Archive for the ‘War on Terror’ Category

How do we win peace?

Monday, October 15th, 2007

I take it for granted that readers agree that the Iraq war, as well as all aggressive wars are illegal and immoral and should be stopped immediately. Yes, we all know by now that the war was about oil. And we all know by now that the media led a propaganda campaign to try and convince the public that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Most realize that the media continues to support occupation all while lamenting how the war was such a costly mistake.

Even though a majority is now against the war, most of us are still left out or alienated from the anti-war movement. War is an issue that affects everyone, and working people pay the biggest price. How then can we build an inclusive movement that is accessible by working people?

What do we want instead of endless war, and how do we plan to get there? How can we build a movement that empower individuals instead of asking folks to follow marching orders?

I don’t want another good-intentioned person to hand me a flyer that details the Bush regime’s war crimes–I know these by heart now. I don’t want to go to another anti-war meeting that makes me feel like I’m in high school all over again–where I have to be quiet while the leader tells us what to think and do. I don’t want to go to another demonstration that treats it’s participants as just additional bodies to hold signs and in the end leaves us feeling more isolated and alone. I know this isn’t everyone’s experience with the anti-war movement, but I have a feeling that I am not alone.

It is clear that the peace movement is falling way short of what it could and what it must accomplish. I think we need honest discussion on how we can build a movement that can really end this war, and not just that but discussion on how to build a movement that can go further and start to address peoples needs by winning change in all aspects of life.

Resisting a War of Aggression

Tuesday, February 6th, 2007

Most Americans are unusually privileged in having the right to speak out against our country’s illegitimate wars without fear of reprisal. Those we ask to protect our country have no such right.

Lt. Ehren Watada was the first officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, he argued his case based on legal and moral grounds:

“It is my duty as a commissioned officer in the United States army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the constitution. Not to those who issue unlawful orders. I stand before you today because it is my job to serve and protect American soldiers and innocent Iraqis who have no voice. It is my conclusion that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but also a breach of American law.”

He concluded that the Iraq war violated the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Act, the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles. He rightfully labeled the invasion of Iraq as a “war of aggression” as defined in the Nuremberg Principles. Furthermore, Watada adhered to the Nuremberg Principles which require soldiers to disobey illegal orders.

For following supreme international law, Lt. Watada may now face up to six years in prison on the grounds of refusing orders and speaking out against the war. Earlier this year, a judge ruled that Watada could not present his defense based on the Nuremberg Principles because the legality of the war is a “nonjusticiable political question.”

The court martial of Lt. Watada which started Monday is sure to gather the military a lot of negative publicity. Evidently, the need to instill fear in those soldiers already committed to service outweighs the negative effect this press will have on recruitment. The military commanders must certainly be weary of a greater military resistance to the war, given how unpopular it is among the troops.

Americans have an obligation to stand up for Lt. Watada. We don’t live in a police state, and dissidents should not be thrown in jail, regardless of whether they are part of the military.

2008 Presidential Candidates

Sunday, January 21st, 2007

As various candidates are announcing their bid for the presidency in 2008, concerned citizens should begin looking now to see which candidate supports ending the Iraq war.

Recently, the two most publicized bid announcements have come from Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is easy to compare their respective positions on the war since they are essentially the same. Obama is introducing a bill to cap troop levels at the level they were at on January 10th, while Clinton has submitted a similar proposal that will cap troop levels to their January 10th mark.

Obama calls for “gradual and substantial reduction in U.S. forces,” while failing to mention a hard deadline in an effort to “protect American troops without causing Iraq to suddenly descend into chaos.” He calls on Congress to act now to “prevent even more mistakes and bring this war to a responsible end.”

Clinton says she doesn’t support cutting funding for the war, but instead will support “cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions.” On the other hand, we need more troops and military funding in Afghanistan whose government is “committed to promoting national interests over sectarian ones, is making tangible progress in governance,” and “sincerely wants more US help” unlike Iraq. The gist of her stance is that we should recognize that Iraq is a failed attempt at creating a U.S. client state, but meanwhile in Afghanistan we still have a chance to salvage some form of effective control.

