I wish that respected journalists would leave the debate whether Posada is a terrorist, and concentrate on the question whether he and Orlando Bosch were involved in the JFK assassination under direction of George HW Bush.
Because THAT is the real reason he will NEVER be extradited as long as Bushes are in the big seat.
All three were in Dallas that day ... Bosch and Posada on Dealey Plaza to be exact.
The current debate is very much like the the debate on the single bullet theory. It centers around the question whether the impossible trajectory of that bullet is possible after all. Which takes away from the much more important reasons to blow it out of the water, namely:
1) The bullet fragments retrieved from Connolly's wrist weighed much more than what the "magic bullet" had lost from its original weight.
2) No bullet penetrated Kennedy's neck
3) No bullet in recorded history has ever caused 7 wounds, penetrating and shattering bones in the process, and emerged in the un-deformed condition of the magic bullet.
4) It is simply impossible that one bullet causing such damage, emerges in almost pristine condition, while the other one, the one in Kennedy's head, purportedly from the same rifle, explodes in a thousand fragments.
Wim Dankbaar
dank@xs4all.nl
Wim Dankbaar is a 44-year-old father of two in The Netherlands. For the last four years he has been actively involved in a project to gather and present new evidence in the JFK assassination ... evidence that proves that the official story is a fraud and that the Kennedy killing was a conspiracy with the knowledge and consent of the highest powers in US government.
What is the basis for Dankbaar's assertion that the CIA and and anti-Castro elements were behind the assassination?
Dankbaar: This becomes very clear for everyone who studies the known evidence thoroughly. Both the CIA, or maybe I should say the hawks in the CIA, and the anti Castro cubans, who were trained by the CIA, had the means and the motives to kill Kennedy. But they did it in partnership with some key figures in the US Government and Big Business in Texas, as well as a few leaders in Organized Crime. These last three groups had equally strong motives to rid themselves of Kennedy, and even stronger means to pull it off. The fact of the matter is that it was an ordinary but hidden coup d'etat, to take over the US government and reverse the policies of Kennedy. Policies that were detested by all of these groups. These groups had already found each other long before 1963.
They were in bed together. The most visible proof of that, is their efforts to assassinate Fidel Castro. The groups involved in that are the exact same groups that I have mentioned, this is a proven and public fact now, and they are the exact same people that ended up killing Kennedy. They were very much intertwined, and probably still are. Now if you want to put faces to these devils of power, you could best divide them first into a 3 level hierarchy. High level, mid level and operational level. The high level is the select group of conspirators, you may think of Lyndon Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, George and Prescott Bush, Allen Dulles, oil barons Clint Murchison and H. L. Hunt, crime bosses Santo Trafficante, Sam Giancana and Carlos Marcello. It was actually a wider group than that, but it is difficult to pinpoint them all. After all, in a cover-up you have to work with circumstantial evidence, unless someone breaks the secrecy with a public confession.
The mid-level was the planning cadre, the managers, the puppet masters directing the pawns and the actual shooters. Two of those managers, the CIA calls them controllers, were E. Howard Hunt and his partner David Atlee Phillips. They are both legends in Covert Operations. Guy Banister in New Orleans is another example. The CIA also used assets to assist with the operational side. Philip Twombly for example, a very unknown name, was instrumental in providing the fake secret service badges that were made for the executives in Dealey Plaza. He was also in Dallas that day, as was Nixon, their cover was the Pepsi Cola bottling convention. So this mid group organizes the actual operation. They direct the shooters and their spotters. They are the operational level. And it is important to understand that these shooters do not necessarily have to know about each other's participation. That is what the CIA calls compartimentalization. They only take orders from their direct boss, they are not being told who else is involved in the operation, just to follow orders. This works horizontally and vertically in the organization. Even the mid level people do not have to know all the people at the top. One man to take the orders from is enough. For example, if Howard Hunt gets his orders from Dulles, he doesn't have to know that Dulles planned it with Nixon and Johnson. And Nixon and Johnson don't need to know the identities of the shooters. So at the top the conspiracy is rather closely held, although many people are used. The ground rules are CIA only, maximum security, non-attributability, plausible denial, need to know basis, no written communication. Another ground rule is "What you don't know can't hurt anybody." Interestingly, this rule is also applied by a control of the mass media, who hardly ever report on the JFK assassination, unless it is something nutty or disinformation, but the real critics of the official version are not given a voice by US media.
Only Oliver Stone was able to break through this wall with his much attacked movie JFK, which presented a more believable scenario, however still without naming the names.
If you want names in the operational level I can tell you that Charles Nicoletti and James Files were two of the shooters. They were both under orders from Sam Giancana, the mafia boss of Chicago. John Roselli, another lieutenant of Giancana, was also there, but as a spotter, he did not shoot. Of these names I am absolutely sure, based on the detailed confession of James Files, who claims he fired the fatal headshot from the grassy knoll. Why he is credible is too detailed to explain here, I do that in my book 'Files on JFK.' He says that his boss Charles Nicoletti fired from the Daltex building behind Kennedy. His knowledge does not go further than that, which shows the compartimentalization again. Of course there were also shooters in the Texas schoolbook building, and possibly other locations like the roof of the Records building, but I don't know their identities beyond any doubt. I have strong indications though that both David Sanchez Morales and Richard Cain were shooters in the Book Depository. Richard Cain was another hitman for Sam Giancana with strong CIA ties and Morales was a husky looking Mexican-Indian with very dark complection, who developed a reputation as best CIA assassin for Latin American. He was also very close with David Atlee Phillips and he was the Chief of Operations of the CIA station in Miami which trained the Cuban exiles for raids against Castro. The boss of that station was Ted Shackley, an associate of George Bush, which connection is later formalized when Bush becomes CIA director and appoints Shackley as his Deputy Director Operations. Interestingly, James Files says that he was recruited for the CIA by David Atlee Phillips on a recommendation of Ted Shackley. Furthermore I know that Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch were on Dealey Plaza.
Was Oswald the assassin of JFK?
Dankbaar: No, of course not. Oswald was a CIA agent who was cleverly setup as the patsy by his superiors David Atlee Phillips and Guy Banister in New Orleans. It appears that George Demohrenschildt, an oil geologist who knew all the Texan oil tycoons, including Bush, was also handling Oswald in Dallas. Anyway, I am positive that Phillips made Oswald believe that he was playing the part of the hero, trying to infiltrate the assassination plot in order to inform on it and thus in order to prevent it. It is only at the last moment that Oswald realized he was just a patsy, as he said himself. This is also why he was at the right time in the right place. He cooperated, hoping up to the last moment that he could prevent the assassination. He was actually an admirer of Kennedy for his civil rights and anti-segregation policies. But he was also the perfect patsy. Through his staged defection to Russia, which was in fact a covert mission supported by the CIA, he already looked like a communist and he smelled like a communist. This was reinforced with his pro Castro cover and Fair Play for Cuba Committee, which he also did under direction of the CIA. Lee Harvey loved to be a double agent and infiltrate the other side. But the truth is that he was very strongly anti-Castro. I do know that he participated in at least one of the plans to kill Castro. Funny enough Oswald misspeaks in one of his radio interviews. He says that in Russia he" was at all times under the protection of the US Government." Then he quickly corrects himself, saying that he did not mean to say that but that he "held at all times contacts with the American Embassy in Moscow"
No, Oswald was the opposite of the assassin of JFK, and this is perhaps the greatest injustice of all. Although the media and government mouthpieces are still trying to brainwash the public with the lone-nut-assassin-lie, there is not a shred of evidence to place him on the 6th floor with that old rifle, let alone firing it, let alone hitting JFK. This is even clear for those who read the Warren Report, there is enough evidence in there to vindicate him, but they knew that the average American is not going to plough through those 26 volumes, so just repeating its "conclusion" through the media was enough to accomplish the mission. Certainly at that time when Americans still trusted their government.
Oswald would have been vindicated if he would have gone to trial. He would also have blown the lid of the conspiracy. Therefore he could not be allowed to live. It is obvious that something went wrong in the plan. They did not plan for him to be captured and alive in custody. So Jack Ruby, who was Giancana's man in Dallas and also worked for Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante, was hastily selected to finish the job. He had to, disobeying an order in the mob is not an option.
How long took the investigation that you have been directing?
Dankbaar: That depends on when you start counting, I have been interested in it since 1988. From that time I have read books, watched documentaries and such. But I have become actively involved when I learned about the confession of James Files, which was only 4 years ago.
Who financed your investigation?
Dankbaar: Myself, but I have to say I that am building on the work and testimonies of others, most of those have invested at great personal cost, financially, emotionally or both. Without these people my work would not have been possible. Jim Garrison and Joe West are just a few of those people. The late Joe West is the man who found James Files and persuaded him to confess, although Joe West did not live to hear it himself. Jim Garrsion was the one and only public official to take on the conspiracy and try to bring the guilty to justice. If we would have man like that today , with what we know today, the American public would quickly learn the ugly truth. But unfortunately, so far there does not seem to be a man like Jim Garrison. They should make a statue for him, maybe next to Kennedy's grave or in front of the White House.
What is the evidence for the involvement of Bush senior?
Dankbaar: He is connected to all the main players. It is a matter of common sense and circumstancial evidence. I do not know if that evidence would be enough for a conviction, but right now the problem is more that the public does not know about that evidence, because they are not informed of it. To me that clearly shows there is no real freedom of press in America, that is just a cheap myth. What can be proven without any doubt is that Bush lied about not being in the CIA in 1963. A declassified document written by J. Edgar Hoover shows that he was in contact with Hoover about the Kennedy assassination, specifically about the reaction of the cuban exile community in Miami. Hoover names him as "George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." It is further logical that Bush would be informed on the Cuban exiles because there are several sources that claim he helped finance the Bay of Pigs invasion and actively recruited people for it. There he made his friends in the exile community. One example is Felix Rodriguez, who is Luis Posada's buddy and takes credit for killing Che Guevara.
Common sense also tells you that someone with no experience, is appointed director of the CIA. But Bush wants us to believe the opposite. Although he seems to have insulated himself preety well, there is a wealth of evidence that puts him in the middle of all the players. Like he was good friends with Oswald's best friend in Dallas, George Demohrenschildt. But he was also very close to Nixon and Dulles, who did not only plan the Bay of the pigs, but are also better known suspects in the Kennedy conspiracy. Nixon would not do anything without the knowledge of Bush because he thanked his political career to Prescott Bush. Prescott Bush had installed Nixon as VP under Eisenhower, and he and Gerald Ford were also fundraisers for Nixon's campaign against Kennedy. Nixon lost to Kennedy by complete surprise of the Bushes, for they did not know that Kennedy had made a deal with Giancana to rig the elections in Illinois and Virginia. Had that not happened, their men would have become President. Ford and Dulles were both appointed by Johnson on the Warren Commission, no doubt to control the cover-up from there. They were the two most active members. And both were fierce Kennedy enemies, and strong friends of Nixon and the Bushes. I mean Dulles had been FIRED by Kennedy. Dulles hated the man. How could you honestly have Dulles and Ford investigate the man's murder? The Warren Commission was a complete farce to hide the truth and to convict the patsy in the eyes of the public.
Are all the files declassified now, or is there still information that is withheld?
Dankbaar: There are still a lot of documents classified. That fact alone is indication that the Warren Commission was a lie to satisfy the American Public. Because if Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone nut they said he was, there is no valid reason to keep the files locked. If the Warren Commission was correct, national security would not be endangered with the disclosure of that information. They need to lock the files to keep the real truth hidden.
On what do you base your claims that George Bush, Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch were in Dallas the day that JFK was murdered?
Dankbaar: On documents and witness testimonies. A declassified document tells that Bush will be in Dallas on the day of the assassination. It's about a phone call from Bush to the FBI in Houston . In that phone call, Bush himself says he will be in Dallas and asks to keep the information confidential. It's funny that we have that in black and white and Bush does not recall where he was, while every normal citizen does. Another declassified FBI document proves that he was high up in the CIA in 1963, in relation to the "misguided anti-Castro Cubans." In that document Bush is being informed about their reaction to the Kennedy assassination. it's funny again that Bush himself has always denied that he was in the CIA before becoming director of the Agency. That was already a bit hard to believe, but this document proves the lie.
As for the others, I have several sources that place both Posada and Bosch in Dallas that day.
Is there a connection Posada-Bush?
Dankbaar: Lots of connections. But they are not so visible, because they are secret and not exactly advertised on CNN. The Posada-Bush connections root back all the way to the Bay of Pigs. That is when they became acquainted. Not only with Posada but with many other members of Operation 40, because Bush was the creator of Operation 40 with Dulles and Nixon. Because Operation 40 was very secret and illegal, these friendships are covert, but it is no secret that the Bush family is friends with the Cuban exile community in Florida. Jeb Bush is the Governor there, he has the support of all the anti-Castro leaders. Do you remember the Florida recount for the 2000 elections? It is no surprise it happened there and ended in Bush's favor. The most visible friendship of Bush is the one with Felix Rodriguez. Felix Rodriguez is a direct associate of Posada, both are Bay of Pigs veterans and members of Operation 40. Remember the Cuban airline bombing in 1976? This was the year that Bush was CIA director. For this atrocity, Bosch and Posada were convicted in Caracas . After Posada's escape from prison in 1985, he turns up in el Salvador, to work with Felix Rodriguez in another secret operation. It became known as Iran-Contra. It was weapons-supplies to Nicaragua and Iran, financed with drugs trafficking. This operation was also led by George Bush, who was vice president then. Maybe you recall that Carter lost the election to Reagan and Bush? Right after that, the American hostages in Iran were released. This was because Bush had made a secret deal with the Ayatollah Khomeini in Paris to postpone the release of the hostages, so that Carter could not profit from that. In return Iran would get weapons. This event is known as "The October surprise", because the release of the hostages was such a surprise to the public, but not for Bush, because it was all staged. That's how Bush became vice president.
And if you look at Bosch, Posada's accomplice in the airline bombing, who was still in jail in Caracas, he is released in 1987 after a diplomatic negotiation led by Jeb Bush. And when his father becomes President, Bosch receives a presidential pardon. Once you study this history, a clear pattern emerges. A pattern that the Bush guides and protects the terrorists and assassins of Operation 40, some of whom killed president Kennedy.
Also, a direct supervisor of Posada and Rodriguez was Ted Shackley. Shackley and Bush were very close since the Bay of Pigs. In 1976, when Bush became CIA director, he appointed Shackley as his deputy director Operations. The current CIA director, Porter Goss, also worked under Ted Shackley in Operation 40. There are a lot more connections, but suffice to say that Bush senior is a puppet master behind the scenes. The spider in the web. Very insulated in secrecy, but very deadly.
What is your analysis of the refusal to extradite Posada Carriles to Venezuela?
Dankbaar: Posada is the holder of many secrets, the disclosure of which would be disastrous for Bush. Posada himself has said this publicly. This is why Posada gets this protection, and this is why he cannot be extradited to Venezuela. The Bush administration is therefore in an extremely embarrassing situation. A hot potato that they can't swallow. The best thing that could happen for them is that Posada simply dies of old age. I can hardly see a good solution. They can't extradite him, and they can't release him, for that would create an international protest. So far the outcry is mainly coming from Castro and Chavez, and my advise to them would be to keep the pressure on. I am actually surprised that Castro is not exploiting the Kennedy connection more. After all, it is his own former girl friend Marita Lorenz, who implicated Bosch and other Operation 40 members in the Kennedy murder. The American media pay little attention to his outrage, because they are controlled by Big Business and because he is just the communist dictator, an enemy of the United States. And Chavez is his puppet. What they say is just propaganda. That is the image painted of them. If Castro would simply say that Bush is protecting the killers of JFK, it would be all over the news, also in the United States. That would shake the world awake on what's playing here. And that is what Castro wants, if I am not mistaken. He wants the world to see the hypocrisy of the Posada asylum case and the War on Terror. But I am not sure if he sees that he could unleash a scandal bigger than Watergate.
Anyway, I hope he reads this (laughs).
Wim Dankbaar
dank@xs4all.nl
www.jfkmurdersolved.com
Sunday, April 02, 2006
US launches major military exercises in the Caribbean as a warning/threat to Venezuela and Cuba
According to a press release by the US Southern Command on Monday, March 27: "A U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Group will deploy from the U.S. east coast to the Caribbean Sea to conduct Operation Partnership of the Americas from early April through late May 2006." The strike group will be composed of "aircraft carrier USS George Washington with embarked air wing, Cruiser USS Monterey, Destroyer USS Stout, and Frigate USS Underwood". This means that the US Navy will be sending 4 ships, one of them carrying 60 fighter planes, and a total of 6,500 soldiers on a major military exercise in the Caribbean starting in the next few weeks. (see: U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Group to make Caribbean deployment)
The stated aims of this exercise are: "enhancing military-to-military relationships with regional partner nations, improving operational readiness, and fostering good will." By "fostering good will" what is meant is sending a strong message to Venezuela and Cuba. The commander of the US Southcom General Bantz Craddock has on many occasions attacked the Venezuelan government. The decision to send this unusually large force to the Caribbean was announced just two weeks after General Craddok spoke at a US Senate committee hearing in which he called the Venezuelan government a "destabilizing force" because of its moves in the international arena, as well as ongoing efforts to purchase weapons, particularly from China. "The purchase of military equipment has not been a transparent process. This is a destabilizing factor in a region where nations are making joint efforts to face international threats, rather than fighting each other," he stated. And he added: "We are not fully convinced that such ample and large purchases have an origin in Venezuelan national defense concerns."
In a press conference during his visit to Uruguay in June 2005 he was even more specific: "I do not see Cuba as a military threat to the United States, I do not see Venezuela as a military threat to the United States, what I do see is an influence in Latin America that creates, potentially creates instability and uncertainty, because in Cuba, obviously it is a totalitarian state, a communist state, and in Venezuela it appears that democratic processes and institutions are at risk. That has great opportunity to create, again, instability and uncertainty throughout the region if those processes are exported. So we are concerned, and we believe the neighbors in the region should also be concerned." In a thinly disguised threat of military intervention, General Craddock added: "The military aspect is to create conditions to allow other solutions to work, economic, political, social". (http://montevideo.usembassy.gov/usaweb/paginas/431-00EN.shtml).
In the recently released Strategy for National Security, 2006 document Washington clearly sees Venezuela as a target: “In Venezuela, a demagogue inundated with petrol money is undermining democracy and trying to destabilize the region.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html)
It is clear that the current military exercises must be seen in this context. This is recognised even by right military defence analysts from the US. An article in the Virginian Pilot newspaper quoted one of them: "The presence of a U.S. carrier task force in the Caribbean will definitely be interpreted as some sort of signal by the governments of Cuba and Venezuela,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a pro-defense think tank in Washington, who added: "the fact we are doing it now will be interpreted by Castro and Chavez as indicative of some sort of U.S. plan, or initiative, or whatever you want to call it". (GW strike group will head south for training, Jack Dorsey, Virginian Pilot, March 28th)
The US Southcom already has a number of military bases within reach of Venezuelan territory. These include smaller "Cooperative Security Locations" based in Aruba and Curaçao off the coast of Venezuela, in Manta in Ecuador and in El Salvador, together with larger bases in Soto Cano in Honduras, Guantánamo in Cuba and in several locations in Colombia. Southcom has just issued a new "theater command strategy", part of which has been declassified. Objective number one is to guarantee that "regional energy supplies will flow freely into international markets and will not be targets of aggression." Essential to meeting this security objective, says Southcom, is improving the ability of "partner nation security forces to protect critical infrastructure" of the energy industry in the region. This clearly affects Venezuela, which is the 3rd largest supplier of oil to the United States.
A number of objectives have not been declassified, but then number six is to "prevent rogue states from supporting terrorist organizations". Considering there are no "rogue" states in Latin America, this can only be a reference to Venezuela, which Washington has accused, without presenting any proof, of supporting the Farc guerrillas in Colombia (described by Gen Braddock as "narco-terrorists").
Usually the corporate media dismisses president Chavez's warnings of the danger of a US military intervention against the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. But information publicly available shows that this is a very real danger. Washington is not likely to start an open war in Venezuela at this particular time, when they are bogged down in a war they cannot win in Iraq, but they are certainly making preparations. One way in which military intervention can take place is by artificially fostering autonomist demands in Zulia, the oil rich Venezuelan state on the border with Colombia. Local politicians in this region (one of only two with an opposition governor) have been busy demanding a referendum on autonomy. A scenario could be envisaged in which they declare independence unilaterally and ask for foreign intervention to guarantee their "democratic rights". Such an intervention would be easier to justify and could even take place under the guise of "peace-keeping" (as is currently the case with the imperialist intervention in Haiti).
This would obviously not be an easy task. Chavez has already pointed out, correctly, that the day after military intervention by the US against Venezuela, the whole continent would be in flames. Latin America is witnessing a shift to the left with mass movements, general strikes, insurrections, elections of governments which are seen as being left wing by the masses, etc.
The United States is seriously worried about the impact the Venezuelan revolution is having in the rest of Latin America. They are accusing Chavez of interfering in the election campaigns in Peru and Mexico, as they accused him of interfering in the elections in December in Bolivia in which Evo Morales won a landslide victory. The accusation that the Venezuelan government is directly financing candidates in other countries is obviously wrong. But what is certainly true is that the Bolivarian revolution has raised the hopes of the masses of workers and peasants throughout the continent and beyond. It has provided an example that it is possible to challenge the policies imposed by Washington. In previous decades a familiar pattern would take place in Latin America. The masses of workers and peasants went on the move and elected a progressive government which would soon be overthrown by a military coup engineered from the US. This had a demoralising effect on the mass movement in the continent. The Bolivarian revolution has also changed that with the defeat of the military coup against Chavez in April 2002 by the mass movement of the people in the streets.
And the effect is not only in Latin America but also in the United States where millions of Latinos live and work, many of them keeping links with their countries of origin. The enormous hundreds of thousands of Latin American immigrants in the United States who have been demonstrating and going on strike for their rights in the last few weeks, would not remain idle if the US staged a military provocation against Venezuela.
All this makes the Bolivarian revolution even more dangerous to the ruling class in the United Sates. They are carrying out careful preparations to put an end to it. These include a campaign of relentless pressure, through the media, through diplomacy and economic sabotage, trying to prevent the purchase of weapons by Venezuela, etc. And the current military exercises in the Caribbean are clearly part of these preparations, both as a threat and as a concrete preparation for future military intervention.
For these reasons it is more important than ever to redouble the efforts of the solidarity movement. Hands Off Venezuela!!
The stated aims of this exercise are: "enhancing military-to-military relationships with regional partner nations, improving operational readiness, and fostering good will." By "fostering good will" what is meant is sending a strong message to Venezuela and Cuba. The commander of the US Southcom General Bantz Craddock has on many occasions attacked the Venezuelan government. The decision to send this unusually large force to the Caribbean was announced just two weeks after General Craddok spoke at a US Senate committee hearing in which he called the Venezuelan government a "destabilizing force" because of its moves in the international arena, as well as ongoing efforts to purchase weapons, particularly from China. "The purchase of military equipment has not been a transparent process. This is a destabilizing factor in a region where nations are making joint efforts to face international threats, rather than fighting each other," he stated. And he added: "We are not fully convinced that such ample and large purchases have an origin in Venezuelan national defense concerns."
In a press conference during his visit to Uruguay in June 2005 he was even more specific: "I do not see Cuba as a military threat to the United States, I do not see Venezuela as a military threat to the United States, what I do see is an influence in Latin America that creates, potentially creates instability and uncertainty, because in Cuba, obviously it is a totalitarian state, a communist state, and in Venezuela it appears that democratic processes and institutions are at risk. That has great opportunity to create, again, instability and uncertainty throughout the region if those processes are exported. So we are concerned, and we believe the neighbors in the region should also be concerned." In a thinly disguised threat of military intervention, General Craddock added: "The military aspect is to create conditions to allow other solutions to work, economic, political, social". (http://montevideo.usembassy.gov/usaweb/paginas/431-00EN.shtml).
In the recently released Strategy for National Security, 2006 document Washington clearly sees Venezuela as a target: “In Venezuela, a demagogue inundated with petrol money is undermining democracy and trying to destabilize the region.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html)
It is clear that the current military exercises must be seen in this context. This is recognised even by right military defence analysts from the US. An article in the Virginian Pilot newspaper quoted one of them: "The presence of a U.S. carrier task force in the Caribbean will definitely be interpreted as some sort of signal by the governments of Cuba and Venezuela,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a pro-defense think tank in Washington, who added: "the fact we are doing it now will be interpreted by Castro and Chavez as indicative of some sort of U.S. plan, or initiative, or whatever you want to call it". (GW strike group will head south for training, Jack Dorsey, Virginian Pilot, March 28th)
The US Southcom already has a number of military bases within reach of Venezuelan territory. These include smaller "Cooperative Security Locations" based in Aruba and Curaçao off the coast of Venezuela, in Manta in Ecuador and in El Salvador, together with larger bases in Soto Cano in Honduras, Guantánamo in Cuba and in several locations in Colombia. Southcom has just issued a new "theater command strategy", part of which has been declassified. Objective number one is to guarantee that "regional energy supplies will flow freely into international markets and will not be targets of aggression." Essential to meeting this security objective, says Southcom, is improving the ability of "partner nation security forces to protect critical infrastructure" of the energy industry in the region. This clearly affects Venezuela, which is the 3rd largest supplier of oil to the United States.
A number of objectives have not been declassified, but then number six is to "prevent rogue states from supporting terrorist organizations". Considering there are no "rogue" states in Latin America, this can only be a reference to Venezuela, which Washington has accused, without presenting any proof, of supporting the Farc guerrillas in Colombia (described by Gen Braddock as "narco-terrorists").
Usually the corporate media dismisses president Chavez's warnings of the danger of a US military intervention against the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. But information publicly available shows that this is a very real danger. Washington is not likely to start an open war in Venezuela at this particular time, when they are bogged down in a war they cannot win in Iraq, but they are certainly making preparations. One way in which military intervention can take place is by artificially fostering autonomist demands in Zulia, the oil rich Venezuelan state on the border with Colombia. Local politicians in this region (one of only two with an opposition governor) have been busy demanding a referendum on autonomy. A scenario could be envisaged in which they declare independence unilaterally and ask for foreign intervention to guarantee their "democratic rights". Such an intervention would be easier to justify and could even take place under the guise of "peace-keeping" (as is currently the case with the imperialist intervention in Haiti).
This would obviously not be an easy task. Chavez has already pointed out, correctly, that the day after military intervention by the US against Venezuela, the whole continent would be in flames. Latin America is witnessing a shift to the left with mass movements, general strikes, insurrections, elections of governments which are seen as being left wing by the masses, etc.
The United States is seriously worried about the impact the Venezuelan revolution is having in the rest of Latin America. They are accusing Chavez of interfering in the election campaigns in Peru and Mexico, as they accused him of interfering in the elections in December in Bolivia in which Evo Morales won a landslide victory. The accusation that the Venezuelan government is directly financing candidates in other countries is obviously wrong. But what is certainly true is that the Bolivarian revolution has raised the hopes of the masses of workers and peasants throughout the continent and beyond. It has provided an example that it is possible to challenge the policies imposed by Washington. In previous decades a familiar pattern would take place in Latin America. The masses of workers and peasants went on the move and elected a progressive government which would soon be overthrown by a military coup engineered from the US. This had a demoralising effect on the mass movement in the continent. The Bolivarian revolution has also changed that with the defeat of the military coup against Chavez in April 2002 by the mass movement of the people in the streets.
And the effect is not only in Latin America but also in the United States where millions of Latinos live and work, many of them keeping links with their countries of origin. The enormous hundreds of thousands of Latin American immigrants in the United States who have been demonstrating and going on strike for their rights in the last few weeks, would not remain idle if the US staged a military provocation against Venezuela.
All this makes the Bolivarian revolution even more dangerous to the ruling class in the United Sates. They are carrying out careful preparations to put an end to it. These include a campaign of relentless pressure, through the media, through diplomacy and economic sabotage, trying to prevent the purchase of weapons by Venezuela, etc. And the current military exercises in the Caribbean are clearly part of these preparations, both as a threat and as a concrete preparation for future military intervention.
For these reasons it is more important than ever to redouble the efforts of the solidarity movement. Hands Off Venezuela!!
Mass Surveillance for Dummies -- Part 4 -Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! --Benjamin FranklinGeorge Bush's Democracy is two wolves (in sheep's clothing) attacking a lamb, throwing the lamb in a hole and keeping him prisoner indefinitely (for the safety of the wolves) while borrowing money from all the lambs in the neighborhood (to create a world safe for wolves) and using the lamb's wool as collateral (for the benefit of the lending wolves). If this makes no sense, read no further. It's not going to get any better than this.
This convoluted type reasoning is what makes the world of mass surveillance turn upon the axis of American government rationalization. This is the type reasoning that government shysters use to confuse any politician or entity brave enough, lucky enough or stupid enough to blunder upon their hidden world of mass surveillance programs for all the inhabitants of the planet. This is the reasoning that allows our government to continually expand their nefarious programs using well-hidden and bottomless budgets and answer only occasionally to over-zealous and misguided civil rights activists.
The power of present-day programs of mass surveillance is truly futuristic, beyond comprehension and beyond oversight and control. But even this does not properly portray their danger to the "American way of life". Their true power and danger comes in examining the programs in connection with the resumes of those who have been empowered by the Bush Administration to guide, control (and of course expand) these programs.
John Negroponte - United States National Intelligence Director:
"Intelligence czar John Negroponte . . . (worked in) the CIA's Phoenix program, which assassinated some 40,000 Vietnamese "subversives." Negroponte was the officer-in-charge for Vietnam at the National Security Council (NSC) under Henry Kissinger, having worked as a "political affairs officer" (read: CIA) at the US Embassy in Saigon starting as early as 196. In 1981 Reagan appointed Negroponte as Ambassador to Honduras. That appointment gave Reagan a base from which to assist the Contras in Nicaragua. Negroponte became good friends with General Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, infamous for his participation in Battalion 3-16 death squad human rights abuses and who was conducting a reign of terror in Honduras at that time".[1]
Michael Chertoff - Secretary United States Homeland Security:
Chertoff, as an aggressive proponent of the USA PATRIOT Act, helped set up the newly authorized surveillance networks that need not rely on a targeted individual being suspected of any crime.
Chertoff's record is one of having shredded the constitution and its protection of civil liberties, but his unquestioned fealty to the president, seems to be his primary qualification for the post of Homeland Security Czar. Virtually every aspect of the War On Terror now features someone who has been promoted for his or her misdeeds. No bad deed goes unrewarded. Chertoff's round up of Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians after 9-11 was not only a civil liberty atrocity it was wholly ineffective. None of the detainees, held incommunicado and without bond until proven innocent, was ever charged -- let alone convicted -- of any terrorism-related crime. Few if any held any useful intelligence value".[1]
Alberto Gonzalez - United States Attorney General:
"George W. Bush's pick for Attorney General, advised the President and the Pentagon that Bush was above the law concerning torture. This sicko actually said that the President is not just above international law (the Geneva Convention), but that Bush is even above Federal law).
Gonzalez's memo, which told Bush that the nature of the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions of the Geneva Conventions on torture did not apply to "unlawful combatants" captured during the war on terror."
His (Gonzalez's) office also played a role in an August 2002 memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel advising that torturing alleged Al-Qaida terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified" and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the U.S. war on terrorism. At least five and up to 28 confirmed deaths of detainees are believed by the Pentagon to have been caused by aggressive policies Gonzales did not define as torture".[1]
We Americans through our inertia, apathy and negligence have allowed our elected representatives to put these criminals in their present positions. Imagine going into a maximum security prison, selecting the most hardened and dangerous criminals in the facility and putting them in a position to monitor and control your present, your future and that of your children under laws that have been made in secret. Our neglect of our government is an ingredient of future horror and unimaginable suffering for our country and ourselves.
The ADVISE Program:
This is a relatively new Department of Homeland Security data-mining program that is designed to collect a vast array of corporate and public online information - from financial records to CNN news stories - and cross-reference it against US intelligence and law-enforcement records. The system would then store it as "entities" - linking data about people, places, things, organizations, and events. If there is anything new about the program it is the sheer size of the program as defined by its data storage requirements. The storage requirements are huge - enough to retain information on about 1 quadrillion entities. If each entity were a penny, they would collectively form a cube a half-mile high - roughly double the height of the Empire State Building.[2]
Remember, the information being gathered is all-inclusive. It is the record of the way we live our lives - the way we buy toothbrushes, the schools we attend, the amount and type of food we purchase, where and how much gasoline we buy. In the eyes of our freshly minted totalitarian system, this is the "beauty" of the system. Who can object to having a record made of what kind of toothpaste he uses? If one objects to having his dental habits monitored, he must really have something to hide. Perhaps "Big Brother" should dig deeper into the way you live your life. Perhaps "Big" should monitor your e-mail (coming and going). Perhaps there is a law-enforcement link between people who buy lots of size 9 shoes and those who buy lots of toothpaste. Possibly we are watching an outbreak of "hoof and mouth disease" - or, maybe it's "chicken flu". This rationalization sounds implausible and facetious, but it points to the fact that the systems link worldwide law-enforcement, anti-terrorist and spy agencies. This network coupled with the fact that computers are drawing the conclusions about ones toothpaste usage and someone else's shoe buying habits should be a reason for grave concern when made available to some foreign government agency.
Questions about the innocuous things that constitute our daily lives and their value engender some other rather closely related questions. If the innocuous data of our lives is so important in protecting us, one might wonder why the following "data" didn't trigger some pre-9/11 life-saving actions. Why did the following "trends" go unnoticed - especially when these type trends are specifically what surveillance experts look for in trying to recognize such impending events as 9/11?
"A jump in UAL (United Airlines) put options 90 times (not 90 percent) above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. -- CBS News, September 26 A jump in American Airlines put options 60 times (not 60 percent) above norm al on the day before the attacks. -- CBS News, September 26 No similar trading occurred on any other airlines -- Bloomberg Business Report, the Institute for Counterterrorism (ICT), Herzliyya, Israel [citing data from the CBOE] 3 Morgan Stanley saw, between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 27 times (not 27 percent) in the purchase of put options on its shares. Merrill-Lynch saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put opinions in the four trading days before the attacks".
The answer: These "anomalies" did not go unnoticed. They were duly noted in the SEC's post 9/11 and investigation. The SEC, after a period of silence, undertook the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation. The result of these deputizations was the silencing of these officials BECAUSE THEIR DEPUTIZATION MEANT THEY COULD NOT COMMENT ON A CASE UNDER INVESTIGATION TO ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CASE.
