The Declaration of Peace - Opinion/Editorial

Civil disobedience...again

admin — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 05:24:45 -0500

Body:

Monday, September 18, 2006 - Bangor Daily News

By Nancy Galland and Richard Stander

Two hundred and thirty-three years ago in 1773, after repeatedly petitioning the governor of Massachusetts for relief of disastrous taxes on tea, a large band of Bostonians seized three English ships full of tea and tossed it overboard. The Boston Tea Party was the first American Act of Civil Disobedience, and the spark that changed history for all of us.

Three years later, the American Revolution swept the British out of power. Since then, the American legacy of nonviolent civil disobedience has continued to change the history of this country in ways that have benefitted every one of us alive today: think Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Philip Berrigan and countless others whose courage to disobey the “law” brought peace, justice and equality to fruition when no other means proved effective.

Fast-forward to 2006: Sept. 21 is the deadline for Congress to respond to The Declaration of Peace, a nationally circulated pledge calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. If Congress does not act on a concrete, comprehensive and rapid withdrawal plan before they recess for fall elections, Declaration supporters will take to the streets in marches and rallies all over the country. Some, in the spirit of those who came before, will be led by conscience to engage in civil disobedience and risk arrest to signify their principled commitment to oppose this war of aggression.

These actions will continue throughout the week of Sept. 21-30. There is little hope that the members of Congress will meet the deadline.

In cities and towns all over Maine, including Bangor, large bands of people will gather to protest congressional failure to respond to the majority of Americans who do not support the war. On Sept. 30, a march and rally will be held from 1 p.m to 3 p.m. at the Waterfront Park in Bangor.

During the week, many who oppose Bush’s continued escalation of violence in Iraq, after three years of being ignored and denied an audience with Sen. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, will commit acts of conscience. Once again, people will be asking : Why do people commit civil disobedience?

Why do people choose to risk arrest, risk a criminal record, risk time from their lives and risk the consequences of conviction?

We put this question recently to a group of people who chose to commit acts of conscience on two recent occasions: first at the onset of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, and again in December of last year. Some in this group are old enough to have been arrested during protests against the war in Vietnam, an opposition which ultimately brought about the end of the war, but not before more than 52,000 American and a million Vietnamese deaths, leaving a legacy of grief and regret.

Others are new to political activism. All are mature, reasonable people who hold positions of value in their communities: teachers, administrators, carpenters and builders, farmers, artists, parents and grandparents. Here are some of their thoughts about why they felt compelled, during these times, to commit civil disobedience:

— “The mass media aren’t covering the real costs of the war, nor the wide-spread opposition to it. We have to get the word out. The stakes keep rising and my anger with it. My fear is that where we go from here is even more frightening.”

— “I do it [civil disobedience] for my children and all children. To remain silent is to be complicit. We’ve tried every other means to reach our senators, without any meaningful response. It’s the last resort.”

— “Government is powerless against civil disobedience. It’s the best way I can think to show moral commitment, moral courage.”

— “I agree with the historian, Howard Zinn, that the problem is not ‘civil disobedience,’ but rather too much ‘civil obedience.’ Until a critical mass of people turn out in the streets and interrupt business as usual, no one will pay attention and things will just get worse.”

The week of Sept. 21-30 will offer an opportunity for everyone who believes in their heart that this war is wrong, that something must be done to stop it, to come out and let their feelings be known.

It is time to take a hard look at how ordinary people can influence history — or not.

Nancy Galland and Richard Stander live in Stockton Springs. E-mail messages may be sent to: rstander@fairpoint.net.

Your Name: Nancy Galland and Richard Stander

Your Email Address: rstander@fairpoint.net

Link to Published Item: http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=140632&zoneid=35

Notes:

Letter to Bangor Daily News

admin — Thu, 21 Sep 2006 05:20:25 -0500

Body:

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 - Bangor Daily News

Declaration of Peace

Maine’s senators are seen by many as moderate, independent and as advocates for the needs of the people of this state. However, as long as they continue to support this administration’s war on Iraq, they are not truly representing the will of the 70 percent who now oppose this war. Nor can the needs of the people of Maine be met as the war drains the dollars needed for programs in our state.

We have called on Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to demonstrate independence and concern for the well-being of the people of Maine by signing the Congressional Declaration of Peace which calls for a comprehensive plan to end the war in Iraq. With letters, visits and phone calls we have urged Sens. Snowe and Collins to co-sponsor Senate Resolution 93 introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin.

