Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

10 More Years in Afghanistan

By David Swanson | War is a Crime | November 25, 2013

When Barack Obama became president, there were 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.  He escalated to over 100,000 troops, plus contractors. Now there are 47,000 troops these five years later.  Measured in financial cost, or death and destruction, Afghanistan is more President Obama’s war than President Bush’s.  Now the White House is trying to keep troops in Afghanistan until “2024 and beyond.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is refusing to sign the deal. Here is his list of concerns. He’d like the U.S. to stop killing civilians and stop kicking in people’s doors at night.  He’d like the U.S. to engage in peace negotiations.  He’d like innocent Afghan prisoners freed from Guantanamo.  And he’d like the U.S. not to sabotage the April 2014 Afghan elections.  Whatever we think of Karzai’s legacy — my own appraisal is unprintable — these are perfectly reasonable demands.

Iran and Pakistan oppose keeping nine major U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, some of them on the borders of their nations, until the end of time.  U.S. officials threaten war on Iran with great regularity, the new agreement notwithstanding.  U.S. missiles already  hit Pakistan in a steady stream.  These two nations’ concerns seem as reasonable as Karzai’s.

The U.S. public has been telling pollsters we want all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan “as soon as possible” for years and years.  We’re spending $10 million per hour making ourselves less safe and more hated.  The chief cause of death for U.S. troops in this mad operation is suicide.

When the U.S. troops left Iraq, it remained a living hell, as Libya is now too.  But the disaster that Iraq is does not approach what it was during the occupation.  Much less has Iraq grown dramatically worse post-occupation, as we were warned for years by those advocating continued warfare.

Humanitarian aid to Afghanistan — or to the entire world, for that matter, including our own country — would cost a fraction of what we spend on wars and war preparations, and would make us the most beloved nation on earth.  I bet we’d favor that course if asked.  We were asked on Syria, and we told pollsters we favored aid, not missiles.

We stopped the missiles.  Congress members in both houses and parties said they heard from more people, more passionately, and more one-sidedly than ever before.  But we didn’t stop the guns that we opposed even more than the missiles in polls.  The CIA shipped the guns to the fighters without asking us or the Congress.  And Syrians didn’t get the aid that we favored.

We aren’t asked about the drone strikes.  We aren’t asked about most military operations.  And we aren’t being asked about Afghanistan.  Nor is Congress asserting its power to decide.  This state of affairs suggests that we haven’t learned our lesson from the Syrian Missile Crisis.  Fewer than one percent of us flooded Congress and the media with our voices, and we had a tremendous impact.  The lesson we should learn is that we can do that again and again with each new war proposal.

What if two percent of us called, emailed, visited, protested, rallied, spoke-out, educated, and non-violently resisted 10 more years in Afghanistan?  We’d have invented a new disease.  They’d replace the Vietnam Syndrome with the Afghanistan Syndrome.  Politicians would conclude that the U.S. public was just not going to stand for any more wars.  Only reluctantly would they try to sneak the next one past us.

Or we could sit back and keep quiet while a Nobel Peace Prize winner drags a war he’s “ending” out for another decade, establishing that there’s very little in the way of warmaking outrages that we won’t allow them to roll right over us.

November 26, 2013 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Thousands block NATO convoy route to protest US drone strikes in Pakistan

RT | November 23, 2013

Thousands of demonstrators protesting US drone strikes in Pakistan blocked a main road Saturday in the Peshawar province used to transport NATO supplies to and from Afghanistan.

The protests was led by the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) party, which is led by Imran Khan, a former international cricketer now turned politician.

They were supported by their allies in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial government and they were also joined by the Jamaat -i-Islami (JI) and the Awami Jamhoori Ittehad (AJIP) political parties.

“We will put pressure on America, and our protest will continue if drone attacks are not stopped,” Khan told reporters.

“We are here to give a clear message that now Pakistanis cannot remain silent over drone attacks,” said Shah Mehmood Qureshi, a senior member of the PTI, addressing the protesters.

Imran Khan has been a fierce critic of US drone attacks, arguing that they violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. Khan said that the Pakistani government is doing nothing to stop drone attacks except for issuing statements of condemnation and that the protest would continue indefinitely.

Khan stressed that NATO supplies would not be allowed to pass through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, formerly called North-West Frontier Province, and added that the province’s PTI-led government had the mandate to block NATO trucks from passing through its territory.

Earlier Imran Khan had warned that NATO supply routes will be blocked if continuing US drone strikes in Pakistan threaten the country’s peace talks with the Taliban.

An attack on November 1 killed the former leader of the Pakistan Taliban, a day before the Pakistani government said it was going to invite him to peace talks. Officials said they were enraged by the attacks, although the Pakistani government is known to have supported some of the drone attacks in the past.

Party workers from the PTI and the JI travelled to Peshawar from across Pakistan and an estimated 10,000 people participated in Saturday’s protests. The protesters shouted anti US slogans such as “Stop drone attacks” and “Down with America”.

“I am participating in today’s sit-in to convey a message to America that we hate them since they are killing our people in drone attacks. America must stop drone attacks for peace in our country,” Hussain Shah, a 21 year old university student, told Dawn, Pakistan’s oldest and most widely read English-language newspaper.

American drones are performing regular extrajudicial killings of Islamist leaders, accompanied by the collateral damage of many civilian casualties.

Strict security measures were in place Saturday, with 500 police personnel on duty. Trucks were directed to use an alternative route, although Tahir Khan, a government official, said there was normally little NATO traffic Saturday as most of the trucks arrive by Friday night to clear the border crossing.

However, protesters said that they would begin to stop trucks carrying NATO supplies through Khyber Pakhtunkhwa from Sunday night, which could spark conflict with the federal government in Pakistan.

The US embassy in Islamabad declined to comment.

November 23, 2013 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, War Crimes | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Owen Jones and the Stop The War Coalition

Interventions Watch | November 16, 2013

On Saturday the 30th November, the Stop The War Coalition will host a conference to discuss the most effective ways to resist the drive to war against Syria – stalled for now, but not necessarily indefinitely. Due to speak (at the time of writing) are Diane Abbott MP, Seamus Milne, Tariq Ali and Lindsey German, among many others.

To cut a long story short, the Stop the War website is also advertising that Mother Agnes Mariam is due to speak at the conference. Agnes is a christian Nun who is suspected by some observers of the war in Syria of being little more than a mouthpiece for the Assad regime. Let’s just accept for arguments sake that this is true, and that inviting her was a bad idea (I will confess here to not being totally au fait with her views).

The presence of Mother Agnes has lead to Jeremy Scahill, the excellent American investigative journalist, and Owen Jones, a columnist with The Independent newspaper, pulling out of the conference, on the grounds that they don’t want to share a platform with an apologist for war criminals.

But I just want to share a few thoughts on why I think Jones’ position is confused at best.

Jones is a member and supporter of the Labour party, and thinks other lefties should be as well. As is hardly a secret, Labour is a party that plays host to plenty of major war criminals and apologists for those war criminals, but that apparently isn’t enough for him to want to part ways with them.

Indeed, he has in the past quite happily appeared on platforms with John Prescott, who was deputy Prime Minister at the time of the aggression against Iraq – not just an apologist for war crimes then, but an active participant in them.

Jones’ argument for staying a member of Labour is that while he doesn’t agree with these people on various issues, he thinks it’s worth trying to win the argument against them to change the party for the better, from within. It’s not a totally unreasonable position, and I think he’s certainly sincere in arguing it.

Why couldn’t he apply that same logic to the Stop The War Conference though? Say that while he obviously doesn’t agree with the opinions of all the speakers there, he thinks it’s still worth going and making his argument as to what the best anti-war position is or should be? He could even outline why he doesn’t agree with people like Mother Agnes in his talk, and maybe change a few minds.

But no, unlike his continuing embrace of the blood soaked Labour party, he’s just going to shun the conference altogether, thus giving plenty of ammunition to those who are trying to smear Stop The War, and anti-war people in general, as pro-Assad. ‘Even Owen Jones wants nothing to do with them, see!’.

My hunch is that he’s scared of being tarred with a pro-Assad brush, because that would be damaging to his reputation (certainly in the eyes of a state-corporate media Establishment that has embraced him) in a way that being seen as broadly pro-Labour – despite their horrific track record and the massive trail of corpses they left behind them last time they were in power – isn’t, given that Labour are part of that Establishment themselves.

Nuns who’ve made some dodgy comments in defense of the Assad regime? He’ll have no part of it.

A political party who instigated some of the worst and most murderous war crimes of the modern era, and whose leader continues to act as an apologist for the perpetrators, as well as the brutal wars in Afghanistan and Libya? Count him in.

For me, it shows how even some lefties have a moral vision that is badly skewed by power, and the need for Establishment approval, when it comes to assessing and reacting to Their crimes (or even alleged supporters of Their crimes), and Ours

Related article

November 18, 2013 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

All Drone Politics Is Local

By David Swanson | November 14, 2013

What Localities and States Can Do About Drones

Charlottesville, Va., passed a resolution that urged the state of Virginia to adopt a two-year moratorium on drones (which it did), urged both Virginia and the U.S. Congress to prohibit information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into court, and to preclude the domestic use of drones equipped with “anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being,” and pledged that Charlottesville would “abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.”

St. Bonifacius, Minn., passed a resolution with the same language as Charlottesville plus a ban on anyone operating a drone “within the airspace of the city,” making a first offense a misdemeanor and a repeat offense a felony.

Evanston, Ill., passed a resolution establishing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones in the city with exceptions for hobby and model aircraft and for non-military research, and making the same recommendations to the state and Congress as Charlottesville and St. Bonifacius.

Northampton, Mass., passed a resolution urging the U.S. government to end its practice of extrajudicial killing with drones, affirming that within the city limits “the navigable airspace for drone aircraft shall not be expanded below the long-established airspace for manned aircraft” and that “landowners subject to state laws and local ordinances have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the airspace and that no drone aircraft shall have the ‘public right of transit’ through this private  property,” and urging the state and Congress and the FAA “to  respect legal precedent and constitutional guarantees of privacy, property rights, and local sovereignty in all matters pertaining to drone aircraft and navigable airspace.”

See full text of all resolutions at warisacrime.org/resolutions

Other cities, towns, and counties should be able to pass similar resolutions. Of course, stronger and more comprehensive resolutions are best. But most people who learned about the four resolutions above just leaned that these four cities had “banned drones” or “passed an anti-drone resolution.” The details are less important in terms of building national momentum against objectionable uses of drones.  By including both surveillance and weaponized drones, as all four cities have done, a resolution campaign can find broader support.  By including just one issue, a resolution might meet fewer objections.  Asking a city just to make recommendations to a state and the nation might also meet less resistance than asking the city to take actions itself.  Less can be more.

Localities have a role in national policy. City councilors and members of boards of supervisors take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. Cities and towns routinely send petitions to Congress for all kinds of requests. This is allowed under Clause 3, Rule XII, Section 819, of the Rules of the House of Representatives. This clause is routinely used to accept petitions from cities, and memorials from states. The same is established in the Jefferson Manual, the rulebook for the House originally written by Thomas Jefferson for the Senate. In 1967, a court in California ruled (Farley v. Healey, 67 Cal.2d 325) that “one of the purposes of local government is to represent its citizens before the Congress, the Legislature, and administrative agencies in matters over which the local government has no power. Even in matters of foreign policy it is not uncommon for local legislative bodies to make their positions known.” Abolitionists passed local resolutions against U.S. policies on slavery. The anti-apartheid movement did the same, as did the nuclear freeze movement, the movement against the PATRIOT Act, the movement in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, etc. No locality is an island. If we become environmentally sustainable, others will ruin our climate. If we ban assault weapons, they’ll arrive at our borders. And if the skies of the United States are filled with drones, it will become ever more difficult for any city or state to keep them out.

How to pass a local resolution: Every city or county is different, but some rules of thumb are applicable. To the extent possible, build understanding of the issues.  Invite speakers, screen films, hold conferences.  To the extent possible, educate and win over elected officials.  Make the case that localities have a responsibility to speak on national issues to represent the interests of local people.  Make the case that the time to act is before the problem expands out of control. Most states are considering drone legislation, so refer to that activity in your state. Make clear that you are aware of countless benevolent and harmless uses of drones but that you are prioritizing Constitutional rights and want exceptions made for uses that do not endanger self-governance rather than drones being made the norm and restrictions the exception. The Congressional Research Service says drones are incompatible with the Fourth Amendment. The U.N. Special Rapporteur says drones are making war the norm.  If possible, propose the weakest resolution you can, and ask the local government to put it on the agenda for consideration; then propose the strongest possible resolution you dare.  You may end up with a compromise, as happened in Charlottesville. Work the local media and public. Pack the meeting(s). Take advantage of every opportunity for the public to speak. Unlike at the state or national levels, you are unlikely to face any organized opposition. Make your most persuasive case, and make a great show of public support. Equate a “No” vote with support for cameras in everyone’s windows and armed drones over picnics. Equate a “Yes” vote with prevention of racial profiling, activist profiling, and the targeting of all sorts of groups that can be recruited into your campaign.

STATES: See full text of all resolutions at warisacrime.org/resolutions

Oregon has passed a law banning weaponized drones in all cases and banning drone use by law enforcement unless they have a warrant, they have probable cause without a warrant, or for search and rescue, or for an emergency, or for studying a crime scene, or for training (and the Fourth Amendment be damned).

Virginia has passed a law banning local and state (but not federal or National Guard) government drone use for two years unless various color-coded alerts are activated or there is a search or rescue operation or for training exercises or for drone-training schools, and strictly banning (for two years) any state or local weaponized drones.

Florida has passed a law banning law enforcement agencies from using drones to gather information unless they think they have some sort of reason to do so (and the Fourth Amendment be damned).

Idaho has passed a law banning drone surveillance “absent reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct” except in pursuit of marijuana in which case no such suspicion is needed (and the Fourth Amendment be damned).

Illinois has passed a law banning drones except for law enforcement agencies that have a warrant or when the Secretary of Homeland Security shouts “terrorism!” or they are reasonably suspicious it’s needed or are searching for a missing person or are photographing a crime scene or traffic crash scene (and the Fourth Amendment be damned).

Tennessee has passed a law banning law enforcement drones unless the Sec. of Homeland Security shouts “terrorism!” or there’s a warrant or there’s suspicion without a warrant (and the Fourth Amendment be damned).

Texas has passed a law banning the capturing of images with drones except for … too many exceptions to list.

Congressman Grayson passed an amendment to a DHS funding bill banning DHS from using weaponized drones, a step that must be repeated each year for this and other agencies unless a full national or international ban is put in place.

This article as a double-sided, single-page handout: PDF.

November 17, 2013 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Join Palestinians on November 30th to protest against the Prawer plan

Prawer Won’t Pass Campaign | November 10, 2013

naqabOccupied Palestine – On the 24th of June, the Israeli Knesset approved the Prawer-Begin plan, which if implemented will result in the destruction of more than 35 unrecognized villages in Al-Naqab and the forced expulsion and confinement of more than 70,000 Palestinian Bedouins. The Prawer plan is the largest Israeli land-grab since 1948. It epitomizes the nature of Israel’s policy; Israeli-Jewish demographic expansion and Palestinian-Arab demographic containment.