(You see, the sheep and the wolves' connection make more sense than this one). What you still may not see is why the government needs information on what toothpaste we buy and then take steps to silence information on such an important event as 9/11. It should also be remembered that 4 years after 9/11, 120,000 hours of FBI intercepted telephone conversations had still not been translated or transcribed - pointing to the urgency with which our government views such "critical information".[3]
Homeland Security Information Network (HSIN) Program:
Because of the inherent secrecy concerning every aspect of the government's many faceted spy system, it is not clear whether the ADVISE program and the HSIN program are one and the same or whether they even connected. However, the descriptions of the two programs show a lot of commonality. They are both data mining type programs and they both look at, in Comrade Chertoff's words: . . . "the thousands and thousands of routine, everyday observations and activities (of which intelligence is made). Surveillances, interactions - each of which may be taken in isolation as not a particularly meaningful piece of information, but when fused together, gives us a sense of the patterns and the flow that really is at the core of what intelligence analysis is really about. We have many interactions every day, every hour, at the border, on airplanes, with the Coast Guard. And what we need to do is to vacuum all those up and get them fused and analyzed so we can not only take appropriate action ourselves, but so we can share it with our state and local partners."[4]
Perhaps the difference between the programs, if there is one, comes from the agencies with whom the information is shared. Comrade Chertoff explains that the HSIN objective is that of making a blanket US network linking all intelligence (sic) agencies and law enforcement departments across the United States to form a hybrid spy network with the ability for all to operate as if the participants were in the same room with a common operating picture. [4] This is an impending disaster straight from Orwell.
Conclusions:
The good news is that the Department of Homeland Security has proven itself to be so criminally inefficient and negligent in overcoming the effects of a natural disaster like Katrina that the possibility of its achieving its surveillance goals in the near future is rather slim. However, we know that little things like money, patriotism or the Constitution will never stand in the way of our "Pyongyang on the Potomac" and its attempts to overcome that "goddamn piece of paper" called our Constitution. The bad news is that with criminals like Negroponte, Chertoff and Gonzalez running the asylum there is a good chance that unimagined numbers of Americans will suffer loss of freedoms, loss of a way of life and/or a loss of life. Americans will be able to get rid of Bush in November of 2008; however, they will not be so lucky in getting rid of Chertoff and Negroponte. Alberto will probably go back to "shystering" somewhere within the Bush Empire - possibly building firewalls and ironclad alibis for the Carlyle Group after November of 2008.
The ECHELON program has been with for us more that four decades. In that time the program has been refined and expanded to truly alarming proportions. The ADVISE and HSIN programs will undergo the same metamorphoses as time passes unless they are monitored and controlled for the safety of American civil liberties. Losing our liberties to our own government is no less frightening than losing them to some foreign terrorist organization. For those who doubt this basic truth, it would be well for them to examine the modern history of Russia, Germany, Cambodia and Viet Nam. Iraq's present "history in the making" should show any rational person the dangers of a government with an agenda. A government with an agenda, unlimited resources and no oversight by its people is a guaranteed formula for disaster. Creeping totalitarianism doesn't really describe the disaster(s) being created for us. However, 385 million dollar Halliburton/KBR "detention centers" being created for us do.[5]
References:
[1] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9290.htm
[2] http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p01s02-uspo.html
[3] http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
[4] http://tinyurl.com/ar84z
[5] portland imc - 2006.02.04 - Halliburton gets $385 Million for "Detention Centers" for "NEW PROGRAMS"
Nolan K. Anderson is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea who was once a "conservative" until he found there was nothing left to conserve and as a veteran hates to see a tour in Korea go to waste. (He may be reached at nkanders@bellsouth.net).
War Against Iran, April 2006 - Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292
A small group of thugs is about to lead America across a line of no return. On the other side of this line there is no nuclear taboo, no restraint on preemptive nuclear attacks on non-nuclear nations, and no incentive for non-nuclear nations to remain non-nuclear. A global nuclear war and the destruction of humanity will be a distinct possibility.
Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a million people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is demonstrating against the Iran war that will radically change the life of Americans for generations to come. The more informed sectors of society, scientists, arms control organizations, the media, the political establishment, the military, are not taking a strong stand against the impending war. Congress is silent.
Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a million people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is demonstrating against the Iran war that will radically change the life of Americans for generations to come. The more informed sectors of society, scientists, arms control organizations, the media, the political establishment, the military, are not taking a strong stand against the impending war. Congress is silent.
The Art of War for the anti-war movement by Scott Ritter
It's high time to recognize that we as a nation are engaged in a life-or-death struggle of competing ideologies with those who promote war as an American value and virtue. Blog
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition, and for three years since, I have spent many hours speaking to numerous anti-war forums across the country and around the world. I have always been struck by the sincerity of the vast majority of those who call themselves anti-war, and impressed by their willingness to give so much of themselves in the service of such a noble cause.
Whether participating in demonstrations, organizing a vigil, conducting town-hall meetings, or writing letters to their elected officials and the media, the participants in the anti-war movement have exhibited an energy and integrity that would make anyone proud. For myself, I have been vociferous in my defense of the actions of the majority of the anti-war movement, noting that the expression of their views is not only consistent with their rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States, but also that their engagement in the process of citizenship is a stellar example of the ideals and values set forth in that document, and as such representative of the highest form of patriotism in keeping with service to a document that begins, "We the People."
Lately I have noticed a growing despondency among many of those who call themselves the anti-war movement. With the United States now entering its fourth year of illegal war in and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, and the pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause of the anti-war movement, no matter how noble and worthy, is in fact a losing cause as currently executed. Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of the millions of activists and citizens who comprise the anti-war movement, America still remains very much a nation not only engaged in waging and planning wars of aggression, but has also become a nation which increasingly identifies itself through its military and the wars it fights. This is a sad manifestation of the fact that the American people seem to be addicted to war and violence, rather than the ideals of human rights, individual liberty, and freedom and justice for all that should define our nation.
In short, the anti-war movement has come face to face with the reality that in the ongoing war of ideologies that is being waged in America today, their cause is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse. Many in the anti-war movement would take exception to such a characterization of the situation, given the fact that there seems to be a growing change in the mood among Americans against the ongoing war in Iraq. But one only has to scratch at the surface of this public discontent to realize how shallow and superficial it is. Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing.
Take the example of Congressman Jack Murtha. A vocal supporter of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, last fall Mr. Murtha went public with his dramatic change of position, suddenly rejecting the war as un-winnable, and demanding the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. While laudable, I have serious problems with Jack Murtha's thought process here. At what point did the American invasion of Iraq become a bad war? When we suffered 2,000 dead? After two years of fruitless struggle? Once we spent $100 billion?
While vocalizing his current opposition against the Iraq War, Congressman Murtha and others who voted for the war but now question its merits have never retracted their original pro-war stance. Nor have they criticized their role in abrogating the Constitutional processes for bringing our country into conflict when they voted for a war before the President had publicly committed to going to war (we now know the President had committed to the invasion of Iraq by the summer of 2002, and that all his representations to the American people and Congress about 'war as a matter of last resort' and 'seeking a diplomatic solution' were bold face lies). The Iraq War was wrong the moment we started bombing Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is no excuse, and does not pardon America's collective sin of brooking and tolerating an illegal war of aggression.
The reality is, had our military prevailed in this struggle, the American people for the most part would not even blink at the moral and legal arguments against this war. This underlying reality is reflected in the fact that despite our ongoing disaster in Iraq, America is propelled down a course of action that leads us toward conflict with Iran. President Bush recently re-affirmed his embrace of the principles of pre-emptive war when he signed off on the 2006 version of the National Security Strategy of the United States, which highlights Iran as a threat worthy of confrontation. This event has gone virtually unmentioned by the American mainstream media, un-remarked by a Congress that remains complicit in the war-mongering policies of the Bush administration, and un-noticed by the majority of Americans. America is pre-programmed for war, and unless the anti-war movement dramatically changes the manner in which it conducts its struggle, America will become a nation of war, for war, and defined by war, and as such a nation that will ultimately be consumed by war.
It is high time for the anti-war movement to take a collective look in the mirror, and be honest about what they see. A poorly organized, chaotic, and indeed often anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet projects and idealism that barely constitutes a "movement," let alone a winning cause. I have yet to observe an anti-war demonstration that has a focus on anti-war. It often seemed that every left-wing cause took advantage of the event to promote its own particular agenda, so that "No War in Iraq" shared the stage with the environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes which not only diluted the anti-war message which was supposed to be sent, but also guaranteed that the demonstration itself would be seen as something hijacked by the left, inclusive of only progressive ideologues, and exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or even Iran), but do not want to be associated with any other theme.
The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.
The anti-war movement lacks any notion of strategic thinking, operational planning, or sense of sound tactics. So much energy is wasted because of this failure to centrally plan and organize. As a result, when the anti-war movement does get it right (and on occasion it does), the success is frittered away by a failure to have planned effective follow-up efforts, failure to have implemented any supporting operations, an inability to recognize opportunities as they emerge and a lack of resources to exploit such opportunities if in fact they were recognized to begin with. In short, the anti-war movement is little more than a walk-on squad of high school football players drawing plays in the sand, taking on the National Football League Super Bowl Champions.
In order to even have a chance of prevailing with the American people, the anti-war movement is going to need much more than just good ideals and values. It needs to start thinking like a warrior would, in full recognition that we as a nation are engaged in a life-or-death struggle of competing ideologies with those who promote war as an American value and virtue.
The anti-war movement needs to study the philosophies of those who have mastered the art of conflict, from Caesar to Napoleon, from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz. It needs to study the "enemy" learning to understand the pro-war movement as well as it understands itself. It needs to comprehend the art of campaigning, of waging battles only when necessary, and having the ability to wage a struggle on several fronts simultaneously, synchronizing each struggle so that a synergy is created which maximizes whatever energy is being expended. The anti-war movement needs to understand the pro-war movement's center of gravity, and design measures to defeat this. It needs to grasp the pro-war movement's decision-making cycle, then undertake a comprehensive course of action that learns to pre-empt this cycle, getting 'inside' the pro-war system of making decisions, and thereby forcing the pro-war movement to react to the anti-war agenda, instead of vice versa.
There is an old adage in the military that “intelligence drives operations.” The anti-war movement needs to develop a centralized intelligence operation, not a spy organization, but rather a think-tank that produces sound analysis based upon fact that can be used to empower those who are waging the struggle against war. Far too often the anti-war movement dilutes its effectiveness by either being unable to produce facts during a debate, or when it does, producing facts that are inaccurate, incomplete, or both. The mainstream media treats the anti-war movement as a joke because many times that is exactly what the anti-war movement, through its lack of preparation and grasp of the facts, allows itself to become.
The anti-war movement lacks organization. There is no central leadership, or mechanism to effectively muster and control resources. The anti-war movement takes pride in its “democratic” composition, but in fact it operates as little more than controlled chaos, creating ample opportunity for the pro-war movement to effectively execute a “divide and conquer” strategy to minimize and nullify whatever good the anti-war movement achieves through its efforts. The anti-war movement would do well to take a page from the fire service and implement a version of the Incident Command System (ICS) that firefighters use when fighting complex fires involving the integration of several departments, organizations and jurisdictions. The anti-war movement needs to develop its own “ICS for the anti-war” that is universally applied throughout the movement, so that an anti-war effort in Seattle, Washington operates the same as an anti-war effort in New York City, and as such can be coordinated and controlled by an overall command staff operating from Denver, Colorado.
Complex problems, such as faced by the anti-war movement, require complex solutions, which in turn dictate a flexible control mechanism that can coordinate and synchronize every effort to achieve the desired result at a time and place of the anti-war movement's choosing, and then be prepared to follow up on successes as they occur and sustain the movement over an extended period of time. It is not enough to win a battle against the pro-war movement; the anti-war movement needs to win the war of ideologies. As such it must not only prepare to win a particular fight, but to exploit that victory, massing its forces against any developed weakness, and drive the pro-movement into the ground and off the American political map once and for all.
I have indicated my willingness to apply my training and experience as a warrior in a manner which helps teach the principles of the art of war to those who call themselves part of the anti-war movement. There seems to be not only a need for this sort of training, but also a desire among the myriad of individuals and groups who comprise the anti-war movement for an overall coordinated strategic direction, operational planning, and tactical execution of agreed upon mission objectives. One can be certain that the pro-war movement is conducting itself in full accordance with these very same organizational principles and methodologies. And let there be no doubt: the pro-war movement in America is prevailing. In order to gain the upper hand politically, and actually position itself to stop not only those wars already being fought (Iraq), but also prevent those being planned (Iran), the anti-war movement will need to re-examine in totality the way it does business. I for one am ready to assist. However, in writing this essay, I am constantly reminded of the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." One can only hope that the anti-war movement is thirsty.
In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition, and for three years since, I have spent many hours speaking to numerous anti-war forums across the country and around the world. I have always been struck by the sincerity of the vast majority of those who call themselves anti-war, and impressed by their willingness to give so much of themselves in the service of such a noble cause.
Whether participating in demonstrations, organizing a vigil, conducting town-hall meetings, or writing letters to their elected officials and the media, the participants in the anti-war movement have exhibited an energy and integrity that would make anyone proud. For myself, I have been vociferous in my defense of the actions of the majority of the anti-war movement, noting that the expression of their views is not only consistent with their rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States, but also that their engagement in the process of citizenship is a stellar example of the ideals and values set forth in that document, and as such representative of the highest form of patriotism in keeping with service to a document that begins, "We the People."
Lately I have noticed a growing despondency among many of those who call themselves the anti-war movement. With the United States now entering its fourth year of illegal war in and illegitimate occupation of Iraq, and the pro-war movement moving inexorably towards yet another disastrous conflict with Iran, there is an increasing awareness that the cause of the anti-war movement, no matter how noble and worthy, is in fact a losing cause as currently executed. Despite all of the well-meaning and patriotic work of the millions of activists and citizens who comprise the anti-war movement, America still remains very much a nation not only engaged in waging and planning wars of aggression, but has also become a nation which increasingly identifies itself through its military and the wars it fights. This is a sad manifestation of the fact that the American people seem to be addicted to war and violence, rather than the ideals of human rights, individual liberty, and freedom and justice for all that should define our nation.
In short, the anti-war movement has come face to face with the reality that in the ongoing war of ideologies that is being waged in America today, their cause is not just losing, but is in fact on the verge of complete collapse. Many in the anti-war movement would take exception to such a characterization of the situation, given the fact that there seems to be a growing change in the mood among Americans against the ongoing war in Iraq. But one only has to scratch at the surface of this public discontent to realize how shallow and superficial it is. Americans aren't against the war in Iraq because it is wrong; they are against it because we are losing.
Take the example of Congressman Jack Murtha. A vocal supporter of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq, last fall Mr. Murtha went public with his dramatic change of position, suddenly rejecting the war as un-winnable, and demanding the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. While laudable, I have serious problems with Jack Murtha's thought process here. At what point did the American invasion of Iraq become a bad war? When we suffered 2,000 dead? After two years of fruitless struggle? Once we spent $100 billion?
While vocalizing his current opposition against the Iraq War, Congressman Murtha and others who voted for the war but now question its merits have never retracted their original pro-war stance. Nor have they criticized their role in abrogating the Constitutional processes for bringing our country into conflict when they voted for a war before the President had publicly committed to going to war (we now know the President had committed to the invasion of Iraq by the summer of 2002, and that all his representations to the American people and Congress about 'war as a matter of last resort' and 'seeking a diplomatic solution' were bold face lies). The Iraq War was wrong the moment we started bombing Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is no excuse, and does not pardon America's collective sin of brooking and tolerating an illegal war of aggression.
The reality is, had our military prevailed in this struggle, the American people for the most part would not even blink at the moral and legal arguments against this war. This underlying reality is reflected in the fact that despite our ongoing disaster in Iraq, America is propelled down a course of action that leads us toward conflict with Iran. President Bush recently re-affirmed his embrace of the principles of pre-emptive war when he signed off on the 2006 version of the National Security Strategy of the United States, which highlights Iran as a threat worthy of confrontation. This event has gone virtually unmentioned by the American mainstream media, un-remarked by a Congress that remains complicit in the war-mongering policies of the Bush administration, and un-noticed by the majority of Americans. America is pre-programmed for war, and unless the anti-war movement dramatically changes the manner in which it conducts its struggle, America will become a nation of war, for war, and defined by war, and as such a nation that will ultimately be consumed by war.
It is high time for the anti-war movement to take a collective look in the mirror, and be honest about what they see. A poorly organized, chaotic, and indeed often anarchic conglomeration of egos, pet projects and idealism that barely constitutes a "movement," let alone a winning cause. I have yet to observe an anti-war demonstration that has a focus on anti-war. It often seemed that every left-wing cause took advantage of the event to promote its own particular agenda, so that "No War in Iraq" shared the stage with the environment, ecology, animal rights, pro-choice, and numerous other causes which not only diluted the anti-war message which was supposed to be sent, but also guaranteed that the demonstration itself would be seen as something hijacked by the left, inclusive of only progressive ideologues, and exclusive of the vast majority of moderate (and even conservative) Americans who might have wanted to share the stage with their fellow Americans from the left when it comes to opposing war with Iraq (or even Iran), but do not want to be associated with any other theme.
The anti-war movement, first and foremost, needs to develop a laser-like focus on being nothing more or less than anti-war.
The anti-war movement lacks any notion of strategic thinking, operational planning, or sense of sound tactics. So much energy is wasted because of this failure to centrally plan and organize. As a result, when the anti-war movement does get it right (and on occasion it does), the success is frittered away by a failure to have planned effective follow-up efforts, failure to have implemented any supporting operations, an inability to recognize opportunities as they emerge and a lack of resources to exploit such opportunities if in fact they were recognized to begin with. In short, the anti-war movement is little more than a walk-on squad of high school football players drawing plays in the sand, taking on the National Football League Super Bowl Champions.
In order to even have a chance of prevailing with the American people, the anti-war movement is going to need much more than just good ideals and values. It needs to start thinking like a warrior would, in full recognition that we as a nation are engaged in a life-or-death struggle of competing ideologies with those who promote war as an American value and virtue.
The anti-war movement needs to study the philosophies of those who have mastered the art of conflict, from Caesar to Napoleon, from Sun Tzu to Clausewitz. It needs to study the "enemy" learning to understand the pro-war movement as well as it understands itself. It needs to comprehend the art of campaigning, of waging battles only when necessary, and having the ability to wage a struggle on several fronts simultaneously, synchronizing each struggle so that a synergy is created which maximizes whatever energy is being expended. The anti-war movement needs to understand the pro-war movement's center of gravity, and design measures to defeat this. It needs to grasp the pro-war movement's decision-making cycle, then undertake a comprehensive course of action that learns to pre-empt this cycle, getting 'inside' the pro-war system of making decisions, and thereby forcing the pro-war movement to react to the anti-war agenda, instead of vice versa.
There is an old adage in the military that “intelligence drives operations.” The anti-war movement needs to develop a centralized intelligence operation, not a spy organization, but rather a think-tank that produces sound analysis based upon fact that can be used to empower those who are waging the struggle against war. Far too often the anti-war movement dilutes its effectiveness by either being unable to produce facts during a debate, or when it does, producing facts that are inaccurate, incomplete, or both. The mainstream media treats the anti-war movement as a joke because many times that is exactly what the anti-war movement, through its lack of preparation and grasp of the facts, allows itself to become.
The anti-war movement lacks organization. There is no central leadership, or mechanism to effectively muster and control resources. The anti-war movement takes pride in its “democratic” composition, but in fact it operates as little more than controlled chaos, creating ample opportunity for the pro-war movement to effectively execute a “divide and conquer” strategy to minimize and nullify whatever good the anti-war movement achieves through its efforts. The anti-war movement would do well to take a page from the fire service and implement a version of the Incident Command System (ICS) that firefighters use when fighting complex fires involving the integration of several departments, organizations and jurisdictions. The anti-war movement needs to develop its own “ICS for the anti-war” that is universally applied throughout the movement, so that an anti-war effort in Seattle, Washington operates the same as an anti-war effort in New York City, and as such can be coordinated and controlled by an overall command staff operating from Denver, Colorado.
Complex problems, such as faced by the anti-war movement, require complex solutions, which in turn dictate a flexible control mechanism that can coordinate and synchronize every effort to achieve the desired result at a time and place of the anti-war movement's choosing, and then be prepared to follow up on successes as they occur and sustain the movement over an extended period of time. It is not enough to win a battle against the pro-war movement; the anti-war movement needs to win the war of ideologies. As such it must not only prepare to win a particular fight, but to exploit that victory, massing its forces against any developed weakness, and drive the pro-movement into the ground and off the American political map once and for all.
I have indicated my willingness to apply my training and experience as a warrior in a manner which helps teach the principles of the art of war to those who call themselves part of the anti-war movement. There seems to be not only a need for this sort of training, but also a desire among the myriad of individuals and groups who comprise the anti-war movement for an overall coordinated strategic direction, operational planning, and tactical execution of agreed upon mission objectives. One can be certain that the pro-war movement is conducting itself in full accordance with these very same organizational principles and methodologies. And let there be no doubt: the pro-war movement in America is prevailing. In order to gain the upper hand politically, and actually position itself to stop not only those wars already being fought (Iraq), but also prevent those being planned (Iran), the anti-war movement will need to re-examine in totality the way it does business. I for one am ready to assist. However, in writing this essay, I am constantly reminded of the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." One can only hope that the anti-war movement is thirsty.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Condi Rice insults the Iraqi people
Three years after the war, with tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths on her hands and the knowledge her lies helped destroy Iraq, Condi Rice has admitted making mistakes in Iraq:
"I know we've made tactical errors - thousands of them, I'm sure," Ms Rice said in a session of questions after her speech, organised by BBC Radio 4's Today programme and Chatham House international affairs institution.
Yes, Rice, those thousands of mistakes are why thousands of Iraqis lie buried in makeshift graves, why thousands of other Iraqis lie unburied in the wasteland, and why thousands have been found bound and executed.
Those thousands of mistakes are also why we have death squads which your military trained (was this one of the mistakes?) roaming the countryside picking off who they consider to be threat - Sunni, Shia, Turkmen, Christian, no matter.
Those thousands of mistakes are also why Iran rules Iraq, why the 3afitallah Khoemini rules Iraq ... in spirit of course (he dialled up from Hell and only Georgie of Crawford, TX would take the call).
Those thousands of mistakes are also why women in Iraq are today more repressed than ever, why school children are threatened if they go to school, why their teachers are killed, why leading academics are eradicated, why the country's scientists have been executed, why Iraq's doctors have fled.
Those thousands of mistakes are also why very little has been reconstructed (please, I know am being much too kind here), why Iraq's oil industry is on the verge of collapse, why Iraq has no army, why kidnapping is the most booming economic option.
Let me explain the thousands of mistakes a bit more carefully.
Mistake: Believing anything the US government said about Iraq
Mistake: Believing the invasion of Iraq was for liberty and freedom of the Iraqi people.
Mistake: Believing the invasion of Iraq was to protect the liberty and freedom of the American people.
Mistake: Believing the US government ever had any semblance of intelligence when dealing with Iraq.
Mistake: Believing that the Iraqi people would not rise up and fight the tyranny of the imperialist mercenaries come to wreak havoc in our country.
Mistake: Believing that the Resistance is foreign-bred. Damn the foreigners.
Mistake: Believing the US military is not racist.
Mistake: Believing the US military has not engaged in widespread atrocities, violations of the Geneva conventions and crimes against humanity.
Mistake: Believing the US military will try its personnel for crimes and equivocally sentence them.
Mistake: Believing the US military will not cover up its crimes.
Mistake: Believing the US military does not engage in My Lai in Iraq each and every day.
Mistake: Believing Iraq is better off today.
Mistake: Believing Iraq has a representative government.
Mistake: Believing that Iraq's elections (a farce in no greater words) is a sign of blossoming democracy.
C'mon, Condi, be man enough and list the mistakes.
The tide is turning. Americans today are waking up to the fiasco, Vietnam, quagmire - name it what you will - that Iraq has become.
They have realized - after Katrina and the fraudulent tax cut, declining state of health care, "No kid left behind" brainwashing - that they have been swindled.
Expect to see some seriously desperate measures in the day ahead from the pro-war crowd. Soon, we will hear the anti-Christ is in Iraq and he has to be smoked out.
"I know we've made tactical errors - thousands of them, I'm sure," Ms Rice said in a session of questions after her speech, organised by BBC Radio 4's Today programme and Chatham House international affairs institution.
Yes, Rice, those thousands of mistakes are why thousands of Iraqis lie buried in makeshift graves, why thousands of other Iraqis lie unburied in the wasteland, and why thousands have been found bound and executed.
Those thousands of mistakes are also why we have death squads which your military trained (was this one of the mistakes?) roaming the countryside picking off who they consider to be threat - Sunni, Shia, Turkmen, Christian, no matter.
Those thousands of mistakes are also why Iran rules Iraq, why the 3afitallah Khoemini rules Iraq ... in spirit of course (he dialled up from Hell and only Georgie of Crawford, TX would take the call).
Those thousands of mistakes are also why women in Iraq are today more repressed than ever, why school children are threatened if they go to school, why their teachers are killed, why leading academics are eradicated, why the country's scientists have been executed, why Iraq's doctors have fled.
Those thousands of mistakes are also why very little has been reconstructed (please, I know am being much too kind here), why Iraq's oil industry is on the verge of collapse, why Iraq has no army, why kidnapping is the most booming economic option.
Let me explain the thousands of mistakes a bit more carefully.
Mistake: Believing anything the US government said about Iraq
Mistake: Believing the invasion of Iraq was for liberty and freedom of the Iraqi people.
Mistake: Believing the invasion of Iraq was to protect the liberty and freedom of the American people.
Mistake: Believing the US government ever had any semblance of intelligence when dealing with Iraq.
Mistake: Believing that the Iraqi people would not rise up and fight the tyranny of the imperialist mercenaries come to wreak havoc in our country.
Mistake: Believing that the Resistance is foreign-bred. Damn the foreigners.
Mistake: Believing the US military is not racist.
Mistake: Believing the US military has not engaged in widespread atrocities, violations of the Geneva conventions and crimes against humanity.
Mistake: Believing the US military will try its personnel for crimes and equivocally sentence them.
Mistake: Believing the US military will not cover up its crimes.
Mistake: Believing the US military does not engage in My Lai in Iraq each and every day.
Mistake: Believing Iraq is better off today.
Mistake: Believing Iraq has a representative government.
Mistake: Believing that Iraq's elections (a farce in no greater words) is a sign of blossoming democracy.
C'mon, Condi, be man enough and list the mistakes.
The tide is turning. Americans today are waking up to the fiasco, Vietnam, quagmire - name it what you will - that Iraq has become.
They have realized - after Katrina and the fraudulent tax cut, declining state of health care, "No kid left behind" brainwashing - that they have been swindled.
Expect to see some seriously desperate measures in the day ahead from the pro-war crowd. Soon, we will hear the anti-Christ is in Iraq and he has to be smoked out.
WTO, GMO and Total Spectrum Dominance
The powerful private interests who control WTO agriculture policy prefer to remain in the background as little-publicized NGO’s. One of the most influential in creating the WTO is a little-publicized organization called the IPC — the International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, shortened to International Policy Council.
The WTO today is nothing more than the global policeman for the powerful GMO lobby and the agribusiness firms tied to it.
The WTO today is nothing more than the global policeman for the powerful GMO lobby and the agribusiness firms tied to it.
Can President Alfredo Palacio Survive Ecuador's Indigenous Uprising?
Ecuador is South America's fifth-largest oil producer and more than half of its exports go to the United States. Petroleum is Ecuador’s biggest export but their petroleum reserves are expected to be depleted in 20 years based on their current rate of extraction. At full capacity, over a half-million barrels of oil are pumped from beneath Ecuadoran soil each day. Moreover, oil accounts for about 50% of Ecuador's export revenues.
President Alfredo Palacio's Stone
In a somewhat misleading analysis today, Financial Times reports,
"Ecuador’s Congress has voted to impose a tax of 60 per cent on the 'extraordinary profits' earned by foreign investors in the oil sector - a proposal that could earn the country up to $500m in extra revenues."
The "devil in the details" of this report lies in the word "could". In another report published in Forbes.com we read, "The tax could boost the country's revenues by up to 500 mln usd". Ecuador's Economy Minister, Diego Borja is quoted: "Profit margins for foreign companies have been very great and a clause in favor of the state could lead to economic equilibrium between the foreign companies and the state.' (Forbes.com-AFX Hong Kong). In what appears to be an aggressive vote by the Ecuadoran Congress to tax foreign oil companies there lies (no pun) an attempt to kill 2 birds with one stone.
Killing One Bird
It is interesting that the congress of this U.S. backed regime under the leadership of Ecuadoran President Alfredo Palacio, chose this time to impose "a tax of 60pct on the 'extraordinary profits' earned by foreign investors in the oil sector" - just after the most recent popular uprising (March 16) against the government. Two weeks ago, the indigenous people of Ecuador marched on Quito and shut down 11 of Ecuador's provinces with roadblocks, demanding that President Palacio stop negotiating with the U.S. on the so-called, "Free Trade Agreements". If Palacio thinks this imposition of a 60pct tax on oil profits will pacify Ecuador's masses (killing one bird), he had better think again. 60pct sounds impressive, so why should they not be satisfied? Because there is an important difference between taxing oil profits on the one hand, and imposition of royalties, on the other.
Killing the Other Bird
Taxes are more difficult for the government to collect from the foreign oil companies because of the loopholes, bluntly stated, that make it possible for the corporations to cheat. Royalties, on the other hand, involve a fixed price per barrel extracted that foreign companies are required to pay to the host government - and even royalties can be renegotiated between corrupt oil regimes and foreign oil companies. These are the reasons why President Chávez doubled the oil royalties in Venezuela's new oil reform law in 2001 and reduced the taxes imposed on foreign oil profits. In his 8/30/03 analysis for Venezuelanalysis, Gregory Wilpert explains:
"the government can track very easily how much oil is being extracted and what the royalty payments should be based on the current price of oil. However, taxes based on oil income are much more difficult to control because PDVSA or other oil companies deduct their expenses from the income on which they have to pay the taxes. Since expenses are not that easily identifiable for an outside auditor, the tax payer can attempt to inflate expenses, in order to lower their tax payments. By shifting government revenues from taxes to royalties, the government is basically closing loopholes in the tax collection process."
The relationship between Petroecuador and the central government presents another important problem for the people of Ecuador. Petroecuador is "nationalized" and run by the Ecuadoran government. Petroecuador controls petroleum blocks in the country. However, it has historically given away Ecuador's petroleum through sweetheart deals with Northern petroleum companies like Burlington, Texaco, Arco, Halliburton, Repsol, Shell, Occidental who have collected 80% or more of the profits and only about 20% of the responsibility for cleanup. The cleanup is as important as the profits and part and parcel thereof: In his "Ecua-blog", Lee Gilman writes:
"Petroleum extraction is devastating to the environment, and the as-of-yet unexplored Central-Southern region is thought to have lower quality and less concentrated reserves, which translates into greater toxic waste in separation processes and greater environmental destruction."
Lessons Learned from Venezuela
Washington, of all places and people, are fond of accusing Venezuela's President Chávez of interfering in the domestic affairs of neighboring countries, thus amounting to a "destabilizing force" in Latin America. Their accusation is another lame attempt to discredit President Chávez. But Washington's fear that neighboring countries are learning from the control the Venezuelan people have gained over their own natural resources is right-on. It appears that the people of Ecuador are indeed learning from Venezuela's history with their nationalized oil company PDVSA just as the people of Bolivia have learned. In August, 2003, Gregory Wilpert reported: "Chávez and his supporters have long claimed that PDVSA is providing too little of its revenues to the central government, the company’s only shareholder." Push came to shove between the Chávez administration and PDVSA in 2002-03, when the technocrat-managers who were still running PDVSA went on strike in an attempted economic coup against government. Earlier this month, Andy Goodall, writing for Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (Britain) stated:
Last year we (Axis of Logic) also described the PDVSA strike:
With oil revenues now pumped into Venezuela's successful social programs, all the people of Venezuela are benefiting. In the meantime, Washington and the multinational oil companies just don't get it - or perhaps better said, they "get it" all too well. Their problem a simple one. It lies in a presumption that they have a legitimate claim to the natural resources owned by other sovereign nations. In March, 2005, President Chávez' delivered his clear and unequivocal response: "The United States government would very much like to keep all our oil for itself ... But our oil reserve does not belong to Mr. Bush. The oil belongs to the Venezuelan people."
[Luis Macas, left, president of the indigenous organization, CONAIE, watches a ceremony for Solsticio in Quito, Ecuador, Tuesday, March 21, 2006. The ceremony is at the same time of indigenous protests against Free Trade Agreement with United States. (AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa R.)]
3 Ecuadoran Interior Ministers busted in 11 months
None of Venezuela's experience is lost on the people of Ecuador who know that their national resources belong to them - not the multinational corporations.
Over 40 percent of Ecuador's 13 million people belong to indigenous communities. They are primarily led by Ecuador's Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE). Just as they have been marching on Quito, forcing 3 interior ministers to resign in the 11 months, they continue their demand that their government end the free lunch at its petroleum table. [Chart on Right] New Internationalist, 2001
Luis Macas, President of CONAIE: “Respect for diversity is the foundation for all social construction. If an individual, nationality or people impose their will on the rest, things will not work. We need to find links that bring us together in a space that fosters respect.”*
After years of living under the heel of the trans-national corporations, almost 70% of the people of Ecuador still live in poverty. In January, 2006, Paul Martin, UNICEF representative in Ecuador reported:
"As in most of Latin America, the big challenge in Ecuador is poverty. "There isn’t money to pay for children to go to school or for their textbooks, or for their uniforms. There isn’t money for the family to pay for them to go to a doctor. But, poverty itself in a country like Ecuador also comes from exclusion. The poor are not equally distributed in the society. Indigenous children are much more poor, Afro-descendent children are much more poor – both on average and in absolute terms."
We should not be surprised if we see President Palacio's resignation on the table in the not to distant future. We predict that the people of Ecuador will not be fooled by this latest maneuver on the part of the Ecuadoran Congress to tax the profits of the multinationals. They continue their campaign to stop Palacio's unilateral negotiations with the U.S. on "Free-Trade". Yesterday, Prensa Latina reported,
"Ecuador's Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE) accused the Alfredo Palacio administration of dictatorial actions against the legitimate right of the people to defend their interests and sovereignty."
The Political Fate of President Alfredo Palacio
When Palacio assumed office, he threw an olive leaf to CONAIE by reinstating their representatives to head several state bodies. (They had been removed by his ousted predecessor, Luis Gutiérrez.) He also offered the CONAIE the vice-presidency and provincial governorships. However, Palacio also left open the possibility of continuing Gutiérrez' neoliberal policies:
"We will continue discussing all aspects concerning the free trade agreement and all of the treaties that the globalisation process will impose on us, because that is the way history is moving. We can't bury our head in the sand like an ostrich," he stated, adding that "there is no reason to be afraid of the free trade deal, but we should negotiate as equals with the United States."
At the time of his election, he also told Washington they should not worry about losing their Manta Air Base in Ecuador. These hints of his neo-liberal tendencies are now borne out and adamantly opposed by those he attempted to pacify. His attempts appear to have failed.
Yesterday, CONAIE Vice President, Santiago de la Cruz, hammered Palacio for "[using] violence and brutal repression against everyone opposed to the signing of the free trade treaty with the US." Some may wonder why heads of Latin American states like Palacio do not wake up and begin to represent the interests of the people of Ecuador. The question is of course naÃve because it ignores Palacio's neoliberal views and organic relationship with the U.S and the multinationals. CONAIE has correctly accused Palacio of reaching a "compromise with the nation’s oligarchies" and "committing the country to a process of no return with the signing of a free trade deal with the United States."
Last week, Green Left Weekly warned: "If Palacio doesn’t respond to these popular demands, he faces the risk of becoming the fourth Ecuadorian president to be overthrown in 10 years, following his predecessor Lucio Gutierrez, who fled the country amid protests last April."
According to the GLW report Palacio's approval rating has dropped to 14% and Mesias Tatamues, president of the trade union federation Cedoc-Cut, told Granma International on March 15: “We are going to show him that if he doesn’t listen to us he will have to go home, because the general slogan, from the countryside to the city, is: FTA signed, Palacio out.”
Based upon the growing refutation of neo-liberal economic policies throughout Latin America - from the successful Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela to the ousting of President Mesa in Bolivia in favor of newly-elected President Evo Morales - it is reasonable to expect Alfred Palacio's resignation in 2006 and another notch added to the economic guns of Latin America's indigenous people.
President Alfredo Palacio's Stone
In a somewhat misleading analysis today, Financial Times reports,
"Ecuador’s Congress has voted to impose a tax of 60 per cent on the 'extraordinary profits' earned by foreign investors in the oil sector - a proposal that could earn the country up to $500m in extra revenues."
The "devil in the details" of this report lies in the word "could". In another report published in Forbes.com we read, "The tax could boost the country's revenues by up to 500 mln usd". Ecuador's Economy Minister, Diego Borja is quoted: "Profit margins for foreign companies have been very great and a clause in favor of the state could lead to economic equilibrium between the foreign companies and the state.' (Forbes.com-AFX Hong Kong). In what appears to be an aggressive vote by the Ecuadoran Congress to tax foreign oil companies there lies (no pun) an attempt to kill 2 birds with one stone.
Killing One Bird
It is interesting that the congress of this U.S. backed regime under the leadership of Ecuadoran President Alfredo Palacio, chose this time to impose "a tax of 60pct on the 'extraordinary profits' earned by foreign investors in the oil sector" - just after the most recent popular uprising (March 16) against the government. Two weeks ago, the indigenous people of Ecuador marched on Quito and shut down 11 of Ecuador's provinces with roadblocks, demanding that President Palacio stop negotiating with the U.S. on the so-called, "Free Trade Agreements". If Palacio thinks this imposition of a 60pct tax on oil profits will pacify Ecuador's masses (killing one bird), he had better think again. 60pct sounds impressive, so why should they not be satisfied? Because there is an important difference between taxing oil profits on the one hand, and imposition of royalties, on the other.
Killing the Other Bird
Taxes are more difficult for the government to collect from the foreign oil companies because of the loopholes, bluntly stated, that make it possible for the corporations to cheat. Royalties, on the other hand, involve a fixed price per barrel extracted that foreign companies are required to pay to the host government - and even royalties can be renegotiated between corrupt oil regimes and foreign oil companies. These are the reasons why President Chávez doubled the oil royalties in Venezuela's new oil reform law in 2001 and reduced the taxes imposed on foreign oil profits. In his 8/30/03 analysis for Venezuelanalysis, Gregory Wilpert explains:
"the government can track very easily how much oil is being extracted and what the royalty payments should be based on the current price of oil. However, taxes based on oil income are much more difficult to control because PDVSA or other oil companies deduct their expenses from the income on which they have to pay the taxes. Since expenses are not that easily identifiable for an outside auditor, the tax payer can attempt to inflate expenses, in order to lower their tax payments. By shifting government revenues from taxes to royalties, the government is basically closing loopholes in the tax collection process."
The relationship between Petroecuador and the central government presents another important problem for the people of Ecuador. Petroecuador is "nationalized" and run by the Ecuadoran government. Petroecuador controls petroleum blocks in the country. However, it has historically given away Ecuador's petroleum through sweetheart deals with Northern petroleum companies like Burlington, Texaco, Arco, Halliburton, Repsol, Shell, Occidental who have collected 80% or more of the profits and only about 20% of the responsibility for cleanup. The cleanup is as important as the profits and part and parcel thereof: In his "Ecua-blog", Lee Gilman writes:
"Petroleum extraction is devastating to the environment, and the as-of-yet unexplored Central-Southern region is thought to have lower quality and less concentrated reserves, which translates into greater toxic waste in separation processes and greater environmental destruction."
Lessons Learned from Venezuela
Washington, of all places and people, are fond of accusing Venezuela's President Chávez of interfering in the domestic affairs of neighboring countries, thus amounting to a "destabilizing force" in Latin America. Their accusation is another lame attempt to discredit President Chávez. But Washington's fear that neighboring countries are learning from the control the Venezuelan people have gained over their own natural resources is right-on. It appears that the people of Ecuador are indeed learning from Venezuela's history with their nationalized oil company PDVSA just as the people of Bolivia have learned. In August, 2003, Gregory Wilpert reported: "Chávez and his supporters have long claimed that PDVSA is providing too little of its revenues to the central government, the company’s only shareholder." Push came to shove between the Chávez administration and PDVSA in 2002-03, when the technocrat-managers who were still running PDVSA went on strike in an attempted economic coup against government. Earlier this month, Andy Goodall, writing for Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (Britain) stated:
"It is worth recalling that the lock out and oil industry sabotage which lasted from December 2nd 2002 till February 4th 2003 cost Venezuela an estimated US$14 billion in lost oil revenues and a further US$11 billion in lost industrial production. During the lock out, there was hardly any petrol or domestic gas and the poor were reduced to cutting up their furniture in order to cook a hot meals, if they could find basic foodstuffs."
Last year we (Axis of Logic) also described the PDVSA strike:
"On December 2, 2002, the US-backed executives and managers of Venezuela's state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) went on strike, shutting down Venezuela's oil industry in an ill-advised tactic to bring down the Chavez government. When they went on strike they sabotaged the industry by destroying essential documents, computers and software. The people who worked in the industry, however, learned how to repair the damage and restore the flow of oil and took over PDVSA. 18,000 managers were fired for their role in the strike in February, 2003."
With oil revenues now pumped into Venezuela's successful social programs, all the people of Venezuela are benefiting. In the meantime, Washington and the multinational oil companies just don't get it - or perhaps better said, they "get it" all too well. Their problem a simple one. It lies in a presumption that they have a legitimate claim to the natural resources owned by other sovereign nations. In March, 2005, President Chávez' delivered his clear and unequivocal response: "The United States government would very much like to keep all our oil for itself ... But our oil reserve does not belong to Mr. Bush. The oil belongs to the Venezuelan people."
[Luis Macas, left, president of the indigenous organization, CONAIE, watches a ceremony for Solsticio in Quito, Ecuador, Tuesday, March 21, 2006. The ceremony is at the same time of indigenous protests against Free Trade Agreement with United States. (AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa R.)]
3 Ecuadoran Interior Ministers busted in 11 months
None of Venezuela's experience is lost on the people of Ecuador who know that their national resources belong to them - not the multinational corporations.
Over 40 percent of Ecuador's 13 million people belong to indigenous communities. They are primarily led by Ecuador's Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE). Just as they have been marching on Quito, forcing 3 interior ministers to resign in the 11 months, they continue their demand that their government end the free lunch at its petroleum table. [Chart on Right] New Internationalist, 2001
Luis Macas, President of CONAIE: “Respect for diversity is the foundation for all social construction. If an individual, nationality or people impose their will on the rest, things will not work. We need to find links that bring us together in a space that fosters respect.”*
After years of living under the heel of the trans-national corporations, almost 70% of the people of Ecuador still live in poverty. In January, 2006, Paul Martin, UNICEF representative in Ecuador reported:
"As in most of Latin America, the big challenge in Ecuador is poverty. "There isn’t money to pay for children to go to school or for their textbooks, or for their uniforms. There isn’t money for the family to pay for them to go to a doctor. But, poverty itself in a country like Ecuador also comes from exclusion. The poor are not equally distributed in the society. Indigenous children are much more poor, Afro-descendent children are much more poor – both on average and in absolute terms."
We should not be surprised if we see President Palacio's resignation on the table in the not to distant future. We predict that the people of Ecuador will not be fooled by this latest maneuver on the part of the Ecuadoran Congress to tax the profits of the multinationals. They continue their campaign to stop Palacio's unilateral negotiations with the U.S. on "Free-Trade". Yesterday, Prensa Latina reported,
"Ecuador's Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities (CONAIE) accused the Alfredo Palacio administration of dictatorial actions against the legitimate right of the people to defend their interests and sovereignty."
The Political Fate of President Alfredo Palacio
When Palacio assumed office, he threw an olive leaf to CONAIE by reinstating their representatives to head several state bodies. (They had been removed by his ousted predecessor, Luis Gutiérrez.) He also offered the CONAIE the vice-presidency and provincial governorships. However, Palacio also left open the possibility of continuing Gutiérrez' neoliberal policies:
"We will continue discussing all aspects concerning the free trade agreement and all of the treaties that the globalisation process will impose on us, because that is the way history is moving. We can't bury our head in the sand like an ostrich," he stated, adding that "there is no reason to be afraid of the free trade deal, but we should negotiate as equals with the United States."
At the time of his election, he also told Washington they should not worry about losing their Manta Air Base in Ecuador. These hints of his neo-liberal tendencies are now borne out and adamantly opposed by those he attempted to pacify. His attempts appear to have failed.
Yesterday, CONAIE Vice President, Santiago de la Cruz, hammered Palacio for "[using] violence and brutal repression against everyone opposed to the signing of the free trade treaty with the US." Some may wonder why heads of Latin American states like Palacio do not wake up and begin to represent the interests of the people of Ecuador. The question is of course naÃve because it ignores Palacio's neoliberal views and organic relationship with the U.S and the multinationals. CONAIE has correctly accused Palacio of reaching a "compromise with the nation’s oligarchies" and "committing the country to a process of no return with the signing of a free trade deal with the United States."
Last week, Green Left Weekly warned: "If Palacio doesn’t respond to these popular demands, he faces the risk of becoming the fourth Ecuadorian president to be overthrown in 10 years, following his predecessor Lucio Gutierrez, who fled the country amid protests last April."
According to the GLW report Palacio's approval rating has dropped to 14% and Mesias Tatamues, president of the trade union federation Cedoc-Cut, told Granma International on March 15: “We are going to show him that if he doesn’t listen to us he will have to go home, because the general slogan, from the countryside to the city, is: FTA signed, Palacio out.”
Based upon the growing refutation of neo-liberal economic policies throughout Latin America - from the successful Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela to the ousting of President Mesa in Bolivia in favor of newly-elected President Evo Morales - it is reasonable to expect Alfred Palacio's resignation in 2006 and another notch added to the economic guns of Latin America's indigenous people.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Cuba & Pakistan
Cuba & Pakistan
I've written about the 2260 health care professionals that Cuba sent to help Pakistani earthquake victims, and about how they had treated 1,043,125 patients, but even that didn't prepare me for the latest statistic: 73% of the earthquake victims who received medical care, received it from Cuban doctors and paramedics.
SPEECH BY DAVID CLINE, PRESIDENT OF VETERANS FOR PEACE, USA AND CO-FOUNDER OF THE VIETNAM AGENT ORANGE RELIEF AND RESPONSIBILITY CAMPAIGN
First let me thank the Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange/dioxin
for organizing this international conference and to the Agent Orange Vets
from Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada who have traveled here to
participate.
The US delegation I am leading is made up of Agent Orange vets Frank
Corcoran, Joan Duffy, Ralph Steele Dan Shea.
I was an infantryman with the 25th Infantry Division in Cu Chi and Tay Ninh
in 1967 and was wounded 3 times but do not suffer from dioxin related health
conditions myself.
When I came back from the war, I had knowledge of the use of Agent Orange
having seen sprayed areas and knew that they destroyed nature but had no
knowledge of the negative effects these defoliants had on human beings.
I remember in 1969 a veteran I knew named Jeff Sharlett died of cancer at
age 27 in the Miami, Florida Veterans Hospital and thinking it was strange
that someone so young had cancer.
Over the years other friends of mine got sick or had deformed children or
sometimes died. Mike Keegan and John Miffin who died and John and Rena
Kopystenski who had several children with birth defects are among them. So
this issue has always been personal to me.
In 1977, a woman who worked as a claims representative at the Chicago
Veterans Administration named Maude DeVictor was the first person to really
put two and two together when she witnessed the VA higher-ups denying
veterans claims and covering up their health problems and the connections to
dixon exposure.
The next year, 1978, a veteran name Paul Reutershan who was sick with cancer
got on television and said "my government killed me in Vietnam and I didn't
even know it". He began a lawsuit against the chemical companies who
manufactured Agent Orange, Blue, White, Purple etc. but he never lived to
see that lawsuit completed because he died within the year.
The reason that this lawsuit was started was because the VA was denying
veterans claims for medical treatment and compensation and according to US
law, citizens cannot sue the government for these type of claims.
From 1978-1984 the lawsuit continued and was eventually settled, although
many veterans opposed the settlement for millions of dollars. Sadly many
veterans got very little of that money since the army of lawyers who got
involved got a good portion of it in legal fees.
I have been a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War since 1970 and that
organization played a critical role in launching the movement for justice
for Agent Orange vets, supporting Maude Devictor who became the godmother of
the movement, recruiting veterans to joining the lawsuit and raising general
public awareness of this issue.
But we always believed that while the chemical companies had responsibility
and should be held liable, the primary responsibility lay with the US
government which ordered and continued to use these poisons after they were
becoming aware of the negative effects on people. Instead of changing
course, they covered up the facts and kept using them until 1971. After that
they gave their remaining supplies to the former Army of the Republic of
Vietnam who continued to use them until 1975 when that regime ceased to
exist.
In VVAW, our demand has always been Testing, Treatment and Compensation for
Agent Orange Victims. We never thought the lawsuit against the chemical
companies was the answer, but rather a way to continue putting pressure on
the US government.
Finally progress was made on that front when in 1991, Congress passed the
Agent Orange Act, acknowledging several conditions as being dioxin related
for purposes of medical treatment and disability compensation. It also
established a mechanism for the National Academy of Sciences Institute of
Medicine to review new studies and make recommendations to the Secretary of
the Veterans Administration for expanding the recognized conditions.
Currently there are thirteen conditions acknowledged by the VA including two
conditions among veterans children but over 27 conditions have been rejected
since there was a finding by the IOM of not enough scientific research to
indicate a connection to dioxin exposure.
So many veterans are still not being treated with any fairness. And how does
someone give justice to all those who have died? The hidden casualties of
the Vietnam War continue to grow but the struggle continues as well.
And today we need to talk about the other side of the coin, not just
American, Korean, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian veterans but the
people of Vietnam as well.
Remember also that these chemicals were also used in parts of Cambodia and
Laos as well as along the DMZ in Korea and in Panama.
In the United States we began the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and
Responsibility Campaign to support the efforts of VAVA and join with
concerned veterans and people in other countries to demand Justice for ALL
Agent Orange Victims!
While the Campaign is sponsored by Veterans For Peace, it is made up of war
veterans, Vietnamese-Americans, peace activists, environmentalists and other
friends of Vietnam. We are supporting the international petition drive in
support of the VAVA lawsuit and recently sponsored a 10 city speaking tour
by 4 VAVA members.
We are also planning to encourage sympathetic representatives and senators
to introduce legislation in Congress for the US government to step up to the
plate and provide compensation and medical assistance, if not for political
reasons, then fro moral and humanitarian purposes. It is time to really heal
the wounds of that war, not to ignore them or let them fade into history.
Let me make on last point. This is a struggle to expose and end the use of
chemical weapons by all nations but especially by my government. This is not
just about something that happened over 30 years ago. Today the Bush
administration has led our country and the world into another invasion and
occupation, this time in Iraq and is now used Depleted Uranium that will in
time poison US troops and Iraqi citizens. They have also used White
Phosphorus bombs against whole cities like Fallujah.
It is time for humanity to demand an end to these weapons as part of our
efforts to abolish war. That is what Veterans For Peace is pledged to work
for. That will only come through the determined efforts of all of us,
throughout the world.
The great American abolitionist Fredrick Douglass said:
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor
freedom yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up
the ground, they want rain without the thunder and lightning. They want the
ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, but it must
be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it
never will"
With that as our watchword, lets make this conference a call to all the
people of the world.
JUSTICE FOR ALL AGENT ORANGE VICTIMS!
for organizing this international conference and to the Agent Orange Vets
from Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada who have traveled here to
participate.
The US delegation I am leading is made up of Agent Orange vets Frank
Corcoran, Joan Duffy, Ralph Steele Dan Shea.
I was an infantryman with the 25th Infantry Division in Cu Chi and Tay Ninh
in 1967 and was wounded 3 times but do not suffer from dioxin related health
conditions myself.
When I came back from the war, I had knowledge of the use of Agent Orange
having seen sprayed areas and knew that they destroyed nature but had no
knowledge of the negative effects these defoliants had on human beings.
I remember in 1969 a veteran I knew named Jeff Sharlett died of cancer at
age 27 in the Miami, Florida Veterans Hospital and thinking it was strange
that someone so young had cancer.
Over the years other friends of mine got sick or had deformed children or
sometimes died. Mike Keegan and John Miffin who died and John and Rena
Kopystenski who had several children with birth defects are among them. So
this issue has always been personal to me.
In 1977, a woman who worked as a claims representative at the Chicago
Veterans Administration named Maude DeVictor was the first person to really
put two and two together when she witnessed the VA higher-ups denying
veterans claims and covering up their health problems and the connections to
dixon exposure.
The next year, 1978, a veteran name Paul Reutershan who was sick with cancer
got on television and said "my government killed me in Vietnam and I didn't
even know it". He began a lawsuit against the chemical companies who
manufactured Agent Orange, Blue, White, Purple etc. but he never lived to
see that lawsuit completed because he died within the year.
The reason that this lawsuit was started was because the VA was denying
veterans claims for medical treatment and compensation and according to US
law, citizens cannot sue the government for these type of claims.
From 1978-1984 the lawsuit continued and was eventually settled, although
many veterans opposed the settlement for millions of dollars. Sadly many
veterans got very little of that money since the army of lawyers who got
involved got a good portion of it in legal fees.
I have been a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War since 1970 and that
organization played a critical role in launching the movement for justice
for Agent Orange vets, supporting Maude Devictor who became the godmother of
the movement, recruiting veterans to joining the lawsuit and raising general
public awareness of this issue.
But we always believed that while the chemical companies had responsibility
and should be held liable, the primary responsibility lay with the US
government which ordered and continued to use these poisons after they were
becoming aware of the negative effects on people. Instead of changing
course, they covered up the facts and kept using them until 1971. After that
they gave their remaining supplies to the former Army of the Republic of
Vietnam who continued to use them until 1975 when that regime ceased to
exist.
In VVAW, our demand has always been Testing, Treatment and Compensation for
Agent Orange Victims. We never thought the lawsuit against the chemical
companies was the answer, but rather a way to continue putting pressure on
the US government.
Finally progress was made on that front when in 1991, Congress passed the
Agent Orange Act, acknowledging several conditions as being dioxin related
for purposes of medical treatment and disability compensation. It also
established a mechanism for the National Academy of Sciences Institute of
Medicine to review new studies and make recommendations to the Secretary of
the Veterans Administration for expanding the recognized conditions.
Currently there are thirteen conditions acknowledged by the VA including two
conditions among veterans children but over 27 conditions have been rejected
since there was a finding by the IOM of not enough scientific research to
indicate a connection to dioxin exposure.
So many veterans are still not being treated with any fairness. And how does
someone give justice to all those who have died? The hidden casualties of
the Vietnam War continue to grow but the struggle continues as well.
And today we need to talk about the other side of the coin, not just
American, Korean, Australian, New Zealand and Canadian veterans but the
people of Vietnam as well.
Remember also that these chemicals were also used in parts of Cambodia and
Laos as well as along the DMZ in Korea and in Panama.
In the United States we began the Vietnam Agent Orange Relief and
Responsibility Campaign to support the efforts of VAVA and join with
concerned veterans and people in other countries to demand Justice for ALL
Agent Orange Victims!
While the Campaign is sponsored by Veterans For Peace, it is made up of war
veterans, Vietnamese-Americans, peace activists, environmentalists and other
friends of Vietnam. We are supporting the international petition drive in
support of the VAVA lawsuit and recently sponsored a 10 city speaking tour
by 4 VAVA members.
We are also planning to encourage sympathetic representatives and senators
to introduce legislation in Congress for the US government to step up to the
plate and provide compensation and medical assistance, if not for political
reasons, then fro moral and humanitarian purposes. It is time to really heal
the wounds of that war, not to ignore them or let them fade into history.
Let me make on last point. This is a struggle to expose and end the use of
chemical weapons by all nations but especially by my government. This is not
just about something that happened over 30 years ago. Today the Bush
administration has led our country and the world into another invasion and
occupation, this time in Iraq and is now used Depleted Uranium that will in
time poison US troops and Iraqi citizens. They have also used White
Phosphorus bombs against whole cities like Fallujah.
It is time for humanity to demand an end to these weapons as part of our
efforts to abolish war. That is what Veterans For Peace is pledged to work
for. That will only come through the determined efforts of all of us,
throughout the world.
The great American abolitionist Fredrick Douglass said:
"If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor
freedom yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up
the ground, they want rain without the thunder and lightning. They want the
ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, but it must
be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it
never will"
With that as our watchword, lets make this conference a call to all the
people of the world.
JUSTICE FOR ALL AGENT ORANGE VICTIMS!
D.C. JUDGE GIVES PROTESTERS "TIME SERVED" FOR DISRUPTING CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON IRAQ WAR FUNDING
WASHINGTON - A District of Columbia Superior Court Judge this morning
sentenced two anti-war activists to "time served" for disrupting a March 8
meeting of the House Appropriations Committee as it considered an additional
$67,000,000 for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Federal rosecutors had asked Judge Stephen Milliken to sentence Ed Kinane,
of Syracuse, who had previous arrests at the School of the Americas at Ft.
Benning, Georgia, to 180 days in jail, suspended except for one weekend,
probation, and a "stay away order" from the grounds of the Capitol, and Mike
Ferner, of Toledo, to probation and a "stay away order."
At the Appropriations Committee hearing, Ferner stood up and began reading a
list of names of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the war, and
Kinane stood, holding a banner that said, "Stop the Killing!" The two were
quickly taken from the hearing room by Capitol Police and arrested. After
being booked they were later released at 2:00 am, the morning of March 9.
This morning in court, Kinane pled no contest and Ferner pled guilty to one
charge each of disrupting a Congressional committee hearing. National
Lawyers Guild attorney, Mark Goldstone, represented Ferner and advised
Kinane w ho conducted his own defense. Each of the defendants read a
prepared statement to Judge Milliken who had several questions for the two
men and then imposed his sentence of "time served."
In his statement to the judge, Kinane, 62, said, "I saw myself as
petitioning my elected representatives, my government, for redress of a
policy that grieves me enormously," and concluded by saying, "May each of us
do whatever we can to end this heinous war as soon as humanly possible."
In his statement, Ferner, 55, described his experiences as a Navy Hospital
Corpsman taking care of wounded soldiers and Marines during the Viet Nam
war. He said images of those days have not left his mind for 35 years and
that he believes the U.S. government is committing war crimes in Iraq.
"I cannot stand by and watch these crimes continue. I must add my voice to
the thousands of others crying out for an end to them until we awaken
America's conscience," and invted the judge to "help us wake our nation's
conscience by ruling what I did.was not a disruption but a civic duty."
Ferner's statement follows.
###
Statement by Mike Ferner
Washington, D.C. Superior Court
March 28, 2006
Your Honor, when some people learn of my appearance before you today they ask me why I found it necessary to disrupt the House Appropriations Committee as it was preparing to vote another $67,000,000,000 for war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"What justifies disrupting Congress," they ask?
I answer them, and can tell you in one word: images.
Images that have not left my mind for 35 years; from when I worked as a Corpsman in a Navy hospital during the Viet Nam war. Images of young soldiers and Marines lying in row upon row of hospital beds, shrouded in layers of white bandages.
Images of picking shrapnel out of Mike Ramsack's backside.of dressing Bob Butikofer's wounds every day, trying not to make h! im screa m.of changing colostomy bags on guys hoping they wouldn't defecate out the hole in their guts caused by a gunshot wound.
Images of the young soldier I couldn't hook up properly for a brain scan because he was missing his entire left temporal lobe.
Images of long lines of ambulatory patients waiting for supper in the hospital chow hall, sitting in wheelchairs, leaning on crutches, missing arms and legs and eyes.Images of a young man, silent and broken, sitting in a corner of the psychiatric ward.
And there are other, more recent images from my trips to Iraq that I cannot forget.
Images of the kids I met on the streets of Baghdad, and the ones in Abu Hishma who shared their chicken and rice dinner with an American journalist two days after a cruise missile blew their orange grove to bits.
Images of the young U.S. Army sergeant from West Virginia I accompanied on patrol one night near Balad, who answered my question, "why are you in Iraq?" with a tired shrug saying, "I reallydon't know." And his partner, just as bone tired, who answered simply, "oil."
I see these images every day. And I know that the young men in that Navy hospital 35 years ago, just like the ones I met last year in Iraq, are getting killed and maimed for a preposterous lie.
As my blood boils I tell my government to "BRING THEM HOME NOW!" by writing letters, signing petitions, speaking at rallies, and yes, when I can, testifying uninvited to the very committee preparing to vote more billions for this war.
Before the Capitol Police put me face down on the floor outside the Appropriations Committee hearing room, I told the committee members that their actions were making Americans less safe, not more; that in addition to causing great suffering, they were also violating dozens of international and domestic laws, waging a war of aggression, committing crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. A chill should run through our very soul as we remember when those words were use! d to ind ict another nation's warmaking, a nation over which we stood in judgement.
And just as Good Germans were complicit in the crimes of their government not that very long ago, so to are we American citizens complicit in the crimes of our own government. Because we are complicit, we must speak out against this monstrous war in every nonviolent way possible if we want to absolve ourselves of that complicity.
Your Honor, I cannot stand by and watch these crimes continue. I must add my voice to the thousands of others crying out for an end to it until we awaken America's conscience. I invite you to help us wake our nation's conscience by ruling that what I did when I read the names of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis killed in this war, to a Congressional Committee about to vote more money to prolong the killing, was not a disruption but a civic duty.
###
sentenced two anti-war activists to "time served" for disrupting a March 8
meeting of the House Appropriations Committee as it considered an additional
$67,000,000 for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Federal rosecutors had asked Judge Stephen Milliken to sentence Ed Kinane,
of Syracuse, who had previous arrests at the School of the Americas at Ft.
Benning, Georgia, to 180 days in jail, suspended except for one weekend,
probation, and a "stay away order" from the grounds of the Capitol, and Mike
Ferner, of Toledo, to probation and a "stay away order."
At the Appropriations Committee hearing, Ferner stood up and began reading a
list of names of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the war, and
Kinane stood, holding a banner that said, "Stop the Killing!" The two were
quickly taken from the hearing room by Capitol Police and arrested. After
being booked they were later released at 2:00 am, the morning of March 9.
This morning in court, Kinane pled no contest and Ferner pled guilty to one
charge each of disrupting a Congressional committee hearing. National
Lawyers Guild attorney, Mark Goldstone, represented Ferner and advised
Kinane w ho conducted his own defense. Each of the defendants read a
prepared statement to Judge Milliken who had several questions for the two
men and then imposed his sentence of "time served."
In his statement to the judge, Kinane, 62, said, "I saw myself as
petitioning my elected representatives, my government, for redress of a
policy that grieves me enormously," and concluded by saying, "May each of us
do whatever we can to end this heinous war as soon as humanly possible."
In his statement, Ferner, 55, described his experiences as a Navy Hospital
Corpsman taking care of wounded soldiers and Marines during the Viet Nam
war. He said images of those days have not left his mind for 35 years and
that he believes the U.S. government is committing war crimes in Iraq.
"I cannot stand by and watch these crimes continue. I must add my voice to
the thousands of others crying out for an end to them until we awaken
America's conscience," and invted the judge to "help us wake our nation's
conscience by ruling what I did.was not a disruption but a civic duty."
Ferner's statement follows.
###
Statement by Mike Ferner
Washington, D.C. Superior Court
March 28, 2006
Your Honor, when some people learn of my appearance before you today they ask me why I found it necessary to disrupt the House Appropriations Committee as it was preparing to vote another $67,000,000,000 for war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"What justifies disrupting Congress," they ask?
I answer them, and can tell you in one word: images.
Images that have not left my mind for 35 years; from when I worked as a Corpsman in a Navy hospital during the Viet Nam war. Images of young soldiers and Marines lying in row upon row of hospital beds, shrouded in layers of white bandages.
Images of picking shrapnel out of Mike Ramsack's backside.of dressing Bob Butikofer's wounds every day, trying not to make h! im screa m.of changing colostomy bags on guys hoping they wouldn't defecate out the hole in their guts caused by a gunshot wound.
Images of the young soldier I couldn't hook up properly for a brain scan because he was missing his entire left temporal lobe.
Images of long lines of ambulatory patients waiting for supper in the hospital chow hall, sitting in wheelchairs, leaning on crutches, missing arms and legs and eyes.Images of a young man, silent and broken, sitting in a corner of the psychiatric ward.
And there are other, more recent images from my trips to Iraq that I cannot forget.
Images of the kids I met on the streets of Baghdad, and the ones in Abu Hishma who shared their chicken and rice dinner with an American journalist two days after a cruise missile blew their orange grove to bits.
Images of the young U.S. Army sergeant from West Virginia I accompanied on patrol one night near Balad, who answered my question, "why are you in Iraq?" with a tired shrug saying, "I reallydon't know." And his partner, just as bone tired, who answered simply, "oil."
I see these images every day. And I know that the young men in that Navy hospital 35 years ago, just like the ones I met last year in Iraq, are getting killed and maimed for a preposterous lie.
As my blood boils I tell my government to "BRING THEM HOME NOW!" by writing letters, signing petitions, speaking at rallies, and yes, when I can, testifying uninvited to the very committee preparing to vote more billions for this war.
Before the Capitol Police put me face down on the floor outside the Appropriations Committee hearing room, I told the committee members that their actions were making Americans less safe, not more; that in addition to causing great suffering, they were also violating dozens of international and domestic laws, waging a war of aggression, committing crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. A chill should run through our very soul as we remember when those words were use! d to ind ict another nation's warmaking, a nation over which we stood in judgement.
And just as Good Germans were complicit in the crimes of their government not that very long ago, so to are we American citizens complicit in the crimes of our own government. Because we are complicit, we must speak out against this monstrous war in every nonviolent way possible if we want to absolve ourselves of that complicity.
Your Honor, I cannot stand by and watch these crimes continue. I must add my voice to the thousands of others crying out for an end to it until we awaken America's conscience. I invite you to help us wake our nation's conscience by ruling that what I did when I read the names of U.S. soldiers and Iraqis killed in this war, to a Congressional Committee about to vote more money to prolong the killing, was not a disruption but a civic duty.
###
In the Path of a Storm, Vets Protest a War by CHRISTIAN PARENTI
New Orleans
A column of American military veterans of wars in Iraq, Vietnam and points in
between, as well as parents and families of soldiers, marched into New
Orleans Sunday chanting radical cadences and flying a 1776 version of the American
flag.
Young Iraq vets led the column of roughly 250 through the gray, wrecked
landscape, many wearing their desert camouflage uniforms, with upside-down American
flag patches on their shoulders, sporting shades, beards, kaffiyehs and
chests full of metals. At night and along the roads the conversation frequently
turns to PTSD, poverty, depleted uranium-caused cancer, unpaid student loans,
Ramadi, Tikrit, IEDs and the intense camaraderie of this new movement.
Older veterans, mostly from the Vietnam War, who helped a younger generation
of soldiers to launch Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) are still as angry
as they were thirty years ago, but their once-youthful anger and grief has
been tempered by a generation of struggle. And it is upon this platform that the
young Iraq vets are now building their piece of the movement.
"Our motto is that never again will one generation of veterans turn their
back on another," said Dave Cline, a longtime activist and early member of
Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The column spent the six days prior to arriving in New Orleans tromping and
caravanning from Mobile, Alabama, through the devastation that is, still, the
Gulf Coast. Along the way the vets and their supporters left teams to help
"muck out" some of the trashed homes along the small towns of the Gulf Coast. But
the protest's larger aim was to make the connections between the devastation
here and the ruin of Iraq. The protesters say corruption, incompetence and
inhumanity mark both.
"All the money that is going to Iraq could be going down here," says former
Army sniper and IVAW member Garrett Reppenhagen.
According to the IVAW, the invasion and occupation of Iraq could cost $2.65
trillion. Other numbers mentioned along the march were the more than 2,400
American troops and 100,000 Iraqis killed.
At times the connections between Iraq and the Gulf Coast became all too real,
or even surreal. The ruined homes, lack of water and sporadic electricity
along the way reminded many vets of the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan that
some had left only months before.
"In Gulfport I heard a pop or a snap and looked back, and one of my guys took
a knee," said Navy corps and combat vet Charles Anderson, referring to the
common military position of kneeling in preparation for action. "I went back to
him, put my hand on him and told him: 'It's OK, we're in Mississippi now.' "
On Thursday, the thirty-eighth anniversary of the My Lai massacre, the
marchers were camped deep in the wrecked bayou country east of New Orleans and the
mouth of Lake Pontchartrain. In a clearing by a brackish creek, among a forest
of dry, ashen-colored, half-toppled pine trees, the vets listened to the
stories of local residents who spoke from a small plywood stage about the horrors
of the storm and the abandonment that followed. Bereft of state or federal aid,
many of the people there were still in bare survival mode.
A local man named Raymond Couture broke down in tears as he told his story of
finding thirty-four corpses in a local nursing home. "They ain't done nothing
for us here yet, so I know they ain't done nothing for them people in Iraq."
Then the vets and military families spoke. Tina Garnanez, a young Navajo,
lesbian and vet, spoke of her experiences in Iraq. She described the track record
of lies, broken promises and rising violence in Iraq as mirroring the history
of broken treaties, genocide and poverty that shape reservation life in the
United States.
Dinner in the broken forest was alligator gumbo; the IVAW kids partied out
and then slept under the stars.
Later, in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Demond Mullins, who returned
from heavy combat in Iraq only five months ago, looked out at the ravaged,
filthy wreckage in a quiet fury. "I can't believe this. This is worse than
Baghdad. What my country has become sickens me."
The march from Mobile to New Orleans marks a new stage in organizing among
Iraq veterans and thus a new stage for the peace movement. A year ago IVAW was,
in reality, mostly just a good idea and a small speakers' bureau. Now it is a
real organization and a key piece in the larger coalition of groups like
Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out that make up the heart of peace
movement
A column of American military veterans of wars in Iraq, Vietnam and points in
between, as well as parents and families of soldiers, marched into New
Orleans Sunday chanting radical cadences and flying a 1776 version of the American
flag.
Young Iraq vets led the column of roughly 250 through the gray, wrecked
landscape, many wearing their desert camouflage uniforms, with upside-down American
flag patches on their shoulders, sporting shades, beards, kaffiyehs and
chests full of metals. At night and along the roads the conversation frequently
turns to PTSD, poverty, depleted uranium-caused cancer, unpaid student loans,
Ramadi, Tikrit, IEDs and the intense camaraderie of this new movement.
Older veterans, mostly from the Vietnam War, who helped a younger generation
of soldiers to launch Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) are still as angry
as they were thirty years ago, but their once-youthful anger and grief has
been tempered by a generation of struggle. And it is upon this platform that the
young Iraq vets are now building their piece of the movement.
"Our motto is that never again will one generation of veterans turn their
back on another," said Dave Cline, a longtime activist and early member of
Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The column spent the six days prior to arriving in New Orleans tromping and
caravanning from Mobile, Alabama, through the devastation that is, still, the
Gulf Coast. Along the way the vets and their supporters left teams to help
"muck out" some of the trashed homes along the small towns of the Gulf Coast. But
the protest's larger aim was to make the connections between the devastation
here and the ruin of Iraq. The protesters say corruption, incompetence and
inhumanity mark both.
"All the money that is going to Iraq could be going down here," says former
Army sniper and IVAW member Garrett Reppenhagen.
According to the IVAW, the invasion and occupation of Iraq could cost $2.65
trillion. Other numbers mentioned along the march were the more than 2,400
American troops and 100,000 Iraqis killed.
At times the connections between Iraq and the Gulf Coast became all too real,
or even surreal. The ruined homes, lack of water and sporadic electricity
along the way reminded many vets of the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan that
some had left only months before.
"In Gulfport I heard a pop or a snap and looked back, and one of my guys took
a knee," said Navy corps and combat vet Charles Anderson, referring to the
common military position of kneeling in preparation for action. "I went back to
him, put my hand on him and told him: 'It's OK, we're in Mississippi now.' "
On Thursday, the thirty-eighth anniversary of the My Lai massacre, the
marchers were camped deep in the wrecked bayou country east of New Orleans and the
mouth of Lake Pontchartrain. In a clearing by a brackish creek, among a forest
of dry, ashen-colored, half-toppled pine trees, the vets listened to the
stories of local residents who spoke from a small plywood stage about the horrors
of the storm and the abandonment that followed. Bereft of state or federal aid,
many of the people there were still in bare survival mode.
A local man named Raymond Couture broke down in tears as he told his story of
finding thirty-four corpses in a local nursing home. "They ain't done nothing
for us here yet, so I know they ain't done nothing for them people in Iraq."
Then the vets and military families spoke. Tina Garnanez, a young Navajo,
lesbian and vet, spoke of her experiences in Iraq. She described the track record
of lies, broken promises and rising violence in Iraq as mirroring the history
of broken treaties, genocide and poverty that shape reservation life in the
United States.
Dinner in the broken forest was alligator gumbo; the IVAW kids partied out
and then slept under the stars.
Later, in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, Demond Mullins, who returned
from heavy combat in Iraq only five months ago, looked out at the ravaged,
filthy wreckage in a quiet fury. "I can't believe this. This is worse than
Baghdad. What my country has become sickens me."
The march from Mobile to New Orleans marks a new stage in organizing among
Iraq veterans and thus a new stage for the peace movement. A year ago IVAW was,
in reality, mostly just a good idea and a small speakers' bureau. Now it is a
real organization and a key piece in the larger coalition of groups like
Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out that make up the heart of peace
movement
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
John Pilger On Channel 4 UK "Hugo Chavez Report"
On March 27, Channel 4 News broadcast a relatively long piece on Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela. On Channel 4's website you get a flavour: “He is in danger of joining a rogue’s gallery of dictators and despots — Washington’s latest Latin nightmare.”
This was a piece seemingly written by the US State Department, although Channel 4's Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, appeared on screen. It was one of the worst, most distorted pieces of journalism I have ever seen, qualifying as crude propaganda. I have been in Venezuela lately and almost nothing in Rugman’s rant coincides with reality. Factories are like “Soviet collectives”; a dictatorship is on the rise; Chavez is like Hitler (Rumsfeld); and the media is under government attack. The inversion of the truth throughout this travesty is demonstrated in the “coverage” of a cowed media. Venezuela is a country in which 95 per cent of the press and TV and radio are owned by the far-right. who mount unrelenting daily attacks on the government unhindered. The Latin American Murdoch, Cisneros, unfettered, controls much of it. Indeed, it is probably the most concentrated, reactionary media on earth — but that was not worthy of a single word from Rugman.
The dishonesty of interviewing Maria Corina Machado and calling her a “human rights activist” was breathtaking. She is a leader of Sumate (’Join up’), an extreme right organisati on that was deeply involved in the 2002 coup. She met Bush in the White House shortly before the coup. There was no mention of this. Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, is dismissed as a Chavez protege”, a puppet, a ludicrous description of a man who has been in polityics longer than Chavez and has just won a landslide election. No mention of this.
Chavez himself is portrayed by Rugman as a comical dictator, with his folksy Latin way (one reason ordinary people love him) taken out of any context. In fact, this highly intelligent, accessible man has overseen victory in nine democratic elections in less than eight years — a world record. In crude Soviet-flick style, he is shown with the likes of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafy when these brief encounters only had to do with Opec and oil. (He met Saddam literally in a day-long stopover).
Chavez is said to have “torn up contracts” with foreign oil companies. The con tracts were barely legal, based on loopholes which Chavez’s predecessaor Rafael Caldera exploited to give away much of Venezuela’s oil, in effect; billions of dollars went into the pockets of Venezuela’s wealthy minority. No mention of this.
Utter bullshit about Venezuela helping Iran develop a nuclear capability is sourced to “press reports” (discredited in the United States) peddled by axe-grinding outsiders, in league with Washington, along with other half-baked hearsay. There was little, apart from tokens, about the way the Chavez government has changed millions of people’s lives for the better. Rugman whined that he was “held for 30 hours” by police in Caracas. Oh, how dramatic for him. This is a country threatened day and night by the United States; there was nothing from our Channel 4 hero about “Operation Bilbao”, to which serious US analysts like William Arkin have given credibility and which is about overthrowing the elected government of Ve nezuela. In his brief captivity, Rugman would have learned that this is a country, although under constant military threat, and threats from within, has not a single political prisoner.
While Chavez was offered up as a clown, Condaleeza Rice was given true gravitas. I could go on, but that’s enough. This was a disgrace from beginning to end. Worse, it joined the kind of hysteria in the US that is following the Bush administration’s agenda of “positioning” Venezuela as a “rogue state” and a threat to US interests: in other words, softening it up for attack. If and when it comes, the Rugmans will share some of the responsibility.
John Pilger
This was a piece seemingly written by the US State Department, although Channel 4's Washington correspondent, Jonathan Rugman, appeared on screen. It was one of the worst, most distorted pieces of journalism I have ever seen, qualifying as crude propaganda. I have been in Venezuela lately and almost nothing in Rugman’s rant coincides with reality. Factories are like “Soviet collectives”; a dictatorship is on the rise; Chavez is like Hitler (Rumsfeld); and the media is under government attack. The inversion of the truth throughout this travesty is demonstrated in the “coverage” of a cowed media. Venezuela is a country in which 95 per cent of the press and TV and radio are owned by the far-right. who mount unrelenting daily attacks on the government unhindered. The Latin American Murdoch, Cisneros, unfettered, controls much of it. Indeed, it is probably the most concentrated, reactionary media on earth — but that was not worthy of a single word from Rugman.
The dishonesty of interviewing Maria Corina Machado and calling her a “human rights activist” was breathtaking. She is a leader of Sumate (’Join up’), an extreme right organisati on that was deeply involved in the 2002 coup. She met Bush in the White House shortly before the coup. There was no mention of this. Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, is dismissed as a Chavez protege”, a puppet, a ludicrous description of a man who has been in polityics longer than Chavez and has just won a landslide election. No mention of this.
Chavez himself is portrayed by Rugman as a comical dictator, with his folksy Latin way (one reason ordinary people love him) taken out of any context. In fact, this highly intelligent, accessible man has overseen victory in nine democratic elections in less than eight years — a world record. In crude Soviet-flick style, he is shown with the likes of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafy when these brief encounters only had to do with Opec and oil. (He met Saddam literally in a day-long stopover).
Chavez is said to have “torn up contracts” with foreign oil companies. The con tracts were barely legal, based on loopholes which Chavez’s predecessaor Rafael Caldera exploited to give away much of Venezuela’s oil, in effect; billions of dollars went into the pockets of Venezuela’s wealthy minority. No mention of this.
Utter bullshit about Venezuela helping Iran develop a nuclear capability is sourced to “press reports” (discredited in the United States) peddled by axe-grinding outsiders, in league with Washington, along with other half-baked hearsay. There was little, apart from tokens, about the way the Chavez government has changed millions of people’s lives for the better. Rugman whined that he was “held for 30 hours” by police in Caracas. Oh, how dramatic for him. This is a country threatened day and night by the United States; there was nothing from our Channel 4 hero about “Operation Bilbao”, to which serious US analysts like William Arkin have given credibility and which is about overthrowing the elected government of Ve nezuela. In his brief captivity, Rugman would have learned that this is a country, although under constant military threat, and threats from within, has not a single political prisoner.
While Chavez was offered up as a clown, Condaleeza Rice was given true gravitas. I could go on, but that’s enough. This was a disgrace from beginning to end. Worse, it joined the kind of hysteria in the US that is following the Bush administration’s agenda of “positioning” Venezuela as a “rogue state” and a threat to US interests: in other words, softening it up for attack. If and when it comes, the Rugmans will share some of the responsibility.
John Pilger
Legalize the 'Illegals' By Robert Scheer
There is no immigration crisis — other than the one created by a small but vocal stripe of opportunist politicians, media demagogues and freelance xenophobes. So it has always been throughout the history of this country when anti-immigrant hysteria periodically reigns during low ebbs in our national sense of security and vision.
The script is as old as the Mayflower: A false alarm is sounded that the values, wages and safety of the current roster of credentialed Americans are jeopardized by the “flood” or “tidal wave” or “river” sneaking across our porous borders — be they Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Russian, Mexican or even the freed slaves seeking to earn an honest living in Northern cities after the Civil War. Any and all manner of societal problems are to be laid on these scapegoats, and the same simplistic solution offered: Find and deport them, and don’t let any more in.
Luckily, although it sometimes takes years or even decades, saner voices eventually prevail, acknowledging that the continued influx of immigrants has always fueled America’s astonishing economic and cultural rise ever since the original natives were bum-rushed off their turf. Immigration laws are liberalized, compromises are reached, amnesties are offered, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service bureaucracy grinds on.
Having intermittently covered this issue for the Los Angeles Times over 30 years, I can well recall the peaks of panic in which we reporters were dispatched to the border and out into the fields to witness the arrest of people desperate to find work — only to be embarrassed by the hunted eyes and clutched crosses of the enemy discovered.
Such frenzied attention was inevitably followed by a lull in which most Americans were quite happy to eat the food harvested by those same harassed and abused workers as well as entrusting the “illegals” with the care of American homes and children. On no other issue is there such an extreme disconnect between attitudes and actions.
When Wal-Mart was busted for hiring undocumented workers, did anybody boycott the company for it? Of course not; consumers value price and aren’t concerned, for the most part, about how a company accomplishes cheapness. If, however, people do really care about keeping all jobs open to American citizens, then there is only one effective strategy: Level the playing field by enforcing labor laws.
Some 2 million immigrant workers now earn less than the minimum wage and millions more work without the occupational safety, workers’ compensation, overtime pay and other protections legal status offers. Consequently, when the president says that immigrants perform work that legal residents are unwilling to do, he may be right — but we don’t know. The only way to test that hypothesis is to bring this black market labor pool above ground.
That approach has been tried in California with some success. José Millan, who until this year ran such an enforcement program as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s labor commissioner and before that for Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, told me that legalization of undocumented workers is essential to improving the situation for everybody.
“I am in favor of anything that brings these workers out of the shadows and into the sunlight; it’s very easy to exploit a population when they’re afraid,” Millan told me Monday. “We would be a better country if we recognized the fact that there are 10 million undocumented workers in our midst, and we would be better off if they were granted the benefits and responsibilities of a legal existence.”
This current xenophobia is no more warranted than it has been in the past. The number of claimed “illegal aliens” as a percentage of the population is clearly absorbable by the job market as our low unemployment rate demonstrates. Yet, the Republican Party and the Congress it dominates are currently teetering between driving undocumented workers further underground or taking a saner compromise approach.
The former, a draconian bill already passed by the House of Representatives, would legalize witch-hunts of undocumented workers, by reclassifying them as felons; their employers would be subject to a year or more in prison and punitive fines; as would even church and nonprofit organizations who offer succor to them.
Because employers are not trained to play cop, they will simply be driven to discriminate against job applicants based on “foreignness” determined by ethnicity or accent. The more reasonable alternative co-authored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and embraced as the heart of the proposal adopted by the Judiciary Committee on Monday, shuns the criminalization of the undocumented, instead offering paths — albeit long, arduous and uncertain ones — to legal status for undocumented workers already here.
This is a moment of truth for America. It is time to acknowledge that we need the immigrant workers as much as they need us, and to begin to treat them with the respect they deserve.
The script is as old as the Mayflower: A false alarm is sounded that the values, wages and safety of the current roster of credentialed Americans are jeopardized by the “flood” or “tidal wave” or “river” sneaking across our porous borders — be they Irish, Chinese, Jewish, Russian, Mexican or even the freed slaves seeking to earn an honest living in Northern cities after the Civil War. Any and all manner of societal problems are to be laid on these scapegoats, and the same simplistic solution offered: Find and deport them, and don’t let any more in.
Luckily, although it sometimes takes years or even decades, saner voices eventually prevail, acknowledging that the continued influx of immigrants has always fueled America’s astonishing economic and cultural rise ever since the original natives were bum-rushed off their turf. Immigration laws are liberalized, compromises are reached, amnesties are offered, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service bureaucracy grinds on.
Having intermittently covered this issue for the Los Angeles Times over 30 years, I can well recall the peaks of panic in which we reporters were dispatched to the border and out into the fields to witness the arrest of people desperate to find work — only to be embarrassed by the hunted eyes and clutched crosses of the enemy discovered.
Such frenzied attention was inevitably followed by a lull in which most Americans were quite happy to eat the food harvested by those same harassed and abused workers as well as entrusting the “illegals” with the care of American homes and children. On no other issue is there such an extreme disconnect between attitudes and actions.
When Wal-Mart was busted for hiring undocumented workers, did anybody boycott the company for it? Of course not; consumers value price and aren’t concerned, for the most part, about how a company accomplishes cheapness. If, however, people do really care about keeping all jobs open to American citizens, then there is only one effective strategy: Level the playing field by enforcing labor laws.
Some 2 million immigrant workers now earn less than the minimum wage and millions more work without the occupational safety, workers’ compensation, overtime pay and other protections legal status offers. Consequently, when the president says that immigrants perform work that legal residents are unwilling to do, he may be right — but we don’t know. The only way to test that hypothesis is to bring this black market labor pool above ground.
That approach has been tried in California with some success. José Millan, who until this year ran such an enforcement program as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s labor commissioner and before that for Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, told me that legalization of undocumented workers is essential to improving the situation for everybody.
“I am in favor of anything that brings these workers out of the shadows and into the sunlight; it’s very easy to exploit a population when they’re afraid,” Millan told me Monday. “We would be a better country if we recognized the fact that there are 10 million undocumented workers in our midst, and we would be better off if they were granted the benefits and responsibilities of a legal existence.”
This current xenophobia is no more warranted than it has been in the past. The number of claimed “illegal aliens” as a percentage of the population is clearly absorbable by the job market as our low unemployment rate demonstrates. Yet, the Republican Party and the Congress it dominates are currently teetering between driving undocumented workers further underground or taking a saner compromise approach.
The former, a draconian bill already passed by the House of Representatives, would legalize witch-hunts of undocumented workers, by reclassifying them as felons; their employers would be subject to a year or more in prison and punitive fines; as would even church and nonprofit organizations who offer succor to them.
Because employers are not trained to play cop, they will simply be driven to discriminate against job applicants based on “foreignness” determined by ethnicity or accent. The more reasonable alternative co-authored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and embraced as the heart of the proposal adopted by the Judiciary Committee on Monday, shuns the criminalization of the undocumented, instead offering paths — albeit long, arduous and uncertain ones — to legal status for undocumented workers already here.
This is a moment of truth for America. It is time to acknowledge that we need the immigrant workers as much as they need us, and to begin to treat them with the respect they deserve.
The Cowards Path - An open letter OF APOLOGY to Ralph Nader By Linda H Riegler
03/28/06 -- ---
Dear Mr. Nadar,
Sir, I owe you an apology…
It is now the season of Lent, and although I am a recovered catholic, old habits such as guilt and self-loathing are difficult habits to break.
I grew up in the south, during the civil rights/Viet-Nam era in a home of Dixie-crats (allow me to clarify briefly the term Dixie-crat). A dixie-crat is not a conservative democrat—a dixie-crat is a republican, in every sense, who registers to vote in the democratic primary in order to manipulate the outcome.
Consequently, as a result of growing up around all of this cynicism, I became a democrat—a life long democrat. I became a democrat because, where republicans were corrupt, democrats were courageous; where republicans were self-interested, democrats were committed to the common good; where republicans were advancing the “military industrial complex”, the democrats were trying to end the war…
And whenever democrats where exposed as being less than honorable…I told myself that the democratic platform is larger than any single corrupt democratic legislator. Our platform advances the common good.
Well…I was young…
However, in the 2000 elections even as I was impassioned by your words, and although inspired by your courage in a way that has alluded me since my youth. I sat silently applauding you (I even considered “vote-swapping”), but in the end, I cast my vote for Al Gore. I was completely secure in my convictions. As desperately, as we needed you, it was far more critical to elect Al Gore than to risk (I’d been doing my homework over the last twenty years) allowing America to fall into the hands of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
When the 2004 elections rolled around--again I was mute, but this time I was even more resolute in my convictions, that a vote for you was a vote squandered. You were a luxury that we could not afford. Our constitution was under threat—Bush must clearly and definitively be re-defeated!
Moreover, as the Downing Street Memo exposed Bush and the lies he told taking us to war in Iraq, a war of profit, a war of pestilence wrought on the peoples of Iraq after so many years enduring the tyrannies of Saddam Hussein. A pestilence that will haunt the peoples of the Middle East as well as the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, who’s patriotism has been exploited so unconscionably by this regime. Depleted Uranium is the legacy that will resonate for generations to come. Brutality, torture and empire will now be the values most often associated with the United States. Mean-spirited debate and incivility are the new currency in Bush’s America.
Yet, while the lies and corruption continue to spill forth, we have in our democratic leadership, people unwilling to stand up, unwilling to stand up to protect our representative democracy, our basic civil liberties and our constitution. I like many across the country have stood by, nearly pulling out my hair, making phone calls, writing letters, signing petitions, watching in anguish, as our democratic leadership serves up more power and legitimacy to this regime.
Now, here we are, a year and a half into Bush’s second term—Lent. Lent, and although I no longer consider myself a catholic, I still find myself falling into the ritual of self-reflection, and a good habit indeed—one of my few...
and sir, I owe you an apology...
I understand now, that I am a war criminal. I am responsible. I am complicit in disseminating depleted uranium throughout the Middle East. I am responsible for the renditions, for Abu Ghraib, for the torture, for the illegal spying, etc. I am responsible. I am responsible for it all.
I am responsible because, when we choose the cowardly path as we step into the ballot box, we choose cowardly people to represent us. We choose fear to dictate our actions rather than courage. Little wonder that that is what we see reflected back to us by our leadership. More importantly, in choosing weak and cowardly people, we choose to allow unspeakable acts to be committed in our name and for that, sir—I owe you and the world, an apology.
Linda H Riegler
Dear Mr. Nadar,
Sir, I owe you an apology…
It is now the season of Lent, and although I am a recovered catholic, old habits such as guilt and self-loathing are difficult habits to break.
I grew up in the south, during the civil rights/Viet-Nam era in a home of Dixie-crats (allow me to clarify briefly the term Dixie-crat). A dixie-crat is not a conservative democrat—a dixie-crat is a republican, in every sense, who registers to vote in the democratic primary in order to manipulate the outcome.
Consequently, as a result of growing up around all of this cynicism, I became a democrat—a life long democrat. I became a democrat because, where republicans were corrupt, democrats were courageous; where republicans were self-interested, democrats were committed to the common good; where republicans were advancing the “military industrial complex”, the democrats were trying to end the war…
And whenever democrats where exposed as being less than honorable…I told myself that the democratic platform is larger than any single corrupt democratic legislator. Our platform advances the common good.
Well…I was young…
However, in the 2000 elections even as I was impassioned by your words, and although inspired by your courage in a way that has alluded me since my youth. I sat silently applauding you (I even considered “vote-swapping”), but in the end, I cast my vote for Al Gore. I was completely secure in my convictions. As desperately, as we needed you, it was far more critical to elect Al Gore than to risk (I’d been doing my homework over the last twenty years) allowing America to fall into the hands of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
When the 2004 elections rolled around--again I was mute, but this time I was even more resolute in my convictions, that a vote for you was a vote squandered. You were a luxury that we could not afford. Our constitution was under threat—Bush must clearly and definitively be re-defeated!
Moreover, as the Downing Street Memo exposed Bush and the lies he told taking us to war in Iraq, a war of profit, a war of pestilence wrought on the peoples of Iraq after so many years enduring the tyrannies of Saddam Hussein. A pestilence that will haunt the peoples of the Middle East as well as the men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, who’s patriotism has been exploited so unconscionably by this regime. Depleted Uranium is the legacy that will resonate for generations to come. Brutality, torture and empire will now be the values most often associated with the United States. Mean-spirited debate and incivility are the new currency in Bush’s America.
Yet, while the lies and corruption continue to spill forth, we have in our democratic leadership, people unwilling to stand up, unwilling to stand up to protect our representative democracy, our basic civil liberties and our constitution. I like many across the country have stood by, nearly pulling out my hair, making phone calls, writing letters, signing petitions, watching in anguish, as our democratic leadership serves up more power and legitimacy to this regime.
Now, here we are, a year and a half into Bush’s second term—Lent. Lent, and although I no longer consider myself a catholic, I still find myself falling into the ritual of self-reflection, and a good habit indeed—one of my few...
and sir, I owe you an apology...
I understand now, that I am a war criminal. I am responsible. I am complicit in disseminating depleted uranium throughout the Middle East. I am responsible for the renditions, for Abu Ghraib, for the torture, for the illegal spying, etc. I am responsible. I am responsible for it all.
I am responsible because, when we choose the cowardly path as we step into the ballot box, we choose cowardly people to represent us. We choose fear to dictate our actions rather than courage. Little wonder that that is what we see reflected back to us by our leadership. More importantly, in choosing weak and cowardly people, we choose to allow unspeakable acts to be committed in our name and for that, sir—I owe you and the world, an apology.
Linda H Riegler
Pardoning the Pentagon BY Molly Ivins
The Pentagon has investigated its own habit of paying people to lie -- and, lo and behold, it found itself not guilty.
The Pentagon has once again investigated itself! And -- have a seat, get the smelling salts, hold all hats -- the Pentagon has once again concluded the Pentagon did absolutely nothing wrong and will continue to do so.
In this particularly fascinating case, the Pentagon investigated its own habit of paying people to make up lies about how well the war in Iraq is going, and then paying other people to put those lies in the Iraqi media, thus fooling the Iraqis into thinking everything in their country is tickety-boo. Well, if we can't fool them, whom can we fool?
The case revolves around a contract worth several million dollars given by the U.S. military command in Baghdad to the Lincoln Group, a public relations outfit started by two young entrepreneurs, one British, one American, in 2003 in Iraq. Articles were written by American military personnel from the American point of view about the war -- to wit, it's going well. Lincoln Group in turn paid Iraqi journalists, some "on retainer," to print the articles without revealing the source.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Ecuador: State of emergency declared to halt protests
The past three weeks have left their mark on Ecuadorian society. The magnificent revolutionary movement has risen once again forcing the government to declare a state of emergency in four main provinces. The armed forces have been given permission to use “extraordinary” measures to bring the situation under control. What we are witnessing is the early beginnings of a movement that could develop towards a new insurrection.
The immediate cause of this recent wave of mass protests were the declarations of the president of Ecuador, Alfredo Palacio, who has stated that he wants to sign the TLC (FTA), a free-trade agreement that US imperialism is trying to impose on the Latin American countries. The TLC is a free-trade agreement that will give even more freedom to US-multinationals to operate in Ecuador. It will give them wide access to the rich resources of the country and make it possible for them to make millions of dollars, for example from the big oil-reserves.
As we explained in a previously published article (see Ecuador: New explosions are being prepared), the continued presence in the country of the US oil company OXY, is a source of anger and frustration for the oppressed masses of Ecuadorian workers, urban poor, indigenous people and youth. While social spending is being cut this multinational is allowed to continue its business in Ecuador, in spite of clear evidence that it is violating its contract with the state. If the TLC is applied in Ecuador it will open the gates for more such companies and it will mean complete bankruptcy for many small peasants and small-scale producers, as US-based producers of agricultural goods will be free to export whatever they want to Ecuador.
The recent protests began on March 8, international working women’s day, where a national mobilization and a 24-hour general strike was called by various trade-union confederations with the backing of social movements and the secondary school students of the capital. In Quito several important roads were blocked by protesters and the main squares became the scene of mass demonstrations that were violently broken up by the police firing tear-gas.
In a number of provinces cases of rioting were also registered, most significant being in the Eastern part of the country where the workers of the oil plants followed suit and brought the installations to a halt in Shushufindi, Libertador, Lago Agrio, Sacha, Auca, and the Amazonian district. These workers are demanding payment of their wages that sub-contracting companies have been holding back for some time, in some cases even up to four months.
But the actions of March 8 were just a warm-up to the recent wave of protests that started on March 13 with a number of local risings across the whole country. Associated Press affirmed that, “Several thousand Indians started blockading roads with burning tires, rocks and tree trunks on March 13, tying up traffic and halting commerce across Ecuador's highlands and much of the eastern jungle.”
The movement spread rapidly and was effectively lead by CONAIE (The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) that organized a march on the capital. The indigenous minority, numbering around 30% of the population, is an extremely exploited layer and has therefore been in the vanguard of the revolutionary movement over and over and again. This time it had the firm support of the majority of the masses, especially the students that clashed with the police on a daily basis in Quito.
The declared aim of the movement was to stop the TLC negotiations and call for a national referendum to decide on the issue. Palacio rejected any kind of concessions and declared a state of emergency in four Ecuadorian provinces on Tuesday, March 21, giving permission to the military to use special measures to get the situation under control. In a joint statement issued last Thursday, the indigenous organizations CONAIE and ECUARONARI, explained how the military have been ordered to track down the leaders of the movement, enter their homes if necessary, beat them up and take them to the Riobamba prison.
It is not totally clear what will happen next. Obviously the ferocious repression has had an effect on the movement. The vice-president of CONAIE, Santiago de la Cruz, stated that it is necessary to make a “strategic retreat” in order to discuss thoroughly in the local indigenous communities a plan of action “with much greater radicalism”. The idea is to organise mass assemblies in every region leading up to a national assembly next week. The situation is still very open and can produce all kinds of results.
In a desperate attempt to distract the attention of the masses, officials of the Ecuadorian government have accused Hugo Chavez of being behind the popular protests. That the riots could in any way be financed by Chavez is clearly false and it is merely one of the many dirty tricks being employed to side-track the real issues at stake. Chavez himself responded that: “It is not the Venezuelan government that is stirring up protests... it is the conscience of peoples that have decided to live and be free.”
Reactionaries always push the line that strikes are started because a small minority of energetic agitators are “provoking” action. In the same way, these people think that Chavez is an agitator that can “manipulate” the masses into action. Clearly the masses of Ecuador, as in every other country in Latin America, look to the Venezuelan revolution as a great example. But it is not simply the events in Venezuela that are the causes of these risings. On the contrary, it is the result of a number of contradictions that have accumulated within Ecuador over a long period.
In fact, the TLC is simply the last straw that broke the camel's back. What many people do not understand is, that it is not this or that reform, but the very existence of capitalism that hinders a harmonious development of the countries in Latin America. The ruling classes of the continent came onto the scene of history at a relatively late stage and were thus organically linked to the interests of imperialism. At the decisive moments they have always sided with imperialism against the movement for national independence. The history of Ecuador is in itself a very good testimony to that.
So long as capitalism survives, so long as the present ruling class remains in power and holds the key economic levers there will be no lasting solution to the problems faced by the Ecuadorian masses. The acceptance of the TLC merely reflects the position of the local oligarchy. It is a pliant tool in the hands of US imperialism in particular. It is correct to oppose the TLC, but it is necessary to go beyond this.
What is necessary is not only to reject the TLC, but also to build an alternative that can effectively sweep away and replace the discredited bourgeois parliament. This can only come about if the organizations of the working class, the indigenous minority and the peasantry take decisive steps to organize a new insurrection, a revolution that will eliminate the capitalist mode of production and create the conditions for a socialist society.
The immediate cause of this recent wave of mass protests were the declarations of the president of Ecuador, Alfredo Palacio, who has stated that he wants to sign the TLC (FTA), a free-trade agreement that US imperialism is trying to impose on the Latin American countries. The TLC is a free-trade agreement that will give even more freedom to US-multinationals to operate in Ecuador. It will give them wide access to the rich resources of the country and make it possible for them to make millions of dollars, for example from the big oil-reserves.
As we explained in a previously published article (see Ecuador: New explosions are being prepared), the continued presence in the country of the US oil company OXY, is a source of anger and frustration for the oppressed masses of Ecuadorian workers, urban poor, indigenous people and youth. While social spending is being cut this multinational is allowed to continue its business in Ecuador, in spite of clear evidence that it is violating its contract with the state. If the TLC is applied in Ecuador it will open the gates for more such companies and it will mean complete bankruptcy for many small peasants and small-scale producers, as US-based producers of agricultural goods will be free to export whatever they want to Ecuador.
The recent protests began on March 8, international working women’s day, where a national mobilization and a 24-hour general strike was called by various trade-union confederations with the backing of social movements and the secondary school students of the capital. In Quito several important roads were blocked by protesters and the main squares became the scene of mass demonstrations that were violently broken up by the police firing tear-gas.
In a number of provinces cases of rioting were also registered, most significant being in the Eastern part of the country where the workers of the oil plants followed suit and brought the installations to a halt in Shushufindi, Libertador, Lago Agrio, Sacha, Auca, and the Amazonian district. These workers are demanding payment of their wages that sub-contracting companies have been holding back for some time, in some cases even up to four months.
But the actions of March 8 were just a warm-up to the recent wave of protests that started on March 13 with a number of local risings across the whole country. Associated Press affirmed that, “Several thousand Indians started blockading roads with burning tires, rocks and tree trunks on March 13, tying up traffic and halting commerce across Ecuador's highlands and much of the eastern jungle.”
The movement spread rapidly and was effectively lead by CONAIE (The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador) that organized a march on the capital. The indigenous minority, numbering around 30% of the population, is an extremely exploited layer and has therefore been in the vanguard of the revolutionary movement over and over and again. This time it had the firm support of the majority of the masses, especially the students that clashed with the police on a daily basis in Quito.
The declared aim of the movement was to stop the TLC negotiations and call for a national referendum to decide on the issue. Palacio rejected any kind of concessions and declared a state of emergency in four Ecuadorian provinces on Tuesday, March 21, giving permission to the military to use special measures to get the situation under control. In a joint statement issued last Thursday, the indigenous organizations CONAIE and ECUARONARI, explained how the military have been ordered to track down the leaders of the movement, enter their homes if necessary, beat them up and take them to the Riobamba prison.
It is not totally clear what will happen next. Obviously the ferocious repression has had an effect on the movement. The vice-president of CONAIE, Santiago de la Cruz, stated that it is necessary to make a “strategic retreat” in order to discuss thoroughly in the local indigenous communities a plan of action “with much greater radicalism”. The idea is to organise mass assemblies in every region leading up to a national assembly next week. The situation is still very open and can produce all kinds of results.
In a desperate attempt to distract the attention of the masses, officials of the Ecuadorian government have accused Hugo Chavez of being behind the popular protests. That the riots could in any way be financed by Chavez is clearly false and it is merely one of the many dirty tricks being employed to side-track the real issues at stake. Chavez himself responded that: “It is not the Venezuelan government that is stirring up protests... it is the conscience of peoples that have decided to live and be free.”
Reactionaries always push the line that strikes are started because a small minority of energetic agitators are “provoking” action. In the same way, these people think that Chavez is an agitator that can “manipulate” the masses into action. Clearly the masses of Ecuador, as in every other country in Latin America, look to the Venezuelan revolution as a great example. But it is not simply the events in Venezuela that are the causes of these risings. On the contrary, it is the result of a number of contradictions that have accumulated within Ecuador over a long period.
In fact, the TLC is simply the last straw that broke the camel's back. What many people do not understand is, that it is not this or that reform, but the very existence of capitalism that hinders a harmonious development of the countries in Latin America. The ruling classes of the continent came onto the scene of history at a relatively late stage and were thus organically linked to the interests of imperialism. At the decisive moments they have always sided with imperialism against the movement for national independence. The history of Ecuador is in itself a very good testimony to that.
So long as capitalism survives, so long as the present ruling class remains in power and holds the key economic levers there will be no lasting solution to the problems faced by the Ecuadorian masses. The acceptance of the TLC merely reflects the position of the local oligarchy. It is a pliant tool in the hands of US imperialism in particular. It is correct to oppose the TLC, but it is necessary to go beyond this.
What is necessary is not only to reject the TLC, but also to build an alternative that can effectively sweep away and replace the discredited bourgeois parliament. This can only come about if the organizations of the working class, the indigenous minority and the peasantry take decisive steps to organize a new insurrection, a revolution that will eliminate the capitalist mode of production and create the conditions for a socialist society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)