The Declaration of Peace is a nationwide campaign to establish by Sept. 21 a concrete and rapid plan for peace in Iraq, including: a prompt timetable for withdrawal of troops and closure of bases, a peace process for security, reconstruction and reconciliation and the shift of funding for war to meeting human needs.

People across the United States are signing The Declaration of Peace pledge, a commitment to take action if this plan for peace is not created and activated by Congress by Sept. 21, the International Day of Peace.

From Sept. 21-28, just days before Congress adjourns for the fall elections, Declaration signers will withdraw their consent from this war and support a comprehensive peace process by taking part in nonviolent action, marches, rallies, demonstrations, interfaith services, candlelight vigils and other creative ways to declare peace at the U.S. Capitol and in cities and towns across the country.

In Bangor, at 3 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 21, there will be a vigil in support of the Declaration of Peace to be held in front of the Federal Building on Harlow Street in Bangor to be followed by visits to congressional offices. Please join us.

Ilze Petersons
The Peace & Justice Center
of Eastern Maine
Bangor

Your Name: Scott Blackburn

Your Email Address: scott@vcnv.org

Link to Published Item: http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/viewpoints.aspx?articleid=140750&zoneid=36

Notes:

September 20, 2008: "Refusing to Kill ..." by Ann Wright

Timothy Baer — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 16:16:34 -0500

Body:

When Refusing to Kill Has a Higher Sentence Than Murder

Saturday, 20 September 2008

by Ann Wright

t r u t h o u t | Perspective

http://www.truthout.org/article/when-refusing-kill-has-a-higher-sentence-than-murder

From the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States military has come under intense criticism and scrutiny for the deaths of civilians. This week, the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan to “acknowledge” the deaths of innocent civilians in attacks in those countries.

In the five and one-half years of the US occupation of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by US military personnel at checkpoints, during convoy movements and during operations to find the “enemy.” In the half-decade of US military presence in Iraq, a very small number of US military personnel and an even smaller number of CIA and contractors have been charged with manslaughter or murder in these deaths. The deaths of most civilians are counted in the “costs of war.” A few dozen military have been court-martialed on allegations of mistreatment, manslaughter and murder of Iraqi civilians. With a very few exceptions, most who were court-martialed have been acquitted. Those who were convicted have generally served light sentences.

This week we see again that punishment is less for murdering four Iraqis than for refusing to participate in a war that many citizens, and many in the military, see as a crime against the peace - a war crime.

On September 18, 2008, the US Army sentenced Specialist Belmor Ramos to seven months in prison, demotion to private and a dishonorable discharge for standing guard from a turret in a Humvee while three others in his unit, the First Infantry Division, bound, blindfolded, shot in the heads and dumped the bodies of four unidentified Iraqi men into a Baghdad canal in 2007 in retaliation for deaths in Ramos’s unit. According to Associated Press reports, during the court-martial, Ramos admitted his guilt: “I wanted them dead. I had no legal justification or excuse to do this.”

Ramos had been charged with conspiracy to commit murder, for which he could have received a life sentence. The military judge in Ramos’s court-martial in Vilsek, Germany, would have sentenced him to 40 years in prison had the military prosecutor not agreed to a plea bargain for seven months to testify in the upcoming court-martials of the three non-commissioned officers - Sgt. John E. Hatley, Sgt. 1st Class Joseph P. Mayo and Sgt. Michael P. Leahy Jr. - who were charged on September 16, 2008, with premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit premeditated murder and obstruction of justice.

Longer Sentences for Resisting War Than for Murdering Civilians

Just one month ago, US Army Private Robin Long was sentenced to fifteen months in prison, reduced to private and given a dishonorable discharge for having been absent without leave from the Army rather than serving in a war he believed was unlawful. He had been deported from Canada where he had been speaking on his concerns about the legality of the war for three years and was handed over by Canadian immigration officials to the US military for prosecution. One month earlier, US Army Private First Class James Burmeister voluntarily returned from Canada and was sentenced in July 2008 to six months in prison for refusing to return to Iraq after two previous tours in which he was hit by three IEDs. In May 2008, Private First Class Robert Weiss was court-martialed in Vilseck, Germany, and sentenced to 7 months in jail for refusing to go to Iraq. Also in May 2008, Private First Class Ryan Jackson was also court-martialed and sentenced to 100 days in jail for refusing to go to Iraq.