John Edwards takes a similar though slightly stronger position. “You have to actually have the courage to stop the escalation. And the way Congress can stop the escalation is by not funding the escalation.” Again, he opposes the troop “surge,” thinks the war was a mistake, and we should withdrawal within some undisclosed time frame. On his own presidential campaign website the only issue that might pertain to Iraq is labeled as “Restoring America’s Moral Standing in the World.” Since he isn’t currently in office, no one can be quite sure what type of restoration Edwards has in mind.

One of the early favorites for the Republican race is John McCain. There isn’t much to say here, since McCain supports the surge. He plays his role well in using fear to shape public opinion, nothing, “If we leave Iraq, I am convinced that al-Qaida and terrorist organizations will want to follow us home.”

Dennis Kucinich is perhaps the only Democratic presidential hopeful who is pushing for cutting funding for the war and an immediate exit from Iraq. He is a cosponor of H.R. 508 that calls for withdrawal within six months in addition to paying millions to help restore Iraq. Unlike the other candidates, Kucinich actually represents the majority of the Democratic voter base who prefer a timetable for withdrawal.

Although it is uncertain who the Green Party candidate will be, if the party’s history and stated platform is any indicator of the future then any Green candidate will certainly be for the immediate end of the war.

The goal of anti-war activists should not necessarily be limited to promoting the handful of peace candidates, but instead we must work to create a climate where it is impossible for any presidential hopeful to support continued war.

H.R. 508 to End the War

Friday, January 19th, 2007

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D) submitted a bill into the House to withdrawal troops from Iraq within the next six months. House Bill H.R. 508 accurately states, “In the United States elections held on November 7, 2006, the American people clearly voted for a change in United States policy in Iraq and in favor of United States military disengagement from Iraq.”

Although the bill falls short of being honest about U.S. military aggression, it does in fact attempt to heed the will of both the majority in America and Iraq. The bill calls for ending funding to the war and likewise prohibiting permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

The bill authorizes the president to spend over a billion dollars on reconstructions funds to go towards “damage to Iraqi civil society and infrastructure as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and to fix various other problems caused by the occupation. Also the bill includes appropriations for compensating civilian casualties in Iraq. These financial efforts are necessary and should be labeled accurately as reparations not aid.

Read more about the bill at this article or at this blog.

Other bills that are receiving a lot more news coverage, fall short of actually taking a stance on the war. In the Senate, a bi-partisan group is likely to pass a “non-binding resolution… opposing the increased deployment of troops.”

Aside from the obvious point that a non-binding resolution accomplishes nothing other than saving political face for its supporters, those who oppose the surge but then fail to oppose the continued occupation are simply not diverging from the current administration’s ideology. The majority of Democrats and the handful of Republicans who support this bill are simply debating strategy over the best way to handle an illegal occupation. Supporters are ultimately complicit in the occupation and should be held accountable by citizens.

Either the war is legitimate and we should try to win it, or the invasion was illegal and we should get out as soon as possible. Anyone who takes a halfway objective look at the war and also assigns at least minimal value to the most basic principles of international justice is able to see that our invasion and continued occupation is illegitimate.

For this reason, I advocate supporting H.R. 508, the only bill currently calling for an end to this horrible war.

Human Rights Watch World Report

Saturday, January 13th, 2007

The Human Rights Watch (HRW) released its annual “World Report.” It is instructive to take a look at how the American press reported the publication.

A brief news search shows that there were basically two different stories on the report. The first type of article reports the HRW has concluded that the U.S. has fallen behind on human rights and the European Union must now take the lead. Their are more articles of the second type which reports on the organization’s criticism of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez.

For anyone who even skimmed the World Report, it is clear that HRW was significantly more critical of the United States than Venezuela. The human rights organization, however, offers a critique on most major players of the world and does specifically single out any single country as the worst offender. The report recognized that the current trajectory of human rights in the United States is very disturbing and worrisome for the entire world.

In their 2004 report, the organization warned of Bush’s dangerous moves to consolidate power while removing protection of individual rights. After this year they realize they “underestimated the extent and tenacity of those efforts.”

In the past five years the administration has authorized torture and other abusive interrogation techniques, “disappeared” dozens of suspected terrorists into secret prisons, twisted domestic law to permit indefinite detention without charge of persons suspected of links to terrorism, and confined hundreds at Guantanamo Bay without charge while denying them information about the basis for their detention and meaningful opportunity to contest it. The administration has sought to exempt its actions from court oversight.

They cite that in 2006, George Bush was undeterred by constitutional checks to his rights abuses. Following the Supreme Courts ruling that even “unlawful combatants” are “legally entitled to humane treatment ‘in all circumstances,’” the President responded by asking “Congress to authorize a system of military commissions akin to those that had been struck down.” Additionally he asked Congress to “rewrite and to redefine the humane treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions so that the CIA’s ‘enhanced’—and abusive—interrogation program could continue”

As a result of the legislation that he pushed through, Bush secured protection for his administration from being tried for War Crimes that they are surely guilty of. The World Report touches on a few of these crimes. Most of the report focuses on Guantanomo Bay and the unlawful and inhumane detainment of those deemed “enemy combatants”.

Approximately 450 men remain in long-term, indefinite, and largely incommunicado detention at Guantanamo Bay. The United States continues to assert its authority to hold these men as “unlawful enemy combatants” without charge and without regard to the laws of armed conflict.

Concerning the Military Commissions Act, “Most seriously,” the HRW cites, “the legislation prohibits any detainee the US government has labeled an ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ from ever challenging in court his treatment while in US custody, even after his release.”

The report touches briefly on the practice of America sending detainees abroad to “secret prisons” in countries known for their human rights abuses. The administration has shut down the secret prisons, but assures us they still maintain the right to continue secretly out sourcing torture at any point.

Not all of the rights abuses concern “counterterroism” issues. HRW politely points out that the United States currently has “the highest incarceration rate in the world,” and furthermore poor people and minorities are disproportionately imprisoned. The organization mentions the horrible condition of U.S. prisons including cases of sexual abuse, staff violence, and a policy of controlling prisoners with attack dogs.

The American press mentions very little about the actual content of the HRW’s report on U.S. human rights abuses. Instead it focuses on the groups recommendation that the European Union take the lead in human rights since “Washington’s once-powerful role as a prime defender of human rights had effectively ended.”

Several reports were published with titles like “Rights group blasts Chavez over courts.” The group did, in fact, “blast” the Venezuelan government, along with the United States and ten other countries in the Western Hemisphere.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Chavez was singled out by the American press. Chavez has been a strong critic of neoliberal globalization and American military and economic imperialism. And to make matters worse, he just dealt a huge blow to corporate media by denying a Venezuelan media company their license renewal, drawing “harsh criticism” from American critics. Nevermind the fact that the company assisted in the coup attempt of Chavez in 2002.

One does not have to think too hard about how the United States would respond to a similar situation here. An independent journal calls for the forceful, violent removal of the President from office. The offending journalist would certainly be thrown in jail, most likely labeled an “enemy combatant” and handled accordingly.

In the United States, we throw our suspected “enemy combatants” in secret prisons and strip them of their rights and dignity. In Venezuela, they wait until their enemy’s license is up for renewal and then deny them the right to control public air waves.

Nevertheless, there is certainly room to criticize Venezuela. But as always, we are responsible first and foremost for our own crimes and those crimes we support. In America, a country once described by Martin Luther King Jr. as the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world,” there is even greater importance for us to take responsibility for our crimes. Ending the human rights breaches that we carry out and directly support goes a long way to stopping abuses worldwide.