The International community has repeatedly called on Israel to halt the implementation of the Prawer Plan due to its discriminatory nature and the severe infringement it causes on the rights of Palestinian Bedouins in Al-Naqab. The UN committee on the elimination of Racial Discrimination called on Israel to withdraw the proposed legislation of the Prawer Plan. Also, in 2012, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on Israel to stop the Prawer plan and its policies of forced displacement and dispossession.

Injustice, humiliation and forced displacement are a recurring theme in Palestine’s history. This is lesson that we as a group of youth take to the heart. We will oppose, resist and work against the continuous assault that our communities, across Palestine face. Therefore, we launched the “Prawer will not pass” campaign with an eye to preventing this plan to be yet another chapter in Palestine’s long and tragic history.

Opposing the Prawer Plan is to oppose ethnic cleansing, displacement and confinement in the 21st century.

Join us by organizing marches, protests, sending letters to those with positions of influence in your country or community, by doing whatever you can, in order to force Israel to stop the Prawer plan.

Join us on the 30th of November in saying “Prawer shall not Pass”.

For more information, please contact:

Email: PrawerWontPass@gmail.com

November 10, 2013 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Professor Fires Off Lengthy Email In Defense Of Student Forbidden From Handing Out Copies Of The Constitution

By Tim Cushing | Techdirt | November 1, 2013

On Constitution Day (Sept. 17th), a student of Modesto Junior College, Robert Van Tuinen, was prevented by Modesto Junior College administration from handing out copies of the Constitution. The college apparently believes free speech is limited to a single small concrete slab on campus, generously named the “Free Speech Zone.” Contrary to the First Amendment (and the state’s laws governing public university policies), MJC restricts free speech to no more than two people per day, subject to approval of the administration.

Van Tuinen set out to challenge the stupidity of this policy and MJC administration obligingly played its part, resulting in a story that spread across blogs and news sites. As a result of its actions, the staff at MJC was “subjected” to insults, death threats, and even worse, an “unfair and negative portrayal” by the media. While no one condones death threats, one would be hard pressed to agree with Jill Stearns, the president of MJC, that the portrayal was “unfair” or that the school’s willingness to place policy above all else, including the Constitution and common sense, wasn’t deserving of a few disparaging remarks.

Shortly after MJC went into damage control, Van Tuinen sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights. Van Tuinen is seeking a permanent injunction against the school’s unconstitutional policies, as well as damages and court costs.

Now the organization that originally brought Van Tuinen’s experience to national attention (FIRE) brings news that a Modesto Junior College professor has written a lengthy email to all Modest Junior College faculty members to call attention to the college’s actions which the administration seemingly wants to let recede into the background.

Professor William J. Holly was kind enough to forward his entire email to me, as well as provide some additional info on California laws governing schools and students’ First Amendment rights, as well as this bizarre and tense interaction with school security over the supposed rule changes President Jill Stearns said were underway.

I do not know what rules are now in effect. Last week I stopped by campus security and asked what the rules now were, and he referred me to ASMJC office on the other campus. I said he must know what the rules are since he was responsible for enforcing the rules. He kept pushing the paper with the name of the office on it, saying he was referring me to that office. It got a little tense because I kept saying he must know the rules and should be able to let us know what the rules are. Finally, he said he was not allowed to discuss this with anyone because they are under litigation. Stearns says the rules are being reviewed. Does that mean there are no rules?

Stearns’ statement says the college is “evaluating its policies and procedures.” It also says this:

There is absolutely no requirement that a student register weeks in advance and hand out his literature only in a small marked area.

There may not be one now, but that requirement was certainly in place back in September.

It also says this.

To those who were offended by the appearance of censorship, we again affirm the commitment of the college and district to civil discourse.

Hilarious. Pity the poor people who took offense at Van Tuinen being accosted by a campus cop and repeatedly told he’d need to get on the waiting list for the Freedom Slab and mistakenly believed it violated his First Amendment rights.

Holly does a wonderful job in his email dismantling Stearns’ non-apology.

[I]t is unclear what she means when she addresses “those who were offended by the appearance of censorship.” Van Tuinen was not subjected to the mere “appearance of censorship.” He was silenced and he was prevented from distributing his literature. That is outright censorship, pure and simple, whether it resulted from a misunderstanding or not.

But Holly’s letter is more than just a deconstruction of Stearns’ statements and MJC’s dubious policies. It’s also a wake-up call directed at his colleagues, many of whom were either unaware of this event or simply stood by and let incident pass by not remarked on.

Dear Colleagues:

The paper attached above (Destructing Causal Deconstruction) exposes some of the absurdities that are committed in the name of “Deconstruction.” I think it is a good read — clear, amusing, imaginative, and instructive. If you ever wondered what “deconstruction” is really about, you would be hard pressed to find a better introduction. One question that I cannot answer, however, is whether or not I would be arrested by a security officer if I insisted on wandering about the quad on our campus, handing out copies of this paper and discussing it with those who might be interested in the topic. This is not a silly question…

Nearly a month ago (Sept. 17th) one of our MJC students, Robert Van Tuinen (also a veteran), was trying to pass out copies of our federal Constitution on Constitution Day. He was prevented in this exercise of free speech by an MJC security officer, and then by an official at the office of Student Services who told him he was allowed freedom of speech and the right to pass out literature only in certain tiny restricted areas on our campus, and then only after booking a reservation — which would not be available until the following month!

I am puzzled why there has been no faculty outcry over this ugly incident. Why are we not standing up for our student who only wanted to exercise his constitutional right to free speech? Do we really want to be known nationwide as the college that wouldn’t let a veteran pass out copies of our Constitution on Constitution Day?

Holly’s not being facetious about “nationwide.” The story was picked up by the Huffington Post, the Washington Times, FOX News, the L.A. Times, along with numerous other well-read sites like Reason, the Daily Caller and National Review Online. But Modesto Junior College itself? Apparently it isn’t interested in providing current or prospective students (or faculty, for that matter) with anything more than the president’s statement.

The First Amendment in pertinent part says, ” Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …” Some have taken this to be a right you have against the Federal Government, but not (say) against the State of California (as though the rights you thought you had simply in virtue of being a citizen of the United States could be nullified by the particular state in which you live). Happily, the point is largely moot because the constitution of California has its own guarantees of rights that largely parallel the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights — including separation of church and state, etc. Guarantees of freedom of expression even exist in parts of the California Code of Education, and even the University of California has a constitution that holds out these rights, and even individual campuses have their own codes regarding such things as Academic Freedom. At CSUS and at PLU, the rules that claim Academic Freedom for faculty make clear that such freedom should extend equally to students!

The most pertinent part of the California Education Code is this section.

66301. (a) Neither the Regents of the University of California, the Trustees of the California State University, the governing board of a community college district, nor an administrator of any campus of those institutions, shall make or enforce a rule subjecting a student to disciplinary sanction solely on the basis of conduct that is speech or other communication that, when engaged in outside a campus of those institutions, is protected from governmental restriction by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 2 of Article I of the California Constitution.

Considering Van Tuinen’s lawsuit, the directly-following subsection is also relevant.

(b) A student enrolled in an institution, as specified in subdivision (a), at the time that the institution has made or enforced a rule in violation of subdivision (a) may commence a civil action to obtain appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief as determined by the court. Upon a motion, a court may award attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in a civil action pursuant to this section.

Given the state law governing the public college, it would appear that MJC’s free speech policies are in violation of state law, not to mention the state’s constitution, even granting a very generous reading of “time, place and manner” wording.

Holly also questions the “formal apology” extended by the school to Van Tuinen. Whatever it was (and no one has seen it but Van Tuinen and administrators), it’s clearly not sufficient.

[W[e are told that a formal apology has been provided the student. It seems to me, however, that apologies in such cases are best made in public. I think Van Tuinen would want a published apology, a public admission that MJC had no right to deny him the exercise of his liberties that they did, and a promise that no other students would have their rights similarly violated. And, since the violation of the rights of one of our fellow citizens violates us all, I believe that we all are entitled to see a copy of that apology, to see the particulars of the concessions made, and to see in what manner those liberties now are affirmed that then were denied.

As Holly points out, the fact that Van Tuinen is proceeding with his lawsuit is a good indicator that the apology offered wasn’t satisfactory.

Holly then goes further, suggesting what should be done, not only to satisfy Van Tuinen, but to make sure other students know their rights are protected and ensure this sort of restriction doesn’t make its way back into the school policies in the future.

In one interview, [Van Tuinen] has said that he is not doing this for the money. I think what he wants is a civil rights victory. That should be easy to give him, especially if President Stearns is right this all has just been a misunderstanding…

If he doesn’t really care about money, if he just wants public acknowledgement that he was wronged, perhaps we should offer this: Buy him a couple thousand copies of the Constitution or of the Bill of Rights, and offer to make the individuals he has sued do community service that is relevant. Make them each do twenty hours of community service that consist of passing out copies of the Constitution and explaining to people the importance of everyone’s right to free speech. That ought to make him whole. And, to show my sincerity, I hereby offer to do 20 hours of such community service myself. Perhaps I too bear part of the responsibility here, because this one flew under my radar too. I did not check to see if my students’ rights to free speech were properly protected. Sometimes the implications of rules just do not strike us until we see them enforced.

Summing things up, Holly asks what some famous free speakers would run into if attempting to speak on MJC’s campus.

Now, if you do not like my suggestion that we should have a policy of completely free, unfettered and unqualified freedom of thought and expression on this campus, just ask yourself this one question: Suppose that Thomas Paine, the great pamphleteer (“These are the times that try men’s souls…”) were to come to MJC. Would you make him show his ID or make an advance appointment? Would you sic campus security and Student Services on him before allowing him to distribute his literature? Hell, what would you do if Jesus came? Would you have Student services tell Him he needs an appointment in advance, that the free speech zone is booked up until next month, and that He needs to confine his speech to the designated free speech zone areas? I say, Let Freedom Reign!