In 2007, the court-martial of US Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer who refused to deploy to Iraq, ended in a mistrial. He is still on active duty with the Army. Also in 2007, US Army Sergeant Mark Wilkerson refused to return to Iraq and was sentenced to seven months in jail. The Army denied the conscientious objection application of US Army medic Specialist Agustin Aguayo; he refused to return to Iraq and was sentenced to eight months in jail. Also in 2007, Specialist Melanie McPherson, a US Army Minnesota Reservist, refused to go to Iraq in a job she was not trained for; she was court-martialed and sentenced to three months in jail.

In 2006, US Army Specialist Dale Bertell refused to return to Iraq and was sentenced to four months in jail. US Army Texas National Guard Specialist Katherine Jashniski refused to deploy to Afghanistan; she was sentenced to four months in jail. US Army Sergeant Ricky Clousing of the 82nd Airborne Division refused to return to Iraq and was sentenced to three months in jail. US Marine Corporal Ivan Brobeck voluntarily returned from 18 months in Canada and was court-martialed for refusing to return to Iraq; he was sentenced to eight months in jail.

In 2005, US Army Sergeant Kevin Benderman refused to return to Iraq and was sentenced to 15 months in jail; he served 13 months. US Army Specialist Blake LeMoine refused to return to Iraq and served seven months in jail. When the conscientious objection application of US Army Private Neil Quentin Lucas was denied, he refused to go to Iraq and served 13 months in jail.

In 2004, US Army Sergeant Camilo Mejia refused to return to Iraq and was sentenced to 12 months in jail. The highest-ranking non-commissioned officer to refuse orders to Iraq, US Army Sergeant First Class Abdullah Webster, was sentenced to 14 months in jail. He was within two years of retirement when he refused to deploy to Iraq. US Navy Petty Officer Third Class Pablo Paredes refused to deploy on a ship carrying Marines to a war he considered illegal. He was sentenced to three months confinement. The US Marines denied the conscientious objection application of Corporal Joel Klimkewixz and he was sentenced to seven months in jail.

In 2003, the US Marines denied the conscientious objection application of Marine Reservist Stephen Funk and sentenced him to six months in jail. All of the war resisters who have been court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq or Afghanistan have been given either dishonorable or bad conduct discharges.

Thousands of other military service members who privately and silently oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been given administrative discharges upon their voluntary return to the military after having been absent without leave.

Light Sentences for the Murders of Iraqis

Some of the more prominent cases where US military personnel have been court-martialed, but not necessarily convicted, for the murders of Iraqi civilians include:

On August 29, 2008, a civilian jury in Riverside, California, acquitted former US Marine Sergeant Jose Nazario Jr. on charges of voluntary manslaughter in the deaths of four unarmed Iraqi detainees during the siege of Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.

In June, 2008, a U.S. military judge dismissed charges against Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, who had been accused of failing to investigate the November 2005 massacre of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha. Of the eight Marines originally charged in the Haditha massacre, only one still faces prosecution. Criminal charges have been dismissed against six of the Marines and a seventh Marine was acquitted.

In 2007, seven Camp Pendleton Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and related offenses in the April 2006 kidnapping and killing of a 57-year-old retired Iraqi policeman in the village of Hamdania northwest of Baghdad. Only one of the men, squad leader Sergeant Lawrence Hutchins III, remains in jail, convicted of murder and sentenced by a Camp Pendleton military jury to 15 years. The other six either served out the terms they agreed to in plea deals or had their sentences commuted by Lieutenant General James Mattis, the Commanding General of Camp Pendleton. Mattis ordered the men below Hutchins’s rank released after a military jury in July 2007 found Corporal Trent Thomas guilty for his role in the murders but limited his sentence to time already served. In releasing the others, General Mattis determined that Thomas’s sentence created an unfair disparity for his fellow Marines who had been convicted with higher sentences.

In December 2007, US Marine Reservist Lance Corporal Delano Holmes was convicted of negligent homicide for the stabbing death of Iraqi Army Private Munther Jasem Muhammed Hassin, a man he shared guard duty with at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, on December 31, 2006. Holmes killed Hassin, stabbing him 17 times, slashing him another 26 times and nearly slicing his nose from his face. A military jury sentenced Holmes to time served, the second time in five months that a Camp Pendleton Marine military court jury allowed a defendant convicted in a homicide case to be sentenced to only time served. Holmes was reduced in rank from lance corporal to private and given a bad conduct discharge.

In August 2008, Article 32 hearings were held in Vilsek, Germany, to determine whether to proceed with criminal charges against Staff Sergeant Jess Cunningham and Sergeant Charles Quigley for the death of an Iraqi. The hearing officer has not yet decided whether the two will be court-martialed.

In only one murder case in Iraq have convicted US military personnel received substantial sentences. In August 2007, a military jury convicted US Army Private First Class Jesse Speilman of rape and four counts of felony murder for the rape and murder of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, and the murders of her parents and younger sister on March 12, 2006, in Mahmoudiya, a village about 20 miles south of Baghdad. Speilman was sentenced to 110 years in prison, but will be eligible for parole in ten years. During their court-martial, Specialist James P. Barker and Sergeant Paul Cortez testified they took turns raping Abeer while Private Steven Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister. They also testified that Green shot Abeer Qassin in the head after raping her. They then set her body on fire to destroy evidence. Cruz was sentenced to 100 years in prison under a plea agreement and will be eligible for parole in 10 years. Barker pleaded guilty at his court-martial and was sentenced to 90 years in a military prison, with the possibility of parole. Private Bryan Howard was sentenced to 27 months in prison under a plea agreement. Private Steven D. Green was discharged from the Army for anti-social behavior before the murders had been discovered. However, he was arrested and charged with rape and murder in the Western District Court of Kentucky. He will be tried in that court on April 29, 2009. His attorney has filed documents for an insanity defense.

Higher Punishment for Killing Fellow Servicemen Than Iraqis

Punishment for murder of other U.S. service members is dramatically higher than for murder of Iraqi and Afghan civilians.

In April 2003, US Army Sergeant Hasan Akbar, a member of the 101st Airborne Division, allegedly threw grenades into a tent at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait that killed two officers and wounded 14. Akbar was sentenced to death in April 2005.

In June 2005, US Army 42nd Infantry Division Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez allegedly killed two superior officers with an anti-personnel mine and grenades inside one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces, near Tikrit, Iraq. Martinez’s court-martial is underway at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

Earlier this week, on September 14, 2008, two US Army soldiers, assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division, were shot and killed, reportedly by another soldier at their base, near the town of Iskandariyah, about 30 miles south of Baghdad. The soldier who reportedly killed the two others is confined and will be brought before a military magistrate this week for pretrial procedural determinations.

Ann Wright is a retired US Army Reserves colonel with 29 years of military service. She also was a US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in December 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to the Bush administration’s decision to invade and occupy Iraq. She is the co-author of “Dissent: Voices of Conscience,” profiles of government insiders who have spoken and acted on their concerns of their governments’ policies.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

July 3, 2008: A Devil's Bargain

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:24:51 -0500

Body:

A Devil’s Bargain

by Carolyn Eisenberg

Published on Thursday, July 3, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/03/10075/

With the President’s signature now affixed to the bill, the clever deal is done. In exchange for another “blank check” for a year of war, the Democrats have wrested from their Republican colleagues and the White House a host of domestic benefits — tens of billions of dollars in educational funding for returning GIs, a thirteen-week extension of unemployment insurance, millions for Midwest flood relief and other laudable projects. “This shows …that even in an election year, Republican and Democrats can come together,” George W. Bush boasted.

Depending on their source of news, few Americans may be aware that Congress has now allocated another $162 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until next summer. In many media outlets, the only coverage pertained to the new educational benefits for soldiers. But even when the war funding received nominal attention, one would be hard pressed to find in the mainstream media or for that matter in the halls of Congress any critical discussion of this political deal.

With more than 60% of the country opposed to the Iraq war and significant majorities saying they want the troops out within a year, this Congress has handed over to President Bush and to his successor, the right to persist in this failed enterprise. Or to put the matter bluntly, Congress has just agreed to keep our soldiers in harm’s way for another twelve months, killing and dying for no achievable end. Is this worthy of some attention? Perhaps even distress? Should it be a bland assumption rather than a horrifying fact that to get the government to provide adequate veteran’s benefits, extended unemployment insurance and relief from summer floods, that another year of senseless war is approved?

The reality of this dirty Washington trade is far removed from the inspirational rhetoric on the campaign trail. Whether on the stump or in formal debates, the Democrats reliably bring down the house, when they denounce the Iraq War and promise to bring the troops home. Yet such things were also said in 2006 and two years later a Democratic-controlled Congress cannot even agree to a non-binding “goal” for troop withdrawal, let alone a binding deadline. Meanwhile Barack Obama, the new Democratic torch-bearer, who has been electrifying young people with his message of courage and change, skipped the vote on the war-funding bill despite his presence in the Capitol.

If challenged, members of Congress may point to the domestic benefits (”a lot of veterans are going to be happy with the United States Senate,” claims Sen. Jim Webb) and the need to provide support for U.S. soldiers in the field. None of this justifies or explains the failure of Congress to insist upon a plan for taking the troops out of Iraq.

While the mass media has anesthetized the broader public to this moral collapse, there is a parallel numbness among committed antiwar people. The two are related. For years there has been a virtual blackout of the grassroots organizing all across this country to get Congress to stop the war. Apart from the occasional story about mobilizations on the internet, one would never know about the thousands of local initiatives that have occurred — the vigils on street corners, the sit-ins at Congressional offices, the petitioners in the mall, the lobby visits, phone calls, public forums and confrontations at legislative hearings. Even the progressive media has tended to downplay these developments. Without sufficient news about a vibrant national effort, many individuals who might be inclined to participate feel discouraged and remain at home, while those who have been organizing feel less sense of accomplishment.

Also muffled are the positive results. Paradoxically this month’s vote on war funding holds significance because there were real choices. In actuality, it was not “the Democrats” who produced the recent debacle, but the Congressional leadership and some individuals from both parties. Twenty-six Senators voted against war funding, as did one hundred and fifty-five members of the House. That reflected the largely unreported efforts of activists, who relentlessly pressured these legislators to take a firm stand.

As disheartening as the final result might be, it underscores the need for greater grassroots efforts, not less. All government officials, including a future President, will be affected by the unintended consequences of this Administration’s mistakes. An American withdrawal from Iraq is likely to mean a reduction of influence in a region of vital economic and strategic importance to the United States. Such a choice runs against the historic temptation to rely on military solutions, even when military activity has been demonstrably futile.

The only hope for a wiser policy is an aroused public, determined to cut American losses and to hold elected officials accountable for what they do. In an electoral season, we have our work cut out for us. Support for a GI bill or flood relief is no substitute for ending the war — that devil’s bargain, which has so far escaped scrutiny. Herein lies the educational task, which can be accomplished. Congressional incumbents have made their record and many count on public ignorance to keep them afloat. To quote a Presidential candidate, “not this year, not this time.” A crucial task for the peace movement is to shatter the silence.

Carolyn Eisenberg is a professor of U.S. foreign policy at Hofstra University and Co-Chair United for Peace and Justice Legislative Working Group.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

Photos from Sept. 20, 2007 demonstration & "Die-In" outside U.S. Capitol‏

Timothy Baer — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:01:50 -0500

Body:

Click below to view photos from the Washington, D.C. anti-war demonstration and nonviolent “Die-In” action that took place on the west-side steps of the U.S. Capitol starting at 12 noon on September 20, 2007.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13953762@N04/sets/72157602177056262/

This action was organized by CodePINK, Iraq Veterans Against The War, Montgomery County Peace Action, and the National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance as part of The Declaration of Peace DAYS of DECISION campaign.

One woman was arrested trying to go over the police fence.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 7 - Oil, troops and the "noble cause"

mkurk@mac.com — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:24:05 -0500

Body:

Oil, troops, and the ‘noble cause’ By MARYELLEN KURKULOS

Published June 07, 2007 in New Bedford Standard Times

Amid all the wrangling these last months over the various incarnations of war funding bills, Congress and President Bush have remained in lock step on the inclusion of benchmarks to be met by the Iraqi government. Indeed, who among us could take exception to such progressive-sounding conditions as laws that would guarantee “fair distribution of oil revenues” among Iraqi ethnic groups?

For those who are closely scrutinizing these benchmarks, however, the house of mirrors is shattering: It is patently clear that Congress and the president have made appropriations funding for the war contingent on the privatization of the vast majority of Iraq’s oil reserves. Word is getting out; recently, retired U.S. Army Reserve Col. Ann Wright examined the details online. This past Monday, a Boston Globe editorial criticized the duplicitous bipartisan support they received in Congress.

The response from Iraqi oil workers, understandably incensed, has been to launch a remarkable retaliatory effort. Leaders representing 26,000 union members are now in the United States on a “Voices of Iraqi Workers Solidarity Tour” of 14 cities. They explain how “fair distribution” of revenues in the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act represents the great giveaway of most of Iraq’s known oil fields and all of its yet-undiscovered fields to foreign companies. Half a world away in Basra, their brethren are on strike, punctuating their frustration with the complicity of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki by shutting down the crude pipeline to Baghdad.

The tour’s first stop was Tuesday at the Alexandria, Virginia-based firm BearingPoint, a high-tech consulting firm contracted to oversee economic development in Iraq. Having contributed considerably to Bush campaign coffers, BearingPoint “helped” the Iraqi government draft its oil law — but only after the law was reviewed by major oil corporations and the International Monetary Fund.

With few exceptions, most notably presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, virtually all Democrats and Republicans were silent about these circumstances. They gave President Bush his war money last month and so promoted the interests of foreign oil corporations at the expense of the lives of American soldiers, Iraqi civilians and Iraqi sovereignty.

The visiting union leaders are asking that the U.S. citizenry escalate our efforts to hold our legislators accountable for funding the war. They reject attempts to link war funding to unfettered privatization schemes and insist on the right to be involved in the drafting of any such Hydrocarbon Act.

But beyond this, I suggest it is time to come to terms with the grim realities of President Bush’s “noble cause,” what he now describes as “progress in return for Americans’ continued support and sacrifice.” It is time to discard the logical fallacy of funding the war to “support the troops.” We need to revolt against these craven politicians, insist that Congress heed our will and stop working for the war profiteers.

In short, Congress must stop funding the war and bring our troops home now.

Your Name: Maryellen Kurkulos

Your Email Address: mkurk@mac.com

Link to Published Item: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070607/OPINION/706070321

Notes: This piece was submitted early last week to two MA papers. The Standard Times published it right away. The Fall River Herald News ran it on Sunday, June 10th (no url available). It one of several different pieces submitted by members of Bridgewater-based Citizens for an Informed Community. A total of 7 local papers were selected in this effort to educate people about the Iraq Hydrocarbon Act benchmark included in war funding bill that just passed.

May 23 - Want Out of Iraq? Call Your Senator

Timothy Baer — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:50:15 -0500

Body:

by Medea Benjamin
TheNation.com
May 22, 2007

Some people get up early to have a leisurely breakfast and read the newspaper before going off to work, while others fly out the door with their coffee cup in hand. Whatever your morning routine, let me suggest a thirty-second addition that could help stop the war in Iraq: Call your two senators and tell them to bring the troops home in 2007.

Earlier this year, I virtually moved from my home in San Francisco to Washington, DC, to pressure Congress to end the war. I’ve learned a few things in these last few months:

Both branches of Congress are conservative, but the Senate is downright Jurassic. While the House of Representatives is sprinkled with women and blacks and Latinos, the Senate is stocked with one dark-gray suit after another. Rich white men still compose about 80 percent of the Senate, their average age is 60 and even those who call themselves Democrats often think and act like Republicans.
Active constituents around the country tend to know their House Rep but have little contact with their senators. House members are up for election every two years and feel obliged to mix with the masses from time to time (town hall meetings, community events). Senators are much more isolated and elitist.
While neither branch of Congress has fulfilled the will of the American people to stop the war in Iraq, senators have been the worst. In the House, there is the Out of Iraq Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, a plethora of bills to stop the war; in the Senate, it has fallen virtually to Russ Feingold to lead the charge to get out of Iraq.
When House and Senate bills go to joint conference to hash out the final bills, the House bills get watered down by the more conservative Senate. With the first version of the 2007 supplemental war spending bill, the House had a fixed timetable for withdrawal, the Senate version sent to Bush dropped the fixed timetable. The same will be true of the second supplemental bill that will be presented to Bush: The Senate version will take out any remaining House restrictions and allow this war to drag on and on.
The series of call-ins, sit-ins and other pressure campaigns aimed at Congressional Reps have had an impact in the House: 171 Representatives (169 Democrats, 2 Republicans) voted for Congressman Jim McGovern’s bill for withdrawal to begin within ninety days of enactment and be completed in 180 days. It didn’t pass, but the vote represented a significant 73 percent of Democrats. By contrast, a similar bill introduced by Senator Feingold to bring the troops home by April 1, 2008, got only twenty-nine votes in the Senate, representing merely 57 percent of Democrats and no Republicans.
Several Republican senators have expressed misgivings about the war and even protested the surge—Chuck Hagel, John Warner, Susan Collins, Norm Coleman—but they all voted for continued war. Twenty-one Republican senators are up for re-election in 2008 and many of their seats— such as Gordon Smith of Oregon and Susan Collins of Maine and the retiring Wayne Allard of Colorado, are extremely vulnerable. The time is right to go after Republican senators up for re-election.

While most of the Senate is deaf to the cries of the majority of Americans to bring our troops home quickly, some senators are listening—those running for President. All the Democratic senators running for President supported Feingold’s bill to bring the troops home by April 1, 2008: Christopher Dodd (a co-sponsor), Joe Biden, Barak Obama and even onetime hawk Hillary Clinton. Their votes don’t represent their great antiwar convictions but rather the tremendous pressure they are getting on the campaign trail.

In fact, whether in the Senate or not, all the Democratic presidential candidates are falling over themselves to be more antiwar than the next. John Edwards has apologized for his 2002 vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq and has been taking out full-page ads in major newspapers saying “Support the Troops, End the War.” He supported the Feingold bill but said it should go further by beginning withdrawal immediately and pulling all troops out in a year. Bill Richardson calls for troops out in 2007. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, the only one who doesn’t have to beef up his antiwar credentials, has now one-upped the others by adding the impeachment of Dick Cheney to his platform.

It’s obvious that these Democratic candidates, who are out among the public day after day, feel the pulse of the nation and are taking antiwar positions to win votes. Unfortunately, other senators aren’t feeling that same kind of pressure.

If we want to end the war, this must change. Our senators—especially the seventy-one who failed to support Feingold’s bill—need to hear from us on a regular basis. So why not add to your morning routine a call to your senator with a simple reminder to bring our troops home in 2007? If enough of us make those calls, perhaps the senators will actually wake up and smell the coffee.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/benjamin

Notes:

Mar. 22 - Editorial, Erie, PA: Protesters offer democratic lesson

Thu, 22 Mar 2007 15:47:54 -0500

Body:

Editorial — Erie Times News
Published: March 21. 2007 6:00AM

You could call what happened in the lobby of the U.S. District Courthouse political theater. You could call it an anti-war protest. Or a peace protest. Or even a simple nuisance.

But what best describes what occurred Monday is pure democracy in action.

Nine members of the Erie Peace Initiative blocked the doors at the courthouse in a symbolic effort to close the building and protest the Iraq war.

It was a small protest against bigger forces and bigger events. It was, if you wish, a quiet exercise.

The protesters let lawyers walk past them into the courthouse. There was no shouting or screaming as supporters outside the courthouse sang and carried signs to protest America’s conflict in Iraq. Then it ended as security officials and the FBI arrived.

These Americans’ patriotism or motives should not be questioned. They engaged in a tidy piece of civil disobedience, which fit the spirit of America’s democratic traditions.

It was quiet but not insignificant.

Everyone involved — law enforcement officials, lawyers, people doing business at the courthouse — carried on without much fuss and simply allowed events to take their proper course. People did their jobs and went about their business. What glorious routine.

Whether the men and women from the Erie Peace Initiative changed any minds is perhaps less important than their open lesson of taking a stand and the reactions that it drew. That they were allowed to protest in dignity and face the legal consequences without incident said good things about all of us.

Democracy is often messy, defined by dissent. No matter the size or volume.

Your Name: Anne McCarthy, osb

Your Email Address: annemccosb@yahoo.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

9/28 - Madison Declaration of Peace 12 - Liars Started War; Why Trust Them To End It?

Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:25:35 -0500

Body:

Liars Started War; Why Trust Them To End It?
The Capital Times :: EDITORIAL :: A11
Thursday, September 28, 2006

Thursday, Sept. 21, marked the International Day of Peace established by the United Nations in 1981. This year it also marked the culmination of the Declaration of Peace campaign with 360 communities in all 50 states taking action to end the war in Iraq. (See www.declarationofpeace.org.)

Here in Madison a dozen people committed themselves to 27 hours of action. Some of us risked arrest by sitting in at Sen. Herb Kohl’s office, others of us handed out leaflets in front of his office on the Square, many of us fasted, and all of us spent hours solemnly reading the names of the thousands of U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths. In the evening we were joined by scores of people who came for a rainy candlelight vigil.

All day Friday people came up to Sen. Kohl’s office and wrote letters to tell him to “end the war.” Specifically we asked him to sign on to Sen. Tom Harkin’s bill that calls for a withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2006 and to the eight-point program set forth in the Declaration of Peace. Kohl still refuses to endorse a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. He insists it is the responsibility of the Bush administration — the same people who led us into this disastrous war — to determine when our troops should come home.

Why would a dozen ordinary people like us take time out of our busy lives to collectively put 324 hours into an effort to “declare peace”? Because we are tired of the lies that got us into the war and the fear that allows a small group of neo-cons, who now control the government, to make us give up our deepest values. And because we know that peace does not come by killing innocent people.

Democracy is not built at the point of a rifle. Security is not achieved by dropping bombs. Human rights are not honored by torture.

We have brought unimaginable death and destruction to Iraq, but this shameful war is also inflicting the same horror on us. Ironically, this past Friday, the 2,974th American soldier died in Iraq, thus surpassing the total deaths from the attacks of 9/11. Another 20,000 have been wounded, tens of thousands are returning from Iraq emotionally and spiritually scarred, and America’s moral authority is tattered.

Our children and grandchildren will be saddled with paying the economic cost of this war. The National Priorities Project says Congress has already appropriated over $316 billion for the war with no end in sight. Much-needed social and environmental programs will go unfunded because war profiteering and tax cuts for the super-rich are not the basis for a sound economy.

We declared peace and stood up for the America we believe in — an America that:

Lives out its ideals by being an equal partner in the community of nations — not by being a military superpower.

Deals with heinous crimes like 9/11 with the rule of law — not by waging pre-emptive war or engaging in torture.

Protects our national security by honoring civil and human rights for all — not by using illegal wiretaps and detentions, secret tribunals, and other unconstitutional procedures.

We acted because we believe in an America where “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and we hope for the day when all citizens exercise their rights and responsibilities.

This column was submitted by area residents Joy First, Mary Beth Schalgheck, Steve Burns, Janet Parker, Daryl Sherman, Char Brandl, Susan Spahn, Todd Kummer, Jim Murphy, Jackson Tiffany, Jo Vukelich and Bonnie Block.

Your Name: Janet Parker

Your Email Address: janetparker8@yahoo.com

Link to Published Item: http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=/tct/2006/09/28/0609280221.php

Notes:

9/28 - The Capital Times - Liars started war; why trust them to end it?

admin — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:23:23 -0500

Body:

The Capital Times
Madison, WI
Guest column

Here in Madison, a dozen people committed themselves to 27 hours of action. Some of us risked arrest by sitting in at Sen. Herb Kohl’s office, others of us handed out leaflets in front of his office on the Square, many of us fasted, and all of us spent hours solemnly reading the names of the thousands of U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths. In the evening, we were joined by scores of people who came for a rainy candlelight vigil.

All day Friday, people came up to Sen. Kohl’s office and wrote letters to tell him to “end the war.” Specifically, we asked him to sign on to Sen. Tom Harkin’s bill that calls for a withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2006 and to the eight-point program set forth in the Declaration of Peace. Kohl still refuses to endorse a timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. He insists it is the responsibility of the Bush administration - the same people who led us into this disastrous war - to determine when our troops should come home.

Democracy is not built at the point of a rifle. Security is not achieved by dropping bombs. Human rights are not honored by torture.

We declared peace and stood up for the America we believe in - an America that:

• Lives out its ideals by being an equal partner in the community of nations - not by being a military superpower.

• Deals with heinous crimes like 9/11 with the rule of law - not by waging pre-emptive war or engaging in torture.

• Protects our national security by honoring civil and human rights for all - not by using illegal wiretaps and detentions, secret tribunals and other unconstitutional procedures. We acted because we believe in an America where “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” and we hope for the day when all citizens exercise their rights and responsibilities.

Joy First, Mary Beth Schalgheck, Steve Burns, Janet Parker, Daryl Sherman, Char Brandl, Susan Spahn, Todd Kummer, Jim Murphy, Jackson Tiffany, Jo Vukelich, Bonnie Block

Published: September 28, 2006

Your Name: Scott

Your Email Address: scott@vcnv.org

Link to Published Item: http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=100678&ntpid=0

Notes: