab Margaret Kimberly's latest tomorrow (and thanks to those who e-mailed to remind me.) Thank you also to Ava and Jess because they went through the e-mails and created a folder just for indymedia roundup suggested highlights to make it easier to do tonight's entry. (They've also handled the majority of the e-mail duties.) Walter, if you're reading this before you check your e-mail, your highlight came through with only a name (Bill Anderson) and a title -- the rest fof your e-mail is a maze of numbers and letters. If you'll note your highlight again or just where you found it, we'll highlight it. The title alone makes it sound like something the community would be interested in. By the way, I'm not sure if a member mentioned a showing (I belive Friday night) of Sir, No, Sir in an e-mail or if this came up in a conversation I had this week. (I'm about to fall over.) If there's a showing of it and you were trying to get it highlighted, please put "Sir, No, Sir" in your e-mail title and we'll note it by the DN! entry tomorrow if not before.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
democracy now
amy goodman
indymedia
media matters
ben griffin
stephen funk
cindy sheehan
sonja swanson
duncan campbell
george e. curry
media matters
minnie bruce pratt
camilo mejia
radio
radionation with laura flanders
laura flanders
alistair highet
gustavo arellano
russ feingold
eugene weekly
kathyrn casa
richard gregg
cosmo garvin
don button
david jayne
omar barghouti
bill anderson
ryan johnson
dan felushka
war resisters support campaign
alex callinicos
the socialist worker
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
the third estate sunday review
cedrics big mix
kats korner
etta james
the morning show
andrea lewis
norman solomon
kpfa
ruths public radio report
i aint marchin anymore
phil ochs
ncb11
ncb 11
Democracy Now: Chellie Pingree, Edmund L. Andrews; Ruth Conniff speaks what others can't
Michael Berg Announces Congressional Run
In other news, Michael Berg, whose son Nick Berg was beheaded after he was kidnapped in Iraq, has announced a bid for Congress in Delaware. Michael Berg has repeatedly blamed the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq for his son's death. He said he was approached by representatives of the Democratic Party but will run with the Green Party because: "the Democrats have the money to get the message out, but they have the wrong message."
Puerto Rican Independence Figure Arrested in San Juan
And a major figure in the Puerto Rican independence movement has been arrested in San Juan. On Tuesday, FBI agents arrested Antonio Camacho Negron for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. The arrest comes just months after independence leader Filiberto Ojeda-Rios was killed in a federal raid.
Iraqi PM Criticizes US Over Resignation Pressure
In news from Iraq, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has lashed out at growing US pressure to block him from serving a second term as prime minister. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has asked Iraqi Shiite politicians to seek the withdrawal of al-Jaafari's nomination for a second term. In an interview with the New York Times, al-Jaafari said: "[There's] concern among the Iraqi people that the democratic process is being threatened."
Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Iraq
After nearly three months in captivity, kidnapped U.S. reporter Jill Carroll has been released. Carroll is a freelance reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor in Iraq. She was seized in January outside the offices of a prominent Sunni politician in Baghdad. In a brief television interview in Baghdad, Carroll said she is in good condition and had been treated well by her captors. Her captors freed her by leaving her in a street near the offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party. She walked inside, and people there called US officials. Although her captors threatened twice in videotapes to kill her, Carroll said they never hit her or threatened to do so. Carroll said she was kept in a room with a window and a shower, but she did not know where she was. She went on to say: "I'm just happy to be free. I want to be with my family." On Wednesday, Jill Carroll's sister, Katie Carroll, had read a statement on Arab television pleading for her sister's safe release. There had been no word from Carroll's captors in nearly two months. They had demanded the release of all women detainees in Iraqi prisons. Five out of an estimated nine women prisoners were released in January.
The above four items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Third Party, Sabina, Kayla and Susan. Democracy Now! ("always informing you," as Marcia says):
Headlines for March 30, 2006
- Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Iraq
- Iraqi PM Criticizes US Over Resignation Pressure
- Taylor Returned To Liberia to Face War Crimes Charges
- Afghan Christian Convert Granted Political Asylum in Italy
- Ahmed Omar Abu Ali Sentenced to 30-Year Term
- Senate Approves Lobbying Bill, Rejects Independent Oversight
- Puerto Rican Independence Figure Arrested in San Juan
Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Baghdad
Jill Carroll is free. The freelance reporter was kidnapped nearly three months ago in Baghdad. In a television interview shortly after her release, Carroll said she is in good condition and had been treated well by her captors. She went on to say, "I'm just happy to be free. I want to be with my family." We talk with one of her friends. [includes rush transcript]
Senate Debate Over Immigration Reform Heats Up in Washington
The Senate begins debate today on legislation to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that includes enforcement measures, provisions for a guest-worker program, and a way for undocumented workers way to work toward citizenship. We speak with the Director of Immigration Policy Research at the National Council of La Raza. [includes rush transcript]
Abramoff Sentenced to 70 Months in Prison As Senate Passes Lobbying Reform Bill That Excludes Campaign Finance
The Senate has overwhelmingly approved imposing new rules governing the relations between lawmakers and lobbyists. The ninety to eight vote came just hours after former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to nearly six years in jail. We speak with Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause. [includes rush transcript]
Report Exposes Telecom Industry's Astroturf Lobbying Groups
Common Cause on Tuesday released a new report exposing "Astroturf" lobbying groups and other allies created by the telecommunications industry to pressure lawmakers to enact industry-friendly policies as Congress debates critical issues worth billions of dollars to the industry. [includes rush transcript]
How Lobbyists Helped Secure Billions in Taxpayer Subsidies For Big Oil Companies Despite Record Profits
A new report by Government Accountability Office estimates the oil and gas industry will be able to avoid paying between 20 and 80 billion dollars in royalties to the government. Industry lobbyists helped secure a provision passed by Congress 10 years ago subsidizing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. We speak with Edmund Andrews, the New York Times reporter who exposed the story. [includes rush transcript]
In Iraq, violence and chaos continue. The BBC notes that "eight workers at Iraq's largest oil refinery in the northern town of Baiji" were killed in an ambush by gunmen.
At a security checkpoint in Baghdad, Kays Juma, an Australian resident and professor, was killed by corporate security firm Unity Resources Group which "has issued a statement expressing its deepest sympathy at what happened." Kays Juma's wife Barbara is returning to Australia "to be with her children." Unity Resource Group is a "Dbuai-based company" that is attempting to expand "into health and medical services." Speeding cars, guns blasts, drive bys? Yes, according to the Associated Press. A lawyer was the victim of the drive-by "as she got out of a taxi in Basra" while in Baghdad, "a police commando" walking outside his home was also the victim of a drive-by shooting. (Both died.)
Polly notes the BBC's "Canada to decide on US deserter:"
Canada's refugee board is to hear the asylum plea of a US soldier who fled to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq.
Josh Key served as an explosives expert in Iraq for eight months. He deserted to Canada with his family in 2004.
Mr Key, who faces a court martial if returned to the US, says he refuses to fight in a war he regards as immoral and illegal.
About 20 US soldiers have applied for asylum in Canada. Two have already had their applications rejected.
We have another story (on another war resister) and we'll save that for this evening.
Instead, Lloyd and Shonna both noted Ruth Conniff's "Dems Can't Win Standing Still" (Ruth Conniff's Weekly Column, The Progressive):
A lot of smart people in Washington are getting very excited about Bush's low poll numbers, as well as new polls that show a possible landslide by Democrats in 2006. There's no question that public sentiment is turning against the President. But Democrats may want to temper this spring's optimism with a cautious reminder of how it felt to be carried away by Internet buzz and exit polls on the last Presidential election day. The really big question, it seems to me, is whether the Democrats think they can stand still and benefit from a landslide anti-Bush vote in 2006. That strikes me as highly unlikely. Sooner or later, they've got to take a position on Iraq, if they want to benefit from anti-war sentiment. They’ve got to take a position on NSA spying and on political corruption. Muted lip service isn't going to do it.
Shonna noted that while Conniff argues for action, Eric Alterman argues for nothing. Ignore withdrawal! There is no withdrawal! It will hurt election chances! You don't how the media will distort any statement the Dems make! So talk strategy! Not withdrawal!
"The American people were lied into an illegal war. Too many lives have been lost. 2327 Americans dead is more than enough. We're bringing our sons and daughters home."
That's pretty clear cut and would probably get out despite the inherent problems with today's media. But Alterman says (lisps) "NO!" while channeling the Third Way. I'm really not sure why Alterman's allowed to note that org in passing? That requires identification.
"Third Way? That sounds interesting. What is it?"
It's DLC and apparently since Christopher Hitchens is no longer around, to regularly foul the pages of The Nation, the soft-minded Alterman fills the spot. When DLC front groups are noted, they need to be identified. There's no excuse for not doing so. This isn't a "free speech" issue. Alterman's been allowed to write one idiotic column after another for years. (Just as he's been able to go on Charlie Rose and whimper or go on The Majority Report and think he's being "cute" when everyone listening is thinking, "This lisper really thinks he comes off like a tough talker.")
Responsible journalism requires that readers are informed when Alterman's fronting for the DLC. The whole column is DLC so it may difficult to determine what needs noting. It's very simple, when he's reporting on an event sponsored by the DLC, the magazine needs to note it's a DLC event. That leaves Alterman's free speech intact and provides confused readers with needed info.
"Didn't The Nation just editorialize that they refused to 'support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to this war a major compaign issue'?" Yes, it did editorialize that last year. Alterman's opinion is not the magazine's. The DLC's position is never the magazine. When the DLC pops up, worked in by columnists with their own ties to it, the organizations and the events need to be disclosed.
Ruth Conniff's writing about the mood of the country, Alterman's writing about an out of think tank without identifying it as DLC. Atlerman's got nothing to back him up (and has a curious look at the 2004 election/candidate) which goes to show that gasbags come in all shapes, sizes and speech defects. Read Conniff, skip Alterman.
Think I'm too hard on the most ineffectual public speaker? The one most in need of speech lessons/therapy? Savor this by Brian Morton:
And in the media, the biggest whiner of them all is MSNBC blogger and The Nation media columnist Eric Alterman. Priggish, preening, name-dropping, and the world's biggest Bruce Springsteen sycophant, he's the kind of liberal that makes my teeth hurt. When right-wing loons look for effete East Coast snobs to portray as their limousine-liberal straw men, Alterman, who never lets go of a slight (he spent long blog-column inches demanding equal space for a reply to the Boston Globe's editorial page editor for an insult the paper dealt him), is too good to be true. He barely acknowledges his own wrongs, and even compounds slights to others--take, for example, his battle earlier this year with former City Paper managing editor/current New York Observer media reporter Tom Scocca, in which Alterman not only refused to acknowledge his mistake on the facts, but kept misspelling Scocca's name in kvetching about his work at the Observer.
That's from Morton's "The Wuss Party" (Baltimore City Paper) and, just a reminder, tonight is indymedia roundup.
Doug notes Shayana Kadidal's "SPYING SMOKESCREENS: An Analysis of the DeWine Spy Legislation" (Center for Constitutional Rights):
Several moreU.S.
As one of the lead attorneys in a federal case suing Bush for illegal spying, Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush, I am particularly concerned about the DeWine legislation.
Warrantless surveillance-- that is, electronic surveilance without review of some kind by a disinterested judge, either before or immediately after the wiretap is put in place -- is, with very limited exceptions, currently illegal and punishable as a felony. The DeWine bill would legallize warrantless surveillance of international calls and emails whenever the president decides going to the court established by FISA is too much trouble. Periodic after-the fact briefings by the President to small committees of Congressional leaders would replace judicial oversight entirely.
Both the U.S. Constitution and federal law currently forbid spying on Americans without a warrant, but this bill would purport to legalize such surveillance when it targets people on a "Surveillance List." How do you get on this list?
Kadidal was interviewed by Larry Bensky during KPFA's broadcast of the NSA hearing
(as Doug noted). (Use link if you missed the broadcast to hear archived version.)
Again, indymedia roundup this evening. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
democracy now
the new york times
edmund l. andrews
jill carroll
kpfa
larry bensky
center for constitutional rights
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
ruth conniff
josh key
Eric+Alterman
iraq
brian morton
In other news, Michael Berg, whose son Nick Berg was beheaded after he was kidnapped in Iraq, has announced a bid for Congress in Delaware. Michael Berg has repeatedly blamed the Bush administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq for his son's death. He said he was approached by representatives of the Democratic Party but will run with the Green Party because: "the Democrats have the money to get the message out, but they have the wrong message."
Puerto Rican Independence Figure Arrested in San Juan
And a major figure in the Puerto Rican independence movement has been arrested in San Juan. On Tuesday, FBI agents arrested Antonio Camacho Negron for allegedly violating the terms of his parole. The arrest comes just months after independence leader Filiberto Ojeda-Rios was killed in a federal raid.
Iraqi PM Criticizes US Over Resignation Pressure
In news from Iraq, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has lashed out at growing US pressure to block him from serving a second term as prime minister. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has asked Iraqi Shiite politicians to seek the withdrawal of al-Jaafari's nomination for a second term. In an interview with the New York Times, al-Jaafari said: "[There's] concern among the Iraqi people that the democratic process is being threatened."
Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Iraq
After nearly three months in captivity, kidnapped U.S. reporter Jill Carroll has been released. Carroll is a freelance reporter working for the Christian Science Monitor in Iraq. She was seized in January outside the offices of a prominent Sunni politician in Baghdad. In a brief television interview in Baghdad, Carroll said she is in good condition and had been treated well by her captors. Her captors freed her by leaving her in a street near the offices of the Iraqi Islamic Party. She walked inside, and people there called US officials. Although her captors threatened twice in videotapes to kill her, Carroll said they never hit her or threatened to do so. Carroll said she was kept in a room with a window and a shower, but she did not know where she was. She went on to say: "I'm just happy to be free. I want to be with my family." On Wednesday, Jill Carroll's sister, Katie Carroll, had read a statement on Arab television pleading for her sister's safe release. There had been no word from Carroll's captors in nearly two months. They had demanded the release of all women detainees in Iraqi prisons. Five out of an estimated nine women prisoners were released in January.
The above four items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Third Party, Sabina, Kayla and Susan. Democracy Now! ("always informing you," as Marcia says):
Headlines for March 30, 2006
- Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Iraq
- Iraqi PM Criticizes US Over Resignation Pressure
- Taylor Returned To Liberia to Face War Crimes Charges
- Afghan Christian Convert Granted Political Asylum in Italy
- Ahmed Omar Abu Ali Sentenced to 30-Year Term
- Senate Approves Lobbying Bill, Rejects Independent Oversight
- Puerto Rican Independence Figure Arrested in San Juan
Kidnapped Reporter Jill Carroll Freed in Baghdad
Jill Carroll is free. The freelance reporter was kidnapped nearly three months ago in Baghdad. In a television interview shortly after her release, Carroll said she is in good condition and had been treated well by her captors. She went on to say, "I'm just happy to be free. I want to be with my family." We talk with one of her friends. [includes rush transcript]
Senate Debate Over Immigration Reform Heats Up in Washington
The Senate begins debate today on legislation to overhaul the nation's immigration laws. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that includes enforcement measures, provisions for a guest-worker program, and a way for undocumented workers way to work toward citizenship. We speak with the Director of Immigration Policy Research at the National Council of La Raza. [includes rush transcript]
Abramoff Sentenced to 70 Months in Prison As Senate Passes Lobbying Reform Bill That Excludes Campaign Finance
The Senate has overwhelmingly approved imposing new rules governing the relations between lawmakers and lobbyists. The ninety to eight vote came just hours after former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to nearly six years in jail. We speak with Chellie Pingree, president of Common Cause. [includes rush transcript]
Report Exposes Telecom Industry's Astroturf Lobbying Groups
Common Cause on Tuesday released a new report exposing "Astroturf" lobbying groups and other allies created by the telecommunications industry to pressure lawmakers to enact industry-friendly policies as Congress debates critical issues worth billions of dollars to the industry. [includes rush transcript]
How Lobbyists Helped Secure Billions in Taxpayer Subsidies For Big Oil Companies Despite Record Profits
A new report by Government Accountability Office estimates the oil and gas industry will be able to avoid paying between 20 and 80 billion dollars in royalties to the government. Industry lobbyists helped secure a provision passed by Congress 10 years ago subsidizing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. We speak with Edmund Andrews, the New York Times reporter who exposed the story. [includes rush transcript]
In Iraq, violence and chaos continue. The BBC notes that "eight workers at Iraq's largest oil refinery in the northern town of Baiji" were killed in an ambush by gunmen.
At a security checkpoint in Baghdad, Kays Juma, an Australian resident and professor, was killed by corporate security firm Unity Resources Group which "has issued a statement expressing its deepest sympathy at what happened." Kays Juma's wife Barbara is returning to Australia "to be with her children." Unity Resource Group is a "Dbuai-based company" that is attempting to expand "into health and medical services." Speeding cars, guns blasts, drive bys? Yes, according to the Associated Press. A lawyer was the victim of the drive-by "as she got out of a taxi in Basra" while in Baghdad, "a police commando" walking outside his home was also the victim of a drive-by shooting. (Both died.)
Polly notes the BBC's "Canada to decide on US deserter:"
Canada's refugee board is to hear the asylum plea of a US soldier who fled to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq.
Josh Key served as an explosives expert in Iraq for eight months. He deserted to Canada with his family in 2004.
Mr Key, who faces a court martial if returned to the US, says he refuses to fight in a war he regards as immoral and illegal.
About 20 US soldiers have applied for asylum in Canada. Two have already had their applications rejected.
We have another story (on another war resister) and we'll save that for this evening.
Instead, Lloyd and Shonna both noted Ruth Conniff's "Dems Can't Win Standing Still" (Ruth Conniff's Weekly Column, The Progressive):
A lot of smart people in Washington are getting very excited about Bush's low poll numbers, as well as new polls that show a possible landslide by Democrats in 2006. There's no question that public sentiment is turning against the President. But Democrats may want to temper this spring's optimism with a cautious reminder of how it felt to be carried away by Internet buzz and exit polls on the last Presidential election day. The really big question, it seems to me, is whether the Democrats think they can stand still and benefit from a landslide anti-Bush vote in 2006. That strikes me as highly unlikely. Sooner or later, they've got to take a position on Iraq, if they want to benefit from anti-war sentiment. They’ve got to take a position on NSA spying and on political corruption. Muted lip service isn't going to do it.
Shonna noted that while Conniff argues for action, Eric Alterman argues for nothing. Ignore withdrawal! There is no withdrawal! It will hurt election chances! You don't how the media will distort any statement the Dems make! So talk strategy! Not withdrawal!
"The American people were lied into an illegal war. Too many lives have been lost. 2327 Americans dead is more than enough. We're bringing our sons and daughters home."
That's pretty clear cut and would probably get out despite the inherent problems with today's media. But Alterman says (lisps) "NO!" while channeling the Third Way. I'm really not sure why Alterman's allowed to note that org in passing? That requires identification.
"Third Way? That sounds interesting. What is it?"
It's DLC and apparently since Christopher Hitchens is no longer around, to regularly foul the pages of The Nation, the soft-minded Alterman fills the spot. When DLC front groups are noted, they need to be identified. There's no excuse for not doing so. This isn't a "free speech" issue. Alterman's been allowed to write one idiotic column after another for years. (Just as he's been able to go on Charlie Rose and whimper or go on The Majority Report and think he's being "cute" when everyone listening is thinking, "This lisper really thinks he comes off like a tough talker.")
Responsible journalism requires that readers are informed when Alterman's fronting for the DLC. The whole column is DLC so it may difficult to determine what needs noting. It's very simple, when he's reporting on an event sponsored by the DLC, the magazine needs to note it's a DLC event. That leaves Alterman's free speech intact and provides confused readers with needed info.
"Didn't The Nation just editorialize that they refused to 'support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to this war a major compaign issue'?" Yes, it did editorialize that last year. Alterman's opinion is not the magazine's. The DLC's position is never the magazine. When the DLC pops up, worked in by columnists with their own ties to it, the organizations and the events need to be disclosed.
Ruth Conniff's writing about the mood of the country, Alterman's writing about an out of think tank without identifying it as DLC. Atlerman's got nothing to back him up (and has a curious look at the 2004 election/candidate) which goes to show that gasbags come in all shapes, sizes and speech defects. Read Conniff, skip Alterman.
Think I'm too hard on the most ineffectual public speaker? The one most in need of speech lessons/therapy? Savor this by Brian Morton:
And in the media, the biggest whiner of them all is MSNBC blogger and The Nation media columnist Eric Alterman. Priggish, preening, name-dropping, and the world's biggest Bruce Springsteen sycophant, he's the kind of liberal that makes my teeth hurt. When right-wing loons look for effete East Coast snobs to portray as their limousine-liberal straw men, Alterman, who never lets go of a slight (he spent long blog-column inches demanding equal space for a reply to the Boston Globe's editorial page editor for an insult the paper dealt him), is too good to be true. He barely acknowledges his own wrongs, and even compounds slights to others--take, for example, his battle earlier this year with former City Paper managing editor/current New York Observer media reporter Tom Scocca, in which Alterman not only refused to acknowledge his mistake on the facts, but kept misspelling Scocca's name in kvetching about his work at the Observer.
That's from Morton's "The Wuss Party" (Baltimore City Paper) and, just a reminder, tonight is indymedia roundup.
Doug notes Shayana Kadidal's "SPYING SMOKESCREENS: An Analysis of the DeWine Spy Legislation" (Center for Constitutional Rights):
Several more
As one of the lead attorneys in a federal case suing Bush for illegal spying, Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush, I am particularly concerned about the DeWine legislation.
Warrantless surveillance-- that is, electronic surveilance without review of some kind by a disinterested judge, either before or immediately after the wiretap is put in place -- is, with very limited exceptions, currently illegal and punishable as a felony. The DeWine bill would legallize warrantless surveillance of international calls and emails whenever the president decides going to the court established by FISA is too much trouble. Periodic after-the fact briefings by the President to small committees of Congressional leaders would replace judicial oversight entirely.
Both the U.S. Constitution and federal law currently forbid spying on Americans without a warrant, but this bill would purport to legalize such surveillance when it targets people on a "Surveillance List." How do you get on this list?
Kadidal was interviewed by Larry Bensky during KPFA's broadcast of the NSA hearing
(as Doug noted). (Use link if you missed the broadcast to hear archived version.)
Again, indymedia roundup this evening. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
democracy now
the new york times
edmund l. andrews
jill carroll
kpfa
larry bensky
center for constitutional rights
government snooping
government spying
snoopgate
ruth conniff
josh key
Eric+Alterman
iraq
brian morton
[Shirley note: Typos corrected "NO!" added.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)