Holly’s effort to light a fire under his colleagues is admirable. Many people are too willing to defer to existing policy, especially if it doesn’t apply directly to them. Van Tuinen pushed back against an unconstitutional policy and has brought the idiocy of campus “Free Speech Zones” back into the national limelight. Holly doesn’t suggest throwing away all restraints on speech (exempting classrooms and faculty offices in order to prevent disruption of educating), but his view of what a “Free Speech Zone” should actually include covers far more area than MJC’s infamous concrete slab.

Holly’s defense of students’ rights is a rarity in institutes of higher learning, many of which seem to believe the restraint of speech somehow creates better students.

Full email posted at link.

November 2, 2013 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Palestinian Woman Arrested in Chicago

Committee to Stop FBI Repression | October 23, 2013

odeh_zps5e9d6682A Palestinian woman, Rasmieh Odeh, was arrested at her home this morning, Oct. 22, by agents of the Department of Homeland Security.

She is charged with immigration fraud. Allegedly, in her application for citizenship, she didn’t mention that she was arrested in Palestine 45 years ago by an Israeli military court that detains Palestinians without charge – a court that has over 200 children in prison today and does not recognize the rights of Palestinians to due process.

The arrest today appears to be related to the case of the 23 anti-war activists subpoenaed to a grand jury in 2010. Well-known labor, community and international solidarity activists around the Midwest had their homes raided by the FBI when the U.S. attorney alleged that they had provided material support to foreign terrorist organizations in Palestine and Colombia.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Jonas is leading the investigation against the 23. He was at the courtroom in Chicago this morning, consulting with the assistant U.S. attorney who was presenting the indictment to the judge. Jonas was also the prosecutor in the case of the Holy Land Five, the heads of the largest Muslim charity in the U.S. before 9/11. He was successful in getting prison sentences for as long as 65 years for the five men, who provided charity to children in Gaza.

The Committee to Stop FBI Repression (CSFR) denounces this attack as another example of the continuing repression of Palestinians and people who stand in solidarity with them. Homeland Security, the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Attorney’s office now are carrying out enforcement of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Odeh will appear in court in Detroit on Nov. 1, where she will be represented by Jim Fennerty of the National Lawyers Guild. CSFR urges people to attend the proceedings at the Federal Court in Detroit in her defense.

October 26, 2013 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Tacit Admission that Israel is Ethnically Cleansing Palestinians

By Paul Larudee and Beth Daoud | Dissident Voice | October 25, 2013 

On April 8, 2009, ten billboards went up in the Albuquerque area saying “Tell Congress: Stop Killing Children. No More Military Aid to Israel.” On April 28, Lamar Advertising, with whom the ads had been placed by the Coalition to stop $30 Billion, tore down the ads due to pressure, presumably from other clients with larger accounts.

In June, 2012, twenty-three billboards went up in the Los Angeles area, also calling for an end to US aid to Israel. One week later, the billboard company, CBS Outdoor, also took down the ads.

We have come a long way since then. Ads that are critical of giving billions of US tax dollars to Israel, of Israeli human rights violations and of the creation of the Jewish state at Palestinian expense have appeared in Detroit, Seattle, New York, San Francisco, Sacramento, Albuquerque, and other locations.

In Denver, another free speech struggle has achieved its objective. A partnership of NoTaxDollarsToIsrael.com and ColoradoBDSCampaign.com initially failed twice to get approval for a billboard. First, CBS Outdoor placed the restriction that the ad must not use the words Jew and Israel, so the coalition offered the wording “Want peace? Stop ethnic cleansing in Palestine.” CBS Outdoor rejected it without explanation.

The groups then tried Lamar Advertising, with the same result. Finally, they borrowed a technique tried and tested by an anti-Muslim group, the Freedom Defense Institute. FDI chose public transit advertising space to place anti-Muslim ads in New York and San Francisco. After initial rejection in New York, FDI’s Pamela Geller sued and won a court order to permit her ads, based on the fact that the ad space was publicly owned and therefore subject to constitutional free speech principles. While the use of privately owned ad space is largely at the discretion of the owner, publicly owned space is not, and must conform to First Amendment principles. The court also decided that in the absence of clear evidence that the ad used hate speech, it could also not be restricted by such criteria.

Mall bus 2The Denver groups pursued the same strategy. They resubmitted the ad to Lamar, but this time for space on the public transit system (inside the Denver light rail vehicles and outside the 16th street mall buses). After a long delay, the ads were approved, with no change at all in the message or graphics. As of this writing, the ads are available for all to see, both Denver residents and visitors to the city, like the hundreds of delegates to the convention of the Jewish National Fund, 1½ blocks from the 16th street mall.

What was going on during the delay? One may speculate that much deliberation was taking place, possibly in consultation with lawyers from the ADL (Anti-Discrimination League) and AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). The only possible challenge would be that the ad constituted hate speech or was libelous. In both cases, however, the challenge would depend upon proving the falsity of the “ethnic cleansing” label.

Apparently, these august jurists decided that a discussion of “ethnic cleansing” as a description of Israel’s actions was potentially far more dangerous to Israel than the placement of an ad to that effect. After all, there was no assurance that the court would rule in their favor, in which case a terrible precedent would be set. Better to allow a bit of uncomfortable truth to appear in public than a legal ruling certifying such a truth. How Palestinians disappeared from much of Palestine is a question that the Israel lobby would prefer to leave unanswered.

Paul Larudee and Beth Daoud are organizers with No Tax Dollars to Israel and Colorado BDS Campaign, respectively.

October 26, 2013 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Court Holds Wisconsin Officials In Contempt For Enforcing Scott Walker’s Anti-Union Law

By Ian Millhiser | Think Progress | October 22, 2013

A Wisconsin judge who declared Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) union-busting law unconstitutional more than a year ago held the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission in contempt of court on Monday for continuing to enforce that law against school and municipal workers.

Walker’s law includes a one-two punch that dramatically weakens the ability of unions to improve workers’ wages while simultaneously encouraging those workers to drop the union. First, the law only permits public workers to collectively bargain for raises limited to the rate of inflation, thus curtailing one of the primary benefits of unionization — increased wages. It then requires unionized public workers to vote every year on whether they want to still be represented by a union.

Judge Juan Colas’ 2012 order blocks these restrictions from going into effect against city, county and school district workers, although state workers remain largely subject to Walker’s law. His order on Monday clarifies that the order applies statewide, and not just to the narrow group of plaintiffs before his court.

Yet, while Colas’ most recent decision is a victory for public workers in Wisconsin, this victory is likely to be temporary. His original 2012 ruling is pending before the very conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court. And the conservatives on that court already reinstated Walker’s law once after it was blocked (on a different legal grounds) by a lower court.

October 23, 2013 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Leave a comment

Israel and the erosion of democracy: an Australian story

By Samah Sabawi | World Observer | October 18, 2013

A few months ago I signed my name as co-defendant to a possible legal action threatened by an Israeli law firm, Shurat HaDin, targeting two Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS) academics – Professors Jake Lynch and Stuart Rees for publically refusing to co-operate with Israel’s Hebrew university. Almost two thousand Australian and international academics, writers, human rights activists and other members of civil society have since joined this unprecedented historic act of solidarity signing as co-defendants along with the two targeted professors.

Jake Lynch was practicing a basic democratic right when he made a moral and ethical decision to refuse to collaborate with an academic representing Hebrew university. Part of Hebrew university campus and dormitories were built on illegally annexed Palestinian land in contravention of the four Geneva Conventions. The university also sponsors the archeological digs in the Occupied Territories, appropriating Palestinian historical artifacts, preventing Palestinians from accessing those sites and displacing them from there – an act considered to be plundering under International Humanitarian Law. There is a long list of other violations by Hebrew university such as its links to Elbit systems – one of Israel’s largest military security and surveillance companies that monitors and maintains Israel’s continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land. But this story is not just about Jake Lynch or Hebrew University, it is a story about how democracy functions.

Defending the rights of academics to express their views on controversial issues is a basic tenant of democracy. Given that democracies are a work in progress, it is up to us as citizens within democratic nations to use our voice to protect our civil liberties. Part of this means we have to empower those who have been disempowered and stripped of their basic human rights, both at home and abroad. This does not bode well for Israel – a state criticized by UN bodies and reputable human rights organizations for its flagrant human rights violations.

Israel’s supporters react to criticism in two ways. The first is by intimidating and slandering critics claiming they are anti-Semitic and/or terrorist sympathizers. The second is by attacking and eroding our democratic rights thus destroying the tools by which we are able to expose its abuses and war crimes.

Academic freedom is hindered when governments interfere with their citizens’ right to form and express independent political views.

In this case, Israel’s network of supporters has launched all the fire power at their disposal, slandering the academics while pressuring the Australian government to erode our democratic right to dissent. CPACS is now faced with the real threat of losing federal government funding for programs unrelated to the campaign “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS), solely on the basis of the political views held by the Centre’s director Jake Lynch.

Academic freedom is hindered when governments interfere with their citizens’ right to form and express independent political views. Last year following lobbying by the National Tertiary Education Union, the former Gillard government introduced a proposal to reform the objectives of the Higher Education Support Act making it a condition of funding that higher education institutions uphold academic freedom. Jeannie Rea, the National Tertiary Education Union president told Sydney Morning Herald, ”these changes…are an explicit acknowledgment that university staff has a right and a responsibility to exercise free intellectual inquiry, including the right to expression of controversial or unpopular opinions without being disadvantaged or discriminated against.”

The significance of this reform was lost on Australia’s new government. Before winning the elections, the now Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop promised to deny funding for projects by all academics who voice support for boycotting Israel regardless of whether or not these projects are related to the Palestine/Israel conflict.

But make no mistake about it, this policy of repression will not only target pro-Palestine supporters or critics of Israel, it will impact all sectors in Australian civil society. PM Tony Abbott has plans to re-prioritize about $900m in annual Australian Research Council (ARC) grants ensuring that only projects that are deemed worthy by the Liberal government and in line with their ideological beliefs will receive funding. The National Tertiary Education Union was amongst the first to criticise this infringement on democracy. Other condemnations followed from many peak bodies in the sector including the Deans of Arts, the Council for Humanities Arts and Social Sciences (CHASS), Science and Technology Australia (STA), Social Sciences and Humanities, the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) and Universities Australia.

I asked Jake Lynch to comment on the possibility that he may find himself without funding for his research. This was his response:

“Julie Bishop’s attempts to stifle dissent on a key issue of foreign policy amount to an abuse of office and reflect badly on the integrity of Australian public life. I fully accept that I am entitled to no public money to pursue or publicise the academic boycott of Israel, and indeed I have never sought, nor received any. But Ms Bishop’s threats to withhold government research funding even for unrelated topics is an attack on intellectual freedom, aimed at intimidating others from engaging critically with Australian government policies on the Israel-Palestine conflict.”

At the end of this month we will find out if Professor Jake Lynch will be denied funding for a Discovery Project grant from the Australian Research Council because of his critical views regarding a foreign state; views that are shared by notable human rights advocates world-wide including the Rev. Desmond Tutu. In the meantime, the list of co-defendents will continue to grow as more of us rise to say no to Israel’s bullying tactics that threaten our basic democratic right to non-violently oppose its racist violations of intentional humanitarian law.

Israel is indeed good for western democracies but not for the reasons it claims; it is good because it exposes the hypocrisy and faults that are inherent within other democratic systems. If we cannot openly debate controversial issues within university campuses or hold controversial views on a foreign government then our democratic rights and freedom of expression are in peril.

– Samah Sabawi is a Palestinian writer and Policy Adviser to Al-Shabaka, the Palestinian policy network.

Related article

October 22, 2013 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Al Jeel Al Jadeed: Musical Call for Unity by the ‘New Generation’

By Tariq Shadid | Palestine Chronicle | October 17, 2013

There are several ways of expressing a desire for change, and one of these can be through the arts. In the current turmoil of the Middle East, there are also voices that look beyond the mere toppling of regimes, and are expressing their deep concern at the price being paid by ordinary citizens in civil wars and other phenomena of sectarian strife that have become widespread in the region.

It should not come as a surprise that some of these voices come from Palestine, as it has become obvious how the region’s unrest has led to diminished attention for the decades-long plight of the Palestinian people. Besides this, the past years have also split up Palestinian unity along sectarian lines, thus weakening the solid unified stance of the Palestinian people against the illegal Israeli occupation.

I am a Palestinian surgeon and hobbyist musician known by my artist handle ‘Doc Jazz’, and I run a website known as The Musical Intifada, which showcases my large collection of songs supporting the Palestinian cause. I recently wrote a song in Arabic that calls out for unity, and against settling sectarian differences through violence. The song was called ‘Al Jeel Al Jadeed‘, which is Arabic for ‘The New Generation’.

My message was picked up by young Palestinians from Gaza who are known for their activities in social media, among others Shahd and Majed Abusalama, Walaa al Ghussein and Eman Sourani, and a music video was put together for the song. This was largely filmed in Gaza, and directed by inspiring Palestinian artist Shahd Abusalama, in cooperation with cameramen Yazan Abu Dawood and Omar Shala. In total, around 20 youths from Gaza cooperated in the making of the video clip, and their names are listed in the credit roll at the end of it.

The result is a modern and radiant call for unity, providing a fresh, hopeful and positive angle on the situation. It was warmly received by the international community of Palestine-sympathizers, hitting the 5,000 view mark after only 24 hours of its appearance on Youtube. The unusual funky sound of the music, at least by the standards of mainstream Arabic music, proved to be no obstacle for its popularity, rather the opposite.

As is clear from the words of the song, the focus of it steers away from the political dimensions of the issue, and rather focuses on the human element. It calls upon people to embrace one another as equals despite their differences, and to resort to dialogue to settle internal matters instead of embracing methods that include weapons and other forms of violent confrontation.

The song came with translations in Dutch and English, but soon received spontaneous translations in Spanish and French from its supporters in the international community. These were added in Closed Captions (CC) subtitles to the video, enabling listeners from outside of the Arabic world to follow the song and its meanings.

I hope the message will be understood in its proper context. We have a struggle to wage against a belligerent, expansionist and racist entity that calls itself ‘Israel’. Without unity, there is not much we can achieve.

Let us stop giving the Zionist entity the pleasure and advantage of watching us going at each other’s throats, and embrace one another in Palestinian and Arab unity, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.

– Tariq Shadid is a surgeon living in the Arab Gulf who has been contributing articles to the Palestine Chronicle for many years. Some of these essays have been bundled in the book ‘Understanding Palestine’, which is available on Amazon.com. He also is the founder of the website ‘Musical Intifada’ featuring his songs about the Palestinian cause, on http://www.docjazz.com.

October 17, 2013 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment

Just another cog in the machine


A union can make a big difference to people’s perceptions of a job. For UK staff you can find out which unions may be relevant to your job at http://www.worksmart.org.uk/unionfinder – In the US, try http://www.aflcio.org/Learn-About-Unions for more information.

October 16, 2013 Posted by | Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »