From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 00:20:52 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 00:20:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Anti-War Teach In revised References: Message-ID: Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) at the Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd 1:00 - 5:00pm Speakers and topics include: Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, Retired (History of U.S. Foreign Policy) David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace (Palestine & Israel) David Johnson, World Labor Hour (The Cost of War, Venezuela) Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D Candidate (Africa) Father Tom Royer (El Salvador) Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party (Syria) Karen Aram, Organizer/Coordinator For info. please contact: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 01:08:01 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Joke of the Day: Daily "Illini" Editorial Condemns "Bigotry" But Supports Illiniwak and St. Patrick's Day Bar Crawls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <955E2A8C-1274-4F79-B56A-0A97BEBAAF3A@illinois.edu> I think I prefer drunk undergraduates to apolitical, careerist ones. The former will be sober in the morning, but the latter will still be apolitical careerists, as they’ve been taught to be. —CGE > On Aug 31, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > 34439_a4michael_zhang_cartoonf.jpg > > Share on Facebook > Image > Posted: February 12, 2012 - 9:33 PM > Updated: February 12, 2012 - 9:34 PM > > Michael Zhang The Daily Illini > > > [X] > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 01:08:01 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 20:08:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Joke of the Day: Daily "Illini" Editorial Condemns "Bigotry" But Supports Illiniwak and St. Patrick's Day Bar Crawls In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <955E2A8C-1274-4F79-B56A-0A97BEBAAF3A@illinois.edu> I think I prefer drunk undergraduates to apolitical, careerist ones. The former will be sober in the morning, but the latter will still be apolitical careerists, as they’ve been taught to be. —CGE > On Aug 31, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > 34439_a4michael_zhang_cartoonf.jpg > > Share on Facebook > Image > Posted: February 12, 2012 - 9:33 PM > Updated: February 12, 2012 - 9:34 PM > > Michael Zhang The Daily Illini > > > [X] > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 01:27:06 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 01:27:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Anti-War Teach In revised/ with added panelist, please see at the end. References: Message-ID: Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) at the Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd 1:00 - 5:00pm Speakers and topics include: Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, Retired (History of U.S. Foreign Policy) David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace (Palestine & Israel) David Johnson, World Labor Hour (The Cost of War, Venezuela) Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D Candidate (Africa) Father Tom Royer (El Salvador) Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party (US Support for Dictatorships Around the World) Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party (US Interventions in Libya and Syria) Karen Aram, Organizer/Coordinator For info. please contact: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 02:04:39 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 02:04:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ANTI-FA STATEMENT FROM A FB FRIEND Message-ID: Raúl Fernández-Berriozábal: August 27 at 12:00pm · San Francisco, CA · Somewhat annoyed (but not surprised) by all these self-congratulatory posts out there about how the anti-nazi rallies nationwide held this weekend "defeated hate and racism". A few observations here: 1. First and foremost, these people are not nazis, they are white supremacist racist fools but not nazis - to find real nazis one would have to go further than the coup d'etat orchestrated in Ukraine by war criminals Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland and John Mc Cain in 2013 where they successfully installed Europe's first Nazi government since Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. Yes, even Liberals' darlings in the lines of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard advocated to offer direct military assistance—weapons, military supplies and training to Kiev's Nazi regime while supporting sanctions against Russia. 2. The great Malcolm X (perhaps the brightest thinker in US history next to David Henry Thoreau) used to say: "We are non-violent to those that are non-violent to us and we are violent with those who are violent to us" - In other words, rhetoric needs to be addressed with rhetoric, ideologies with ideologies and yes, violence with violence. So when someone is expressing their ideology, no matter how heinous and despicable this ideology may be and then someone else responds to these words with violence then the later one is more likely to be the intolerant "nazi" than the earlier one. 3. This whole "Punch a Nazi" fever not only is inefficient in addressing the root causes of racism but even counterproductive - point in case, I had never heard about this Spencer racist until he got punched in the face - Did that punch changed his mind? Did that punch ended racism and white supremacy? Can you end ideologies with violence? Nope, all what was accomplished was to bring the cameras, microphones and the spotlight to this guy and his message of hate. 4. Who defines "hate speech"? How to explain whole communities organizing massive rallies to protest these "Nazis" while remaining oblivious when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Zionism is the ultimate imperialist racist ideology, specifically consisting of euro settler colonialism, genocide and ethnic cleansing of native groups. Israel is nothing but a theocracy or an ethnocracy where people are guaranteed privileges solely base on their ethnicity or religion - the strict definition of an apartheid state. If anyone understands the difference between zionism and nazism please explain it to me, I am all ears. 5. What exactly are people protesting in these rallies? Nazism? I so, why no one protested when Obama, Clinton, Nuland and Mc Cain installed a neo-nazi government in Ukraine? Are they protesting racism? Why people do not protest when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Is there anything more racist than Zionism? If racism, why no one protested when Obama referred to black protestors from Ferguson to Baltimore as "thugs" or when Hillary referred to black youth as "super predators"? Why these outraged folks did not protest when Obama and Hillary turned Libya, the most prosperous nation in the African continent under Mu'ammar al Qaddafi into a failed state ran by Daesh where subsaharan Africans are openly sold in slave markets for as little as 200 bucks? I have conducted a little research here, white supremacist groups have killed approximately 74 people since 1995 while police forces in the US kill between 1,000 - 1,200 each year (mostly black and brown people), Israel killed 2,200 in just 4 weeks, the Democrats or the Republicans are responsible for the violent deaths of over 4 million Muslims since 9/11. The Obama regime alone rained hellfire on civilians on 7 nations, incidentally these 7 nations are inhabited predominantly by dark skinned people. Why do we have these rallies and feel so proud to participate in this "Punch a Nazi" campaign while remaining completely oblivious to the (more harmful) expressions or racism listed above? Why everybody is ready to punch a 'Nazi', but not a punch a Democrat, a Republican, a Zionist or a cop when hard data has proven that Democrats, Republicans, cops or Zionists kill more people than "Nazis"? Could corporate media have anything to do with our selective rage and double standards? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johncmilano at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 03:07:35 2017 From: johncmilano at gmail.com (John Milano) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:07:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ANTI-FA STATEMENT FROM A FB FRIEND In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59a8cefb.09a4240a.aa09f.4644@mx.google.com> From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 21:05 To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] ANTI-FA STATEMENT FROM A FB FRIEND Raúl Fernández-Berriozábal: August 27 at 12:00pm · San Francisco, CA · Somewhat annoyed (but not surprised) by all these self-congratulatory posts out there about how the anti-nazi rallies nationwide held this weekend "defeated hate and racism". A few observations here: 1. First and foremost, these people are not nazis, they are white supremacist racist fools but not nazis - to find real nazis one would have to go further than the coup d'etat orchestrated in Ukraine by war criminals Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland and John Mc Cain in 2013 where they successfully installed Europe's first Nazi government since Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. Yes, even Liberals' darlings in the lines of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard advocated to offer direct military assistance—weapons, military supplies and training to Kiev's Nazi regime while supporting sanctions against Russia. 2. The great Malcolm X (perhaps the brightest thinker in US history next to David Henry Thoreau) used to say: "We are non-violent to those that are non-violent to us and we are violent with those who are violent to us" - In other words, rhetoric needs to be addressed with rhetoric, ideologies with ideologies and yes, violence with violence. So when someone is expressing their ideology, no matter how heinous and despicable this ideology may be and then someone else responds to these words with violence then the later one is more likely to be the intolerant "nazi" than the earlier one. 3. This whole "Punch a Nazi" fever not only is inefficient in addressing the root causes of racism but even counterproductive - point in case, I had never heard about this Spencer racist until he got punched in the face - Did that punch changed his mind? Did that punch ended racism and white supremacy? Can you end ideologies with violence? Nope, all what was accomplished was to bring the cameras, microphones and the spotlight to this guy and his message of hate. 4. Who defines "hate speech"? How to explain whole communities organizing massive rallies to protest these "Nazis" while remaining oblivious when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Zionism is the ultimate imperialist racist ideology, specifically consisting of euro settler colonialism, genocide and ethnic cleansing of native groups. Israel is nothing but a theocracy or an ethnocracy where people are guaranteed privileges solely base on their ethnicity or religion - the strict definition of an apartheid state. If anyone understands the difference between zionism and nazism please explain it to me, I am all ears. 5. What exactly are people protesting in these rallies? Nazism? I so, why no one protested when Obama, Clinton, Nuland and Mc Cain installed a neo-nazi government in Ukraine? Are they protesting racism? Why people do not protest when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Is there anything more racist than Zionism? If racism, why no one protested when Obama referred to black protestors from Ferguson to Baltimore as "thugs" or when Hillary referred to black youth as "super predators"? Why these outraged folks did not protest when Obama and Hillary turned Libya, the most prosperous nation in the African continent under Mu'ammar al Qaddafi into a failed state ran by Daesh where subsaharan Africans are openly sold in slave markets for as little as 200 bucks? I have conducted a little research here, white supremacist groups have killed approximately 74 people since 1995 while police forces in the US kill between 1,000 - 1,200 each year (mostly black and brown people), Israel killed 2,200 in just 4 weeks, the Democrats or the Republicans are responsible for the violent deaths of over 4 million Muslims since 9/11. The Obama regime alone rained hellfire on civilians on 7 nations, incidentally these 7 nations are inhabited predominantly by dark skinned people. Why do we have these rallies and feel so proud to participate in this "Punch a Nazi" campaign while remaining completely oblivious to the (more harmful) expressions or racism listed above? Why everybody is ready to punch a 'Nazi', but not a punch a Democrat, a Republican, a Zionist or a cop when hard data has proven that Democrats, Republicans, cops or Zionists kill more people than "Nazis"? Could corporate media have anything to do with our selective rage and double standards? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johncmilano at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 03:13:45 2017 From: johncmilano at gmail.com (John Milano) Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:13:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ANTI-FA STATEMENT FROM A FB FRIEND In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59a8d06d.01a96b0a.42f2e.363b@mx.google.com> Does this friend think debate stopped Mussolini? From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 21:05 To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] ANTI-FA STATEMENT FROM A FB FRIEND Raúl Fernández-Berriozábal: August 27 at 12:00pm · San Francisco, CA · Somewhat annoyed (but not surprised) by all these self-congratulatory posts out there about how the anti-nazi rallies nationwide held this weekend "defeated hate and racism". A few observations here: 1. First and foremost, these people are not nazis, they are white supremacist racist fools but not nazis - to find real nazis one would have to go further than the coup d'etat orchestrated in Ukraine by war criminals Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland and John Mc Cain in 2013 where they successfully installed Europe's first Nazi government since Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. Yes, even Liberals' darlings in the lines of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard advocated to offer direct military assistance—weapons, military supplies and training to Kiev's Nazi regime while supporting sanctions against Russia. 2. The great Malcolm X (perhaps the brightest thinker in US history next to David Henry Thoreau) used to say: "We are non-violent to those that are non-violent to us and we are violent with those who are violent to us" - In other words, rhetoric needs to be addressed with rhetoric, ideologies with ideologies and yes, violence with violence. So when someone is expressing their ideology, no matter how heinous and despicable this ideology may be and then someone else responds to these words with violence then the later one is more likely to be the intolerant "nazi" than the earlier one. 3. This whole "Punch a Nazi" fever not only is inefficient in addressing the root causes of racism but even counterproductive - point in case, I had never heard about this Spencer racist until he got punched in the face - Did that punch changed his mind? Did that punch ended racism and white supremacy? Can you end ideologies with violence? Nope, all what was accomplished was to bring the cameras, microphones and the spotlight to this guy and his message of hate. 4. Who defines "hate speech"? How to explain whole communities organizing massive rallies to protest these "Nazis" while remaining oblivious when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Zionism is the ultimate imperialist racist ideology, specifically consisting of euro settler colonialism, genocide and ethnic cleansing of native groups. Israel is nothing but a theocracy or an ethnocracy where people are guaranteed privileges solely base on their ethnicity or religion - the strict definition of an apartheid state. If anyone understands the difference between zionism and nazism please explain it to me, I am all ears. 5. What exactly are people protesting in these rallies? Nazism? I so, why no one protested when Obama, Clinton, Nuland and Mc Cain installed a neo-nazi government in Ukraine? Are they protesting racism? Why people do not protest when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Is there anything more racist than Zionism? If racism, why no one protested when Obama referred to black protestors from Ferguson to Baltimore as "thugs" or when Hillary referred to black youth as "super predators"? Why these outraged folks did not protest when Obama and Hillary turned Libya, the most prosperous nation in the African continent under Mu'ammar al Qaddafi into a failed state ran by Daesh where subsaharan Africans are openly sold in slave markets for as little as 200 bucks? I have conducted a little research here, white supremacist groups have killed approximately 74 people since 1995 while police forces in the US kill between 1,000 - 1,200 each year (mostly black and brown people), Israel killed 2,200 in just 4 weeks, the Democrats or the Republicans are responsible for the violent deaths of over 4 million Muslims since 9/11. The Obama regime alone rained hellfire on civilians on 7 nations, incidentally these 7 nations are inhabited predominantly by dark skinned people. Why do we have these rallies and feel so proud to participate in this "Punch a Nazi" campaign while remaining completely oblivious to the (more harmful) expressions or racism listed above? Why everybody is ready to punch a 'Nazi', but not a punch a Democrat, a Republican, a Zionist or a cop when hard data has proven that Democrats, Republicans, cops or Zionists kill more people than "Nazis"? Could corporate media have anything to do with our selective rage and double standards? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 12:01:46 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 12:01:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] ANTI-FA STATEMENT FROM A FB FRIEND In-Reply-To: <59a8d06d.01a96b0a.42f2e.363b@mx.google.com> References: <59a8d06d.01a96b0a.42f2e.363b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Fighting and clashes in the street between Communists and Nazi’s didn’t stop Hitler, in fact it frightened many people who then supported crack downs on “protestors”. Same in Thailand, in 2006 and 2014. Protestors began peacefully, the police fomented violence, and when protestors fought back and were killed, most people in Bangkok welcomed the military coup because it brought “peace” to the streets, business continued and many people in Bangkok, still support the most egregious hard core military government as a result. On Aug 31, 2017, at 20:13, John Milano via Peace-discuss > wrote: Does this friend think debate stopped Mussolini? From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 21:05 To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] ANTI-FA STATEMENT FROM A FB FRIEND Raúl Fernández-Berriozábal: August 27 at 12:00pm · San Francisco, CA · Somewhat annoyed (but not surprised) by all these self-congratulatory posts out there about how the anti-nazi rallies nationwide held this weekend "defeated hate and racism". A few observations here: 1. First and foremost, these people are not nazis, they are white supremacist racist fools but not nazis - to find real nazis one would have to go further than the coup d'etat orchestrated in Ukraine by war criminals Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Victoria Nuland and John Mc Cain in 2013 where they successfully installed Europe's first Nazi government since Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. Yes, even Liberals' darlings in the lines of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard advocated to offer direct military assistance—weapons, military supplies and training to Kiev's Nazi regime while supporting sanctions against Russia. 2. The great Malcolm X (perhaps the brightest thinker in US history next to David Henry Thoreau) used to say: "We are non-violent to those that are non-violent to us and we are violent with those who are violent to us" - In other words, rhetoric needs to be addressed with rhetoric, ideologies with ideologies and yes, violence with violence. So when someone is expressing their ideology, no matter how heinous and despicable this ideology may be and then someone else responds to these words with violence then the later one is more likely to be the intolerant "nazi" than the earlier one. 3. This whole "Punch a Nazi" fever not only is inefficient in addressing the root causes of racism but even counterproductive - point in case, I had never heard about this Spencer racist until he got punched in the face - Did that punch changed his mind? Did that punch ended racism and white supremacy? Can you end ideologies with violence? Nope, all what was accomplished was to bring the cameras, microphones and the spotlight to this guy and his message of hate. 4. Who defines "hate speech"? How to explain whole communities organizing massive rallies to protest these "Nazis" while remaining oblivious when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Zionism is the ultimate imperialist racist ideology, specifically consisting of euro settler colonialism, genocide and ethnic cleansing of native groups. Israel is nothing but a theocracy or an ethnocracy where people are guaranteed privileges solely base on their ethnicity or religion - the strict definition of an apartheid state. If anyone understands the difference between zionism and nazism please explain it to me, I am all ears. 5. What exactly are people protesting in these rallies? Nazism? I so, why no one protested when Obama, Clinton, Nuland and Mc Cain installed a neo-nazi government in Ukraine? Are they protesting racism? Why people do not protest when AIPAC and the Zionists come to town? Is there anything more racist than Zionism? If racism, why no one protested when Obama referred to black protestors from Ferguson to Baltimore as "thugs" or when Hillary referred to black youth as "super predators"? Why these outraged folks did not protest when Obama and Hillary turned Libya, the most prosperous nation in the African continent under Mu'ammar al Qaddafi into a failed state ran by Daesh where subsaharan Africans are openly sold in slave markets for as little as 200 bucks? I have conducted a little research here, white supremacist groups have killed approximately 74 people since 1995 while police forces in the US kill between 1,000 - 1,200 each year (mostly black and brown people), Israel killed 2,200 in just 4 weeks, the Democrats or the Republicans are responsible for the violent deaths of over 4 million Muslims since 9/11. The Obama regime alone rained hellfire on civilians on 7 nations, incidentally these 7 nations are inhabited predominantly by dark skinned people. Why do we have these rallies and feel so proud to participate in this "Punch a Nazi" campaign while remaining completely oblivious to the (more harmful) expressions or racism listed above? Why everybody is ready to punch a 'Nazi', but not a punch a Democrat, a Republican, a Zionist or a cop when hard data has proven that Democrats, Republicans, cops or Zionists kill more people than "Nazis"? Could corporate media have anything to do with our selective rage and double standards? _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 1 14:36:01 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 14:36:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Chris Hedges and Cornel West discussion References: Message-ID: > > https://youtu.be/R2F0Xsw29XE From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 15:06:44 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:06:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] The United States of Manufactured Hysteria References: <1716457019.1213619.1504278404696.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1716457019.1213619.1504278404696@mail.yahoo.com> The United States of Manufactured Hysteria | | | | | | | | | | | The United States of Manufactured Hysteria Thank God for the Charlottesville Nazis! For a moment there, it was looking like we were actually going to have ... | | | by C. J. Hopkins Thank God for the Charlottesville Nazis! For a moment there, it was looking like we were actually going to have a few days to stop and reflect on the state of America without being subjected to some new form of manufactured mass hysteria. Seriously, just a few short weeks ago, as the corporatist ruling classes’ ridiculous attempt to convince the world that Donald Trump is some sort of Russian sleeper agent appeared to be finally fizzling out, a significant number of leftist types were beginning to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the fact that the United States government is controlled by a global corporate plutocracy that has no allegiance to any nation, or people, or to anything other than itself, and that is in the process of demonizing and potentially deposing an elected president … that maybe that might be something to focus on, not exclusively, by any means, but alongside other vital issues, like defending the rights of transgender drone pilots and purging syllabi of oppressive pronouns. Fortunately, thanks to the Nazis of Charlottesville, this dangerous moment of doubt has now passed. If you were listening closely on August 11, you could hear the collective sigh of relief whooshing out of Resistance quarters like a hypnagogic idiot wind as roughly one hundred white supremacists marched into town with their tiki torches barking N.S.D.A.P. slogans and otherwise making asses of themselves. Corporate media apparatchiks, mandarins of the Internet Left, professional and amateur Naziologists, and assorted other Nazi experts immediately went to DEFCON 1, signaling imminent Nazi invasion. Photos of bug-eyed, torch-bearing Nazis, their mouths wide open in mid-Nazi shriek, veins bulging out of their Nazi necks, were released to the public and circulated widely. Millions of conflicted leftists (many of whom had been feeling uneasy about collaborating with the corporate plutocracy in their efforts to delegitimize Trump, and every last American who voted for him), upon seeing glossy, color close-ups of these Nazis waved in front of their faces, responded as every Good American has been conditioned to respond since early childhood. They instantly switched off their critical faculties and began reenacting the Second World War … or rather, the mythical version of it wherein the USA defeated the Nazis, which is one of Americans’ favorite pastimes. Look, I don’t mean to make light of Charlottesville. We’re talking actual neo-Nazis, with actual Nazi flags and haircuts, shouting actual Nazi slogans, and the Ku Klux Klan, and heavily-armed militia, and just garden variety racist rednecks … all of which have been standard features of American life for decades, and longer, but this is no time to reflect on history, or try to put things into perspective. Also, one of these Nazi morons ran over people with his car the next day, killing one woman, and injuring many others, which renders any critical thinking about the actual size of the Nazi menace (which remains ridiculously small, as ever) or the motives of the corporate media in blowing it up all out of proportion tantamount to Nazi sympathizing, and I’m already in enough trouble as it is. Plus, Charlottesville was just the beginning … kind of like a Nazi Tet Offensive. Just one week later, on August 19, literally forty to fifty Nazis (cleverly disguised as Trump supporters, libertarians, and right-wing oddballs) occupied a public gazebo in Boston, and were right on the verge of expressing virulent Nazi views to the cops surrounding them. Luckily, just in the nick of time, a contingent of approximately forty thousand anti-fascist Resistance members arrived on the scene to deny them a platform, and chase down anyone wearing one of those MAGA hats and verbally abuse them. You’d think the Nazis would have gotten the message … but no, last Sunday, August 27, another ten or eleven Nazis (many of them posing as “Trump supporters,” as if that didn’t make them Nazis, and some of them even going so far as to attempt to pass themselves off as “Latinos”) audaciously tried to assemble in Berkeley. The Resistance showed them no mercy this time. Thousands of peaceful counter-protesters quickly frightened the Nazis away, then squads of masked-up anti-fascists hunted down any Nazi-looking stragglers, “apparent alt-righters,” and nosy photographers, and stomped the living Hitler out of them. This alarmed the more liberal Resistance, which set about branding the anti-fascists who beat the crap out of the folks the liberals had branded Nazis “domestic terrorists.” Elsewhere in America, Resistance members were frantically tearing down Confederate monuments, which had suddenly become intolerably offensive, and searching through online business directories for anyone named after Robert E. Lee, or horses named after General Lee’s horse, or the horses of other racist Nazis. That, and hastily organizing the upcoming March to Confront White Supremacy (presumably in order to make a mockery of the 1963 March on Washington), and penning lengthy explications of the evils of racism, white supremacy, and all other forms of Naziism associated with Donald Trump … and otherwise whipping people up into a sputtering frenzy of Nazi hysteria. Now, you have to hand it to the fake Resistance … this Nazi hysteria is good for everyone. Not only is it an easier sell than that ridiculous Russian hacking nonsense (because Trump really is a racist, of course), but it’s something the broader Left can embrace, as it plugs straight into identity politics, which is pretty much all we’ve got these days. See, up to now, the dilemma we’ve been facing (or some of us have been facing, anyway) is how to respond to the ruling establishment’s concerted campaign to “regime-change” Trump. On the one hand, Trump is a living embodiment of everything the Left opposes. On the other hand, going after Trump has meant carrying water for the fake Resistance, i.e., that global corporatocracy (which, by the way, does not mean “the Jews.” I always like to slip that in to piss off my anti-Semitic readers.) This has been a bit awkward for some of us, restraining our impulse to stick it to Trump (at least on whatever talking points the Resistance is currently putting out) because in doing so we would align ourselves with the ruling establishment’s attempt to demonize, and eventually depose an American president who isn’t playing ball with them properly. If we oppose regime change in other countries, shouldn’t we also oppose it at home? Or do the ruling classes get a pass this time because Trump is such an exceptional monster? But wait … wasn’t Saddam a monster? And Gaddafi? And all the other “Hitlers” that wouldn’t play ball with the corporatocracy? And Assad? Isn’t he a monster? You can see how confusing all this gets … when you’re trying to figure out how to oppose both the supranational corporatocracy that is superseding sovereign nations as the hegemonic power in the world and the neo-nationalist reaction against it, which is essentially fascist in nature, and which the corporatocracy also opposes … and desperately wants you to help them oppose by buying their manufactured hysteria about Russians, or Nazis, or whatever scary monster they wave in front of your face. After a while, your brain starts to hurt, and you just want someone to make things simple. Charlottesville Nazis to the rescue! How much simpler could it possibly get? Corporatocracy? What corporatocracy? We got goddamned Nazis coming out of the woodwork! Racist Nazis! Confederate Nazis! Nazi apologists! Nazi sympathizers! This is no time to worry about who’s actually wielding political power, or how they’re manufacturing hysteria and otherwise manipulating people (not you, of course … other people). No, what we need to do now is censor the Internet, and other venues for Nazi hate speech, and round up all these racist Nazis and subject them to anti-Nazi therapy, or anti-racist empathy programs, or just gang up on them and beat them senseless. OK, sure, that might sound extreme, or authoritarian, or just plain old creepy, but keep in mind that This Is Not Normal! And racism and Naziism is very, very bad. And Love Trumps Hate! And Scope Kills Germs! And we never literally meant that Trump was an actual Russian agent or anything. Forget about all that Russia stuff now. Trump is Hitler. Trump has always been Hitler. America has always been at war with Hitler. America will always be at war with Hitler. Oh, yeah, and I almost forgot, today’s edition of the Two Minutes Hate will begin in approximately fifteen minutes. Please assemble in the usual location. Thank you for your cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 15:30:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Galveston Bio-Lab Declared Safe Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Friday, September 1, 2017 2:24 AM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Galveston Bio-Lab Declared Safe Those fears were raised again this week in the absence of news about the lab. Professor Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 15:30:40 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 15:30:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Galveston Bio-Lab Declared Safe Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Friday, September 1, 2017 2:24 AM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Galveston Bio-Lab Declared Safe Those fears were raised again this week in the absence of news about the lab. Professor Francis Boyle, who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the U.S. domestic implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 15:34:49 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 10:34:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The United States of Manufactured Hysteria In-Reply-To: <1716457019.1213619.1504278404696@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1716457019.1213619.1504278404696.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1716457019.1213619.1504278404696@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: “...Charlottesville Nazis to the rescue! How much simpler could it possibly get? Corporatocracy? What corporatocracy? We got goddamned Nazis coming out of the woodwork! Racist Nazis! Confederate Nazis! Nazi apologists! Nazi sympathizers! This is no time to worry about who’s actually wielding political power, or how they’re manufacturing hysteria and otherwise manipulating people (not you, of course … other people). No, what we need to do now is censor the Internet, and other venues for Nazi hate speech, and round up all these racist Nazis and subject them to anti-Nazi therapy, or anti-racist empathy programs, or just gang up on them and beat them senseless. "OK, sure, that might sound extreme, or authoritarian, or just plain old creepy, but keep in mind that This Is Not Normal! And racism and Naziism is very, very bad. And Love Trumps Hate! And Scope Kills Germs! And we never literally meant that Trump was an actual Russian agent or anything. Forget about all that Russia stuff now. Trump is Hitler. Trump has always been Hitler. America has always been at war with Hitler. America will always be at war with Hitler…" > On Sep 1, 2017, at 10:06 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The United States of Manufactured Hysteria > > The United States of Manufactured Hysteria > Thank God for the Charlottesville Nazis! For a moment there, it was looking like we were actually going to have ... > > > by C. J. Hopkins > Thank God for the Charlottesville Nazis! For a moment there, it was looking like we were actually going to have a few days to stop and reflect on the state of America without being subjected to some new form of manufactured mass hysteria. Seriously, just a few short weeks ago, as the corporatist ruling classes’ ridiculous attempt to convince the world that Donald Trump is some sort of Russian sleeper agent appeared to be finally fizzling out, a significant number of leftist types were beginning to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the fact that the United States government is controlled by a global corporate plutocracy that has no allegiance to any nation, or people, or to anything other than itself, and that is in the process of demonizing and potentially deposing an elected president … that maybe that might be something to focus on, not exclusively, by any means, but alongside other vital issues, like defending the rights of transgender drone pilots and purging syllabi of oppressive pronouns. > > > Fortunately, thanks to the Nazis of Charlottesville, this dangerous moment of doubt has now passed. If you were listening closely on August 11, you could hear the collective sigh of relief whooshing out of Resistance quarters like a hypnagogic idiot wind as roughly one hundred white supremacists marched into town with their tiki torches barking N.S.D.A.P. slogans and otherwise making asses of themselves. Corporate media apparatchiks, mandarins of the Internet Left, professional and amateur Naziologists, and assorted other Nazi experts immediately went to DEFCON 1, signaling imminent Nazi invasion. Photos of bug-eyed, torch-bearing Nazis, their mouths wide open in mid-Nazi shriek, veins bulging out of their Nazi necks, were released to the public and circulated widely. Millions of conflicted leftists (many of whom had been feeling uneasy about collaborating with the corporate plutocracy in their efforts to delegitimize Trump, and every last American who voted for him), upon seeing glossy, color close-ups of these Nazis waved in front of their faces, responded as every Good American has been conditioned to respond since early childhood. They instantly switched off their critical faculties and began reenacting the Second World War … or rather, the mythical version of it wherein the USA defeated the Nazis, which is one of Americans’ favorite pastimes. > > > Look, I don’t mean to make light of Charlottesville. We’re talking actual neo-Nazis, with actual Nazi flags and haircuts, shouting actual Nazi slogans, and the Ku Klux Klan, and heavily-armed militia, and just garden variety racist rednecks … all of which have been standard features of American life for decades, and longer, but this is no time to reflect on history, or try to put things into perspective. Also, one of these Nazi morons ran over people with his car the next day, killing one woman, and injuring many others, which renders any critical thinking about the actual size of the Nazi menace (which remains ridiculously small, as ever) or the motives of the corporate media in blowing it up all out of proportion tantamount to Nazi sympathizing, and I’m already in enough trouble as it is. > > > Plus, Charlottesville was just the beginning … kind of like a Nazi Tet Offensive. Just one week later, on August 19, literally forty to fifty Nazis (cleverly disguised as Trump supporters, libertarians, and right-wing oddballs) occupied a public gazebo in Boston, and were right on the verge of expressing virulent Nazi views to the cops surrounding them. Luckily, just in the nick of time, a contingent of approximately forty thousand anti-fascist Resistance members arrived on the scene to deny them a platform, and chase down anyone wearing one of those MAGA hats and verbally abuse them. > You’d think the Nazis would have gotten the message … but no, last Sunday, August 27, another ten or eleven Nazis (many of them posing as “Trump supporters,” as if that didn’t make them Nazis, and some of them even going so far as to attempt to pass themselves off as “Latinos”) audaciously tried to assemble in Berkeley. The Resistance showed them no mercy this time. Thousands of peaceful counter-protesters quickly frightened the Nazis away, then squads of masked-up anti-fascists hunted down any Nazi-looking stragglers, “apparent alt-righters,” and nosy photographers, and stomped the living Hitler out of them. This alarmed the more liberal Resistance, which set about branding the anti-fascists who beat the crap out of the folks the liberals had branded Nazis “domestic terrorists.” > > > Elsewhere in America, Resistance members were frantically tearing down Confederate monuments, which had suddenly become intolerably offensive, and searching through online business directories for anyone named after Robert E. Lee, or horses named after General Lee’s horse, or the horses of other racist Nazis. That, and hastily organizing the upcoming March to Confront White Supremacy (presumably in order to make a mockery of the 1963 March on Washington), and penning lengthy explications of the evils of racism, white supremacy, and all other forms of Naziism associated with Donald Trump … and otherwise whipping people up into a sputtering frenzy of Nazi hysteria. > > > Now, you have to hand it to the fake Resistance … this Nazi hysteria is good for everyone. Not only is it an easier sell than that ridiculous Russian hacking nonsense (because Trump really is a racist, of course), but it’s something the broader Left can embrace, as it plugs straight into identity politics, which is pretty much all we’ve got these days. > > > See, up to now, the dilemma we’ve been facing (or some of us have been facing, anyway) is how to respond to the ruling establishment’s concerted campaign to “regime-change” Trump. On the one hand, Trump is a living embodiment of everything the Left opposes. On the other hand, going after Trump has meant carrying water for the fake Resistance, i.e., that global corporatocracy (which, by the way, does not mean “the Jews.” I always like to slip that in to piss off my anti-Semitic readers.) This has been a bit awkward for some of us, restraining our impulse to stick it to Trump (at least on whatever talking points the Resistance is currently putting out) because in doing so we would align ourselves with the ruling establishment’s attempt to demonize, and eventually depose an American president who isn’t playing ball with them properly. If we oppose regime change in other countries, shouldn’t we also oppose it at home? Or do the ruling classes get a pass this time because Trump is such an exceptional monster? But wait … wasn’t Saddam a monster? And Gaddafi? And all the other “Hitlers” that wouldn’t play ball with the corporatocracy? And Assad? Isn’t he a monster? > > > You can see how confusing all this gets … when you’re trying to figure out how to oppose both the supranational corporatocracy that is superseding sovereign nations as the hegemonic power in the world and the neo-nationalist reaction against it, which is essentially fascist in nature, and which the corporatocracy also opposes … and desperately wants you to help them oppose by buying their manufactured hysteria about Russians, or Nazis, or whatever scary monster they wave in front of your face. After a while, your brain starts to hurt, and you just want someone to make things simple. > > > Charlottesville Nazis to the rescue! How much simpler could it possibly get? Corporatocracy? What corporatocracy? We got goddamned Nazis coming out of the woodwork! Racist Nazis! Confederate Nazis! Nazi apologists! Nazi sympathizers! This is no time to worry about who’s actually wielding political power, or how they’re manufacturing hysteria and otherwise manipulating people (not you, of course … other people). No, what we need to do now is censor the Internet, and other venues for Nazi hate speech, and round up all these racist Nazis and subject them to anti-Nazi therapy, or anti-racist empathy programs, or just gang up on them and beat them senseless. > > > OK, sure, that might sound extreme, or authoritarian, or just plain old creepy, but keep in mind that This Is Not Normal! And racism and Naziism is very, very bad. And Love Trumps Hate! And Scope Kills Germs! And we never literally meant that Trump was an actual Russian agent or anything. Forget about all that Russia stuff now. Trump is Hitler. Trump has always been Hitler. America has always been at war with Hitler. America will always be at war with Hitler. > > > Oh, yeah, and I almost forgot, today’s edition of the Two Minutes Hate will begin in approximately fifteen minutes. Please assemble in the usual location. Thank you for your cooperation. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 16:53:17 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 16:53:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] What Harvey Wrought References: <1003440170.1277257.1504284797935.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1003440170.1277257.1504284797935@mail.yahoo.com> Buchanan suggests that Hurricane Harvey may cut into the cash needed for war, which would be a Good Thing.  (The other alternative is that the printing presses would create massive inflation, which is what governments tend to do to pay for war and other crises.) I have a question, however. Buchanan says: "The U.S. and Turkey have urged Iraq's Kurds to put off their nonbinding referendum on independence Sept. 25. The vote seems certain to endorse a separate state. A Kurdistan, seceded from Baghdad, would be a magnet for secession-minded Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran, 30 million in all, and present a strategic crisis for the United States." Why would this be a strategic crisis?  It seems like 30 million dissidents would have the opportunity to move to a happier situation and put less pressure on Turkey, Syria and Iran.  The only downside I can see is if the unhappy Kurds want to secede within Turkey, Syria and Iran rather than move.  But then why did Buchanan use the word "magnet", which implies movement? What Harvey Wrought | | | | What Harvey Wrought Rasmussen Reports Like 9/11, Hurricane Harvey brought us together. In awe at the destruction 50 inches of rain did to East T... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Fri Sep 1 17:04:15 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:04:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mapping Military Weaponry to Local Police In-Reply-To: <1242537059.1279789.1504284919673@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1128764573509.1109057042871.815.0.311134JL.2002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> <1242537059.1279789.1504284919673@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <489424711.1301581.1504285455714@mail.yahoo.com> Not sure how this will show up in the peace list format.  DV | | | | | | | | |   | | | | | "No, the feds shouldn't give war machines to the police." U.S. Senator Rand Paul New York Post | August 28, 2017 | | | Tracking Military Weaponry and War Machines Flowing to America's Local Police Agencies An OpenTheBooks Investigation Published at ForbesRead our editorial: CLICK HERE August 31, 2017 Learn more details through our Facebook page: CLICK HERE Search our interactive map by ZIP code - even small towns are procuring heavy military weaponry. | | | This week Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the rule change allowing weapons - typically used during war-time - to transfer to local police departments through the Department of Defense's 1033 Program. - Tracked armored (tank-like) vehicles - weaponized aircraft and vessels - grenade launchers - bayonets - and firearms with ammunition of .50-caliber or higher. What's the legitimate law enforcement purpose for these weapons? Does the militarization of local police threaten our civil liberties? Read our Forbes editorial, Tracking Military Weaponry and War Machines Flowing to America's Local Police Departments. Search our interactive map for all weaponry transferred to the 6,500 local, state and other federal police agencies across America since 2006. See it all - in your hometown, park district, forest preserve, junior college, university, county, state police - or federal agency such as Homeland Security, Interior and the Justice Department - across any ZIP code! Read our Forbes editorial, Tracking Military Weaponry and War Machines Flowing to America's Local Police Departments. It's Your Money. Join the Transparency Revolution! | | | | | | Adam Andrzejewski (say: Angie-eff-ski)Founder and CEO, OpenTheBooks.com Matthew TyrmandDeputy Director At Large | | | | | | | | | | | STAY UP TO DATE WITH OPEN THE BOOKS!     | | | JOIN THE TRANSPARENCY REVOLUTION AT OPENTHEBOOKS.COM | | | | | | | | | | | | | OpenTheBooks.com | American Transparency, 200 S. Frontage Road, Suite 304, Burr Ridge, IL 60527 | | | SafeUnsubscribe™ divisek at yahoo.com | | Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider | | Sent by adam at openthebooks.com in collaboration with | | | | | | | Try it free today | | | | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 21:53:05 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 16:53:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market Message-ID: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> Stuart— It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) Regards, CGE ============================ Chapter 1: The Empire and the People Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. And: The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? Another soldier's letter of 1899: Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. ### From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Sep 1 22:35:52 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:35:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market In-Reply-To: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> References: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> Hey Carl, They were happy to accept our application. When ready, we can start any week. The reservation system is different: rather than booking a whole year at once as vendors do, musical/spoken-word performers do it a week at a time. For the best chance of getting (a) a space and (b) the time slot we prefer, we should call & ask them during the week preceding the Saturday. Or we can show up on that Saturday morning and ask at the Urbana Market booth to see what's available. [Calling in advance: 384-2319 or urbanamarket at urbanaillinois.us]. Time slots: 7-9am, 9-10:30, 10:30-noon. I'd be happy to be one of the readers. As for source texts, we can try with the original People's History and see how listen-able it is. Voices of a People's History (Zinn & Arnove) is quite good too. It seems intended for reading aloud - as we did for Occupy a few years ago - and each reading has an explanatory preface. Many sections are short enough that some market visitors might stick around to hear a whole section, as some (few) people do when musicians are playing songs that last a few minutes each. This should be fun. Stuart On 09/01/2017 04:53 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > Stuart— > > It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. > > I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. > > It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. > > Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? > > I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) > > Regards, CGE > > ============================ > Chapter 1: The Empire and the People > > Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." > > The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. > > And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. > > Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. > > There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: > > 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. > 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. > 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] > 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. > 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] > 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. > 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. > 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. > 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. > 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. > Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. > > Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: > > In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. > A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: > > A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . > Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." > > Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: > > It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. > These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." > > When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." > > Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." > > William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." > > Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. > > While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." > > Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. > > There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. > > Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. > > It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: > > This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. > However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. > > For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. > > At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: > > This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . > There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: > > It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. > Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. > > There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: > > A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. > The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: > > In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. > As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." > > In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: > > The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. > At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." > > Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." > > There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." > > Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. > > On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." > > Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: > > In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . > Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. > > Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: > > Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. > American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." > > When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the > > . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. > The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: > > A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. > Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: > > If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. > Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." > > But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." > > The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. > > On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." > > The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." > > The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: > > Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. > The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. > > In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. > > The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. > > American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: > > I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. > . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . > > A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . > > Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: > > Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. > The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." > > Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. > > During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. > > The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. > > The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." > > In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." > > A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: > > For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. > And: > > The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . > The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: > > A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible > With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. > > Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." > > Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. > > There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: > > Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. > I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. > > I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: > > 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. > > 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. > > 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and > > 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. > > The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. > > It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. > > The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: > > Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . > The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . > > No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . > > I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . > > My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. > > It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. > > The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. > > In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." > > William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." > > James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." > > The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." > > A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." > > It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. > > In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: > > The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. > Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: > > One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. > Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." > > In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: > > The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." > In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. > > Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: > > We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. > And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. > > American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. > > For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." > > Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. > > On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: > > The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . > When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. > > The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. > > Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. > > Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: > > Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. > The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." > > But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." > > There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. > > Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." > > From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: > > I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? > Another soldier's letter of 1899: > > Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. > Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: > > Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . > A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." > > Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: > > We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . > . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . > > With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . > > It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . > > And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . > > The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. > > ### > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 22:40:36 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:40:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market In-Reply-To: <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> References: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8226B59A-5329-48D5-9A68-6BE250AF0A41@illinois.edu> Is 9-10:30 tomorrow a possibility? I’m away on the 9th. > On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace wrote: > > Hey Carl, > > They were happy to accept our application. When ready, we can start any week. The reservation system is different: rather than booking a whole year at once as vendors do, musical/spoken-word performers do it a week at a time. For the best chance of getting (a) a space and (b) the time slot we prefer, we should call & ask them during the week preceding the Saturday. Or we can show up on that Saturday morning and ask at the Urbana Market booth to see what's available. [Calling in advance: 384-2319 or urbanamarket at urbanaillinois.us ]. > > Time slots: 7-9am, 9-10:30, 10:30-noon. > > I'd be happy to be one of the readers. > > As for source texts, we can try with the original People's History and see how listen-able it is. Voices of a People's History (Zinn & Arnove) is quite good too. It seems intended for reading aloud - as we did for Occupy a few years ago - and each reading has an explanatory preface. Many sections are short enough that some market visitors might stick around to hear a whole section, as some (few) people do when musicians are playing songs that last a few minutes each. > > This should be fun. > > Stuart > > On 09/01/2017 04:53 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> Stuart— >> >> It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. >> >> I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. >> >> It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. >> >> Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? >> >> I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) >> >> Regards, CGE >> >> ============================ >> Chapter 1: The Empire and the People >> >> Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." >> >> The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. >> >> And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. >> >> Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. >> >> There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: >> >> 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. >> 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. >> 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] >> 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. >> 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] >> 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. >> 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. >> 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. >> 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. >> 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. >> Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. >> >> Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: >> >> In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. >> A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: >> >> A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . >> Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." >> >> Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: >> >> It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. >> These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." >> >> When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." >> >> Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." >> >> William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." >> >> Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. >> >> While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." >> >> Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. >> >> There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. >> >> Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. >> >> It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: >> >> This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. >> However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. >> >> For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. >> >> At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: >> >> This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . >> There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: >> >> It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. >> Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. >> >> There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: >> >> A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. >> The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: >> >> In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. >> As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." >> >> In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: >> >> The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. >> At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." >> >> Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." >> >> There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." >> >> Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. >> >> On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." >> >> Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: >> >> In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . >> Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. >> >> Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: >> >> Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. >> American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." >> >> When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the >> >> . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. >> The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: >> >> A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. >> Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: >> >> If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. >> Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." >> >> But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." >> >> The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. >> >> On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." >> >> The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." >> >> The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: >> >> Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. >> The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. >> >> In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. >> >> The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. >> >> American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: >> >> I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. >> . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . >> >> A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . >> >> Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: >> >> Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. >> The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." >> >> Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. >> >> During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. >> >> The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. >> >> The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." >> >> In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." >> >> A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: >> >> For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. >> And: >> >> The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . >> The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: >> >> A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible >> With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. >> >> Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." >> >> Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. >> >> There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: >> >> Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. >> I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. >> >> I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: >> >> 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. >> >> 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. >> >> 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and >> >> 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. >> >> The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. >> >> It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. >> >> The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: >> >> Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . >> The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . >> >> No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . >> >> I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . >> >> My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. >> >> It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. >> >> The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. >> >> In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." >> >> William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." >> >> James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." >> >> The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." >> >> A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." >> >> It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. >> >> In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: >> >> The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. >> Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: >> >> One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. >> Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." >> >> In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: >> >> The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." >> In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. >> >> Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: >> >> We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. >> And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. >> >> American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. >> >> For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." >> >> Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. >> >> On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: >> >> The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . >> When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. >> >> The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. >> >> Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. >> >> Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: >> >> Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. >> The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." >> >> But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." >> >> There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. >> >> Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." >> >> From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: >> >> I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? >> Another soldier's letter of 1899: >> >> Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. >> Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: >> >> Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . >> A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." >> >> Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: >> >> We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . >> . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . >> >> With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . >> >> It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . >> >> And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . >> >> The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. >> >> ### >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From salevy at illinois.edu Fri Sep 1 22:50:20 2017 From: salevy at illinois.edu (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 17:50:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market In-Reply-To: <8226B59A-5329-48D5-9A68-6BE250AF0A41@illinois.edu> References: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> <8226B59A-5329-48D5-9A68-6BE250AF0A41@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <41713a00-0538-840a-5f94-26f30546f645@illinois.edu> It'd be possible to come to the tent tomorrow morning and ask whether they have a space, but we wouldn't know until we got there. On 09/01/2017 05:40 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > Is 9-10:30 tomorrow a possibility? I’m away on the 9th. > > >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 5:35 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace >> > wrote: >> >> Hey Carl, >> >> They were happy to accept our application. When ready, we can start >> any week. The reservation system is different: rather than booking >> a whole year at once as vendors do, musical/spoken-word performers do >> it a week at a time. For the best chance of getting (a) a space and >> (b) the time slot we prefer, we should call & ask them during the >> week preceding the Saturday. Or we can show up on that Saturday >> morning and ask at the Urbana Market booth to see what's available. >> [Calling in advance: 384-2319 or urbanamarket at urbanaillinois.us]. >> >> Time slots: 7-9am, 9-10:30, 10:30-noon. >> >> I'd be happy to be one of the readers. >> >> As for source texts, we can try with the original People's History >> and see how listen-able it is. Voices of a People's History (Zinn & >> Arnove) is quite good too. It seems intended for reading aloud - as >> we did for Occupy a few years ago - and each reading has an >> explanatory preface. Many sections are short enough that some >> market visitors might stick around to hear a whole section, as some >> (few) people do when musicians are playing songs that last a few >> minutes each. >> >> This should be fun. >> >> Stuart >> >> On 09/01/2017 04:53 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> Stuart— >>> >>> It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. >>> >>> I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. >>> >>> It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. >>> >>> Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? >>> >>> I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) >>> >>> Regards, CGE >>> >>> ============================ >>> Chapter 1: The Empire and the People >>> >>> Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." >>> >>> The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. >>> >>> And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. >>> >>> Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. >>> >>> There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: >>> >>> 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. >>> 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. >>> 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] >>> 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. >>> 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] >>> 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. >>> 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. >>> 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. >>> 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. >>> 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. >>> Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. >>> >>> Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: >>> >>> In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. >>> A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: >>> >>> A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . >>> Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." >>> >>> Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: >>> >>> It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. >>> These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." >>> >>> When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." >>> >>> Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." >>> >>> William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." >>> >>> Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. >>> >>> While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." >>> >>> Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. >>> >>> There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. >>> >>> Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. >>> >>> It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: >>> >>> This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. >>> However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. >>> >>> For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. >>> >>> At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: >>> >>> This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . >>> There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: >>> >>> It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. >>> Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. >>> >>> There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: >>> >>> A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. >>> The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: >>> >>> In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. >>> As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." >>> >>> In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: >>> >>> The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. >>> At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." >>> >>> Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." >>> >>> There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." >>> >>> Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. >>> >>> On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." >>> >>> Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: >>> >>> In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . >>> Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. >>> >>> Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: >>> >>> Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. >>> American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." >>> >>> When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the >>> >>> . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. >>> The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: >>> >>> A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. >>> Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: >>> >>> If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. >>> Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." >>> >>> But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." >>> >>> The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. >>> >>> On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." >>> >>> The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." >>> >>> The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: >>> >>> Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. >>> The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. >>> >>> In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. >>> >>> The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. >>> >>> American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: >>> >>> I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. >>> . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . >>> >>> A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . >>> >>> Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: >>> >>> Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. >>> The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." >>> >>> Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. >>> >>> During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. >>> >>> The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. >>> >>> The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." >>> >>> In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." >>> >>> A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: >>> >>> For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. >>> And: >>> >>> The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . >>> The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: >>> >>> A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible >>> With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. >>> >>> Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." >>> >>> Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. >>> >>> There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: >>> >>> Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. >>> I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. >>> >>> I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: >>> >>> 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. >>> >>> 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. >>> >>> 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and >>> >>> 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. >>> >>> The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. >>> >>> It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. >>> >>> The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: >>> >>> Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . >>> The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . >>> >>> No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . >>> >>> I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . >>> >>> My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. >>> >>> It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. >>> >>> The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. >>> >>> In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." >>> >>> William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." >>> >>> James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." >>> >>> The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." >>> >>> A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." >>> >>> It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. >>> >>> In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: >>> >>> The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. >>> Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: >>> >>> One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. >>> Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." >>> >>> In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: >>> >>> The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." >>> In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. >>> >>> Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: >>> >>> We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. >>> And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. >>> >>> American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. >>> >>> For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." >>> >>> Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. >>> >>> On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: >>> >>> The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . >>> When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. >>> >>> The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. >>> >>> Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. >>> >>> Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: >>> >>> Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. >>> The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." >>> >>> But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." >>> >>> There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. >>> >>> Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." >>> >>> From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: >>> >>> I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? >>> Another soldier's letter of 1899: >>> >>> Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. >>> Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: >>> >>> Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . >>> A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." >>> >>> Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: >>> >>> We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . >>> . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . >>> >>> With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . >>> >>> It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . >>> >>> And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . >>> >>> The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. >>> >>> ### >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 01:29:29 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 20:29:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Reading "A People's History" at the Farmer's Market In-Reply-To: <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> References: <2FF572F7-BECB-429A-82FC-7165A732630B@illinois.edu> <844c7086-413e-c0da-2243-b1b76ab4b888@gmail.com> Message-ID: Since the slots are 1.5 to 2 hours at the most... if we get enough readers, do we want to do it for two Saturdays? Banned Book week is Sunday, September 24 through Saturday, September 30, 2017. We could start the week early and also do Saturday, September 23. I cannot perform (I will be busy feeding the good people of CU), so I offer to help with signs or something. peace and all good, -karen medina On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Hey Carl, > > They were happy to accept our application. When ready, we can start any > week. The reservation system is different: rather than booking a whole > year at once as vendors do, musical/spoken-word performers do it a week at > a time. For the best chance of getting (a) a space and (b) the time slot > we prefer, we should call & ask them during the week preceding the > Saturday. Or we can show up on that Saturday morning and ask at the > Urbana Market booth to see what's available. [Calling in advance: 384-2319 > or urbanamarket at urbanaillinois.us]. > > Time slots: 7-9am, 9-10:30, 10:30-noon. > > I'd be happy to be one of the readers. > > As for source texts, we can try with the original People's History and > see how listen-able it is. Voices of a People's History (Zinn & Arnove) is > quite good too. It seems intended for reading aloud - as we did for > Occupy a few years ago - and each reading has an explanatory preface. > Many sections are short enough that some market visitors might stick around > to hear a whole section, as some (few) people do when musicians are playing > songs that last a few minutes each. > > This should be fun. > > Stuart > > > On 09/01/2017 04:53 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Stuart— > > It’s been suggested that AWARE do a viva voce reading from Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” at the Farmers’ Market. > > I’ve obtained a number of copies of “The Twentieth Century” section from Zinn’s book. > > It begins well (see below) and consists of 14 chapters. I think it’s eminently readable aloud. > > Can you get us a “performance stand” for the coming days we’ll be at the Market? > > I’ll try to organize readers. (I’m asking by this note for volunteers - for perhaps half-hour sessions.) > > Regards, CGE > > ============================ > Chapter 1: The Empire and the People > > Theodore Roosevelt wrote to a friend in the year 1897: "In strict confidence . . . I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one." > > The year of the massacre at Wounded Knee, 1890, it was officially declared by the Bureau of the Census that the internal frontier was closed. The profit system, with its natural tendency for expansion, had already begun to look overseas. The severe depression that began in 1893 strengthened an idea developing within the political and financial elite of the country: that overseas markets for American goods might relieve the problem of underconsumption at home and prevent the economic crises that in the 1890s brought class war. > > And would not a foreign adventure deflect some of the rebellious energy that went into strikes and protest movements toward an external enemy? Would it not unite people with government, with the armed forces, instead of against them? This was probably not a conscious plan among most of the elite -- but a natural development from the twin drives of capitalism and nationalism. > > Expansion overseas was not a new idea. Even before the war against Mexico carried the United States to the Pacific, the Monroe Doctrine looked southward into and beyond the Caribbean. Issued in 1823 when the countries of Latin America were winning independence from Spanish control, it made plain to European nations that the United States considered Latin America its sphere of influence. Not long after, some Americans began thinking into the Pacific: of Hawaii, Japan, and the great markets of China. > > There was more than thinking; the American armed forces had made forays overseas. A State Department list, "Instances of the Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad 1798-1945" (presented by Secretary of State Dean Rusk to a Senate committee in 1962 to cite precedents for the use of armed force against Cuba), shows 103 interventions in the affairs of other countries between 1798 and 1895. A sampling from the list, with the exact description given by the State Department: > > 1852-53 -- Argentina -- Marines were landed and maintained in Buenos Aires to protect American interests during a revolution. > 1853 -- Nicaragua -- to protect American lives and interests during political disturbances. > 1853-54 -- Japan -- The "Opening of Japan" and the Perry Expedition. [The State Department does not give more details, but this involved the use of warships to force Japan to open its ports to the United States] > 1853-54 -- Ryukyu and Bonin Islands -- Commodore Perry on three visits before going to Japan and while waiting for a reply from Japan made a naval demonstration, landing marines twice, and secured a coaling concession from the ruler of Naha on Okinawa. He also demonstrated in the Bonin Islands. All to secure facilities for commerce. > 1854 -- Nicaragua -- San Juan del Norte [Greytown was destroyed to avenge an insult to the American Minister to Nicaragua.] > 1855 -- Uruguay -- U.S. and European naval forces landed to protect American interests during an attempted revolution in Montevideo. > 1859 -- China -- For the protection of American interests in Shanghai. > 1860 -- Angola, Portuguese West Africa -- To protect American lives and property at Kissembo when the natives became troublesome. > 1893 -- Hawaii -- Ostensibly to protect American lives and property; actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole This action was disavowed by the United States. > 1894 -- Nicaragua -- To protect American interests at Bluefields following a revolution. > Thus, by the 1890s, there had been much experience in overseas probes and interventions. The ideology of expansion was widespread in the upper circles of military men, politicians, businessmen -- and even among some of the leaders of farmers' movements who thought foreign markets would help them. > > Captain A. T. Mahan of the U.S. navy, a popular propagandist for expansion, greatly influenced Theodore Roosevelt and other American leaders. The countries with the biggest navies would inherit the earth, he said. "Americans must now begin to look outward." Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts wrote in a magazine article: > > In the interests of our commerce . . . we should build the Nicaragua canal, and for the protection of that canal and for the sake of our commercial supremacy in the Pacific we should control the Hawaiian islands and maintain our influence in Samoa . . . and when the Nicaraguan canal is built, the island of Cuba . . . will become a necessity. . . . The great nations are rapidly absorbing for their future expansion and their present defense all the waste places of the earth. It is a movement which makes for civilization and the advancement of the race. As one of the great nations of the world the United States must not fall out of the line of march. > A Washington Post editorial on the eve of the Spanish-American war: > > A new consciousness seems to have come upon us -- the consciousness of strength -- and with it a new appetite, the yearning to show our strength. . . . Ambition, interest, land hunger, pride, the mere joy of fighting, whatever it may be, we are animated by a new sensation. We are face to face with a strange destiny. The taste of Empire is in the mouth of the people even as the taste of blood in the jungle. . . . > Was that taste in the mouth of the people through some instinctive lust for aggression or some urgent self-interest? Or was it a taste (if indeed it existed) created, encouraged, advertised, and exaggerated by the millionaire press, the military, the government, the eager-to-please scholars of the time? Political scientist John Burgess of Columbia University said the Teutonic and Anglo-Saxon races were "particularly endowed with the capacity for establishing national states . . . they are entrusted . . . with the mission of conducting the political civilization of the modern world." > > Several years before his election to the presidency, William McKinley said: "We want a foreign market for our surplus products." Senator Albert Beveridge of Indiana in early 1897 declared: "American factories are making more than the American people can use; American soil is producing more than they can consume. Fate has written our policy for us; the trade of the world must and shall be ours." The Department of State explained in 1898: > > It seems to be conceded that every year we shall be confronted with an increasing surplus of manufactured goods for sale in foreign markets if American operatives and artisans are to be kept employed the year around. The enlargement of foreign consumption of the products of our mills and workshops has, therefore, become a serious problem of statesmanship as well as of commerce. > These expansionist military men and politicians were in touch with one another. One of Theodore Roosevelt's biographers tells us: "By 1890, Lodge, Roosevelt, and Mahan had begun exchanging views," and that they tried to get Mahan off sea duty "so that he could continue full-time his propaganda for expansion." Roosevelt once sent Henry Cabot Lodge a copy of a poem by Rudyard Kipling, saying it was "poor poetry, but good sense from the expansionist standpoint." > > When the United States did not annex Hawaii in 1893 after some Americans (the combined missionary and pineapple interests of the Dole family) set up their own government, Roosevelt called this hesitancy "a crime against white civilization." And he told the Naval War College: "All the great masterful races have been fighting races. . . . No triumph of peace is quite so great as the supreme triumph of war." > > Roosevelt was contemptuous of races and nations he considered inferior. When a mob in New Orleans lynched a number of Italian immigrants, Roosevelt thought the United States should offer the Italian government some remuneration, but privately he wrote his sister that he thought the lynching was "rather a good thing" and told her he had said as much at a dinner with "various dago diplomats . . . all wrought up by the lynching." > > William James, the philosopher, who became one of the leading anti-imperialists of his time, wrote about Roosevelt that he "gushes over war as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . ." > > Roosevelt's talk of expansionism was not just a matter of manliness and heroism; he was conscious of "our trade relations with China." Lodge was aware of the textile interests in Massachusetts that looked to Asian markets. Historian Marilyn Young has written of the work of the American China Development Company to expand American influence in China for commercial reasons, and of State Department instructions to the American emissary in China to "employ all proper methods for the extension of American interests in China." She says (The Rhetoric of Empire) that the talk about markets in China was far greater than the actual amount of dollars involved at the time, but this talk was important in shaping American policy toward Hawaii, the Philippines, and all of Asia. > > While it was true that in 1898, 90 percent of American products were sold at home, the 10 percent sold abroad amounted to a billion dollars. Walter Lafeber writes (The New Empire): "By 1893, American trade exceeded that of every country in the world except England. Farm products, of course, especially in the key tobacco, cotton, and wheat areas, had long depended heavily on international markets for their prosperity." And in the twenty years up to 1895, new investments by American capitalists overseas reached a billion dollars. In 1885, the steel industry's publication Age of Steel wrote that the internal markets were insufficient and the overproduction of industrial products "should be relieved and prevented in the future by increased foreign trade." > > Oil became a big export in the 1880s and 1890s: by 1891, the Rockefeller family's Standard Oil Company accounted for 90 percent of American exports of kerosene and controlled 70 percent of the world market. Oil was now second to cotton as the leading product sent overseas. > > There were demands for expansion by large commercial farmers, including some of the Populist leaders, as William Appleman Williams has shown in The Roots of the Modern American Empire. Populist Congressman Jerry Simpson of Kansas told Congress in 1892 that with a huge agricultural surplus, farmers "must of necessity seek a foreign market." True, he was not calling for aggression or conquest -- but once foreign markets were seen as important to prosperity, expansionist policies, even war, might have wide appeal. > > Such an appeal would be especially strong if the expansion looked like an act of generosity -- helping a rebellious group overthrow foreign rule -- as in Cuba. By 1898, Cuban rebels had been fighting their Spanish conquerors for three years in an attempt to win independence. By that time, it was possible to create a national mood for intervention. > > It seems that the business interests of the nation did not at first want military intervention in Cuba. American merchants did not need colonies or wars of conquest if they could just have free access to markets. This idea of an "open door" became the dominant theme of American foreign policy in the twentieth century. It was a more sophisticated approach to imperialism than the traditional empire-building of Europe. William Appleman Williams, in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, says: > > This national argument is usually interpreted as a battle between imperialists led by Roosevelt and Lodge and anti-imperialists led by William Jennings Bryan and Carl Schurz. It is far more accurate and illuminating, however, to view it as a three-cornered fight. The third group was a coalition of businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians who opposed traditional colonialism and advocated instead a policy of an open door through which America's preponderant economic strength would enter and dominate all underdeveloped areas of the world. > However, this preference on the part of some business groups and politicians for what Williams calls the idea of "informal empire," without war, was always subject to change. If peaceful imperialism turned out to be impossible, military action might be needed. > > For instance, in late 1897 and early 1898, with China weakened by a recent war with Japan, German military forces occupied the Chinese port of Tsingtao at the mouth of Kiaochow Bay and demanded a naval station there, with rights to railways and coal mines on the nearby peninsula of Shantung. Within the next few months, other European powers moved in on China, and the partition of China by the major imperialist powers was under way, with the United States left behind. > > At this point, the New York Journal of Commerce, which had advocated peaceful development of free trade, now urged old-fashioned military colonialism. Julius Pratt, a historian of U.S. expansionism, describes the turnabout: > > This paper, which has been heretofore characterized as pacifist, anti-imperialist, and devoted to the development of commerce in a free-trade world, saw the foundation of its faith crumbling as a result of the threatened partition of China. Declaring that free access to the markets of China, with its 400,000,000 people, would largely solve the problem of the disposal of our surplus manufactures, the Journal came out not only for a stern insistence upon complete equality of rights in China but unreservedly also for an isthmian canal, the acquisition of Hawaii, and a material increase in the navy -- three measures which it had hitherto strenuously opposed. Nothing could be more significant than the manner in which this paper was converted in a few weeks. . . . > There was a similar turnabout in U.S. business attitudes on Cuba in 1898. Businessmen had been interested, from the start of the Cuban revolt against Spain, in the effect on commercial possibilities there. There already was a substantial economic interest in the island, which President Grover Cleveland summarized in 1896: > > It is reasonably estimated that at least from $30,000,000 to $50,000,000 of American capital are invested in the plantations and in railroad, mining, and other business enterprises on the island. The volume of trade between the United States and Cuba, which in 1889 amounted to about $64,000,000, rose in 1893 to about $103,000,000. > Popular support of the Cuban revolution was based on the thought that they, like the Americans of 1776, were fighting a war for their own liberation. The United States government, however, the conservative product of another revolutionary war, had power and profit in mind as it observed the events in Cuba. Neither Cleveland, President during the first years of the Cuban revolt, nor McKinley, who followed, recognized the insurgents officially as belligerents; such legal recognition would have enabled the United States to give aid to the rebels without sending an army. But there may have been fear that the rebels would win on their own and keep the United States out. > > There seems also to have been another kind of fear. The Cleveland administration said a Cuban victory might lead to "the establishment of a white and a black republic," since Cuba had a mixture of the two races. And the black republic might be dominant. This idea was expressed in 1896 in an article in The Saturday Review by a young and eloquent imperialist, whose mother was American and whose father was English -- Winston Churchill. He wrote that while Spanish rule was bad and the rebels had the support of the people, it would be better for Spain to keep control: > > A grave danger represents itself. Two-fifths of the insurgents in the field are negroes. These men . . . would, in the event of success, demand a predominant share in the government of the country . . . the result being, after years of fighting, another black republic. > The reference to "another" black republic meant Haiti, whose revolution against France in 1803 had led to the first nation run by blacks in the New World. The Spanish minister to the United States wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State: > > In this revolution, the negro element has the most important part. Not only the principal leaders are colored men, but at least eight-tenths of their supporters. . . . and the result of the war, if the Island can be declared independent, will be a secession of the black element and a black Republic. > As Philip Foner says in his two-volume study The Spanish-Cuban-American War, "The McKinley Administration had plans for dealing with the Cuban situation, but these did not include independence for the island." He points to the administration's instructions to its minister to Spain, Stewart Woodford, asking him to try to settle the war because it "injuriously affects the normal function of business, and tends to delay the condition of prosperity," but not mentioning freedom and justice for the Cubans. Foner explains the rush of the McKinley administration into war (its ultimatum gave Spain little time to negotiate) by the fact that "if the United States waited too long, the Cuban revolutionary forces would emerge victorious, replacing the collapsing Spanish regime." > > In February 1898, the U.S. battleship Maine, in Havana harbor as a symbol of American interest in the Cuban events, was destroyed by a mysterious explosion and sank, with the loss of 268 men. There was no evidence ever produced on the cause of the explosion, but excitement grew swiftly in the United States, and McKinley began to move in the direction of war. Walter Lafeber says: > > The President did not want war; he had been sincere and tireless in his efforts to maintain the peace. By mid-March, however, he was beginning to discover that, although he did not want war, he did want what only a war could provide; the disappearance of the terrible uncertainty in American political and economic life, and a solid basis from which to resume the building of the new American commercial empire. > At a certain point in that spring, both McKinley and the business community began to see that their object, to get Spain out of Cuba, could not be accomplished without war, and that their accompanying object, the securing of American military and economic influence in Cuba, could not be left to the Cuban rebels, but could be ensured only by U.S. intervention. The New York Commercial Advertiser, at first against war, by March 10 asked intervention in Cuba for "humanity and love of freedom, and above all, the desire that the commerce and industry of every part of the world shall have full freedom of development in the whole world's interest." > > Before this, Congress had passed the Teller Amendment, pledging the United States not to annex Cuba. It was initiated and supported by those people who were interested in Cuban independence and opposed to American imperialism, and also by business people who saw the "open door" as sufficient and military intervention unnecessary. But by the spring of 1898, the business community had developed a hunger for action. The Journal of Commerce said: "The Teller amendment . . . must be interpreted in a sense somewhat different from that which its author intended it to bear." > > There were special interests who would benefit directly from war. In Pittsburgh, center of the iron industry, the Chamber of Commerce advocated force, and the Chattanooga Tradesman said that the possibility of war "has decidedly stimulated the iron trade." It also noted that "actual war would very decidedly enlarge the business of transportation." In Washington, it was reported that a "belligerent spirit" had infected the Navy Department, encouraged "by the contractors for projectiles, ordnance, ammunition and other supplies, who have thronged the department since the destruction of the Maine." > > Russell Sage, the banker, said that if war came, "There is no question as to where the rich men stand." A survey of businessmen said that John Jacob Astor, William Rockefeller, and Thomas Fortune Ryan were "feeling militant." And J. P. Morgan believed further talk with Spain would accomplish nothing. > > On March 21, 1898, Henry Cabot Lodge wrote McKinley a long letter, saying he had talked with "bankers, brokers, businessmen, editors, clergymen and others" in Boston, Lynn, and Nahant, and "everybody," including "the most conservative classes," wanted the Cuban question "solved." Lodge reported: "They said for business one shock and then an end was better than a succession of spasms such as we must have if this war in Cuba went on." On March 25, a telegram arrived at the White House from an adviser to McKinley, saying: "Big corporations here now believe we will have war. Believe all would welcome it as relief to suspense." > > Two days after getting this telegram, McKinley presented an ultimatum to Spain, demanding an armistice. He said nothing about independence for Cuba. A spokesman for the Cuban rebels, part of a group of Cubans in New York, interpreted this to mean the U.S. simply wanted to replace Spain. He responded: > > In the face of the present proposal of intervention without previous recognition of independence, it is necessary for us to go a step farther and say that we must and will regard such intervention as nothing less than a declaration of war by the United States against the Cuban revolutionists. . . . > Indeed, when McKinley asked Congress for war on April 11, he did not recognize the rebels as belligerents or ask for Cuban independence. Nine days later, Congress, by joint resolution, gave McKinley the power to intervene. When American forces moved into Cuba, the rebels welcomed them, hoping the Teller Amendment would guarantee Cuban independence. > > Many histories of the Spanish-American war have said that "public opinion" in the United States led McKinley to declare war on Spain and send forces to Cuba. True, certain influential newspapers had been pushing hard, even hysterically. And many Americans, seeing the aim of intervention as Cuban independence -- and with the Teller Amendment as guarantee of this intention -- supported the idea. But would McKinley have gone to war because of the press and some portion of the public (we had no public opinion surveys at that time) without the urging of the business community? Several years after the Cuban war, the chief of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce of the Department of Commerce wrote about that period: > > Underlying the popular sentiment, which might have evaporated in time, which forced the United States to take up arms against Spanish rule in Cuba, were our economic relations with the West Indies and the South American republics. . . . The Spanish-American War was but an incident of a general movement of expansion which had its roots in the changed environment of an industrial capacity far beyond our domestic powers of consumption. It was seen to be necessary for us not only to find foreign purchasers for our goods, but to provide the means of making access to foreign markets easy, economical and safe. > American labor unions had sympathy for the Cuban rebels as soon as the insurrection against Spain began in 1895. But they opposed American expansionism. Both the Knights of Labor and the American Federation of Labor spoke against the idea of annexing Hawaii, which McKinley proposed in 1897. Despite the feeling for the Cuban rebels, a resolution calling for U.S. intervention was defeated at the 1897 convention of the AFL. Samuel Gompers of the AFL wrote to a friend: "The sympathy of our movement with Cuba is genuine, earnest, and sincere, but this does not for a moment imply that we are committed to certain adventurers who are apparently suffering from Hysteria. . . ." > > When the explosion of the Maine in February led to excited calls for war in the press, the monthly journal of the International Association of Machinists agreed it was a terrible disaster, but it noted that the deaths of workers in industrial accidents drew no such national clamor. It pointed to the Lattimer Massacre of September 10, 1897, during a coal strike in Pennsylvania. Miners marching on a highway to the Lattimer mine -- Austrians, Hungarians, Italians, Germans -- who had originally been imported as strikebreakers but then organized themselves, refused to disperse, whereupon the sheriff and his deputies opened fire, killing nineteen of them, most shot in the back, with no outcry in the press. The labor journal said that the > > . . . carnival of carnage that takes place every day, month and year in the realm of industry, the thousands of useful lives that are annually sacrificed to the Moloch of greed, the blood tribute paid by labor to capitalism, brings forth no shout for vengeance and reparation. . . . Death comes in thousands of instances in mill and mine, claims his victims, and no popular uproar is heard. > The official organ of the Connecticut AFL, The Craftsman, also warned about the hysteria worked up by the sinking of the Maine: > > A gigantic . . . and cunningly-devised scheme is being worked ostensibly to place the United States in the front rank as a naval and military power. The real reason is that the capitalists will have the whole thing and, when any workingmen dare to ask for the living wage . . . they will be shot down like dogs in the streets. > Some unions, like the United Mine Workers, called for U.S. intervention after the sinking of the Maine. But most were against war. The treasurer of the American Longshoremen's Union, Bolton Hall, wrote "A Peace Appeal to Labor," which was widely circulated: > > If there is a war, you will furnish the corpses and the taxes, and others will get the glory. Speculators will make money out of it -- that is, out of you. Men will get high prices for inferior supplies, leaky boats, for shoddy clothes and pasteboard shoes, and you will have to pay the bill, and the only satisfaction you will get is the privilege of hating your Spanish fellow-workmen, who are really your brothers and who have had as little to do with the wrongs of Cuba as you have. > Socialists opposed the war. One exception was the Jewish Daily Forward. The People, newspaper of the Socialist Labor party, called the issue of Cuban freedom "a pretext" and said the government wanted war to "distract the attention of the workers from their real interests." The Appeal to Reason, another Socialist newspaper, said the movement for war was "a favorite method of rulers for keeping the people from redressing domestic wrongs." In the San Francisco Voice of Labor a Socialist wrote: "It is a terrible thing to think that the poor workers of this country should be sent to kill and wound the poor workers of Spain merely because a few leaders may incite them to do so." > > But after war was declared, Foner says, "the majority of the trade unions succumbed to the war fever." Samuel Gompers called the war "glorious and righteous" and claimed that 250,000 trade unionists had volunteered for military service. The United Mine Workers pointed to higher coal prices as a result of the war and said: "The coal and iron trades have not been so healthy for some years past as at present." > > The war brought more employment and higher wages, but also higher prices. Foner says: "Not only was there a startling increase in the cost of living, but, in the absence of an income tax, the poor found themselves paying almost entirely for the staggering costs of the war through increased levies on sugar, molasses, tobacco, and other taxes. . . ." Gompers, publicly for the war, privately pointed out that the war had led to a 20 percent reduction of the purchasing power of workers' wages. > > On May Day, 1898, the Socialist Labor party organized an antiwar parade in New York City, but the authorities would not allow it to take place, while a May Day parade called by the Jewish Daily Forward, urging Jewish workers to support the war, was permitted. The Chicago Labor World said: "This has been a poor man's war -- paid for by the poor man. The rich have profited by it, as they always do. . . ." > > The Western Labor Union was founded at Salt Lake City on May 10, 1898, because the AFL had not organized unskilled workers. It wanted to bring together all workers "irrespective of occupation, nationality, creed or color" and "sound the death knell of every corporation and trust that has robbed the American laborer of the fruits of his toil. . . ." The union's publication, noting the annexation of Hawaii during the war, said this proved that "the war which started as one of relief for the starving Cubans has suddenly changed to one of conquest." > > The prediction made by longshoreman Bolton Hall, of wartime corruption and profiteering, turned out to be remarkably accurate. Richard Morris's Encyclopedia of American History gives startling figures: > > Of the more than 274,000 officers and men who served in the army during the Spanish-American War and the period of demobilization, 5,462 died in the various theaters of operation and in camps in the U.S. Only 379 of the deaths were battle casualties, the remainder being attributed to disease and other causes. > The same figures are given by Walter Millis in his book The Martial Spirit. In the Encyclopedia they are given tersely, and without mention of the "embalmed beef" (an army general's term) sold to the army by the meatpackers -- meat preserved with boric acid, nitrate of potash, and artificial coloring matter. > > In May of 1898, Armour and Company, the big meatpacking company of Chicago, sold the army 500,000 pounds of beef which had been sent to Liverpool a year earlier and had been returned. Two months later, an army inspector tested the Armour meat, which had been stamped and approved by an inspector of the Bureau of Animal Industry, and found 751 cases containing rotten meat. In the first sixty cases he opened, he found fourteen tins already burst, "the effervescent putrid contents of which were distributed all over the cases." (The description comes from the Report of the Commission to Investigate the Conduct of the War Department in the War with Spain, made to the Senate in 1900.) Thousands of soldiers got food poisoning. There are no figures on how many of the five thousand noncombat deaths were caused by that. > > The Spanish forces were defeated in three months, in what John Hay, the American Secretary of State, later called a "splendid little war." The American military pretended that the Cuban rebel army did not exist. When the Spanish surrendered, no Cuban was allowed to confer on the surrender, or to sign it. General William Shafter said no armed rebels could enter the capital city of Santiago, and told the Cuban rebel leader, General Calixto Garcia, that not Cubans, but the old Spanish civil authorities, would remain in charge of the municipal offices in Santiago. > > American historians have generally ignored the role of the Cuban rebels in the war; Philip Foner, in his history, was the first to print Garcia's letter of protest to General Shafter: > > I have not been honored with a single word from yourself informing me about the negotiations for peace or the terms of the capitulation by the Spaniards. > . . . when the question arises of appointing authorities in Santiago de Cuba . . . I cannot see but with the deepest regret that such authorities are not elected by the Cuban people, but are the same ones selected by the Queen of Spain. . . . > > A rumor too absurd to be believed, General, describes the reason of your measures and of the orders forbidding my army to enter Santiago for fear of massacres and revenge against the Spaniards. Allow me, sir, to protest against even the shadow of such an idea. We are not savages ignoring the rules of civilized warfare. We are a poor, ragged army, as ragged and poor as was the army of your forefathers in their noble war for independence. . . . > > Along with the American army in Cuba came American capital. Foner writes: > > Even before the Spanish flag was down in Cuba, U.S. business interests set out to make their influence felt. Merchants, real estate agents, stock speculators, reckless adventurers, and promoters of all kinds of get-rich schemes flocked to Cuba by the thousands. Seven syndicates battled each other for control of the franchises for the Havana Street Railway, which were finally won by Percival Farquhar, representing the Wall Street interests of New York. Thus, simultaneously with the military occupation began . . . commercial occupation. > The Lumbermen's Review, spokesman for the lumber industry, said in the midst of the war: "The moment Spain drops the reigns of government in Cuba . . . the moment will arrive for American lumber interests to move into the island for the products of Cuban forests. Cuba still possesses 10,000,000 acres of virgin forest abounding in valuable timber . . . nearly every foot of which would be saleable in the United States and bring high prices." > > Americans began taking over railroad, mine, and sugar properties when the war ended. In a few years, $30 million of American capital was invested. United Fruit moved into the Cuban sugar industry. It bought 1,900,000 acres of land for about twenty cents an acre. The American Tobacco Company arrived. By the end of the occupation, in 1901, Foner estimates that at least 80 percent of the export of Cuba's minerals were in American hands, mostly Bethlehem Steel. > > During the military occupation a series of strikes took place. In September 1899, a gathering of thousands of workers in Havana launched a general strike for the eight-hour day, saying, ". . . we have determined to promote the struggle between the worker and the capitalist. For the workers of Cuba will no longer tolerate remaining in total subjection." The American General William Ludlow ordered the mayor of Havana to arrest eleven strike leaders, and U.S. troops occupied railroad stations and docks. Police moved through the city breaking up meetings. But the economic activity of the city had come to a halt. Tobacco workers struck. Printers struck. Bakers went on strike. Hundreds of strikers were arrested, and some of the imprisoned leaders were intimidated into calling for an end to the strike. > > The United States did not annex Cuba. But a Cuban Constitutional Convention was told that the United States army would not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment, passed by Congress in February 1901, was incorporated into the new Cuban Constitution. This Amendment gave the United States "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty. . . . " It also provided for the United States to get coaling or naval stations at certain specified points. > > The Teller Amendment and the talk of Cuban freedom before and during the war had led many Americans -- and Cubans -- to expect genuine independence. The Platt Amendment was now seen, not only by the radical and labor press, but by newspapers and groups all over the United States, as a betrayal. A mass meeting of the American Anti-Imperialist League at Faneuil Hall in Boston denounced it, ex-governor George Boutwell saying: "In disregard of our pledge of freedom and sovereignty to Cuba we are imposing on that island conditions of colonial vassalage." > > In Havana, a torchlight procession of fifteen thousand Cubans marched on the Constitutional Convention, urging them to reject the Amendment. But General Leonard Wood, head of the occupation forces, assured McKinley: "The people of Cuba lend themselves readily to all sorts of demonstrations and parades, and little significance should be attached to them." > > A committee was delegated by the Constitutional Convention to reply to the United States' insistence that the Platt Amendment be included in the Constitution. The committee report, Penencia a la Convencion, was written by a black delegate from Santiago. It said: > > For the United States to reserve to itself the power to determine when this independence was threatened, and when, therefore, it should intervene to preserve it, is equivalent to handing over the keys to our house so that they can enter it at any time, whenever the desire seizes them, day or night, whether with good or evil design. > And: > > The only Cuban governments that would live would be those which count on the support and benevolence of the United States, and the clearest result of this situation would be that we would only have feeble and miserable governments . . . condemned to live more attentive to obtaining the blessings of the United States than to serving and defending the interests of Cuba. . . . > The report termed the request for coaling or naval stations "a mutilation of the fatherland." It concluded: > > A people occupied militarily is being told that before consulting their own government, before being free in their own territory, they should grant the military occupants who came as friends and allies, rights and powers which would annul the sovereignty of these very people. That is the situation created for us by the method which the United States has just adopted. It could not be more obnoxious and inadmissible > With this report, the Convention overwhelmingly rejected the Platt Amendment. > > Within the next three months, however, the pressure from the United States, the military occupation, the refusal to allow the Cubans to set up their own government until they acquiesced, had its effect; the Convention, after several refusals, adopted the Platt Amendment. General Leonard Wood wrote in 1901 to Theodore Roosevelt: "There is, of course, little or no independence left Cuba under the Platt Amendment." > > Cuba was thus brought into the American sphere, but not as an outright colony. However, the Spanish-American war did lead to a number of direct annexations by the United States. Puerto Rico, a neighbor of Cuba in the Caribbean, belonging to Spain, was taken over by U.S. military forces. The Hawaiian Islands, one-third of the way across the Pacific, which had already been penetrated by American missionaries and pineapple plantation owners, and had been described by American officials as "a ripe pear ready to be plucked," was annexed by joint resolution of Congress in July of 1898. Around the same time, Wake Island, 2,300 miles west of Hawaii, on the route to Japan, was occupied. And Guam, the Spanish possession in the Pacific, almost all the way to the Philippines, was taken. In December of 1898, the peace treaty was signed with Spain, officially turning over to the United States Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, for a payment of $20 million. > > There was heated argument in the United States about whether or not to take the Philippines. As one story has it, President McKinley told a group of ministers visiting the White House how he came to his decision: > > Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. . . . The truth is I didn't want the Philippines, and when they came to us as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. . . . I sought counsel from all sides -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- but got little help. > I thought first we would only take Manila; then Luzon, then other islands, perhaps, also. > > I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way -- I don't know how it was, but it came: > > 1) That we could not give them back to Spain -- that would be cowardly and dishonorable. > > 2) That we could not turn them over to France or Germany, our commercial rivals in the Orient -- that would be bad business and discreditable. > > 3) That we could not leave them to themselves -- they were unfit for self-government -- and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain's was; and > > 4) That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed and went to sleep and slept soundly. > > The Filipinos did not get the same message from God. In February 1899, they rose in revolt against American rule, as they had rebelled several times against the Spanish. Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipino leader, who had earlier been brought back from China by U.S. warships to lead soldiers against Spain, now became leader of the insurrectos fighting the United States. He proposed Filipino independence within a U.S. protectorate, but this was rejected. > > It took the United States three years to crush the rebellion, using seventy thousand troops -- four times as many as were landed in Cuba -- and thousands of battle casualties, many times more than in Cuba. It was a harsh war. For the Filipinos the death rate was enormous from battle casualties and from disease. > > The taste of empire was on the lips of politicians and business interests throughout the country now. Racism, paternalism, and talk of money mingled with talk of destiny and civilization. In the Senate, Albert Beveridge spoke, January 9, 1900, for the dominant economic and political interests of the country: > > Mr. President, the times call for candor. The Philippines are ours forever. . . . And just beyond the Philippines are China's illimitable markets. We will not retreat from either. . . . We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race, trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. . . . > The Pacific is our ocean. . . . Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus? Geography answers the question. China is our natural customer. . . . The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East. . . . > > No land in America surpasses in fertility the plains and valleys of Luzon. Rice and coffee, sugar and cocoanuts, hemp and tobacco. . . . The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu the best informed man on the island told me that 40 miles of Cebu's mountain chain are practically mountains of coal. . . . > > I have a nugget of pure gold picked up in its present form on the banks of a Philippine creek. . . . > > My own belief is that there are not 100 men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means, and there are over 5,000,000 people to be governed. > > It has been charged that our conduct of the war has been cruel. Senators, it has been the reverse. . . . Senators must remember that we are not dealing with Americans or Europeans. We are dealing with Orientals. > > The fighting with the rebels began, McKinley said, when the insurgents attacked American forces. But later, American soldiers testified that the United States had fired the first shot. After the war, an army officer speaking in Boston's Faneuil Hall said his colonel had given him orders to provoke a conflict with the insurgents. > > In February 1899, a banquet took place in Boston to celebrate the Senate's ratification of the peace treaty with Spain. President McKinley himself had been invited by the wealthy textile manufacturer W. B. Plunkett to speak. It was the biggest banquet in the nation's history: two thousand diners, four hundred waiters. McKinley said that "no imperial designs lurk in the American mind," and at the same banquet, to the same diners, his Postmaster General, Charles Emory Smith, said that "what we want is a market for our surplus." > > William James, the Harvard philosopher, wrote a letter to the Boston Transcript about "the cold pot grease of McKinley's cant at the recent Boston banquet" and said the Philippine operation "reeked of the infernal adroitness of the great department store, which has reached perfect expertness in the art of killing silently, and with no public squalling or commotion, the neighboring small concerns." > > James was part of a movement of prominent American businessmen, politicians, and intellectuals who formed the Anti-Imperialist League in 1898 and carried on a long campaign to educate the American public about the horrors of the Philippine war and the evils of imperialism. It was an odd group (Andrew Carnegie belonged), including antilabor aristocrats and scholars, united in a common moral outrage at what was being done to the Filipinos in the name of freedom. Whatever their differences on other matters, they would all agree with William James's angry statement: "God damn the U.S. for its vile conduct in the Philippine Isles." > > The Anti-Imperialist League published the letters of soldiers doing duty in the Philippines. A captain from Kansas wrote: "Caloocan was supposed to contain 17,000 inhabitants. The Twentieth Kansas swept through it, and now Caloocan contains not one living native." A private from the same outfit said he had "with my own hand set fire to over fifty houses of Filipinos after the victory at Caloocan. Women and children were wounded by our fire." > > A volunteer from the state of Washington wrote: "Our fighting blood was up, and we all wanted to kill 'niggers.' . . . This shooting human beings beats rabbit hunting all to pieces." > > It was a time of intense racism in the United States. In the years between 1889 and 1903, on the average, every week, two Negroes were lynched by mobs -- hanged, burned, mutilated. The Filipinos were brown-skinned, physically identifiable, strange-speaking and strange-looking to Americans. To the usual indiscriminate brutality of war was thus added the factor of racial hostility. > > In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger reported: > > The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. . . . Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to make them talk, and have taken prisoners people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down, as examples to those who found their bullet-loaded corpses. > Early in 1901 an American general returning to the United States from southern Luzon, said: > > One-sixth of the natives of Luzon have either been killed or have died of the dengue fever in the last few years. The loss of life by killing alone has been very great, but I think not one man has been slain except where his death has served the legitimate purposes of war. It has been necessary to adopt what in other countries would probably be thought harsh measures. > Secretary of War Elihu Root responded to the charges of brutality: "The war in the Philippines has been conducted by the American army with scrupulous regard for the rules of civilized warfare. . . . with self-restraint and with humanity never surpassed." > > In Manila, a Marine named Littletown Waller, a major, was accused of shooting eleven defenseless Filipinos, without trial, on the island of Samar. Other marine officers described his testimony: > > The major said that General Smith instructed him to kill and burn, and said that the more he killed and burned the better pleased he would be; that it was no time to take prisoners, and that he was to make Samar a howling wilderness. Major Waller asked General Smith to define the age limit for killing, and he replied "Everything over ten." > In the province of Batangas, the secretary of the province estimated that of the population of 300,000, one-third had been killed by combat, famine, or disease. > > Mark Twain commented on the Philippine war: > > We have pacified some thousands of the islanders and buried them; destroyed their fields; burned their villages, and turned their widows and orphans out-of-doors; furnished heartbreak by exile to some dozens of disagreeable patriots; subjugated the remaining ten millions by Benevolent Assimilation, which is the pious new name of the musket; we have acquired property in the three hundred concubines and other slaves of our business partner, the Sultan of Sulu, and hoisted our protecting flag over that swag. > And so, by these Providences of God -- and the phrase is the government's, not mine -- we are a World Power. > > American firepower was overwhelmingly superior to anything the Filipino rebels could put together. In the very first battle, Admiral Dewey steamed up the Pasig River and fired 500-pound shells into the Filipino trenches. Dead Filipinos were piled so high that the Americans used their bodies for breastworks. A British witness said: "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery." He was wrong; it was war. > > For the rebels to hold out against such odds for years meant that they had the support of the population. General Arthur MacArthur, commander of the Filipino war, said: " . . . I believed that Aguinaldo's troops represented only a faction. I did not like to believe that the whole population of Luzon -- the native population, that is -- was opposed to us." But he said he was "reluctantly compelled" to believe this because the guerrilla tactics of the Filipino army "depended upon almost complete unity of action of the entire native population." > > Despite the growing evidence of brutality and the work of the Anti-Imperialist League, some of the trade unions in the United States supported the action in the Philippines. The Typographical Union said it liked the idea of annexing more territory because English-language schools in those areas would help the printing trade. The publication of the glassmakers saw value in new territories that would buy glass. The railroad brotherhoods saw shipment of U.S. goods to the new territories meaning more work for railroad workers. Some unions repeated what big business was saying, that territorial expansion, by creating a market for surplus goods, would prevent another depression. > > On the other hand, when the Leather Workers' Journal wrote that an increase in wages at home would solve the problem of surplus by creating more purchasing power inside the country, the Carpenters' Journal asked: "How much better off are the workingmen of England through all its colonial possessions?" The National Labor Tribune, publication of the Iron, Steel, and Tin Workers, agreed that the Philippines were rich with resources, but added: > > The same can be said of this country, but if anybody were to ask you if you owned a coal mine, a sugar plantation, or railroad you would have to say no . . . all those things are in the hands of the trusts controlled by a few. . . . > When the treaty for annexation of the Philippines was up for debate in Congress in early 1899, the Central Labor Unions of Boston and New York opposed it. There was a mass meeting in New York against annexation. The Anti-Imperialist League circulated more than a million pieces of literature against taking the Philippines. (Foner says that while the League was organized and dominated by intellectuals and business people, a large part of its half-million members were working-class people, including women and blacks.) Locals of the League held meetings all over the country. The campaign against the Treaty was a powerful one, and when the Senate did ratify it, it was by one vote. > > The mixed reactions of labor to the war -- lured by economic advantage, yet repelled by capitalist expansion and violence -- ensured that labor could not unite either to stop the war or to conduct class war against the system at home. The reactions of black soldiers to the war were also mixed: there was the simple need to get ahead in a society where opportunities for success were denied the black man, and the military life gave such possibilities. There was race pride, the need to show that blacks were as courageous, as patriotic, as anyone else. And yet, there was with all this the consciousness of a brutal war, fought against colored people, a counterpart of the violence committed against black people in the United States. > > Willard Gatewood, in his book Smoked Yankees and the Struggle for Empire, reproduces and analyzes 114 letters to Negro newspapers written by black soldiers in the period 1898-1902. The letters show all those conflicting emotions. Black soldiers encamped in Tampa, Florida, ran into bitter race hatred by white inhabitants there. And then, after they fought with distinction in Cuba, Negroes were not rewarded with officers' commissions; white officers commanded black regiments. > > Negro soldiers in Lakeland, Florida, pistol-whipped a drugstore owner when he refused to serve one of them, and then, in a confrontation with a white crowd, killed a civilian. In Tampa, a race riot began when drunken white soldiers used a Negro child as a target to show their marksmanship; Negro soldiers retaliated, and then the streets "ran red with negro blood," according to press dispatches. Twenty-seven Negro soldiers and three whites were severely wounded. The chaplain of a black regiment in Tampa wrote to the Cleveland Gazette: > > Is America any better than Spain? Has she not subjects in her very midst who are murdered daily without a trial of judge or jury? Has she not subjects in her own borders whose children are half-fed and half-clothed, because their father's skin is black. . . . Yet the Negro is loyal to his country's flag. > The same chaplain, George Prioleau, talks of black veterans of the Cuban war "unkindly and sneeringly received" in Kansas City, Missouri. He says that "these black boys, heroes of our country, were not allowed to stand at the counters of restaurants and eat a sandwich and drink a cup of coffee, while the white soldiers were welcomed and invited to sit down at the tables and eat free of cost." > > But it was the Filipino situation that aroused many blacks in the United States to militant opposition to the war. The senior bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Henry M. Turner, called the campaign in the Philippines "an unholy war of conquest" and referred to the Filipinos as "sable patriots." > > There were four black regiments on duty in the Philippines. Many of the black soldiers established rapport with the brown-skinned natives on the islands, and were angered by the term "nigger" used by white troops to describe the Filipinos. An "unusually large number" of black troops deserted during the Philippines campaign, Gatewood says. The Filipino rebels often addressed themselves to "The Colored American Soldier" in posters, reminding them of lynchings back home, asking them not to serve the white imperialist against other colored people. > > Some deserters joined the Filipino rebels. The most famous of these was David Fagan of the 24th Infantry. According to Gatewood: "He accepted a commission in the insurgent army and for two years wreaked havoc upon the American forces." > > From the Philippines, William Simms wrote: > > I was struck by a question a little Filipino boy asked me, which ran about this way: "Why does the American Negro come . . . to fight us where we are much a friend to him and have not done anything to him. He is all the same as me and me all the same as you. Why don't you fight those people in America who burn Negroes, that make a beast of you . . ."? > Another soldier's letter of 1899: > > Our racial sympathies would naturally be with the Filipinos. They are fighting manfully for what they conceive to be their best interests. But we cannot for the sake of sentiment turn our back upon our own country. > Patrick Mason, a sergeant in the 24th Infantry, wrote to the Cleveland Gazette, which had taken a strong stand against annexation of the Philippines: > > Dear Sir: I have not had any fighting to do since I have been here and don't care to do any. I feel sorry for these people and all that have come under the control of the United States. I don't believe they will be justly dealt by. The first thing in the morning is the "Nigger" and the last thing at night is the "Nigger." . . . You are right in your opinions. I must not say much as I am a soldier. . . . > A black infantryman named William Fulbright wrote from Manila in June 1901 to the editor of a paper in Indianapolis: "This struggle on the islands has been naught but a gigantic scheme of robbery and oppression." > > Back home, while the war against the Filipinos was going on, a group of Massachusetts Negroes addressed a message to President McKinley: > > We the colored people of Massachusetts in mass meeting assembled . . . have resolved to address ourselves to you in an open letter, notwithstanding your extraordinary, your incomprehensible silence on the subject of our wrongs. . . . > . . . you have seen our sufferings, witnessed from your high place our awful wrongs and miseries, and yet you have at no time and on no occasion opened your lips on our behalf. . . . > > With one accord, with an anxiety that wrenched our hearts with cruel hopes and fears, the Colored people of the United States turned to you when Wilmington, North Carolina was held for two dreadful days and nights in the clutch of a bloody revolution; when Negroes, guilty of no crime except the color of their skin and a desire to exercise the rights of their American citizenship, were butchered like dogs in the streets of that ill-fated town . . . for want of federal aid, which you would not and did not furnish. . . . > > It was the same thing with that terrible ebullition of mob spirit at Phoenix, South Carolina, when black men were hunted and murdered, and white men [these were white radicals in Phoenix] shot and driven out of that place by a set of white savages. . . . We looked in vain for some word or some act from you. . . . > > And when you made your Southern tour a little later, and we saw how cunningly you catered to Southern race prejudice. . . . How you preached patience, industry, moderation to your long-suffering black fellow citizens, and patriotism, jingoism and imperialism to your white ones. . . . > > The "patience, industry, and moderation" preached to blacks, the "patriotism" preached to whites, did not fully sink in. In the first years of the twentieth century, despite all the demonstrated power of the state, large numbers of blacks, whites, men, women became impatient, immoderate, unpatriotic. > > ### > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -- -- karen medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 11:56:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 11:56:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNew_post=5D_Yanki=2C_Go_Home_?= =?utf-8?q?and_Just_Stay_There=E2=80=A6_Please=3F?= References: <11050395.3100.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Ever wonder what some foreigners think of us? Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on Smoke and Mirrors [http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/71c401cdd13b08a361e28195c5cae882?s=32&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Femails%2Fblavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/5af2cf3964f6ce7ef87f07a4f8c6bf0e?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] Yanki, Go Home and Just Stay There… Please? by mjw51 Whatever else an American may or may not be, an American is an American first and foremost: socialist, Nazi, Radiohead or Beyonce fan, liberal or paleoconservative, each and every one is an American. What this means for people outside America is that there is no effective internal or domestic resistance to American cultural imperialism, to American economic imperialism or, and most obviously, to American militarist imperialism (which is arguably little more than a wing of the economic variety but kills a lot faster). Americans go to work and pay their taxes, and no matter what sort of personal "branding" they engage in on social media, in the pages of mid-to-main-stream media or simply over a glass of merlot with like-minded friends, they support the national project. Dead bodies lined up after an airstrike in Iraq or farmers lives and livelihoods destroyed by Monsanto in India and beyond are not brought back to life by sarky Tweets about what an evil clown Trump is or whether a presidential candidate believes America is in decline or is doing just fine as the globally indispensable nation. It should probably go without saying that white people in America are all racists, but you do hear it a lot these days. "Is that a pistol in your pocket or just a Swiss Army folding swastika dildo you intend to pleasure me with?" is no longer just a question du jour on Tinder. It's everywhere, and because a white racist (is there any other kind?) is by default a white supremacist which is nothing more than a convenient way of avoiding saying fascist or Nazi, white people are all Nazis. By default that is. But there are ways a white American can wriggle out from under the fascist label: by wearing a Chavista t-shirt unironically or calling other white people racist on Twitter or by liking everything Beyonce does and never mentioning black-on-black crime. In reality, the number of ways Americans can shop and preen on social media to deny their default Hitler-clonism is literally limitless. What we would all just love to see of course will almost surely never happen: hundreds of thousands of video clips of white Americans proclaiming their racial/genetic guilt and then punching themselves in the face until they bleed profusely then faint, or applying booster cables to their own genitals and really really screaming their heads off, just like countless folks around the globe have done when their American-trained and -funded security forces have defended CocaCola and Pizza Hut so that young Americans can continue to buy their Chinese-made iPhones in peace. American socialists, to give them their due, are of course opposed to all this, and some are even aware of the joke involved in invoking international solidarity using a phone made by a worker making $6 a day while also calling for a fight for 15 on the same phone. Unlike many of their compatriots, some socialist Americans can actually find Myanmar on a map and are pretty certain the war in Vietnam was a "bad take". So while they will no doubt be out there bravely tearing down statues of racist slave-holding white assholes from 150+ years ago, not one of the whining bitches will have the nerve to go and smear shit all over the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. They are Americans after all and, you know, support the troops. Or excuse the troops. Or turn the troops into the good guys by invoking victim status for the troops. Some of them were, after all, black, so any suggestion that Vietnam was a racist imperialist war that the racist imperialists have yet to acknowledge or apologize for is just silly. African-Americans are quite rightly up in arms about police abuse and systematic murder of black citizens in America, but they are also up in arms as members of the military whose primary purpose (besides deploying expensive weaponry so the American arms industry can keep on keeping on) is the calculated murder of people of colour outside the American homeland. The American ideology doesn't really have a handy term to describe what is made manifest when a black American jarhead calls Arabs "camel-jockeys" and takes a few bucks from Uncle Sam for kicking in their doors and killing them since racists is what white people are. By default. It's painful to think that it might have been the black son or daughter of parents who marched in Selma that operated the drone that killed Anwar Awlaki, either his 16-year-old son or his 5-year-old daughter. Black soldiers helping a black president to normalize the extrajudicial execution of American citizens of whatever ethnic or racial heritage has just got to be a major victory for diversity and surely a harbinger of the day when white Americans will be able to stop bashing themselves in the name of equality because Americans of all colours and creeds are out there killing the shit out of people of color in really poor countries. Here endeth the Rant. mjw51 | September 2, 2017 at 3:56 pm | Tags: America, Amerika, anti-war movement, government, Middle East, Propaganda, Racism, satire, The Left, war | Categories: Commentary | URL: http://wp.me/pKmIb-O0 Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Smoke and Mirrors. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://mjw51.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/yanki-go-home-and-just-stay-there-please/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 14:03:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 14:03:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interview that sums up everything and where we are today.... Message-ID: Abby Martin interview with Chris Hedges on telesur https://youtu.be/s0LOYvk0y3o From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat Sep 2 14:22:44 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 09:22:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=22Why_Jihadism_Won=E2=80=99t_Be_Allowe?= =?utf-8?q?d_to_Die=22?= Message-ID: > Q: Why will jihadism not be allowed to die? A: Because the US government, which invented jihadism in Afghanistan 40 years ago "to give to the USSR its Vietnam war," will - in spite of the 'blowback ' of 9/11/2001 - continue to use it to retard the economic integration of Eurasia, long seen by the US 1% as a threat to their world economic hegemony. (See .) [From the article cited] '...the “4+1” – Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, plus Hezbollah – with the addition of Turkey, and with China in a “leading from behind” role, are all working together. 'The unfinished war across “Syraq” coupled with spasms of jihadism in Europe could certainly still metastasize into a massive Eurasian cancer, spreading like a plague from Afghanistan to Germany and vice-versa, and from the South China Sea to Brussels via Pakistan and vice-versa. 'What would happen under this cataclysmic scenario is the complete derailment of the Chinese-driven New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI); [the ending of] its integration with the Russia-driven Eurasia Economic Union (EAEC); and a massive security threat to the domestic stability of the Russia-China strategic partnership, with uncontrollable bellicose scenarios developing very close to their borders. 'It’s no secret which elements and institutions would very much cherish internal political chaos in both Russia and China' [ = the US, the CIA, and the Pentagon]... 'ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS-K – that regroup in Afghanistan – can be so handy to wreak havoc in the intersection of Central Asia and South Asia, so close to key BRI development corridors. '...The phony Caliphate was useful in an attempt to break off BRI across “Syraq”, as much as Maidan in Ukraine was useful to break off the EAEU. Other war fronts will follow – from the Philippines to Venezuela, all bent on disrupting regional integration projects under a Divide and Rule strategy of US satraps... 'Sixteen years after 9/11, the name of the game is not GWOT (Global War on Terror) anymore; [it's now] under the cover of GWOT, to disturb geostrategic expansion by ... “peer competitors” Russia and China.’ ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 17:05:09 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 17:05:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] local military weaponry References: <690257894.1797571.1504371909897.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <690257894.1797571.1504371909897@mail.yahoo.com> If you look at the interactive map I sent out yesterday and use the 61801 zip code, you find that the following towns have received gifts from the Feds: Catlin:  2 rifles Champaign:  a lot of riflesChampaign County:  a lot of rifles and a mine resistant vehicle Danville:  night vision image intensifiers and a lot of rifles Farmer City:  rifles and pistols Fisher:  1 rifle Monticello:  rifles, pistols and a shotgunParkland:  2 riflesPaxton:  4 rifles and a night vision goggle Tolono:  rifles and a utility truck Urbana:  a lot of rifles I suppose it could be worse. Dianna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 17:19:42 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 17:19:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] local military weaponry In-Reply-To: <690257894.1797571.1504371909897@mail.yahoo.com> References: <690257894.1797571.1504371909897.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <690257894.1797571.1504371909897@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you for this Dianna I’m betting that “mine resistant vehicle” here in Champaign County is a tank? We know they have a tank. Our area isn’t exactly a threat, our demo today, we’ll be lucky to have as many as 13 people protesting the most important issue of our time, the potential for nuclear war which we are closer to everyday. The millions of lives we have already destroyed, are little noticed. We do receive a lot of thank you’s, thumbs up and horn honks for what we do, so we know the people don’t support war, and militarism…………. Cities like Chicago are another story entirely. I would be very interested in knowing how many military weapons their police depts. have received from the Feds. On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:05, Dianna Visek via Peace-discuss > wrote: If you look at the interactive map I sent out yesterday and use the 61801 zip code, you find that the following towns have received gifts from the Feds: Catlin: 2 rifles Champaign: a lot of rifles Champaign County: a lot of rifles and a mine resistant vehicle Danville: night vision image intensifiers and a lot of rifles Farmer City: rifles and pistols Fisher: 1 rifle Monticello: rifles, pistols and a shotgun Parkland: 2 rifles Paxton: 4 rifles and a night vision goggle Tolono: rifles and a utility truck Urbana: a lot of rifles I suppose it could be worse. Dianna _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sat Sep 2 17:25:45 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 17:25:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] local military weaponry In-Reply-To: References: <690257894.1797571.1504371909897.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <690257894.1797571.1504371909897@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <135940295.1789711.1504373145271@mail.yahoo.com> That would take a bit of work because of all the suburbs and other units of government. Dianna On Saturday, September 2, 2017, 12:19:44 PM CDT, Karen Aram wrote: Thank you for this Dianna I’m betting that “mine resistant vehicle” here in Champaign County is a tank? We know they have a tank.  Our area isn’t exactly a threat, our demo today, we’ll be lucky to have as many as 13 people protesting the most important issue of our time, the potential for nuclear war which we are closer to everyday. The millions of lives we have already destroyed, are little noticed. We do receive a lot of thank you’s, thumbs up and horn honks for what we do, so we know the people don’t support war, and militarism…………. Cities like Chicago are another story entirely. I would be very interested in knowing how many military weapons their police depts. have received from the Feds.   On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:05, Dianna Visek via Peace-discuss wrote: If you look at the interactive map I sent out yesterday and use the 61801 zip code, you find that the following towns have received gifts from the Feds: Catlin:  2 rifles Champaign:  a lot of riflesChampaign County:  a lot of rifles and a mine resistant vehicle Danville:  night vision image intensifiers and a lot of rifles Farmer City:  rifles and pistols Fisher:  1 rifle Monticello:  rifles, pistols and a shotgunParkland:  2 riflesPaxton:  4 rifles and a night vision goggle Tolono:  rifles and a utility truck Urbana:  a lot of rifles I suppose it could be worse. Dianna _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 17:33:31 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 17:33:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] local military weaponry In-Reply-To: <135940295.1789711.1504373145271@mail.yahoo.com> References: <690257894.1797571.1504371909897.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <690257894.1797571.1504371909897@mail.yahoo.com> <135940295.1789711.1504373145271@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I know, but I do suspect it would be a real shocker. NYC police dept., we know and they have admitted they send their police to Israel for training by the Mossad/military. On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:25, Dianna Visek > wrote: That would take a bit of work because of all the suburbs and other units of government. Dianna On Saturday, September 2, 2017, 12:19:44 PM CDT, Karen Aram > wrote: Thank you for this Dianna I’m betting that “mine resistant vehicle” here in Champaign County is a tank? We know they have a tank. Our area isn’t exactly a threat, our demo today, we’ll be lucky to have as many as 13 people protesting the most important issue of our time, the potential for nuclear war which we are closer to everyday. The millions of lives we have already destroyed, are little noticed. We do receive a lot of thank you’s, thumbs up and horn honks for what we do, so we know the people don’t support war, and militarism…………. Cities like Chicago are another story entirely. I would be very interested in knowing how many military weapons their police depts. have received from the Feds. On Sep 2, 2017, at 10:05, Dianna Visek via Peace-discuss > wrote: If you look at the interactive map I sent out yesterday and use the 61801 zip code, you find that the following towns have received gifts from the Feds: Catlin: 2 rifles Champaign: a lot of rifles Champaign County: a lot of rifles and a mine resistant vehicle Danville: night vision image intensifiers and a lot of rifles Farmer City: rifles and pistols Fisher: 1 rifle Monticello: rifles, pistols and a shotgun Parkland: 2 rifles Paxton: 4 rifles and a night vision goggle Tolono: rifles and a utility truck Urbana: a lot of rifles I suppose it could be worse. Dianna _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 12:34:08 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 07:34:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Punch corporations instead of fascists Message-ID: https://louisproyect.org/2017/08/27/no-platform-for-fascists/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 13:36:03 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:36:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: UI Law Dean Amar idea of "free speech"--Nazi Propaganda! Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky Oh sure! Let's invite in the war criminal and felon and genocider against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color, Obama Droner in Chief Killer Koh, hold him out as a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service, give him two lectures to publicly advocate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color during Homecoming in front of our Big Wig Law Alums,give him the entire Propaganda Apparatus and Support of the College of Law to spread his advocacy of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color into Our Good Community, and never invite me to Debate him despite my well known and vigorous opposition to Killer Koh. That's "free speech" at the College of Law. I call it Nazi Propaganda! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 13:36:03 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:36:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: UI Law Dean Amar idea of "free speech"--Nazi Propaganda! Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky Oh sure! Let's invite in the war criminal and felon and genocider against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color, Obama Droner in Chief Killer Koh, hold him out as a Role Model for Lawyers in Government Service, give him two lectures to publicly advocate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color during Homecoming in front of our Big Wig Law Alums,give him the entire Propaganda Apparatus and Support of the College of Law to spread his advocacy of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color into Our Good Community, and never invite me to Debate him despite my well known and vigorous opposition to Killer Koh. That's "free speech" at the College of Law. I call it Nazi Propaganda! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 13:52:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:52:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Exclusive: Read the Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump References: <1776217557.12583.1504443957953.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-174-213.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 8:50 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Exclusive: Read the Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump “That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions -- like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties ….”O. That’s a sick joke and a demented fraud and pure propaganda. Once he became President, our Magna Cum Laude Graduate of Harvard Law School never practiced any of it. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: CNN Breaking News [mailto:CNNBreakingNews at mail.cnn.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 8:06 AM To: no-reply at siteservices.cnn.com Subject: Exclusive: Read the Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump During his final moments in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama folded into thirds a handwritten letter to Donald Trump, slid it into an envelope, and in neat capital letters addressed it to "Mr. President." Now, the contents of that letter -- the last direct communication between the 44th and 45th presidents -- have emerged for the first time after CNN obtained a copy. READ IT HERE ---------------------------------------------- Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Watch CNN live or On Demand from your computer or mobile device using CNNgo. ---------------------------------------------- You have opted-in to receive this e-mail from CNN.com. One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303 (c) & (r) 2017 Cable News Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 13:52:55 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 13:52:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Exclusive: Read the Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump References: <1776217557.12583.1504443957953.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-174-213.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 8:50 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Exclusive: Read the Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump “That makes us guardians of those democratic institutions and traditions -- like rule of law, separation of powers, equal protection and civil liberties ….”O. That’s a sick joke and a demented fraud and pure propaganda. Once he became President, our Magna Cum Laude Graduate of Harvard Law School never practiced any of it. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: CNN Breaking News [mailto:CNNBreakingNews at mail.cnn.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 8:06 AM To: no-reply at siteservices.cnn.com Subject: Exclusive: Read the Inauguration Day letter Obama left for Trump During his final moments in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama folded into thirds a handwritten letter to Donald Trump, slid it into an envelope, and in neat capital letters addressed it to "Mr. President." Now, the contents of that letter -- the last direct communication between the 44th and 45th presidents -- have emerged for the first time after CNN obtained a copy. READ IT HERE ---------------------------------------------- Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Watch CNN live or On Demand from your computer or mobile device using CNNgo. ---------------------------------------------- You have opted-in to receive this e-mail from CNN.com. One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303 (c) & (r) 2017 Cable News Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 14:21:26 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 14:21:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Worth listening Message-ID: https://www.facebook.com/blackagendareport -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 2 14:13:02 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 14:13:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Poems for Justice References: Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Boyle Flyer.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 3022999 bytes Desc: Boyle Flyer.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 15:08:34 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:08:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 10:06 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact "...In 2014-15 she took leave from Yale Law School to serve as Special Counsel to the General Counsel for National Security Law at the U.S. Department of Defense, where she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence." Translated from Orwellian Newspeak into Plain English: Oona went to work for the US Department of War helping them to commit wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color and their respective States in order to steal their oil and gas. For these professional services rendered Oona received the US Secretary of War Special Award for Excellence in Warmongering And Warcrimeing And Genociding. Caveat Lector! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 15:08:34 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:08:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 10:06 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact "...In 2014-15 she took leave from Yale Law School to serve as Special Counsel to the General Counsel for National Security Law at the U.S. Department of Defense, where she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence." Translated from Orwellian Newspeak into Plain English: Oona went to work for the US Department of War helping them to commit wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color and their respective States in order to steal their oil and gas. For these professional services rendered Oona received the US Secretary of War Special Award for Excellence in Warmongering And Warcrimeing And Genociding. Caveat Lector! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 15:22:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:22:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You see once again the Pure Evil that comes out of Yale Law School. Ditto for Harvard Law School. Killer Koh is an HLS Grad and Former YLS Dean. A two'fer in Evil. And Killer Koh worked for both Reagan and Obama. A Trifecta in Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 10:09 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: FW: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 10:06 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact "...In 2014-15 she took leave from Yale Law School to serve as Special Counsel to the General Counsel for National Security Law at the U.S. Department of Defense, where she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence." Translated from Orwellian Newspeak into Plain English: Oona went to work for the US Department of War helping them to commit wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color and their respective States in order to steal their oil and gas. For these professional services rendered Oona received the US Secretary of War Special Award for Excellence in Warmongering And Warcrimeing And Genociding. Caveat Lector! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 15:22:15 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:22:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You see once again the Pure Evil that comes out of Yale Law School. Ditto for Harvard Law School. Killer Koh is an HLS Grad and Former YLS Dean. A two'fer in Evil. And Killer Koh worked for both Reagan and Obama. A Trifecta in Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 10:09 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: FW: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 10:06 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact "...In 2014-15 she took leave from Yale Law School to serve as Special Counsel to the General Counsel for National Security Law at the U.S. Department of Defense, where she was awarded the Office of the Secretary of Defense Award for Excellence." Translated from Orwellian Newspeak into Plain English: Oona went to work for the US Department of War helping them to commit wars of aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and outright genocide against Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color and their respective States in order to steal their oil and gas. For these professional services rendered Oona received the US Secretary of War Special Award for Excellence in Warmongering And Warcrimeing And Genociding. Caveat Lector! Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 15:45:33 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 10:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE ON THE AIR, Tuesday 5 September Message-ID: <43225776-24A1-4BA2-B45D-55D99A531CF8@gmail.com> I’d like to center Tuesday’s AWARE ON THE AIR on the USG’s wars and war provocations vs. Russia and China (as in Afghanistan and the DPRK). Antifa, Chris Hedges’ articles, Hopkins’ article below, etc., can be considered on the next NEWS FROM NEPTUNE. Regards, CGE > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 19:15:06 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 19:15:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: RSNFOCUS: Robert Reich | Trump Is a Conman in Hardhat Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:13 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: RSNFOCUS: Robert Reich | Trump Is a Conman in Hardhat Yeah, well Obama is a Harvard Law ConMan in a Brooks Brothers Suit. And Reich used to work for Bill Clinton-a Yale Law ConMan in a Brooks Brothers suit. Or could'nt "Rhodes Scholar" Reich figure that out? "I did not have sex with that woman!" Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 19:15:06 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 19:15:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: RSNFOCUS: Robert Reich | Trump Is a Conman in Hardhat Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:13 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: RSNFOCUS: Robert Reich | Trump Is a Conman in Hardhat Yeah, well Obama is a Harvard Law ConMan in a Brooks Brothers Suit. And Reich used to work for Bill Clinton-a Yale Law ConMan in a Brooks Brothers suit. Or could'nt "Rhodes Scholar" Reich figure that out? "I did not have sex with that woman!" Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 19:32:30 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:32:30 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Sun Sep 3 19:32:30 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 15:32:30 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 19:52:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 19:52:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 19:52:09 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 19:52:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 20:26:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:26:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 20:26:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:26:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 20:29:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:29:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact References: Message-ID: And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 20:29:42 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:29:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact References: Message-ID: And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 21:17:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:17:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact References: Message-ID: And the reason why Yale Law hired Harvard Law Killer Koh in 1985 was precisely because he had worked for Reagan starting in 1983. What else do you expect from Yale “Law” School where Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow had been “Dean” for ten years and had hired most of their Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” The Rot started from the Top years ago at Yale Law School. Plus ca change… Ditto and QED for UI Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 21:17:21 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:17:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact References: Message-ID: And the reason why Yale Law hired Harvard Law Killer Koh in 1985 was precisely because he had worked for Reagan starting in 1983. What else do you expect from Yale “Law” School where Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow had been “Dean” for ten years and had hired most of their Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” The Rot started from the Top years ago at Yale Law School. Plus ca change… Ditto and QED for UI Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 3 21:44:48 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:44:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: North Korea nuclear threat References: <1391349438.35073.1504470286208.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-171-83.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: I must say, things are not looking good on the “peace” front, for anyone. Though it is becoming more obvious everyday, that it is all about China, and always has been. Accidents do happen, and the lack of diplomacy, use of force and provocations is hurling us further to the precipice of “oops, another mistake” like so many we have made over the years. This time, China is prepared, or at least their military is prepared, which provides a very scary scenario. Begin forwarded message: From: CNN Breaking News > Subject: North Korea nuclear threat US Defense Secretary James Mattis vowed "a massive military response" to any threat from North Korea against the United States or its allies. He delivered the statement outside the White House after a meeting with President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and top national security advisers Sunday. Mattis said Trump wanted to be briefed on each of the "many military options" for dealing with the North Korean nuclear threat. Mattis called on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to "take heed" of the UN Security Council's unanimous position against North Korea's nuclear program and again stressed the US military's position. "We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea, but as I said, we have many options to do so," Mattis said. President Donald Trump warned earlier that the United States was considering stopping trade with any nation doing business with North Korea as a way of dealing with the nuclear threat from Pyongyang. If carried out, that option could mean a halt to US trade with China, which has supported economic sanctions on North Korea but remains the key economic partner for the rogue nation. ---------------------------------------------- Get complete coverage of breaking news on CNN TV, CNN.com and CNN Mobile. Watch CNN live or On Demand from your computer or mobile device using CNNgo. ---------------------------------------------- You have opted-in to receive this e-mail from CNN.com. To unsubscribe from Breaking News e-mail alerts, go to: http://cnn.com/EMAIL/breakingnews/unsubscribe.html?l=domestic-adh-bn One CNN Center Atlanta, GA 30303 (c) & (r) 2017 Cable News Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 21:50:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:50:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Message-ID: So as far as I can figure out the Rot Started at the Top of Yale Law School since at least when Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow become Dean there in 1955 to 1965, when he left to help LBJ exterminate 3 Million Vietnamese along with his brother Walt. You have to be already Sick and Demented to go work for LBJ in 1965. And our last two Deans here are from Yale Law School. The Rot Starts from the Top here too. Gene’s Kids and Gene’s Grandkids from Yale Law School. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 4:17 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And the reason why Yale Law hired Harvard Law Killer Koh in 1985 was precisely because he had worked for Reagan starting in 1983. What else do you expect from Yale “Law” School where Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow had been “Dean” for ten years and had hired most of their Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” The Rot started from the Top years ago at Yale Law School. Plus ca change… Ditto and QED for UI Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 21:50:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 21:50:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Message-ID: So as far as I can figure out the Rot Started at the Top of Yale Law School since at least when Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow become Dean there in 1955 to 1965, when he left to help LBJ exterminate 3 Million Vietnamese along with his brother Walt. You have to be already Sick and Demented to go work for LBJ in 1965. And our last two Deans here are from Yale Law School. The Rot Starts from the Top here too. Gene’s Kids and Gene’s Grandkids from Yale Law School. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 4:17 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And the reason why Yale Law hired Harvard Law Killer Koh in 1985 was precisely because he had worked for Reagan starting in 1983. What else do you expect from Yale “Law” School where Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow had been “Dean” for ten years and had hired most of their Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” The Rot started from the Top years ago at Yale Law School. Plus ca change… Ditto and QED for UI Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 22:05:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:05:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Message-ID: And not that I want to let Harvard Law off the hook either. HLS gave us Obama, Killer Koh, Anne-Marie Slaughtered, Sam Our Problem from Hell Power, her Consort Crass Sunstein, Obama’s Censorship Czar, and the numerous other Nazi apparatchik lawyers from HLS/YLS working for the Obama administration described in Charlie Savages’ Power Wars. The Nazis had their Law Schools too. 70 years after World War II, the Nazis have won. Ditto for this law school here too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 4:51 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact So as far as I can figure out the Rot Started at the Top of Yale Law School since at least when Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow become Dean there in 1955 to 1965, when he left to help LBJ exterminate 3 Million Vietnamese along with his brother Walt. You have to be already Sick and Demented to go work for LBJ in 1965. And our last two Deans here are from Yale Law School. The Rot Starts from the Top here too. Gene’s Kids and Gene’s Grandkids from Yale Law School. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 4:17 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And the reason why Yale Law hired Harvard Law Killer Koh in 1985 was precisely because he had worked for Reagan starting in 1983. What else do you expect from Yale “Law” School where Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow had been “Dean” for ten years and had hired most of their Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” The Rot started from the Top years ago at Yale Law School. Plus ca change… Ditto and QED for UI Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 3 22:05:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 22:05:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Message-ID: And not that I want to let Harvard Law off the hook either. HLS gave us Obama, Killer Koh, Anne-Marie Slaughtered, Sam Our Problem from Hell Power, her Consort Crass Sunstein, Obama’s Censorship Czar, and the numerous other Nazi apparatchik lawyers from HLS/YLS working for the Obama administration described in Charlie Savages’ Power Wars. The Nazis had their Law Schools too. 70 years after World War II, the Nazis have won. Ditto for this law school here too. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 4:51 PM To: 'David Swanson' Cc: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact So as far as I can figure out the Rot Started at the Top of Yale Law School since at least when Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow become Dean there in 1955 to 1965, when he left to help LBJ exterminate 3 Million Vietnamese along with his brother Walt. You have to be already Sick and Demented to go work for LBJ in 1965. And our last two Deans here are from Yale Law School. The Rot Starts from the Top here too. Gene’s Kids and Gene’s Grandkids from Yale Law School. QED. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 4:17 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And the reason why Yale Law hired Harvard Law Killer Koh in 1985 was precisely because he had worked for Reagan starting in 1983. What else do you expect from Yale “Law” School where Gene Half-An-Eichmann Rostow had been “Dean” for ten years and had hired most of their Faculty—“Gene’s Kids.” The Rot started from the Top years ago at Yale Law School. Plus ca change… Ditto and QED for UI Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:30 PM To: 'David Swanson' > Cc: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact And ditto and pari passu for Harvard Law Killer Koh when he went to work for Reagan in 1983. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 3:27 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact Would any reputable law professor go work for Hitler’s Ministry of War under Goering in 1943? Goering was sentenced to death by the Nuremberg Tribunal in part for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Pari passu for Yale Law Hathaway. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:52 PM To: David Swanson > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: RE: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact I have written about the origins of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact in my book Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press:1999). Yale Law Oona Hathaway is just a warmongering, warcrimeing, genociding hypocrite—just like Yale Law/Harvard Law Killer Koh. Fab. Volume XXI, No. 3 of the prestigious The International History Review (September 2000) just reviewed Francis Boyle's Foundations of World Order: The Legalist Approach to International Relations (1898-1922):"...Foundations of World Order is a major contribution to this reinterrogation of the past, and should be required reading for historians, political scientists, international relations specialists,and policy-makers." Id. at 667-68. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 2:33 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; Karen Aram >; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact video of me and author of NYT oped on KBP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 00:34:10 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 00:34:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Outlawing War? It Actually Worked References: <59AC9E64.000003B7@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: <95437167-B90C-40AC-A3A9-B45BC9C15B5C@illinois.edu> Another perspective: From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: Outlawing War? It Actually Worked Date: September 3, 2017 Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/03/opinion/sunday/03gray/03gray-thumbStandard.jpg] Gray Matter Outlawing War? It Actually Worked By OONA A. HATHAWAY and SCOTT J. SHAPIRO A 1928 pact brought an end to the right of conquest and changed the way states behave. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2xGsept [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1504484964687522®i_id=0] Curiously, no mention of Israel acquiring the West Bank (from Jordan) or the Golan (from Syria) by wars of conquest. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 14:16:00 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 14:16:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Outlawing War? It Actually Worked In-Reply-To: <95437167-B90C-40AC-A3A9-B45BC9C15B5C@illinois.edu> References: <59AC9E64.000003B7@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <95437167-B90C-40AC-A3A9-B45BC9C15B5C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Ron, Really? The US, for whose behavior, we as Americans are responsible, hasn’t abided by International laws or our own laws in years, with just the use of our drones alone. Our destruction of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc. is hardly a sign that “acquisition” of land and resources is no longer an issue due to laws. We know that control of those nations and their resources is and continues to be the goal. Any, suggestion that “sanctions” are a peaceful means of dealing with issues vs war, is ridiculous, given the thousands of children who died as a result of our sanctions against Iran, and most sanctions other than those imposed on S.Africa, are a “prelude” or “provocation” to war. Which is what the current US government is implementing against Russia, N.K. and China, rather than the use of diplomacy. This article is clearly an attempt, per usual on the part of main stream media, which includes the NYT’s to vilify Russia with it’s statements in respect to the Crimea. Of course that should come as no surprise given it’s written by Yale Law School Professors, the Law School known for its creation of USG war mongers. On Sep 3, 2017, at 17:34, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Another perspective: From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: Outlawing War? It Actually Worked Date: September 3, 2017 Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/03/opinion/sunday/03gray/03gray-thumbStandard.jpg] Gray Matter Outlawing War? It Actually Worked By OONA A. HATHAWAY and SCOTT J. SHAPIRO A 1928 pact brought an end to the right of conquest and changed the way states behave. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2xGsept [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1504484964687522®i_id=0] Curiously, no mention of Israel acquiring the West Bank (from Jordan) or the Golan (from Syria) by wars of conquest. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 15:16:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Message-ID: Oh sure! LOL! After the Illiniwaks illegally fired Steve Salaita, threw him, his wife and their baby out onto the street with no visible means of support, destroyed our Native American Studies Program, ethnically cleansed American Indians off of this campus, and terrorized and intimidated Palestinians on this campus. Based upon previous experience on this campus since 1978, I suspect their new "policy" will be used as a cudgel to sanction, "discipline" and expel our Students of Color and their White Supporters. And that is why they are getting it ready right now. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 15:16:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:16:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Message-ID: Oh sure! LOL! After the Illiniwaks illegally fired Steve Salaita, threw him, his wife and their baby out onto the street with no visible means of support, destroyed our Native American Studies Program, ethnically cleansed American Indians off of this campus, and terrorized and intimidated Palestinians on this campus. Based upon previous experience on this campus since 1978, I suspect their new "policy" will be used as a cudgel to sanction, "discipline" and expel our Students of Color and their White Supporters. And that is why they are getting it ready right now. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 15:38:38 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:38:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Remember: Back on Cinco De Mayo 1992 I spent 3 hours and 15 minutes in front of the Henry Building while the Illiniwaks savagely brutalized our Students of Color and some White Supporters for their peaceful, non-violent, non-disruptive sit in. Then the Illiniwaks tried to expel them by means of their Campus Kangaroo Courts. We stopped that! But this new "policy" just looks like Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 10:16 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Oh sure! LOL! After the Illiniwaks illegally fired Steve Salaita, threw him, his wife and their baby out onto the street with no visible means of support, destroyed our Native American Studies Program, ethnically cleansed American Indians off of this campus, and terrorized and intimidated Palestinians on this campus. Based upon previous experience on this campus since 1978, I suspect their new "policy" will be used as a cudgel to sanction, "discipline" and expel our Students of Color and their White Supporters. And that is why they are getting it ready right now. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 15:38:38 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:38:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Remember: Back on Cinco De Mayo 1992 I spent 3 hours and 15 minutes in front of the Henry Building while the Illiniwaks savagely brutalized our Students of Color and some White Supporters for their peaceful, non-violent, non-disruptive sit in. Then the Illiniwaks tried to expel them by means of their Campus Kangaroo Courts. We stopped that! But this new "policy" just looks like Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 10:16 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Oh sure! LOL! After the Illiniwaks illegally fired Steve Salaita, threw him, his wife and their baby out onto the street with no visible means of support, destroyed our Native American Studies Program, ethnically cleansed American Indians off of this campus, and terrorized and intimidated Palestinians on this campus. Based upon previous experience on this campus since 1978, I suspect their new "policy" will be used as a cudgel to sanction, "discipline" and expel our Students of Color and their White Supporters. And that is why they are getting it ready right now. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 4 15:56:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:56:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The most important issue upon which to focus. US provocations of NK, Russia & China Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Trump, North Korea and the danger of world war 4 September 2017 The North Korean nuclear test yesterday, its sixth and most powerful, has once again exposed the extremely volatile and precarious state of global geopolitics and the great danger of a descent into a nuclear world war. The unstable regime in Pyongyang has concluded that its only hope of self-preservation, in the face of provocative threats from an unstable Trump administration, is to try and expand its nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is acutely conscious of the brutal end of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, after they abandoned their so-called weapons of mass destruction. While the actions of North Korea are certainly compounding the risk of conflict, prime responsibility for pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war rests with US imperialism. Moreover, as the reckless and belligerent statements from Trump and his officials demonstrate, North Korea’s limited nuclear weaponry and reactionary nationalist bombast will not prevent the US from using its military might, including its huge nuclear arsenal, against the North Korean people. After a meeting between Trump and his top military and national security advisers, US Defence Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis warned North Korea that it faced “a massive military response” to any threat to the US or its allies. “We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea,” Mattis continued, “but as I said, we have many options to do so.” President Trump “wanted to be briefed on each one of them,” he added. Trump himself warned of a US nuclear attack against North Korea when he declared last month that it confronted “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” A White House readout from his phone call yesterday with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe explicitly declared that the US stood ready to use “the full range of diplomatic, conventional and nuclear capabilities at our disposal.” Trump was asked on Sunday: “Will you attack North Korea?” He refused to rule out pre-emptive military strikes, simply declaring: “We’ll see.” The US president has repeatedly said that he would not signal a military attack in advance, compounding the uncertainty, and hence fears in Pyongyang. Furthermore, as the crisis on the Korean Peninsula has escalated, the divisions in the Trump administration have resulted in an incoherent policy, which swings wildly between threats of all-out war and suggestions of talks, further inflaming the already explosive situation. In the aftermath of yesterday’s nuclear test, the White House, along with the American media, has turned its fire on China and Russia, underscoring the fact that the US confrontation with North Korea is bound up with far broader strategic aims. American strategists regard domination of the vast Eurasian land mass as the key to US global hegemony and China as the chief obstacle to that goal. NBC presenters Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd on yesterday’s “Meet the Press,” repeatedly emphasised the accusation that China and Russia were providing “economic help” to North Korea. Republican Senator Roy Blunt added: “There’s some sense that they have been more helpful than they should have been and more sustaining to the economy than they should have been.” Last month, both China and Russia voted for, and have begun implementing, crippling UN sanctions on North Korea that will slash its exports by one third. What is now being actively discussed in Washington is a total economic embargo—itself an act of war—and the cutting of trade with those who continue to conduct any with North Korea—above all China and Russia. Trump, who is already preparing trade war measures against China over its alleged “theft” of intellectual property, tweeted yesterday: “The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin confirmed on Fox News Sunday that he was preparing “a sanctions package to send to the president, for his strong consideration” to do just that. The implications for the global economy are immense—a collapse of trade, plunging the world into economic depression, as in the 1930s. That such a possibility is being actively considered is a measure of the depth of the economic and geo-political tensions wracking the world. Moreover, the threat of all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies is being accompanied by the preparations for all-out military conflict. The Trump administration has accelerated the diplomatic, economic and military challenge to China begun by President Obama under his “pivot to Asia.” The massive US military build-up in North East Asia, including the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems and huge and highly provocative joint US-South Korean war games, is directed more at fighting a nuclear war with China than a conflict with the small, backward country of North Korea. As well as ramping up the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has given the green light for more “freedom of navigation” operations in another of the region’s volatile flashpoints—the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US Pacific Command is preparing to sail warships and send military aircraft directly into waters and airspace claimed by China around its islets, two or three times in the next few months as part of a regular schedule. In Europe, the US is escalating its confrontation with Russia by taking the first steps towards annulling the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the former Soviet Union. As Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung warned, the danger is “that the US will construct new missiles and station them in Europe,” raising the terrifying spectre of a nuclear war in Europe between the two countries—the US and Russia—that both possess thousands of nuclear warheads. The most dangerous factor in this highly volatile situation is the profound economic, social and political crisis of US imperialism—of which Trump is the most malignant expression. His administration confronts deep internal divisions and a huge and mounting social crisis, which is generating massive domestic opposition, as a result of its incompetence and indifference to the human suffering caused by the Houston flooding. The danger is that Trump will resort to a war against North Korea with incalculable consequences, as a means of directing acute domestic class tensions outwards against an external foe. At the same time, these social tensions, in America and around the world, are fuelling the coming revolutionary upheavals of the working class. The crucial issue is the building of a revolutionary leadership, to forge a unified international movement of workers guided by a scientific socialist program and perspective to put an end to the capitalist system and its outmoded division of the world into rival nation states. That is the perspective for which the International Committee of the Fourth International and its sections fight. Peter Symonds WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 16:01:11 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 16:01:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The most important issue upon which to focus. US provocations of NK, Russia & China In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: BBC:North Korea missile test: South simulates attack on neighbour [Missile test] South Korea has responded to North Korea's latest nuclear test by carrying out a drill simulating an attack on its neighbour. Ballistic missiles were launched from planes and the ground…. The DPRK missile did not threaten ROK. Obviously, USA/ROK are trying to provoke a war. Fab. The US isn't holding back in its rhetoric, either, with Defence Secretary James Mattis warning of a "massive military response" if Pyongyang attacks its territories. North Korea, which has consistently defied UN sanctions to develop nuclear weapons, said on Sunday that it had tested a hydrogen bomb small enough to fit into a long-range missile. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 10:56 AM To: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss ; peace Subject: [Peace] The most important issue upon which to focus. US provocations of NK, Russia & China · Print · Leaflet · Feedback · Share » Trump, North Korea and the danger of world war 4 September 2017 The North Korean nuclear test yesterday, its sixth and most powerful, has once again exposed the extremely volatile and precarious state of global geopolitics and the great danger of a descent into a nuclear world war. The unstable regime in Pyongyang has concluded that its only hope of self-preservation, in the face of provocative threats from an unstable Trump administration, is to try and expand its nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is acutely conscious of the brutal end of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, after they abandoned their so-called weapons of mass destruction. While the actions of North Korea are certainly compounding the risk of conflict, prime responsibility for pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war rests with US imperialism. Moreover, as the reckless and belligerent statements from Trump and his officials demonstrate, North Korea’s limited nuclear weaponry and reactionary nationalist bombast will not prevent the US from using its military might, including its huge nuclear arsenal, against the North Korean people. After a meeting between Trump and his top military and national security advisers, US Defence Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis warned North Korea that it faced “a massive military response” to any threat to the US or its allies. “We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea,” Mattis continued, “but as I said, we have many options to do so.” President Trump “wanted to be briefed on each one of them,” he added. Trump himself warned of a US nuclear attack against North Korea when he declared last month that it confronted “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” A White House readout from his phone call yesterday with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe explicitly declared that the US stood ready to use “the full range of diplomatic, conventional and nuclear capabilities at our disposal.” Trump was asked on Sunday: “Will you attack North Korea?” He refused to rule out pre-emptive military strikes, simply declaring: “We’ll see.” The US president has repeatedly said that he would not signal a military attack in advance, compounding the uncertainty, and hence fears in Pyongyang. Furthermore, as the crisis on the Korean Peninsula has escalated, the divisions in the Trump administration have resulted in an incoherent policy, which swings wildly between threats of all-out war and suggestions of talks, further inflaming the already explosive situation. In the aftermath of yesterday’s nuclear test, the White House, along with the American media, has turned its fire on China and Russia, underscoring the fact that the US confrontation with North Korea is bound up with far broader strategic aims. American strategists regard domination of the vast Eurasian land mass as the key to US global hegemony and China as the chief obstacle to that goal. NBC presenters Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd on yesterday’s “Meet the Press,” repeatedly emphasised the accusation that China and Russia were providing “economic help” to North Korea. Republican Senator Roy Blunt added: “There’s some sense that they have been more helpful than they should have been and more sustaining to the economy than they should have been.” Last month, both China and Russia voted for, and have begun implementing, crippling UN sanctions on North Korea that will slash its exports by one third. What is now being actively discussed in Washington is a total economic embargo—itself an act of war—and the cutting of trade with those who continue to conduct any with North Korea—above all China and Russia. Trump, who is already preparing trade war measures against China over its alleged “theft” of intellectual property, tweeted yesterday: “The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin confirmed on Fox News Sunday that he was preparing “a sanctions package to send to the president, for his strong consideration” to do just that. The implications for the global economy are immense—a collapse of trade, plunging the world into economic depression, as in the 1930s. That such a possibility is being actively considered is a measure of the depth of the economic and geo-political tensions wracking the world. Moreover, the threat of all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies is being accompanied by the preparations for all-out military conflict. The Trump administration has accelerated the diplomatic, economic and military challenge to China begun by President Obama under his “pivot to Asia.” The massive US military build-up in North East Asia, including the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems and huge and highly provocative joint US-South Korean war games, is directed more at fighting a nuclear war with China than a conflict with the small, backward country of North Korea. As well as ramping up the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has given the green light for more “freedom of navigation” operations in another of the region’s volatile flashpoints—the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US Pacific Command is preparing to sail warships and send military aircraft directly into waters and airspace claimed by China around its islets, two or three times in the next few months as part of a regular schedule. In Europe, the US is escalating its confrontation with Russia by taking the first steps towards annulling the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the former Soviet Union. As Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung warned, the danger is “that the US will construct new missiles and station them in Europe,” raising the terrifying spectre of a nuclear war in Europe between the two countries—the US and Russia—that both possess thousands of nuclear warheads. The most dangerous factor in this highly volatile situation is the profound economic, social and political crisis of US imperialism—of which Trump is the most malignant expression. His administration confronts deep internal divisions and a huge and mounting social crisis, which is generating massive domestic opposition, as a result of its incompetence and indifference to the human suffering caused by the Houston flooding. The danger is that Trump will resort to a war against North Korea with incalculable consequences, as a means of directing acute domestic class tensions outwards against an external foe. At the same time, these social tensions, in America and around the world, are fuelling the coming revolutionary upheavals of the working class. The crucial issue is the building of a revolutionary leadership, to forge a unified international movement of workers guided by a scientific socialist program and perspective to put an end to the capitalist system and its outmoded division of the world into rival nation states. That is the perspective for which the International Committee of the Fourth International and its sections fight. Peter Symonds WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 16:31:45 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 16:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System References: <445583942.2673113.1504542705797.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <445583942.2673113.1504542705797@mail.yahoo.com> A very interesting assessment of North Korea's ability to hit the continental US and our ability to defend against it. Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System | ACDIS - Illinois | | | | | | | | | | | Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System | ACDIS -... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 17:30:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 17:30:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky And as for the platitudes by Law Dean Amar in this NG article, just remember he rammed the War Criminal, Felon, Murderer and Genocider Killer Koh down the Throats of Everyone In Our Good Community with the Nazi Propaganda Machine he controls at the Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 10:39 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Remember: Back on Cinco De Mayo 1992 I spent 3 hours and 15 minutes in front of the Henry Building while the Illiniwaks savagely brutalized our Students of Color and some White Supporters for their peaceful, non-violent, non-disruptive sit in. Then the Illiniwaks tried to expel them by means of their Campus Kangaroo Courts. We stopped that! But this new "policy" just looks like Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 10:16 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Oh sure! LOL! After the Illiniwaks illegally fired Steve Salaita, threw him, his wife and their baby out onto the street with no visible means of support, destroyed our Native American Studies Program, ethnically cleansed American Indians off of this campus, and terrorized and intimidated Palestinians on this campus. Based upon previous experience on this campus since 1978, I suspect their new "policy" will be used as a cudgel to sanction, "discipline" and expel our Students of Color and their White Supporters. And that is why they are getting it ready right now. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 17:30:48 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 17:30:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "...particularly to the drone assassinations, "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times" - which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children." Chomsky And as for the platitudes by Law Dean Amar in this NG article, just remember he rammed the War Criminal, Felon, Murderer and Genocider Killer Koh down the Throats of Everyone In Our Good Community with the Nazi Propaganda Machine he controls at the Law School. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 10:39 AM To: 'David Green' ; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' ; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' ; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' ; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; 'Joe Lauria' ; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' ; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Arlene Hickory' ; 'David Swanson' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'abass10 at gmail.com' ; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' ; 'Lina Thorne' ; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' ; 'Jay' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: RE: News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Remember: Back on Cinco De Mayo 1992 I spent 3 hours and 15 minutes in front of the Henry Building while the Illiniwaks savagely brutalized our Students of Color and some White Supporters for their peaceful, non-violent, non-disruptive sit in. Then the Illiniwaks tried to expel them by means of their Campus Kangaroo Courts. We stopped that! But this new "policy" just looks like Déjà vu all over again. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 10:16 AM To: 'David Green' >; 'sherwoodross10 at gmail.com' >; 'peace-discuss at anti-war.net' >; 'C. G. ESTABROOK' >; 'a-fields at uiuc.edu' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; 'Joe Lauria' >; 'Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net' >; 'peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net' >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Arlene Hickory' >; 'David Swanson' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'abass10 at gmail.com' >; 'mickalideh at gmail.com' >; 'Lina Thorne' >; 'chicago at worldcantwait.net' >; 'Jay' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; Estabrook, Carl G > Subject: News Gazette: More Illiniwaks Bulltwaddle on "free expression" Oh sure! LOL! After the Illiniwaks illegally fired Steve Salaita, threw him, his wife and their baby out onto the street with no visible means of support, destroyed our Native American Studies Program, ethnically cleansed American Indians off of this campus, and terrorized and intimidated Palestinians on this campus. Based upon previous experience on this campus since 1978, I suspect their new "policy" will be used as a cudgel to sanction, "discipline" and expel our Students of Color and their White Supporters. And that is why they are getting it ready right now. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Sep 4 17:49:16 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 12:49:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] The most important issue upon which to focus. US provocations of NK, Russia & China In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68379E83-70FC-47EA-AB4E-047FB9797B23@gmail.com> [This is accurate and important. It should be the focus of tomorrow’s AWARE ON THE AIR. Mainstream media are misreporting the matter.] "...American strategists regard domination of the vast Eurasian land mass as the key to US global hegemony and China as the chief obstacle to that goal... "Last month, both China and Russia voted for, and have begun implementing, crippling UN sanctions on North Korea that will slash its exports by one third. What is now being actively discussed in Washington is a total economic embargo—itself an act of war—and the cutting of trade with those who continue to conduct any with North Korea—above all China and Russia... "The Trump administration has accelerated the diplomatic, economic and military challenge to China begun by President Obama under his “pivot to Asia” [and Secretary of State Clinton’s provocations of China in the S. China Sea; see John Pilger, “The Coming War on China”, CounterPunch, December 2, 2016]. The massive US military build-up in North East Asia, including the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems and huge and highly provocative joint US-South Korean war games, is directed more at fighting a nuclear war with China than a conflict with the small, backward country of North Korea. "As well as ramping up the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has given the green light for more “freedom of navigation” operations in another of the region’s volatile flashpoints—the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US Pacific Command is preparing to sail warships and send military aircraft directly into waters and airspace claimed by China around its islets, two or three times in the next few months as part of a regular schedule... "The danger is that Trump will resort to a war against North Korea with incalculable consequences, as a means of directing acute domestic class tensions outwards against an external foe…” —CGE > On Sep 4, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Trump, North Korea and the danger of world war > 4 September 2017 > The North Korean nuclear test yesterday, its sixth and most powerful, has once again exposed the extremely volatile and precarious state of global geopolitics and the great danger of a descent into a nuclear world war. > The unstable regime in Pyongyang has concluded that its only hope of self-preservation, in the face of provocative threats from an unstable Trump administration, is to try and expand its nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible. North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is acutely conscious of the brutal end of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, after they abandoned their so-called weapons of mass destruction. > While the actions of North Korea are certainly compounding the risk of conflict, prime responsibility for pushing the world to the brink of nuclear war rests with US imperialism. Moreover, as the reckless and belligerent statements from Trump and his officials demonstrate, North Korea’s limited nuclear weaponry and reactionary nationalist bombast will not prevent the US from using its military might, including its huge nuclear arsenal, against the North Korean people. > After a meeting between Trump and his top military and national security advisers, US Defence Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis warned North Korea that it faced “a massive military response” to any threat to the US or its allies. “We are not looking to the total annihilation of a country, namely North Korea,” Mattis continued, “but as I said, we have many options to do so.” President Trump “wanted to be briefed on each one of them,” he added. > Trump himself warned of a US nuclear attack against North Korea when he declared last month that it confronted “fire and fury like the world has never seen.” A White House readout from his phone call yesterday with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe explicitly declared that the US stood ready to use “the full range of diplomatic, conventional and nuclear capabilities at our disposal.” > Trump was asked on Sunday: “Will you attack North Korea?” He refused to rule out pre-emptive military strikes, simply declaring: “We’ll see.” > The US president has repeatedly said that he would not signal a military attack in advance, compounding the uncertainty, and hence fears in Pyongyang. Furthermore, as the crisis on the Korean Peninsula has escalated, the divisions in the Trump administration have resulted in an incoherent policy, which swings wildly between threats of all-out war and suggestions of talks, further inflaming the already explosive situation. > In the aftermath of yesterday’s nuclear test, the White House, along with the American media, has turned its fire on China and Russia, underscoring the fact that the US confrontation with North Korea is bound up with far broader strategic aims. American strategists regard domination of the vast Eurasian land mass as the key to US global hegemony and China as the chief obstacle to that goal. > NBC presenters Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd on yesterday’s “Meet the Press,” repeatedly emphasised the accusation that China and Russia were providing “economic help” to North Korea. Republican Senator Roy Blunt added: “There’s some sense that they have been more helpful than they should have been and more sustaining to the economy than they should have been.” > Last month, both China and Russia voted for, and have begun implementing, crippling UN sanctions on North Korea that will slash its exports by one third. What is now being actively discussed in Washington is a total economic embargo—itself an act of war—and the cutting of trade with those who continue to conduct any with North Korea—above all China and Russia. > Trump, who is already preparing trade war measures against China over its alleged “theft” of intellectual property, tweeted yesterday: “The United States is considering, in addition to other options, stopping all trade with any country doing business with North Korea.” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin confirmed on Fox News Sunday that he was preparing “a sanctions package to send to the president, for his strong consideration” to do just that. > The implications for the global economy are immense—a collapse of trade, plunging the world into economic depression, as in the 1930s. That such a possibility is being actively considered is a measure of the depth of the economic and geo-political tensions wracking the world. Moreover, the threat of all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies is being accompanied by the preparations for all-out military conflict. > The Trump administration has accelerated the diplomatic, economic and military challenge to China begun by President Obama under his “pivot to Asia.” The massive US military build-up in North East Asia, including the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems and huge and highly provocative joint US-South Korean war games, is directed more at fighting a nuclear war with China than a conflict with the small, backward country of North Korea. > As well as ramping up the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has given the green light for more “freedom of navigation” operations in another of the region’s volatile flashpoints—the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US Pacific Command is preparing to sail warships and send military aircraft directly into waters and airspace claimed by China around its islets, two or three times in the next few months as part of a regular schedule. > In Europe, the US is escalating its confrontation with Russia by taking the first steps towards annulling the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the former Soviet Union. As Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung warned, the danger is “that the US will construct new missiles and station them in Europe,” raising the terrifying spectre of a nuclear war in Europe between the two countries—the US and Russia—that both possess thousands of nuclear warheads. > The most dangerous factor in this highly volatile situation is the profound economic, social and political crisis of US imperialism—of which Trump is the most malignant expression. His administration confronts deep internal divisions and a huge and mounting social crisis, which is generating massive domestic opposition, as a result of its incompetence and indifference to the human suffering caused by the Houston flooding. The danger is that Trump will resort to a war against North Korea with incalculable consequences, as a means of directing acute domestic class tensions outwards against an external foe. > At the same time, these social tensions, in America and around the world, are fuelling the coming revolutionary upheavals of the working class. The crucial issue is the building of a revolutionary leadership, to forge a unified international movement of workers guided by a scientific socialist program and perspective to put an end to the capitalist system and its outmoded division of the world into rival nation states. That is the perspective for which the International Committee of the Fourth International and its sections fight. > Peter Symonds > WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 20:07:43 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:07:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System In-Reply-To: <445583942.2673113.1504542705797@mail.yahoo.com> References: <445583942.2673113.1504542705797.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <445583942.2673113.1504542705797@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <86359720-D51B-4816-AC2B-5E54194D171B@illinois.edu> I admire Fred Lamb for his knowledge and objectivity regarding U.S. and foreign weapons systems, but I think the following statement he makes is, at best, confused: North Korea has long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapon programs that, if successful, would create a serious threat to the United States. N. Korea would only be a threat to the U.S. if the U.S. attacked that country, or believed the U.S. was on the verge of attacking. The latter is what the U.S. administration is claiming it is liable to do. The solution to fears of a N.Korea threat to the U.S. “homeland” is to stop its own military maneuvers in and around N. Korea, to end the nonresovled U.S.-Korean war, and to diplomatically come to a peaceful agreement with N. Korea (as as done in the 90’s) —mkb . On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Dianna Visek via Peace-discuss > wrote: A very interesting assessment of North Korea's ability to hit the continental US and our ability to defend against it. Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System | ACDIS - Illinois Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System | ACDIS -... _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 20:19:14 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 20:19:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYTimes.com: Outlawing War? It Actually Worked In-Reply-To: References: <59AC9E64.000003B7@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <95437167-B90C-40AC-A3A9-B45BC9C15B5C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <100A0A6C-3FCB-4268-8394-1D4993096BCB@illinois.edu> Agreed, Karen. David Swanson has been, frustratingly, promoting the Kellog-Briand pact for a long time to no avail. The powers that be in the U.S. have depended on war and associated actions to achieve their hegemonic goals. —mkb On Sep 4, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Ron, Really? The US, for whose behavior, we as Americans are responsible, hasn’t abided by International laws or our own laws in years, with just the use of our drones alone. Our destruction of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc. is hardly a sign that “acquisition” of land and resources is no longer an issue due to laws. We know that control of those nations and their resources is and continues to be the goal. Any, suggestion that “sanctions” are a peaceful means of dealing with issues vs war, is ridiculous, given the thousands of children who died as a result of our sanctions against Iran, and most sanctions other than those imposed on S.Africa, are a “prelude” or “provocation” to war. Which is what the current US government is implementing against Russia, N.K. and China, rather than the use of diplomacy. This article is clearly an attempt, per usual on the part of main stream media, which includes the NYT’s to vilify Russia with it’s statements in respect to the Crimea. Of course that should come as no surprise given it’s written by Yale Law School Professors, the Law School known for its creation of USG war mongers. On Sep 3, 2017, at 17:34, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Another perspective: From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: Outlawing War? It Actually Worked Date: September 3, 2017 Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/03/opinion/sunday/03gray/03gray-thumbStandard.jpg] Gray Matter Outlawing War? It Actually Worked By OONA A. HATHAWAY and SCOTT J. SHAPIRO A 1928 pact brought an end to the right of conquest and changed the way states behave. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2xGsept [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=1504484964687522®i_id=0] Curiously, no mention of Israel acquiring the West Bank (from Jordan) or the Golan (from Syria) by wars of conquest. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon Sep 4 20:20:29 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:20:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System In-Reply-To: <86359720-D51B-4816-AC2B-5E54194D171B@illinois.edu> References: <445583942.2673113.1504542705797.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <445583942.2673113.1504542705797@mail.yahoo.com> <86359720-D51B-4816-AC2B-5E54194D171B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Eminent sense. North Korea have continuously offered to cease all development and use of nuclear weapons. US presidents Obama & Trump both refused ... > On Sep 4, 2017, at 3:07 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I admire Fred Lamb for his knowledge and objectivity regarding U.S. and foreign weapons systems, but I think the following statement he makes is, at best, confused: > > North Korea has long-range ballistic missiles and nuclear weapon programs that, if successful, would create a serious threat to the United States. > > N. Korea would only be a threat to the U.S. if the U.S. attacked that country, or believed the U.S. was on the verge of attacking. The latter is what the U.S. administration is claiming it is liable to do. > > The solution to fears of a N.Korea threat to the U.S. “homeland” is to stop its own military maneuvers in and around N. Korea, to end the nonresovled U.S.-Korean war, and to diplomatically come to a peaceful agreement with N. Korea (as as done in the 90’s) > > —mkb > . >> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:31 AM, Dianna Visek via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> A very interesting assessment of North Korea's ability to hit the continental US and our ability to defend against it. >> >> Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System | ACDIS - Illinois >> >> >> Current Status of the U.S. Ground-Based Missile Defense System | ACDIS -... >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Sep 4 20:22:38 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 15:22:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYTimes.com: Outlawing War? It Actually Worked In-Reply-To: <100A0A6C-3FCB-4268-8394-1D4993096BCB@illinois.edu> References: <59AC9E64.000003B7@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> <95437167-B90C-40AC-A3A9-B45BC9C15B5C@illinois.edu> <100A0A6C-3FCB-4268-8394-1D4993096BCB@illinois.edu> Message-ID: “...American strategists regard domination of the vast Eurasian land mass as the key to US global hegemony and China as the chief obstacle to that goal... “Last month, both China and Russia voted for, and have begun implementing, crippling UN sanctions on North Korea that will slash its exports by one third. What is now being actively discussed in Washington is a total economic embargo—itself an act of war—and the cutting of trade with those who continue to conduct any with North Korea—above all China and Russia... “The Trump administration has accelerated the diplomatic, economic and military challenge to China begun by President Obama under his “pivot to Asia.” The massive US military build-up in North East Asia, including the installation of anti-ballistic missile systems and huge and highly provocative joint US-South Korean war games, is directed more at fighting a nuclear war with China than a conflict with the small, backward country of North Korea. “As well as ramping up the confrontation on the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has given the green light for more “freedom of navigation” operations in another of the region’s volatile flashpoints—the South China Sea. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the US Pacific Command is preparing to sail warships and send military aircraft directly into waters and airspace claimed by China around its islets, two or three times in the next few months as part of a regular schedule... “The danger is that Trump will resort to a war against North Korea with incalculable consequences, as a means of directing acute domestic class tensions outwards against an external foe…” [wsws.org ] —CGE > On Sep 4, 2017, at 3:19 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Agreed, Karen. David Swanson has been, frustratingly, promoting the Kellog-Briand pact for a long time to no avail. The powers that be in the U.S. have depended on war and associated actions to achieve their hegemonic goals. > > —mkb > > >> On Sep 4, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Ron, >> >> Really? >> >> The US, for whose behavior, we as Americans are responsible, hasn’t abided by International laws or our own laws in years, with just the use of our drones alone. Our destruction of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc. is hardly a sign that “acquisition” of land and resources is no longer an issue due to laws. We know that control of those nations and their resources is and continues to be the goal. >> >> Any, suggestion that “sanctions” are a peaceful means of dealing with issues vs war, is ridiculous, given the thousands of children who died as a result of our sanctions against Iran, and most sanctions other than those imposed on S.Africa, are a “prelude” or “provocation” to war. Which is what the current US government is implementing against Russia, N.K. and China, rather than the use of diplomacy. >> >> This article is clearly an attempt, per usual on the part of main stream media, which includes the NYT’s to vilify Russia with it’s statements in respect to the Crimea. Of course that should come as no surprise given it’s written by Yale Law School Professors, the Law School known for its creation of USG war mongers. >> >>> On Sep 3, 2017, at 17:34, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Another perspective: >>> >>> From: r-szoke > >>> Subject: NYTimes.com : Outlawing War? It Actually Worked >>> Date: September 3, 2017 >>> >>> >>> Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu : >>> >>> GRAY MATTER >>> Outlawing War? It Actually Worked >>> BY OONA A. HATHAWAY AND SCOTT J. SHAPIRO >>> >>> A 1928 pact brought an end to the right of conquest and changed the way states behave. >>> Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2xGsept >>> >>> >>> >>> Curiously, no mention of Israel acquiring the West Bank (from Jordan) or the Golan (from Syria) by wars of conquest. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 4 21:49:43 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2017 21:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Common sense analysis of antifa, etc. References: <1866567799.2860635.1504561783253.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1866567799.2860635.1504561783253@mail.yahoo.com> The Strange (and Tortured) Legacy of “Free Speech” | | | | | | | | | | | The Strange (and Tortured) Legacy of “Free Speech” It has recently come to my attention that new Chancellor Carol Christ at the University of California, Berkeley,... | | | The Strange (and Tortured) Legacy of “Free Speech” by Carl Boggs It has recently come to my attention that new Chancellor Carol Christ at the University of California, Berkeley, my alma mater, has unveiled ambitious plans for a “Free Speech Year” — a magnanimous gesture toward the Free Speech Movement (FSM) of 1964-65, an iconic moment in sixties radicalism.  Christ’s plans (essentially hopes) come at a time when a new cycle of right-wing speakers is slated for the fall, raising prospects of campus violence surpassing the chaos of February and May when Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter were scheduled to appear, then cancelled.  Those plans also come at a time of recurrent left-right street combat in Berkeley. Christ announced that the university would sponsor “point-counterpoint” panels to demonstrate how strongly opposed political views can be exchanged in a peaceful, respectful setting.  Other events include workshops on constitutional issues, a revisiting of FSM history and its aftermath, discussions about how the FSM influenced the larger trajectory of American higher education, and so forth.    There is a special “Free Speech Week” set for September 24-27th.   A group called “Discover Berkeley”, headed by Boalt Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, will be touring California in October with its “Free Speech Now: the Berkeley Experience” program.  Its focus:  “how to ensure that disparate voices are heard.” In something of an understatement, Christ lamented: “Now what public speech is about is shouting, screaming your point of view in a public space rather than really thoughtfully engaging someone with a different point of view.”    She neglected to mention those incidents where speech has been shut down entirely.    Whether a low-temperature intellectual milieu can be imagined, much less realized, in the age of Donald Trump, a resurgent conservatism, and escalating campus polarization is yet another matter. The Chancellor told an assembly of incoming UC students that the Berkeley free speech movement had been launched by liberals and conservatives partnering to win the right to advocate political views on campus.  Well, not exactly:  the reality was that liberals and radicals came together against fierce conservative resistance, both within and outside the university. Christ noted that free speech as a basic constitutional right remains vital to the “Berkeley community”, adding: “That protection involves not just defending your right to speak, or the right of those you agree with, but also defending the right to speak by those you disagree with, even of those whose views you find abhorrent.”   A ringing endorsement of political freedom right out of the pages of John Stuart Mill’s classic On Liberty.   Throughout American society and its hundreds of college campuses, however, this ideal was destined to fall short, and Berkeley – as we have amply seen – is hardly an exception.    The historic birthplace of “free speech” is simultaneously a bastion of formidable restrictions, limits, and obstacles, where violent conflict has all-too-often crowded out any free exchange of ideas. While Christ was offering a new generation of Berkeley students words of comfort and hope, the UC administration and police were busy refining “security assessments” for campus speakers.    Groups hosting events will now have to furnish at least eight weeks notice, detailed timetables of events, list of topics covered, and some guarantee against violence.   UC approval – as was the case before FSM had altered the political landscape – requires thorough “vetting” procedures.   Sponsoring groups are expected to pay $15,000 in security costs. Whatever the Chancellor’s admirable optimism and the strict measures in place, one can only speculate whether forthcoming visits of right wingers including Yiannopoulos, Coulter, and Ben Shapiro – along with special “free speech” events — will be met with anything close to an open hearing of disparate voices.    For his part, the rabble-rousing Yiannopoulos has promises to build a “tent city” in front of Sproul Hall, the same administration building where FSM helped usher in the new left.   Could a new environment of censorship, repression, and violence – at odds with all the FSM represented – be avoided at a time when campus activism remains immersed in multiculturalism and identity politics, when vigilance toward even the slightest hints of hateful discourse is heightened, when groups like Antifa seem primed for combat?    Has what the FSM hoped to achieve, and in great measure did achieve, now become alien to a political climate where speech is something to be tightly regulated and monitored – where, in fact, speech itself is under siege? Reflecting on the FSM legacy years later, Mario Savio could remember how the movement worked to revitalize long-cherished (but never fully-honored) ideals of free speech and assembly contained in the Bill of Rights.   Savio quoted the Greek philosopher Diogenes as saying “the most beautiful thing in the world is freedom of speech”, adding: “I really feel that.  And we weren’t going to let go of it.  I wasn’t going to let go of it.”  In actuality FSM went beyond free speech itself, connecting speech to politics so as to open space for organizations like SNCC and SDS to advance their work on campus.  Such advocacy, more than speech itself, had been banned by a top-heavy bureaucracy run by Clark Kerr, whose famous “multiversity” vision anticipated a technocratic system of higher education, the “odious” machine Savio so ruthlessly denigrated in his speeches. For Savio and others involved in this epic chain of events, the FSM was therefore most of all about politics – participatory democracy, to be specific.  In one of several anthologies on the movement, fellow grad student Jeff Lustig put it as follows: “In the course of the struggle we students began to affirm a different purpose for public higher education from the industrial service model proposed by Kerr.  We began to insist that the original and still primary purpose of higher education was political, in the broadest sense, not economic.  It was to prepare people for democratic citizenship.” On December 1, 1964, more than 800 students occupied Sproul Hall, soon to swept up by Alameda County sheriffs in what would be the largest mass student arrest in U.S. history.   I was among the protesters that night, escaping police detention when summoned to rush my wife to the hospital.  For me, as for Savio, Lustig, and hundreds of others, FSM turned out to be dramatically life-transforming.   By the late 1960s, we believed that everything had changed, that the right of political advocacy would be forever taken for granted at UC, Berkeley.   How wrong we would be! After the 1960s, the FSM brand evolved into something of a campus industry that even erstwhile hostile UC administrators could share.  The student revolt was occasion for three well-attended public commemorations.  At the twentieth anniversary, in 1984, FSM veteran Michael Rossman organized a week-long series of panels.  There has been a plethora of books, articles, films, and videos on the movement.   In 1977 the Daily Cal newspaper forced the FBI to release its vast collection of files on FSM participants.  In the late 1990s Rossman created an FSM website where hundreds of documents and other materials could be accessed.   There is even a Free Speech Café located mere steps from the sixties upheavals. That is one side of the story.   In more recent times, the deepening cult of identity politics, along with elevated ideological strife, has given rise to an astonishing reversal:  the same arch-conservative interests that strove to block advocacy in the sixties are now fighting – often against censorship and force – to secure their own freedom of advocacy.  The previous “outside agitators” on the left have become mostly insiders, apostles of multiculturalism and unswerving enemies of “hate speech”.   These days the ACLU is more likely to be enlisted by Coulter or Shapiro than by Noam Chomsky or Chris Hedges. At Berkeley, as at other institutions of higher learning in the U.S., campus life is governed by a byzantine system of laws, rules, and codes restricting or banning discussion on a wide variety of topics.   Transgressions, real or perceived, can bring censorship, protests, discipline, even violent assault.   In contrast to the older McCarthyism, however, the new censors are not so much the government and police but students, faculty, and administrators ready to investigate, detect, and punish.   As we have recently seen, moreover, speech enforcers can also be militant off-campus groups armed with Molotov cocktails, baseball bats, tire chains, and mace. If state power is not the main oppressor here, questions arise – the first being who decides what is hateful or offensive?   During the FSM era the answer veered toward the idea of collective struggle to extend the bounds of free speech, which resisted external limits.   That struggle now seems rather arcane in a universe where restrictive social norms and fierce political combat frequently overwhelm institutional and legal protections. At the same time, definitions of hate speech – nowadays often framed as an act of violence – grow more elastic, expansive, and arbitrary the deeper we enter the murky realm of multiculturalism.  The campus terrain has become especially treacherous, fraught with endless pitfalls and dangers.   We have entered a zone where garden-variety Republicans like Coulter are ritually denounced as “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists”.   While certain identities (Latinos, blacks, Jews, women, gays) are typically insulated from attack, others fail to qualify:   Russians, Muslims, Arabs, Iranians, and similar villainized groups can be offended, even threatened, with impunity.  And yes, all of these groups have a domestic presence.)   Some of the worst offenders, moreover, can be found at the summits of power.  In a recent talk, former intelligence operative James Clapper denounced Russians (Slavs) as “genetically” inclined toward ruthless and aggressive behavior, without a murmur from the media.   Audiences of that great liberal Bill Maher’s HBO show are regularly treated to tirades against Muslims and Palestinians – the same hate speech routinely heard at AIPAC, with its 100,000 members, a yearly budget of $47 million, and real leverage over American politics.   No speech monitors are in sight. At Berkeley, clashes surrounding the Yiannopolous and Coulter events this year probably did more to bolster than to undermine right-wing politics.   If attempts to silence objectionable speech run counter to historical FSM values, they are also profoundly self-negating.    Chomsky’s argument that chaos brought on by Antifa and kindred groups has been a much-appreciated gift to the extreme right seems on the mark.   One campus leftist railed: “We can’t keep producing this audio-visual propaganda. It is recruiting for the right.” Professor Robert Reich and others at UC, Berkeley contend that such violence emanates from groups outside the campus, but that is not entirely true:   Antifa recruits freely among students and enjoys support among both students and faculty.    The Yiannopoulos event, formally opposed by more than 100 professors, was protested by 1500 students including many determined to shut down the rightist provocateur known mostly for his performance acts.   There is always plenty of space to counter such speakers, but forcefully shutting them down is no answer, as that simply feeds their sense of victimism and capacity to win sympathy, while implicating the broader mass of protesters in an ongoing theater of political combat. Antifa screams about racism and fascism on the right, which of course exists, while ignoring those same tendencies – not to mention warmongering – among liberal Democrats.   The group seems blind to far more consequential fascist interests at work within the power structure itself.    Despite a well-cultivated radical image, Antifa rarely focuses on the growing ultra-nationalism, militarism, and imperialism that lies at the very core of American politics – tendencies in fact more dangerous than the rhetoric of Yiannopoulos, Coulter, and Shapiro.   Beneath its ultra-leftism is a modus operandi riddled with the worst of identity politics.   And since its violent tactics are not aligned with any popular movement, its opposition to fascism (such as it is) turns hollow, empty. The irony is that while the FSM and its heirs did everything possible to expand the realm of free speech, new social forces – extreme identity groups, Antifa – want to restrict or deny freedoms.   One current Berkeley student wondered why large sectors of the left have grown so terrified of free speech: “If fascism means shutting down political opposition and muzzling dissent, then just who is the fascist here?”  Said another: “Berkeley should be the epicenter of a thriving marketplace of ideas.  Unfortunately, it has become the most intolerant place in America.” Antifa militants, advocates of direct-action politics in the Black-Bloc tradition, have no doubt drawn added energy from the Charlottesville events, increasingly primed for street combat.   Meanwhile, operatives at CNN and other corporate media outlets seem infatuated with a group they not long ago savaged for its “culture of random violence”.  In this incendiary environment, it might be worth asking whether free speech as a resonant ideal has been reduced to obsolescence.  One Antifa member recently boasted: “Whatever you can do to throw a wrench into the gears is valuable.”   One can only wonder, five decades later, how Mario Savio might view this misappropriation of his classic summons to radical action.   (I believe he would say something about being “sick at heart”.)    As for Chancellor Christ, we’ll get her response soon enough. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 12:08:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 12:08:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=C2=A0Showings_of_Racial_Taboo_i?= =?utf-8?q?n_Decatur_and_Mahomet?= References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: From: Amy Felty > Subject: Showings of Racial Taboo in Decatur and Mahomet Date: September 4, 2017 at 19:33:30 PDT To: > Reply-To: Amy Felty > We are announcing the next two showings of the documentary film Racial Taboo. Please share this invitation with others who would be interested in attending. Sunday, September 24, 2017 Decatur Club 158 W. Prairie Avenue Decatur, IL 2:00-5:00 pm Sunday, October 1, 2017 Mahomet Methodist Church 1302 E. South Mahomet Road Mahomet, IL 2:00-5:00 pm There is no charge for the film. Please let your friends and acquaintances know that they are welcome. You may wish to see the film again and discuss it with others. For more information, contact Amy Felty at asfelty at gmail.com. This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Racial Taboo group discussion notification list · 1914 Clover Lane · Champaign, Il 61821 · USA [Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 5 14:42:05 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 14:42:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Our next proxy war? US weapons being supplied to the Saudi's to train "rebels" in Burma, to defend themselves....... Message-ID: The military government of Burma/Myanmar is a particularly ruthless and cruel one, still in power in spite of all appearances. They began the slaughter of Rohingya’s or Muslims on a large scale approximately 2-4 years ago. A few months ago news of the Saudi’s training the Rohingya’s as well as supplying them with weapons, US weapons, to “defend” themselves made the news. It certainly began to look like another “Syria,” and now we have many human rights groups calling for international assistance to the Rohingya’s. The question is will the US use this as an excuse for intervention? Is it because the government of Burma/Myanmar just signed an agreement with China for a gas pipeline running through the nation, and to the ports of Rakhine onto the Indian Ocean, bypassing the chokehold on the Malacca Straits, with the potential now for the BRI or Belt Road Initiative by China? I think we know the answer, if the Burmese government doesn’t cancel their agreements with China, where this is all headed. The following article is one of the best I’ve seen from Moonofalabama.com by Andrew Korbyko who has written of US proxy or “Hybrid Wars.” The Rohingya Of Myanmar - Pawns In An Anglo-Chinese Proxy War Fought By Saudi Jihadists Media attention is directed to some minor ethnic violence in Myanmar, the former Burma. The story in the "western" press is of Muslim Rohingya unfairly vilified, chased out and killed by Buddhist mobs and the army in the state of Rakhine near the border to Bangladesh. The "liberal human interventionists" like Human Rights Watch are united with Islamists like Turkey's President Erdogan in loudly lamenting the plight of the Rohingya. That curious alliance also occurred during the wars on Libya and Syria. It is by now a warning sign. Could there be more behind this than some local conflict in Myanmar? Is someone stocking a fire? Indeed. While the ethnic conflict in Rankine state is very old, it has over the last years morphed into an Jihadist guerilla war financed and led from Saudi Arabia. The area is of geo-strategic interest: Rakhine plays an important part in [the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative] OBOR, as it is an exit to Indian Ocean and the location of planned billion-dollar Chinese projects—a planned economic zone on Ramree Island, and the Kyaukphyu deep-sea port, which has oil and natural gas pipelines linked with Yunnan Province’s Kunming. Pipelines from the western coast of Myanmar eastwards to China allow hydrocarbon imports from the Persian Gulf to China while avoiding the bottleneck of the Strait of Malacca and disputed parts of the South China Sea. It is in "Western interest" to hinder China's projects in Myanmar. Inciting Jihad in Rakhine could help to achieve that. There is historic precedence for such a proxy war in Burma. During World War II British imperial forces incited the Rohingya Muslim in Rakhine to fight Burmese nationalist Buddhists allied with Japanese imperialists. [http://www.moonofalabama.org/images5/myanmar2-s.jpg] bigger The Rohingya immigrated to the northern parts of Arakan, today's Rakhine state of Myanmar, since the 16th century. A large wave came under British imperial occupation some hundred years ago. Illegal immigration from Bangladesh continued over the last decades. In total about 1.1 million of Muslim Rohingya live in Myanmar. The birthrate of the Rohingya is said to be higher than that of the local Arakanese Buddhists. These feel under pressure in their own land. While these populations are mixed in some towns there are many hamlets that belong 100% to either one. There is generally little integration of Rohingya within Myanmar. Most are officially not accepted as citizens. Over the centuries and the last decades there have been several violent episodes between the immigrants and the local people. The last Muslim-Buddhist conflict raged in 2012. Since then a clearly Islamist insurgency was build up in the area. It acts under the name Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and is led by Ataullah abu Ammar Junjuni, a Jihadist from Pakistan. (ARSA earlier operated under the name Harakah al-Yakin, or Faith Movement.) Ataullah was born into the large Rohingya community of Karachi, Pakistan. He grew up and was educated in Saudi Arabia. He received military training in Pakistan and worked as Wahhabi Imam in Saudi Arabia before he came to Myanmar. He has since brainwashed, hired and trained a local guerrilla army of some 1,000 Takfiris. According to a 2015 report in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn there are more than 500,000 Rohingya in Karachi. They came from Bangladesh during the 1970s and 1980s on the behest on General Ziaul Haq’s military regime and the CIA to fight the Soviets and the government of Afghanistan: Rohingya community [in Karachi] is more inclined towards religion and they send their children to madressahs. It is a major reason that many religious parties, especially the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, the JI and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl, have their organisational set-up in Burmese neighborhoods. ... “A number of Rohingya members living in Arakan Abad have lost their relatives in recent attacks by Buddhist mobs in June 2012 in Myanmar,” said Mohammad Fazil, a local JI activist. Rohingyas in Karachi regularly collect donations, Zakat and hides of sacrificial animals and send these to Myanmar and Bangladesh to support the displaced families. Reuters noted in late 2016 that the Jihadist group is trained, led and financed through Pakistan and Saudi Arabia: A group of Rohingya Muslims that attacked Myanmar border guards in October is headed by people with links to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, the International Crisis Group (ICG) said on Thursday, citing members of the group. ... “Though not confirmed, there are indications [Ataullah] went to Pakistan and possibly elsewhere, and that he received practical training in modern guerrilla warfare,” the group said. It noted that Ata Ullah was one of 20 Rohingya from Saudi Arabia leading the group’s operations in Rakhine State. Separately, a committee of 20 senior Rohingya emigres oversees the group, which has headquarters in Mecca, the ICG said. The ARSA Jihadists claim to only attack government forces but civilian Arakanese Buddhists have also been ambushed and massacred. Bugghist hamlets were also burned down. The government of Myanmar alleges that Ataullah and his group want to declare an independent Islamic State. In October 2016 his group started to attack police and other government forces in the area. On August 25 this year his group attacked 30 police stations and military outposts and killed some 12 policemen. The army and police responded, as is usual in this conflict, by burning down Rohingya townships suspected of hiding guerilla forces. To escape the growing violence many local Arakanese Buddhist flee their towns towards the capitol of Rankine. Local Rohingya Muslim flee across the border to Bangladesh. Only the later refugees seem to get international attention. The Myanmar army has ruled the country for decades. Under economic pressure it nominally opened up to the "west" and instituted "democracy". The darling of the "west" in Myanmar is Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Her party won the elections and she has a dominant role in the government. But Aung San Suu Kyi is foremost a nationalist and the real power is still held by the generals. While Aung San Suu Kyi was propped up as democratic icon she has little personal merit except being the daughter of Thakin Aung San, a famous leader of the Burma Independence Army (BIA) and the "father of the nation". In the 1940s Thakin Aung San was recruited by the Imperial Japanese Army to wage a guerrilla war against the colonial British army and the British supply line to anti-Japanese forces in China: The young Aung San learned to wear Japanese traditional clothing, speak the language, and even took a Japanese name. In historian Thant Myint-U’s “The River of Lost Footsteps,” he describes him as “apparently getting swept away in all the fascist euphoria surrounding him,” but notes that his commitment remained to independence for Myanmar. The ethnic strife in Rakhine also played a role in the British-Japanese conflict over Burma: In April 1942, Japanese troops advanced into Rakhine State and reached Maungdaw Township, near the border with what was then British India, and is now Bangladesh. As the British retreated to India, Rakhine became a front line. Local Arakanese Buddhists collaborated with the BIA and Japanese forces but the British recruited area Muslims to counter the Japanese. “Both armies, British and Japanese, exploited the frictions and animosity in the local population to further their own military aims,” wrote scholar Moshe Yegar When the British won against the Japanese Thakin Aung San change sides and negotiated the end of British imperial rule over Burma. He was assassinated in 1947 with the help of British officers. Since then Burma, later renamed to Myanmar, was ruled by ever competing factions of the military. Thakin Aung San's daughter Aung San Suu Kyi received a British education and was build up for a role in Myanmar. In the 1980s and 90s she quarreled with the military government. She was given a Nobel Peace Price and was promoted as progressive defender of human rights by the "western" literati. But she, and the National League for Democracy (NLD). she leads, were always the opposite - ultra-right fascists in Buddhist Saffron robes. The hypocrites are now disappointed that she does not speak out in favor of the Rohingya. But doing so would put her on the opposite side her father had famously fought for. It would also put her in opposition to most of the people in Myanmar who have little sympathy for the Rohingya and their Jihadi fight. Moreover - the Chinese OBOR projects are a huge bon for Myanmar and will help with its economic development. The Saudis and Pakistani send guerilla commanders and money to incite the Rohingya to Jihad in Myanmar. This is a historic repeat of the CIA operation against Soviet influence in Afghanistan. But unlike in Afghanistan the people of Myanmar are not Muslim they will surely fight against, not join, any Jihad in their country. The Rohingya are now pawns in the great game and will suffer from it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 5 19:11:46 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:11:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MASSMAIL - Federal Government Decision on DACA Today In-Reply-To: <61577030.364.1504638228526@tardis-app5.cites.illinois.edu> References: <61577030.364.1504638228526@tardis-app5.cites.illinois.edu> Message-ID: We will build a campus culture of inclusion to ensure all members of our community may pursue their educational and professional goals not only free from acts of discrimination and intolerance, but in the full knowledge they are welcomed and embraced. Except for the Salaita-Terrorized Palestinians and the American Indians--who were ethnically cleansed off of this Campus by the Illiniwaks and the Zionists. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Chancellor Robert J. Jones [mailto:chancellor at illinois.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 2:04 PM Subject: MASSMAIL - Federal Government Decision on DACA Today [https://illinois.edu/skinDesigner/files/23365/massmail_blocki-book.png] Dear Students, Faculty and Staff: Earlier today you received a Massmail signed by President Killeen, Executive Vice President Wilson and the chancellors of our three universities about the United States Department of Justice announcement ending the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in the coming months. We are carefully reviewing the implications of this action for our students. We remain committed to the principles set out in the campus statement in support of DACA and students sent on December 13, 2016. * Commitment to Remaining an Inclusive and Supportive Campus At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, our preeminence in research, teaching and public engagement has long depended on keeping our doors wide open to the most talented students, faculty and staff from all over the United States and abroad. We recruit and support the very best regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or national origin. We will be proactive in supporting all of our students, faculty, staff and visiting scholars, whether domestic or international. We will advocate for the continued access of undocumented and DACA students to full educational opportunities. We will build a campus culture of inclusion to ensure all members of our community may pursue their educational and professional goals not only free from acts of discrimination and intolerance, but in the full knowledge they are welcomed and embraced. As always, we will protect student and employee confidential information to the fullest extent allowed by law. While we will comply with all federal, state and local laws, we will also champion laws and regulations that recognize how critical immigrant students and scholars are to the excellence of our great research university and the continued world-leading achievement of the United States in science, engineering, humanities, social science and the arts. As a leading land grant university, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign remains steadfast in its mission to educate, research and engage, and thereby change the world for the better. Our success rests firmly on the principle of inviting the best and brightest into our community and supporting their capacity to thrive, and we will vigorously advocate for actions, laws and policies that protect and advance that principle. Thank you to all of the members of our community for your efforts to help us create an inclusive and supportive university. Information about campus policies and resources related to DACA can be found at http://open.illinois.edu. Sincerely, Robert J. Jones Chancellor John Wilkin Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost Danita Brown Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs This mailing approved by: Office of the Chancellor sent to: Everyone Massmail Archive . Massmail powered by WebTools -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 5 19:11:46 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 19:11:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: MASSMAIL - Federal Government Decision on DACA Today In-Reply-To: <61577030.364.1504638228526@tardis-app5.cites.illinois.edu> References: <61577030.364.1504638228526@tardis-app5.cites.illinois.edu> Message-ID: We will build a campus culture of inclusion to ensure all members of our community may pursue their educational and professional goals not only free from acts of discrimination and intolerance, but in the full knowledge they are welcomed and embraced. Except for the Salaita-Terrorized Palestinians and the American Indians--who were ethnically cleansed off of this Campus by the Illiniwaks and the Zionists. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Chancellor Robert J. Jones [mailto:chancellor at illinois.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 2:04 PM Subject: MASSMAIL - Federal Government Decision on DACA Today [https://illinois.edu/skinDesigner/files/23365/massmail_blocki-book.png] Dear Students, Faculty and Staff: Earlier today you received a Massmail signed by President Killeen, Executive Vice President Wilson and the chancellors of our three universities about the United States Department of Justice announcement ending the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in the coming months. We are carefully reviewing the implications of this action for our students. We remain committed to the principles set out in the campus statement in support of DACA and students sent on December 13, 2016. * Commitment to Remaining an Inclusive and Supportive Campus At the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, our preeminence in research, teaching and public engagement has long depended on keeping our doors wide open to the most talented students, faculty and staff from all over the United States and abroad. We recruit and support the very best regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or national origin. We will be proactive in supporting all of our students, faculty, staff and visiting scholars, whether domestic or international. We will advocate for the continued access of undocumented and DACA students to full educational opportunities. We will build a campus culture of inclusion to ensure all members of our community may pursue their educational and professional goals not only free from acts of discrimination and intolerance, but in the full knowledge they are welcomed and embraced. As always, we will protect student and employee confidential information to the fullest extent allowed by law. While we will comply with all federal, state and local laws, we will also champion laws and regulations that recognize how critical immigrant students and scholars are to the excellence of our great research university and the continued world-leading achievement of the United States in science, engineering, humanities, social science and the arts. As a leading land grant university, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign remains steadfast in its mission to educate, research and engage, and thereby change the world for the better. Our success rests firmly on the principle of inviting the best and brightest into our community and supporting their capacity to thrive, and we will vigorously advocate for actions, laws and policies that protect and advance that principle. Thank you to all of the members of our community for your efforts to help us create an inclusive and supportive university. Information about campus policies and resources related to DACA can be found at http://open.illinois.edu. Sincerely, Robert J. Jones Chancellor John Wilkin Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost Danita Brown Young Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs This mailing approved by: Office of the Chancellor sent to: Everyone Massmail Archive . Massmail powered by WebTools -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 6 03:01:59 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 03:01:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anderson, IN References: <2131026533.3888867.1504666919415.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2131026533.3888867.1504666919415@mail.yahoo.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ7veeTppuc Chris Hedges' excellent documentary on a community abandoned by GM, etc. (30 min.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gwoodiii3 at gmail.com Wed Sep 6 17:43:30 2017 From: gwoodiii3 at gmail.com (Gus Wood) Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:43:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [geo-barg] NEED Attendance at U of I Board of Trustees Meeting, 10 45 am, TOMORROW, Sep 7!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Solidarity Officer" Date: Sep 6, 2017 12:27 PM Subject: [geo-barg] NEED Attendance at U of I Board of Trustees Meeting, 10 45 am, TOMORROW, Sep 7!! To: "Solidarity Committee List" , "Stewards Council List" , "Communications Committee List" < commcommlist at uigeo.org>, , "Bargaining Team List" < barglist at uigeo.org>, "Health Care Working Group List" , "ISWG List" , "Parents List" Cc: Hi everyone, > There is a *U of I Board of Trustees (BoT) Meeting tomorrow, Sep 7 at the > Illini Union, Rooms B and C. **Alvaro Cruz, GEO Treasurer and Bargaining > Team member will be speaking in the public comment section of the meeting > from 11 15 am - 12 pm*. He will be speaking on being an undocumented/DACA > student in the U of I system until recently, the administration's intention > to comply with the "laws" and their lack of commitment on this issue (and > others) as evidenced through GEO contract negotiations. The agenda for this > meeting is here > > . > > The BoT is the decision-making body for the university, and our contract. *We > want to pack the room during this meeting, and ask that you come from 10 45 > am - 12 pm, and bring as many people with you as possible!* Illinois > Governer Bruce Rauner will be present at this meeting, and this is a > crucial time for us to show the BoT our organising power, and how we feel > about the getting the fair contract that we deserve! It's important that we > show them that we are waiting for a better response from them on the DACA > repeal. > > Please do share this message with your friends, on social media and > relevants groups that you're a part of. *Thanks, and hope to see you > tomorrow!* > > La luch continua (The struggle continues), > Roshni > > PS: Can someone please send this to the HCWG and ISWG lists that I may not > have access to? > -- > Solidarity Committee > Graduate Employees' Organization > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > IFT/AFT Local 6300 - AFL-CIO > uigeo.org > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_1115241667348047799_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > -- > Bargaining Team List > Graduate Employees’ Organization > 809 S. 5th St., Geneva Room > Champaign, IL 61820 > Phone: 217-344-8283 <(217)%20344-8283> > Email: geo at uigeo.org > Website: https://www.uigeo.org > Twitter: @geo_uiuc > Facebook: @uigeo @geosolcomm > Instagram: @geo_uiuc > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Bargaining Team List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to barglist+unsubscribe at uigeo.org. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/uigeo.org/group/barglist/. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/uigeo.org/d/optout. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 7 14:16:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:16:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Margaret Kimberly of the Black Agenda Report Message-ID: Taken from a good article by Margaret Kimberly of the Black Agenda Report…… “The left must always oppose regime change and must always support the forces who fight against it.” "Those on the left who are resolute in their condemnation of American aggression are the rhetorical winners. Let there be no confusion in the future. The left must always oppose regime change and must always support the forces who fight against it as the Syrian government has done. There should be no confusion about “good” and “bad” targets of aggression. United States foreign policy must be opposed, especially when it claims a responsibility to protect, or fight genocide or declare any other excuse for its aggression." "The pro regime change clique are only left with name calling. Labeling Assad a butcher is the substitute for victory they thought was certain. The United States government is fortunately not the only player on the world stage. The other actors do well when they unify and keep its awful plans in check." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Sep 7 14:18:32 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 09:18:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Margaret Kimberly of the Black Agenda Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005501d327e4$2fd0b4b0$8f721e10$@comcast.net> Absolutely ! David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 9:16 AM To: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Margaret Kimberly of the Black Agenda Report Taken from a good article by Margaret Kimberly of the Black Agenda Report…… “The left must always oppose regime change and must always support the forces who fight against it.” "Those on the left who are resolute in their condemnation of American aggression are the rhetorical winners. Let there be no confusion in the future. The left must always oppose regime change and must always support the forces who fight against it as the Syrian government has done. There should be no confusion about “good” and “bad” targets of aggression. United States foreign policy must be opposed, especially when it claims a responsibility to protect, or fight genocide or declare any other excuse for its aggression." "The pro regime change clique are only left with name calling. Labeling Assad a butcher is the substitute for victory they thought was certain. The United States government is fortunately not the only player on the world stage. The other actors do well when they unify and keep its awful plans in check." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 8 15:19:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:19:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My letter this morning to the NG Message-ID: The world is facing two potential devastations, that of climate change, and nuclear war. War is a major contributing factor to climate change, in more ways than just environmental degradation and pollution. With 68% of the federal budget going to support the military, leaving little for social services, it also means little for support of alternative energies. As long as US foreign policy is that of perpetual war, in order to control other nations resources, it becomes obvious there is no “will” to support alternative energy. Individuals can do what they may, give up commercialism, SUV’s, air conditioning, eating meat, long showers and recycle, but compared to the use of fossil fuels, we are one grain of sand in the Sahara. Communities can attempt to provide clean water, food, and protect their local environment from the ravages of climate change, but we do not live in a bubble, we are dependent and connected to all other communities, and nations. Unless people unite in common cause, against a government of profiteers, exploitation all, there is little hope for mankind. Announcing “Anti-War Teach In” Sept. 23rd at Channing Murray 1209 Oregon St. with a panel of nine. From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 8 16:25:03 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 16:25:03 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Black Agenda Report References: <66229965.44263.1504887903050.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <66229965.44263.1504887903050@mail.yahoo.com> While I'm not a big fan of "dialectical materialism," perhaps I should be; this article from BAR seems to place the antifa in an appropriate analytical and critical context. Boston Protest of White Supremacy and FascismReveal Deep Contradictions of the Trump Era DannyHaiphong   BostonProtest of White Supremacy and Fascism Reveal Deep Contradictions of the TrumpEra byDanny Haiphong “Thetwo ruling parties in the US, which have united to wage an all-out assault onthe oppressed both here and worldwide.” August19th marked the arrival of so-called "free speech" groups to theBoston Common. They were met by 30,000 protesters who sought to run them out ofthe city in the aftermath of events in Charlottesville just a week earlier. Theoverwhelming opposition forced what many deemed to be Nazis to end their eventprematurely. Activists rejoiced over the sheer numerical advantage they enjoyedover the right-wing assembly. The protest has been hailed as a victory for the"left" in the US. As with any perceived victory under the terminaldecline of the US empire, the question of how revolutionaries can move thestruggle against white supremacy toward the transformation of society remainsunanswered. First,white supremacy cannot be confined to the ideas that exist in the mindsindividual white Americans or even organized formations of white Americans.White supremacy is a system of power rooted in the social relations of UScapitalism. The invention of the white race has historically justified thedispossession and oppression necessary to maximize profits in the midst oflabor solidarity. Whiteness not only divided workers based on race, but ascribeda more intense form of exploitation to whoever was deemed by the ruling classto fall out of the markers of white identity. White supremacy first justifiedthe colonial conquest of indigenous lands and the enslavement of Africans. Thesystem of white rule was then implemented beyond the borders of the USnation-state to encompass all nations and peoples who stood in the way ofcapitalism's unmitigated expansion. “Whitesupremacy is a system of power rooted in the social relations of UScapitalism.” Marxistthinkers and organizers use the scientific method of dialectical materialism tounderstand the development of society. The dialectical method studiescontradictions as the defining force of all phenomena and concludes that thestruggle between contradictions leads to change. Contradictions are always inmotion and change constantly as they interact with each other. Quantitativechanges in the interrelations of things eventually lead to qualitative change.Marxists use this scientific outlook to study the development of class societyfrom the earliest periods of humanity to the present day. Andin the present day, the principle contradiction of US society is the strugglebetween white supremacy and the class exploitation it produces both at home andabroad. White supremacy is often promoted by the power structure as nothingmore than bad ideas which are unrelated to the structure of US society. Thiscan be seen by the number of people at the Boston protest who were inattendance primarily to condemn “hate” speech and “Nazis.” Separating “hatespeech” and “Nazis” from their historical roots masks the fact that whitesupremacy and corporate power have always interlocked in the US to produce ripeconditions for the rise of actual fascism. US intelligence nurtured fascismduring the Roosevelt period and after, hiring many former SS war criminals tohelp wage a "cold" war against the Soviet Union. Under theDemocratic Party presidency of Barack Obama, the US backed similar forces inUkraine to intensify the new cold war against Russia. NATO, a thoroughlybi-partisan institution of war, recently released a documentary that celebratesthe historic struggle of fascist forces in the Baltic States against the Soviet Union. “Thesystem of white rule was then implemented beyond the borders of the USnation-state to encompass all nations and peoples who stood in the way ofcapitalism's unmitigated expansion.” Theconversation and activity targeting white supremacy and fascism in the US mustmove beyond the present outlook of the ruling class. This outlook places DonaldTrump at the center of the struggle to legitimize the US imperial system.Trump's ascendancy is more reflective of the crisis of white supremacy andimperialism than it is of the gathering strength of fascism. For Trumpwould not be President at this moment were it not for the deep contradictionsthat plague every facet of the US social structure. The intensity of oppositionto Trump's racist policy propositions has been met with an equally intenseopposition to his campaign promises to ease relations with Russia and institutea variant of "economic nationalism." The dialectical method thusreveals a contradiction in the struggle against white supremacy, fascism, andDonald Trump. Allcontradictions possess two sides. The struggle against white supremacy andDonald Trump is no different. On one side sits the ruling class politicalparties, both of which oppose Donald Trump based on his positions on foreignpolicy and economy. On the other side of the contradiction is the left. Theleft has targeted Donald Trump for his racist and sexist commentary and policythroughout his campaign and presidency. Much of the left's opposition to Trumphas ignored the system of imperialism. Ruling class opposition to Trump hasthus created a hostile political environment for organizing on a class basis. “Trump'sascendancy is more reflective of the crisis of white supremacy and imperialismthan it is of the gathering strength of fascism.” Thishas significantly limited the debate and terms of struggle. Opposition to Trumpis united is in its inability to project a coherent class analysis of the period.Unity between contradictions renders the conflict between them invisible. Inthis time of stagnation and crisis in US imperialism, ideological unity betweenthe left and the ruling class has blurred the contradiction between the peopleand the system. To fight white supremacist ideas and not the total structure ofthe white supremacist system of imperialism places the left in dangerousterritory. Such activity obscures the actual levers of power that make thematerial conditions for racist ideas possible. Thefact remains that US popular anger over racist ideas is nowhere to be foundwhen Washington decides to bomb, occupy, or destabilize another country.Demonstrations against the war on Syria have been small over the course ofsix-plus years, and there have been few, if any, popular protests of the US wardrive against Russia, China or the DPRK despite their potentially nuclearimplications. Few protested the NATO bombing of Libya that murdered over 50,000 Africans and struck a huge blow in the struggle againstUS military occupation of the continent through AFRICOM. The same can be saidwhen the police in the US lynch Black Americans at a daily rate and imprisonthem in world record numbers. Of course, individuals and even movements are notsolely to blame for this phenomenon. Much of the blame rests on the shouldersof the two ruling parties in the US, which have united to wage an all-outassault on the oppressed both here and worldwide. “Tofight white supremacist ideas and not the total structure of the whitesupremacist system of imperialism places the left in dangerous territory. Disagreementwithin the ruling class exists over just how white supremacy should bepresented to the masses. Russophobia is not considered white supremacy, nor isthe constant, Orientalist coverage in the media of the DPRK being a "roguestate" ruled over by a singular "dictator." The ruling classalso has no problem portraying Black Americans as a criminal element in the USwhenever the police need to be defended from persecution. White supremacy mustbe framed as a malady of the past, one that doesn't stain the fabric of presentday US imperialism. Trump and his Administration makes the suppression of USimperialism's white supremacist reality increasingly difficult and thereforepossess little use to the ruling class. Andit isn't just Trump's overt white supremacy that makes his rule impractical toa large section of the ruling class. White nationalists in the streets areproblematic, but even more problematic is Trump's willingness to debate therulers on key policy issues. When questioned about his support for Confederatemonuments, Trump lashed back by raising the racist implications ofmemorializing George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. This is but one aspectof Washington's power struggle over Trump's Presidency. Since his inauguration,Trump and his Administration have clashed with the corporate media and with theCIA over the questions of Syria and Russia. Thecontradictions of the current epoch must be understood to chart a clearer pathforward to social revolution and transformation. White supremacy is not just afeeling of hate that incites white Americans into violence. It is a system ofsocial relations that supports the profit-driven interests of the USimperialist system. So what side are we on? Who is marching among us, and wouldthey march with us should we turn our attention to the actual levers of powerthat make white supremacy possible? These are the questions that must be askedas the contradictions of the Trump era become more acute by the day. DannyHaiphong is a Vietnamese-American activist and political analyst in the Bostonarea. He canbereachedatwakeupriseup1990 at gmail.com   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 12:19:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 12:19:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hurricane preparedness in the US Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Why aren’t trains evacuating people from the path of Hurricane Irma? By Jeff Lusanne 9 September 2017 As Hurricane Irma threatens Florida with historic destruction, little to nothing is being done to help residents evacuate. On Friday, Florida Governor Rick Scott and FEMA officials warned millions of residents to flee the path of the storm. How to flee has been left up to residents, with no assistance provided. Over 20 counties are being told to evacuate, in what could be the largest evacuation in American history. It is quickly exposing the abysmal, anarchy-filled state of transportation in America. Those hoping to fly out were confronted with sky-high prices, in the hundreds or thousands of dollars, and now over 4,000 flights have been canceled. Extra flights were added, but operations wound down Friday afternoon, more than a full day before the storm. Many have been left stranded at the airport, with all shelters filled up. For millions, their only way to flee is by car. Gas shortages have spread across the state, and drivers confront extremely heavy traffic that burns through gas with little progress. From southern Florida, there is only Interstate 95 or Interstate 75 to head north, both of which have had extensive delays for days. On Friday, northbound delays covering hundreds of miles were visible on I-75 and I-95 even into Georgia and South Carolina. This “fend for yourself” method of evacuation presents an enormous inequality, where working people must spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to head to safety, assuming they even have a car. As a retirement destination, Florida also has many residents over 65 years old. This includes residents in nursing care, or with physical or mental impairments, that make them unable to drive or fly. Why haven’t passenger trains, which could carry a thousand people a time, been sent to Florida to help? Residents without money or the ability to travel by car or plane could be taken to designated points of shelter and food. Prior to Hurricane Gustav in 2008, there was a small successful example of this, as some 2,000 residents of New Orleans were taken to Memphis, Tennessee on special trains, as well as buses. A worker who participated in the rail operation noted that “At least 50% of the passengers were elderly, many in wheelchairs, on walkers or canes and generally unable to move very well without some assistance.” On a return trip, many passengers brought more luggage, as they could buy essential supplies in Memphis that would have been out of stock or priced-gouged in New Orleans. With baggage cars and plenty of space, the train accommodated this for free—compared to an airline that would charge $50 per bag. That operation was minimal compared to what could be done, and yet with Irma, nothing similar has been attempted, despite a far larger forced evacuation. If the state and federal government, FEMA, and corporations cared to, dozens of sets of passenger train equipment could have been sent south during the week and made several trips from South Florida to points farther North. This would require workers trained in advance to conduct the operation, and designated points of shelter established in places like Atlanta, Georgia; Columbia, South Carolina; Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina; and other cities. As one example, the commuter rail system of Chicago, Metra, has a daily ridership of 295,000 riders. If equipment on that scale was provided to a region at risk of a Hurricane, an enormous amount of people could be taken to safe shelter. Instead, all that has happened is that Amtrak ran its regular trains out of Florida up until Friday, which of course were sold out. The abysmal state of passenger rail and infrastructure in the United States is a contributing factor. Amtrak provides a fraction of the service in Florida that it used to: three trains a day compared to dozens in 1960. One of the Amtrak trains, the Silver Star, has been referred to as the “Silver Starvation” after Amtrak cut its full dining service in 2015, leaving passengers to wait in a long line while a single food service worker prepares snack food on a trip that can take over 24 hours. When special trains were run in 2008 in New Orleans, they used the minimal amount of spare equipment that Amtrak has. The service has survived on a shoestring budget since its creation in 1971, and most of its coach passenger cars were built in the 1970s and 1980s, most of which have no planned replacement. As one abysmal example, it was announced last week that railcar builder Nippon Sharyo had failed to successfully build an order of 130 passenger cars that was funded in 2009, ordered in 2012, and expected to be delivered in 2015. Now, the contract has passed to another builder. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/5a6cc6c4-45db-470e-aaa7-179a2117a29C/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Jacksonville Union Terminal, now a conventional center, where 120 trains a day used to stop. Now, four Amtrak trains a day stop at a small station in Jacksonville. Nationally, Amtrak has under 1,200 cars that carry passengers. In 1960, the three railroads serving Florida alone had about the same number. Little passenger rail investment in the South has occurred since then, leaving a minimal amount of equipment available for disaster relief. Florida, like many Sun Belt states, grew massively in the post-war period when billions were poured into the Interstate highway network. Urban areas were expanded in a large and decentralized fashion, partly because extensive investment in roads and highways allowed more decentralized land use. Jacksonville, Florida, for example, has the largest land area of any city in the Continental United States, but is 12th largest in population. It has no commuter rail operation, while that of Miami and Orlando is minimal. Another severe constraint to a rail evacuation is the private control of the major routes in Florida. CSX Railroad owns routes between Miami, Tampa, Orlando, Jacksonville, and points north, while Florida East Coast Railroad owns a route along the coast from Miami to Jacksonville. All of these routes have been cut back over several decades, with less capacity and fewer maintenance employees. As it is, CSX frequently delays the existing three Amtrak round trips that serve Florida. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/903c0f67-a4e0-4bb7-abec-5ddc66c3c06P/image.jpg?rendition=image480]CSX's waterside headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida, where 500 have been laid off. Recently, CSX announced that train dispatchers at nine regional offices will be relocated to Jacksonville. CSX was recently taken over by a hedge fund that is instituting even deeper cuts, including over 500 layoffs at its Jacksonville, Florida headquarters. In another cost-cutting move, train dispatchers that control traffic are being taken away from regional locations and consolidated in Jacksonville. Dispatching jobs based in Selkirk, NY, were to be shifted to Jacksonville this September. The move is remarkable, considering that Jacksonville is a city that could be in the path of a hurricane. If weather closed that facility, the entire network covering the east and south would shut down. There is little doubt that dispatchers will be told to risk their lives to come to work, and forced to work extra hours. In a rational, planned economy, the millions of residents in need of evacuation would be provided with a way out, and organized shelter. As the response to Hurricane Harvey showed, there is no doubt that people would work and volunteer to help provide the service, and aid the elderly and impaired. Instead, nothing has been done. The response to Hurricane Irma, and to Hurricane Harvey before it, express the reality of American capitalism. Decades of social plunder, rising inequality and decaying infrastructure, combined with the disinterest and contempt of the ruling class for basic issues of public safety, have paved the way for another disaster. WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 13:29:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 13:29:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hurricane Irma, from the NYT's Message-ID: Hurricane Irma Barrels Toward U.S., Threatening to Engulf Florida By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and MARC SANTORASEPT. 8, 2017 Continue reading the main storyShare This Page * Share * Tweet * Email * More * Save Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/09/us/09miami-01/09miami-01-superJumbo.jpg] Mark Kren, right, pulled storm shutters across the front of his restaurant in Jensen Beach, Fla., as Hurricane Irma advanced. CreditJason Henry for The New York Times MIAMI — This is an overview of Hurricane Irma, reported by journalists throughout the region. To see their latest dispatches from places hit by the storm, go to Saturday’s live Irma updates. As Hurricane Irma threatened to engulf virtually the entire state of Florida in deadly winds, driving rain and surging seas, the largest evacuation in the state’s history saw hundreds of thousands of people scrambling into crowded county shelters and jamming highways as they fled north from the storm. With the clock ticking, some counties issued curfews for Saturday, and more shelters were opened to absorb the crush of people seeking cover from one of the most powerful hurricanes to hit Florida. Brock Long, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, described Hurricane Irma as “a threat that is going to devastate the United States, either Florida or some of the southeastern states.” By 7 a.m. Eastern on Saturday, the outer bands of Irma had begun moving into Miami-Dade County. “Expect damaging winds and heavy rain,” the National Weather Service warned. Irma has already flattened a chain of Caribbean islands, including Anguilla, Barbuda and the United States Virgin Islands, killing at least 20 people. Late Friday, the hurricane made landfall on Cuba’s Camaguey Archipelago, still a Category 5 storm, the National Hurricane Center said. Continue reading the main story RELATED COVERAGE * [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/09/us/09seniors-01/09seniors-01-thumbStandard.jpg] Long a Refuge for the Elderly, Florida is Now a Place of Danger SEPT. 8, 2017 * [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/08/us/08puertostorm-hpsub/08puertostorm-hpsub-thumbStandard.jpg] Caribbean Devastated as Irma Heads Toward Florida SEPT. 7, 2017 * [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/07/us/07Irma-1/07Irma-1-thumbStandard.jpg] Hurricane Irma, One of the Most Powerful in History, Roars Across CaribbeanSEPT. 6, 2017 Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/09/us/09miami-02/09miami-02-superJumbo.jpg] Danielle Keener filled a plastic bag with sand in North Miami Beach, Fla. The storm prompted the state’s largest evacuation. CreditKevin Hagen for The New York Times Eric Silagy, the chief executive of Florida Power and Light Company, said in a news conference that power losses were expected to affect 4.1 million customers, or nine million people in the state. He said that every part of Florida would be affected and that people could lose power for an extended period, possibly weeks. The number of customers affected in the state could be the largest ever. Airports and airlines raced to get flights off the ground Friday. Airport parking garages in Miami, Orlando and Fort Lauderdale were full, and officials warned people of long lines and disrupted flights. At least 875 arriving and departing flights had been canceled by midday at those airports. There was one bit of good news: Gas prices have stabilized, mainly because Florida declared a state of emergency, which restricted abusive price increases. Georgia and Alabama, too, declared states of emergency, as have North Carolina and South Carolina. Hurricane Irma stands apart in one way from other storms, including Hurricane Andrew, the Category 5 storm that in 1992 devastated south Miami-Dade County: It is huge. Florida, surrounded by water on three sides, is only some 140 miles wide. The storm stretches over 300 miles. Every part of the state is expected to feel its wrath. Forecasters slightly altered the storm’s projected path on Friday night, saying it would move directly up Florida’s west coast. “If you do not leave by noon tomorrow, you need to be prepared to get to the closest available shelter,” Gov. Rick Scott said in a statement. “After noon tomorrow, it will not be safe for anyone in these coastal counties along the west coast to travel, and it will not be safe for the law enforcement officers who will need to rescue you.” Continue reading the main story Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/09/us/09miami-03/09miami-03-superJumbo.jpg] Some shelves were empty at a Walmart in Miami on Friday. CreditEric Thayer for The New York Times And for all such warnings, the time to flee was quickly narrowing. “It’s limited gas, and overcrowded exit paths,” said Pete DiMaria, the fire chief of Naples. “The decision to evacuate and move upstate had to be done a few days ago.” Packing 155-mile-an-hour winds, the storm is strong enough to tear roofs off buildings and snap trees and power poles. The storm might drop as much as 20 inches of rain in some areas. But it is the expected storm surge that most frightens officials across the state. Several counties expanded their evacuation orders to cover more ground, anticipating surges in some places as high as 12 feet if the storm hits at high tide. Mayor Philip Levine of Miami Beach made one request to his city’s residents and visitors: “I beg them please leave Miami Beach; you don’t want to be here.” “This hurricane is a nuclear hurricane,” he added. “It has so much power.” In the eastern Caribbean, residents in Barbuda and St. Martin, islands that suffered extensive damage from Irma, wearily prepared for Hurricane Jose, a Category 4 storm that continued to strengthen late Friday and which could hit those islands within the next two days as a Category 5 hurricane. But while residents there braced for more destruction, Jose, for now, does not pose much of a threat to the mainland United States. Many gas stations around Miami have been out of fuel for days, complicating evacuation plans, and, in a city known for flash, bottled water has become the hottest commodity. Amid mounting alarm, Miami took on the feel of a ghost town. Roads and highways were largely clear, at least in South Florida, where most people were beginning to hunker down. Traffic jams had shifted farther north. Restaurants and nightclubs were closed. While the sun was still shining, the beaches were empty. The thump of Latin music on South Beach was replaced with the whir of mechanical saws. Continue reading the main story Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/09/us/09miami-04/09miami-04-superJumbo.jpg] Derrick Murphy left the Geneva Hotel in Miami after it was closed ahead of the storm.CreditKevin Hagen for The New York Times Defiant messages were scrawled on many storefronts, addressing the storm personally. “You Don’t Scare Us,” wrote a group of students from the University of Miami. But all evidence suggested otherwise. Even for the holdouts who refused to leave low-lying and coastal areas from Key West to North Florida, there was dread — both for the storm and for what are likely to be painful times afterward, when many expect to have no power, water or food for days. California Today The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings. Sign Up * SEE SAMPLE * PRIVACY POLICY * OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME “It’s gonna be worse than Andrew, and Andrew was the worst one ever to hit Florida,” said Rob Davis, the owner of two small hotels just off Ocean Drive who said he was not leaving. The evacuation was called the largest in Florida history, but many, after agonizing deliberations, decided to stay put. Just off Old Cutler Road in southwest Miami, Alberto Valdes estimated that he was half a block from the shore of Biscayne Bay. But despite pleas from his neighbors — including a broadcast reporter who had covered the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew — nothing could convince him to abandon his one-story home. “How can you abandon your stuff?” the 63-year-old New Jersey native asked, gesturing to the home he has owned for 20 years. “You work so hard to have it, and then walk away? It’s not an easy decision.” Continue reading the main story Photo [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/09/us/09miami-05/09miami-05-superJumbo.jpg] Drivers filled up on gas at BJ’s Wholesale in Port St. Lucie, Fla. CreditJason Henry for The New York Times Others in battle-tested Florida were taking no chances. Some had flown out days ago, or braved countless hours of traffic to go north, anywhere north. The traffic of Irma escapees stretched up to South Carolina, with minivans and pickup trucks packed with people, pets, bedding and even furniture crawling north up Interstate 95. “We left at 4 in the morning; as far as we’ve gone, it’s been bumper to bumper,” said Linda Caldwell as she idled at a gas station in Ridgeland, S.C. The 259-mile journey to that point from her home in Daytona Beach, she said, had taken 12 hours. Her destination was Roanoke, Va. On Miami Beach, as with every other evacuation zone, mandatory is not really mandatory. People are not forced to leave if they do not want to go. “We let them know there will be no police or fire responding to you when the winds rise above 39 miles per hour,” said Elpido Garcia, a Miami Beach police officer. In Hollywood, Isaak Kaspler, 80, and his wife, Alexandra, 78, both Holocaust survivors, decided to stay put in their beachside building. They even invited friends over. His daughter pleaded and commanded them to leave but they said no. “We got shutters here and we’ll close up the shutters,” Mr. Kaspler said. “We got water. We got a radio.” He added, “I feel we’ll be O.K. here.” In Naples, in the Golden Gate Estates neighborhood, some of the few homeowners who remained were having second thoughts. Russell Spokish said that he had made the decision to stay but that other family members were now starting to panic after hearing news reports. “I think we’re safe here,” Mr. Spokish said. Referring to forecasts that show Irma moving straight up the state, he added, “It seems if you leave, the hurricane follows you wherever you go.” At the Betsy Hotel in South Beach, guests were allowed to remain, but they were scared. “What can we do?” said a woman who gave her name as Sonya and was visiting with her husband from Germany. “In Germany we don’t have situations like this. My sister back home is very scared. She keeps asking, "Are you all right?” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 14:07:40 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 14:07:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Here they go again from the Greanville Post Message-ID: over the last 72 | The Greanville Post ANTI-IMPERIALIST TOOL ~ Vol. XII * HOME * MEDIA FRONT * BEIJING DISPATCH * RUSSIA DESK * WORLD DESK * VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY * ARMAGEDDON * AUTHORS * NATURE There They Go Again September 8, 2017 shorty [http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/IndispensableReads27.png][horiz-long grey] HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT. by ANDREW LEVINE ________________________________ [http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Cory_Booker-rally.jpg]Charlatans like Sen. Corey Booker—a politician from New Jersey being marketed as Obamas’s second coming—are being trotted out by the party kingmakers, along with Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and other liberal frauds, as the new generation of Democrats capable of wiping the slate clean and stopping the Republican menace in the White House. The 2018 midterm elections are still more than a year away, but, according to press reports, Democratic “hopefuls” are already courting “the donor class” in anticipation of the presidential election in 2020. It is the same old same old that got us a Trump-Clinton election in 2016 and, worse, that stifled or derailed many of the most promising progressive initiatives of the preceding years. ________________________________ Something like that is on track for happening again, the difference being that the background conditions are worse this time around: the ravages brought on by increasing inequality are more acute, there is a greater likelihood of a nuclear Armageddon, and the inevitable ecological catastrophes caused by anthropogenic climate disruption are advancing at a greater pace. It doesn’t have to be this way, but all credible solutions involve the (small-d) democratization of the political sphere and, ultimately, the end of capitalism or at least of anything like capitalism as the world has so far known it. This would require restructuring our political economic system — from one dedicated to furthering what Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) called “private” interests to one geared towards discovering and implementing “the general will.” Nowadays, anything like that seems utterly out of reach everywhere. Timid versions of social democracy and New Deal-Great Society liberalism survive – in the United States, that’s what Bernie Sanders was about — but radical and revolutionary politics are, for all practical purposes, off the agenda. This lamentable state of affairs is, at once, a consequence of objective conditions and a cause of them. Meanwhile, “democracy deficits” — gaps between what majorities want and even vote for, and what they get – are everywhere on the rise. There is and always has been too little real democracy – too little government of, by, and for the people. But the situation has become qualitatively worse in recent years thanks mainly to economic exigencies in capitalism’s current neoliberal, globalizing phase. The situation in the United States, at the national level especially, is exceptionally awful – in large part, for reasons peculiar to the American scene. Fearing the demos, the “people” as distinct from social and economic elites, our “founding fathers” concocted undemocratic ways of electing Presidents, Vice Presidents, and Senators. Some of the procedures they established were partially democratized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; some were not. They also made it exceedingly difficult for democratic majorities to change the outcomes of presidential elections during the four-year span of a presidential term. Other liberal democracies, and many American states, have easier mechanisms in place – recall elections, for example, or, in parliamentary systems, votes of no confidence. For nearly two centuries, impeachment was the only way to unseat an American president. With the passage of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment in 1967, removal on grounds of inability to serve, unfitness for office, became a second way. But the intent behind the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was apolitical; its authors were thinking of certifiable cases of physical or mental impairment — not the kinds of unfitness for office that Donald Trump so conspicuously displays. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment is about continuity of government, not enhancing popular control over the government’s executive branch. Thus impeachment is still the only feasible, constitutionally permissible way to unseat a duly elected president. It is a difficult and time-consuming process. As we saw last year, our institutions do not guarantee majority rule in presidential elections. Even so, “we, the people” do have some control over who becomes our president. However, that control goes away after Election Day and stays missing for four long years. Even if a president dies or is removed from office by impeachment or in the ways specified by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, we still don’t get a say. The founders saw to it that were any of that to happen, we wouldn’t hold new elections; the Vice President would just move up a notch. Another reason why our democracy is exceptionally undemocratic is our two party system. Our laws, and the customs that have grown up around them, do not literally proscribe but do effectively marginalize independent and “third party” electoral activity. Therefore, votes for candidates who are not running as Democrats or Republicans are, in effect, protest votes only. In our present circumstances, party building is all but out of the question. If the duopoly couldn’t be broken in 2016, the chances of breaking it any time soon are nil. And so we have elections in which two highly polarized but ideologically like-minded political parties, differing mainly on “social” matters of little or no economic consequence, fight each other if not to the death, then to the next best thing. Democrats are generally less odious than Republicans, but on matters of substance, they are not much better; they are not even all that different. Ours is essentially a one-party state in which the ruling party has two right wings, each at odds with the other. Also, thanks to wrong-headed Supreme Court rulings going back more than four decades and culminating in the infamous Citizens United case of 2010, American “democracy” legitimates political corruption by ruling “campaign contributions” constitutionally protected free speech. Thus our laws, as currently understood, effectively mandate plutocratic rule. Therefore, instead of democratic deliberation and debate of the sort that Rousseau and other democratic theorists envisioned, we have mindless political operatives, hucksters, selling candidates to target audiences. And instead of leaders endeavoring collectively to do what is best for the polity they lead, we have politicians groveling for money. And, as if all these structural and institutional factors weren’t bad enough, we are now bearing the brunt of the “perfect storm” of contingent circumstances that led to the presidency of a billionaire buffoon, with Mike Pence waiting in the wings. *** The United States had more than its share of awful Presidents in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but two of the twenty-first century’s three Presidents are in a class by themselves. The one who is not, Barack Obama, was a decent enough steward of the status quo – knowledgeable, thoughtful, and cautious. He was also weak, and therefore easy prey for some of Washington’s most nefarious lobbies. And like other Democrats nowadays, he became a flunky of the “economic royalists” FDR inveighed against. Obama’s inveterate cautiousness was reinforced by an intuitive understanding of the shallowness of the blather about a “post-racial” America that his election set off. He therefore went out of his way not to rattle the cages of the kinds of miscreants who now comprise the Trump base. This made him even more ineffectual. He also empowered, or let his fist Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, empower, a gaggle of liberal imperialists who, for their own reasons, made the situations they inherited from their predecessors worse. Whether deliberately or only by happenstance, Obama became their willing accomplice. With his kill lists and drones, the Nobel laureate quickly morphed into an aficionado of murder and mayhem. His war of choice against Libya epitomized all that was wrong with his foreign and military policies. Of course, that misadventure was mainly Clinton’s doing; but, ultimately, the responsibility lies where the buck stops. As the doomed Arab Spring unfolded, the attack on Libya, along with other clueless Clinton-led machinations in Syria and elsewhere, unleashed a continuing refugee crisis across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. The human, economic, and geopolitical costs have been staggering. Obama and the people around him also reinforced the obviously sound idea that, for countries in the empire’s crosshairs, nuclear disarmament is a losing strategy. The North Koreans have taken that lesson to heart – with consequences that could soon become devastating. Obama did sometimes try to do good, but he was blocked at every turn by Republican obstructionists. Even after he had squandered the political capital he acquired from the 2008 election, he still had a strong hand to play, and he did the best he could to play it. But very little came of it. Republicans are not good at much, and they are certainly not the brightest bulbs on the tree, but when it comes to sheer obstinacy, nobody does it better. Obama tried, but, in the end, he was just too damn reasonable to prevail. It would therefore be a gross understatement to say that Obama disappointed the hopes that arose out of his election. Compared to other modern presidents, however, he wasn’t unusually awful. Indeed, some good came out of his electoral victories in 2008 and 2012. Although he governed as if ours was in fact a post-racial society, doing almost nothing aimed specifically at improving the lot of African Americans and other persons of color, he did advance the cause of racial equality. He did it just by being there. With Trump in the White House, he is and will continue to be sorely missed. He would have been missed too had Clinton not blown a sure victory in 2016, though not to the same degree, inasmuch as she is just a more hawkish, less thoughtful, and more incompetent version of him. However that may be, Obama was a paragon of excellence compared to his predecessor, George W. Bush, the worst president ever – before Trump. Aided, abetted and guided by Dick Cheney, Bush broke the Middle East. The harm he did there was monumental. It spilled over too – to the larger Muslim world and beyond. Indeed, the Bush-Cheney Global War on Terror made real or imagined terrorism a fact of life for people around the world, including the United States. It also served, and continues to serve, as a recruiting tool for terrorists, with consequences that will reverberate far into the future. Moreover, in the name of that war, Bush and Cheney and their underlings diminished Americans’ rights and liberties to a degree that seemed unthinkable before. They also presided over economic policies that contributed to global warming, exacerbated inequality, and that very nearly set off a major worldwide depression. But Trump is worse, worse by far. He has not yet done has much harm as Bush and Cheney did; ironically, what has prevented him so far is his own incompetence. It keeps him from getting much of anything done. But the man is psychologically unhinged and in way over his head. A world in which someone of his caliber controls a nuclear arsenal capable of ending life on earth “as we know it” is in grave and constant peril. Additionally, because he needs them to govern or at least to seem to be trying to get things done, and because he knows little and cares less about public policy except insofar as it affects his and his family’s bottom line and his vanity, he has turned his administration over to some of the most execrable cabinet officers and agency heads that Republican operatives hell bent on “deconstructing” the affirmative state and undoing the advances of the past hundred years could dig up. How pathetic that we must rely on “mad dog” military men to be what media pundits call “the adults in the room.” Whether they can hold Trump in line remains to be seen. Liberals welcome their presence because they and the liberal imperialists of the Obama years are essentially of one mind. But their influence puts civilian rule in peril. With Trump’s unwitting cooperation, the United States has undergone something very much like a military coup. Defenders of the status quo, along with those of us who see the need to change the status quo radically for the better, ought vehemently to object. The sad fact, though, is that the more power Mattis, McMaster and Kelly assume, the less we are at his the mercy of a Commander-in-Chief capable of lashing out uncontrollably at any moment, leaving only death and destruction in his wake. Compared to that, who would not go with the generals? Generals! Trump plainly has a thing for them, just as he does for outlaw sheriffs and tough cops. Like many troubled boys with rich parents, the young Donald was sent to a Military School to chill. Then, becoming eligible for the draft and with service in the Vietnam War looming, he, like many another in similar circumstances — George W, for example – found ways to keep himself out of harm’s way. Despite this, or because of it, his days at the New York Military Academy seem to live on in the dark recesses of his mind. Why else would a billionaire whose ego knows no bounds and who feels entitled to do pretty much anything he wants kowtow to military men with stars? If the world survives Trump, this is a question people will be pondering for years to come. But even with those generals doing their best to rein him in, the danger he poses is clear and present. Therefore, even if he is not yet the most lethal president ever, he is certainly the worst. Poor George W! He lost that title after only eight years. *** The Atlantic hurricane season is a metaphor for life in Trump’s America. Hurricane Harvey and then Hurricane Irma arose seemingly out of nowhere, the one following close upon the heels of the other, each made fiercer and deadlier by the exigencies of an overripe and fundamentally irrational political economic system. Almost until they actually made landfall, no one was entirely sure where the storms would go; the computer models offered too many possibilities. And even after they did reach land, their trajectories were impossible to establish with precision. The only sure thing was that, wherever they would end up, the devastation would be terrible. With revolutionary institutional change out of the question – not forever perhaps, but certainly in the time remaining in Trump’s term in office — the current state of affairs, awful as it is, may be as good as it can get. The prospects wouldn’t be quite so bad if Democrats were less useless than they have become since the Clintons and their co-thinkers turned the party of the milquetoast center-left into a party of kinder-gentler (Trumpians would say “more politically correct”) Eisenhower or Rockefeller era Republicans. One would think that they’d have learned their lesson after getting schlonged (Trump’s word again) last November. However, they seem to have learned nothing at all. It seems that since she was involuntarily retired from politics, Clinton has been cashing in on her defeat by writing a book — or, rather, by working with ghostwriters, editors, and publicists who are composing a book under her name. If reports of its contents are any indication, she, at least, has learned nothing. Indeed, her misperceptions seem to have hardened. Many, maybe most, Democrats are in a similar frame of mind. Nevertheless, a disorganized “resistance” is scurrying back under the Democratic tent — either out of conviction, hard as that may be to conceive, or on lesser evil grounds. They comprise a timid opposition with no program and no leader. The only thing they have going for them is Trump himself. It does not follow that the Democrats’ fortunes will continue to decline. Quite to the contrary, Trump is such an embarrassment and such a menace – and Republicans are so utterly execrable — that Democrats will probably do well in next year’s midterm elections. But then all we will get out of those elections will be a restoration of the conditions that brought about a Trump-Clinton electoral contest, and a Trump victory, two years before. This could change in an instant if a real resistance were to arise; an aroused citizenry, as dedicated to smashing the Democratic Party — to replacing it or changing it beyond recognition — as it is to ridding the world of the Trumpian menace. Unfortunately, there is no sign of anything like that developing any time soon. There are, of course, extraordinary initiatives taking place at the local level within the framework of the Democratic Party; and, if the bigwigs don’t succeed in quashing them, some good might come of them. For the time being, though, Trump faces no real opposition. Democrats are still, almost without exception, part of the problem. And so, unless he has the good sense to cut and run, which he so far shows no sign of doing, Trump continues to be the specter haunting our future – unless and until the weight of impeachable offenses forces him out. If and when that happens, thanks to those damn founding fathers, he will be replaced by Mike Pence. Trump or Pence. Which is worse? It is a close call. Pence isn’t erratic like Trump and, if only because he has no personality, he isn’t nearly as likely to rile up neo-Nazis and the Klan. But he is a theocrat and a bona fide reactionary, while Trump has no views at all, only animosities towards people of color and pathological attitudes directed at women and immigrants. Pence is a lame brain, who will restore serenity to the ruling classes. Trump goes wherever his bloated ego leads him, and whichever way he thinks will best serve his brand. He can’t get much done, however; this has been demonstrated time and again over the past eight months. But Pence can. Because he isn’t scary, and because the country will breathe a sigh of relief once Trump is gone, he will have a field day, at least for a long enough span of time to do grave and irreparable harm. I would therefore say that, but for the bomb, it would be better to have Trump in place and hamstrung than to have Pence calling the shots. Needless to say, that is one colossal “but for…” But inasmuch as ours is such a poor approximation of a real democracy, it hardly matters what I or anyone else, outside a small circle of “donors” and political operatives, think. It doesn’t even matter what Robert Mueller and his investigators discover. All that matters is what the GOP’s grandees do about it. What a prospect! And to make matters worse, elections are again gearing up. Soon they will be sucking up all the oxygen in the room. Unless “we, the people” break down the encumbrances that have for so long kept democratic rule at bay, we are about to go from extremely bad to even worse. We are not in a position at this point to deal with the structural and institutional encumbrances; for that, we need to embark on a protracted struggle to build a twenty-first century version of the currently defunct historical Left. But the problems posed by more contingent factors are more immediately tractable. High on the list of those is the Democratic Party itself – in its present, Clintonized form. The actually existing Democratic Party, enfeebled as it is, still commands powerful resources – in corporate media above all. This makes it hard for people even to see what the problems with that wretched party are. But before the same old same old gets too far ensconced in the months ahead, dealing with those problems is or ought to be as high a priority, or nearly so, as dealing with Republicans, and with Trump and Pence. ________________________________ About the Author ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What’s Wrong With the Opium of the People. He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 9 14:11:05 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 14:11:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fascism Message-ID: "It is futile to be ‘anti-Fascist’ while attempting to preserve capitalism. Fascism after all is only a development of capitalism, and the mildest democracy, so-called, is liable to turn into Fascism when the pinch comes." -George Orwell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Sep 9 21:55:43 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2017 21:55:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Cold Warrior Who Never Apologized References: <59B42B57.00000015@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: Confirmation bias triumphed again, & again confirmed the old adage, “There are none so blind as those who WILL not see." From: r-szoke > Subject: NYTimes.com: The Cold Warrior Who Never Apologized Date: September 9, 2017 Sent by r-szoke at illinois.edu: [http://i1.nyt.com/images/misc/nytlogo194x27.gif] [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/09/opinion/09vietnam-stevensonWeb/09stevensonWeb-thumbStandard.jpg] Vietnam '67 The Cold Warrior Who Never Apologized By JONATHAN STEVENSON Walt Rostow, an M.I.T. professor turned national security adviser, epitomized the overweening confidence of the civilian strategists of Vietnam. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://nyti.ms/2xVzzBN [http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=hdaNaYedr2/IomeWRKt0nffrak8aSGLbvtkkq/r7ihwOf5XePlpJ1w==&user_id=ee7558d54531b290bd05280f4b7d6eb4&email_type=eta&task_id=150497979959556®i_id=0] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 04:19:51 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:19:51 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How Outlawing War Changed the World in 1928 By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928/ When I wrote a book about the Kellogg-Briand Pact my goals were to draw lessons from the movement that created it, and to call attention to its existence as a still-current law being routinely violated — in hopes of encouraging compliance. After all, it is a law that bans nations from engaging in war — the primary thing my nation’s government does, with a half-dozen U.S. wars going at any time now. Now Oona Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro have published *The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World*. Their goals seems to be to show us how different and worse the world was in certain ways before the Pact, and to claim for the pact enormous success and general compliance. I have learned a great deal from this phenomenal book, easily the best book I’ve read in years. I could write an essay about each of its over 400 pages. While I agree with a great deal of it and strongly disagree with certain parts, the two are easily separable. The brilliant sections are no less valuable because of those sections that fall short. This book constitutes the ultimate refutation of the childishly simplistic notion that because World War II followed the outlawing of war in 1928 that outlawing was a failure — a standard that as far as I know has never been applied to any other law. (Has no one driven drunk since the banning of drunk driving?) In fact, the very first prosecutions for violation of the law, at Nuremberg and Tokyo, have been followed by a reduction in wars that has most notably included the absence of any further wars waged directly between wealthy well-armed nations — at least so far. As Hathaway and Shapiro show, the Peace Pact of Paris has so transformed the world that it is hard to recall what preceded it. War was legal in 1927. Both sides of a war were legal. Atrocities committed during wars were almost always legal. The conquest of territory was legal. Burning and looting and pillaging were legal. War was, in fact, not just legal; it was itself understood to be law enforcement. War could be used to attempt to right any perceived injustice. The seizing of other nations as colonies was legal. The motivation for colonies to try to free themselves was weak because they were likely to be seized by some other nation if they broke free from their current oppressor. Economic sanctions by neutral nations were not legal, though joining in a war could be. And making trade agreements under the threat of war was perfectly legal and acceptable, as was starting another war if such a coerced agreement was violated. Raping a woman in war could be illegal, but killing her could be in perfect compliance with the law. Killing was, in fact, legal whenever deemed part of a war, and illegal otherwise. Some of this may sound familiar. You may have heard Rosa Brooks tell Congress that drone murders are acceptable if part of a war and crimes otherwise, whereas torture is a crime either way. But the extent to which the label of “war” is understood to permit killing today is limited greatly in theory and significantly even in reality. And today war is understood to license mass murder alone, whereas it used to give free rein for participants to murder, trespass, break and enter, steal, assault, maim, kidnap, extort, destroy property, or commit arson. Today a soldier can return from a mass killing spree and be prosecuted for cheating on his taxes. He or she has been given a license to kill and only to kill, nothing more. Demanding today that the U.S. Congress repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 and revert to its old practice of declaring wars, rather than simply funding (and whining about) any wars a president wages, may or may not be an effective means of curtailing warmaking, but it does amount to demanding a return to a barbaric antiquity, a practice that when it was used constituted an announcement that all would henceforth be permitted as long as it victimized whichever people war was being declared against. To the very limited extent that the pre-1928 world had laws against wars, they were only laws against particular atrocities. In other words, the world in which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch try to live today, in which war is perfectly acceptable, but each inevitable atrocious component of the wars is a crime: that was the best the West had to offer from ancient times through 1928. The world after 1928 was different. The outlawing of war reduced the need for large nations, and smaller nations began to form by the dozens, exercising their right to self-determination. Colonies, likewise, sought their freedom. Conquests of territory after 1928 were undone. The year 1928 became the dividing line for determining which conquests were legal and which not. And the Pact of course was central to the prosecution of (the losers) of World War II for the crime of war. International trade has flourished in the absence of legal conquest. While it is not even true, much less a statement of causation, that nations with McDonalds do not attack each other, it may be true that a world with a reduced risk of attack, for better or worse, generates more McDonalds. All of these positive changes have indeed come about as a result of a treaty generally mocked when not ignored. But they don’t add up to the positive view of the world pushed by people like Steven Pinker as well as Hathaway and Shapiro. That positive view of a world ridding itself of war comes about through selective statistics, also known as lies, damn lies, and U.S. exceptionalism. In Pinker, deaths are radically undercounted, then compared to the entire population of the world rather than the relevant nation, or erased by re-categorizing them as “civil war” and therefore not war deaths at all. Hathaway and Shapiro recognize one U.S. coup (Iran) and war (Iraq) as if none of the others have happened or are happening. The Nakba seems not to exist. That is, the crime and the suffering it entailed do not get mentioned, though the “Arab-Israeli conflict” does. The authors refer to Iraq 2003-present as a war that in 2015 had “greater than ten thousand” people killed in “battle-related” killing. (I’m unclear which killings are excluded by “battle-related.”) Never do they mention that “greater than one million” have been killed in that war . Since World War II, during what the authors call a “period of unprecedented peace,” the United States military has killed some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 82 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. This extravaganza of criminal killing is documented here . The United States killed some 5 million people in Southeast Asia in a war that Hathaway and Shapiro mention only as an act of conquest by the North of the South when the invaders finally fled. I arrive at that number using the Harvard study from 2008 on Vietnam (3.8 million) plus Nick Turse’s case in *Kill Anything That Moves* that this is a significant under-counting. Using 4 million for Vietnam, I add 1 million for the combined hundreds of thousands killed by the U.S. bombing campaigns in each of the two countries of Laos and Cambodia (both rough estimates). I do not add in the 1 to 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge, though blame can be given to the United States (without taking it away from anyone else) for that horror. While the United States military did not kill all of the 4 million killed in Vietnam, there would not have been a war, or certainly not a war resembling what the Vietnamese call the American War without the United States. For the past almost 16 years, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces stationed in three-quarters of them. This is the “period of unprecedented peace” that Hathaway and Shapiro describe as threatened by Russia, China, and ISIS. (“Even as [the Pact’s] bright promises have been fulfilled, other darker threats have rushed into the void.” Guess who those are!) Quite obviously one cannot fit everything tangentially related to the topic of a book into a book. But to write about the problem of war without mentioning the U.S. dominance of the field is a bias. There is a reason that most countries polled in December 2013 by Gallup *called* the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world. But it is a reason that eludes that strain of U.S. academia that first defines war as something that nations and groups other than the United States do, and then concludes that war has nearly vanished from the earth, or is on its way out, and that the greatest threats of war come from China, Russia, and ISIS. Ironically, a brilliant analysis giving the Kellogg-Briand Pact its due could probably only have been written by Americans — the rest of the world viewing U.S. actions on war and peace with too much cynicism and resentment. But anything written by Americans comes with American baggage. The *Lusitania* was attacked by Germany without warning, we’re told, despite Germany literally having published warnings in New York newspapers and newspapers around the United States. These warnings were printed right next to ads for sailing on the *Lusitania* and were signed by the German embassy. Newspapers wrote articles about the warnings. The Cunard company was asked about the warnings. The former captain of the *Lusitania* had already quit — reportedly due to the stress of sailing through what Germany had publicly declared a war zone. Meanwhile Winston Churchill is quoted as having said “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” It was under his command that the usual British military protection was not provided to the *Lusitania*, despite Cunard having stated that it was counting on that protection. Much of Hathaway and Shapiro’s book is devoted to the pre-1928 responsibilities of neutral nations to remain neutral. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned over the U.S. failure to remain neutral. That the *Lusitania* was carrying weapons and troops to aid the British in the war against Germany was asserted by Germany and by other observers, and was true. Of course sinking the *Lusitania* was a horrible act of mass-murder, as was loading it up with weapons and troops to ship to a war. Behavior on all sides was reprehensible. But the authors only provide one side, only slightly mitigated by a footnote. Occupations are meant to be temporary we’re told, despite the unlikelihood that the authors would dare make such an assertion in Kabul. The U.S. military *now has *approximately 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus 6,000 other NATO troops, 1,000 mercenaries, and another 26,000 contractors (of whom about 8,000 are from the United States). That’s *41,000* people engaged in a foreign occupation of a country over 15 years after the accomplishment of their stated mission to overthrow the Taliban government. The Department of so-called Defense has informed the U.S. Congress that it will soon produce yet another new plan for “winning” in Afghanistan. No plans for ending the occupation have been forthcoming or even requested. When the U.S. occupation of Iraq “ended,” troops and mercenaries remained. That they were invited back by the Iraqi government hardly excuses their actions, including the destruction of Mosul this past summer. The single biggest threat to the peace on earth that was established in 1928 turns out to have been, according to Hathaway and Shapiro, the 2014 vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia — an action that of course involved zero casualties and has never been repeated because poll after poll shows the people happy with their vote. The authors produce no written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 3 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course one of the many U.S.-backed coups unnoticed by this book had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea was voting to secede from a coup government. The United States had supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in the 1990s despite Serbian opposition. When Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia, the U.S. did not urge any opposition. The U.S. (and Hathaway and Shapiro) support the right of South Sudan to have seceded from Sudan, although violence and chaos reigned. U.S. politicians like Joe Biden and Jane Harman even proposed breaking Iraq up into pieces, as others have proposed for Syria. But let’s grant for the sake of argument that the Crimean vote was problematic, even horrendous, even criminal. Its depiction in this book as the single biggest threat to peace on earth would still be ludicrous. Compare it to a trillion dollars a year in U.S. military spending, new missiles in Romania and Poland, massive bombing of Iraq and Syria, the destruction of Iraq and Libya, the endless war on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S.-Saudi devastation of Yemen and the creation of famine and disease epidemics, or the explicit threats to attack Iran. I’m sure your average American would rather visit “liberated Mosul” than “annexed Crimea,” but should we deal with facts or slogans? Hathaway and Shapiro give S. O. Levinson and the outlawrists of the 1920s their due for what they accomplished, but the authors view the world as 2017 CNN consumers. They favor “defensive” wars. They fault Trump for suggesting that NATO be scrapped. They maintain silence on NATO’s aggressive expansion, as well as on U.S. military bases ringing the globe. In fact they make this blatantly false statement: “The United States, United Kingdom, and France . . . took no new territory after the war.” During World War II the U.S. Navy seized the small Hawaiian island of Koho’alawe for a weapons testing range and ordered its inhabitants to leave. The island has been devastated . In 1942, the U.S. Navy displaced Aleutian Islanders. Those practices did not end in 1928 or in 1945. President Harry Truman made up his mind that the 170 native inhabitants of Bikini Atoll had no right to their island in 1946. He had them evicted in February and March of 1946, and dumped as refugees on other islands without means of support or a social structure in place. In the coming years, the United States would remove 147 people from Enewetak Atoll and all the people on Lib Island. U.S. atomic and hydrogen bomb testing rendered various depopulated and still-populated islands uninhabitable, leading to further displacements. Up through the 1960s, the U.S. military displaced hundreds of people from Kwajalein Atoll. A super-densely populated ghetto was created on Ebeye. On Vieques , off Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy displaced thousands of inhabitants between 1941 and 1947, announced plans to evict the remaining 8,000 in 1961, but was forced to back off and — in 2003 — to stop bombing the island. On nearby Culebra, the Navy displaced thousands between 1948 and 1950 and attempted to remove those remaining up through the 1970s. The Navy is right now looking at the island of Pagan as a possible replacement for Vieques, the population already having been removed by a volcanic eruption. Of course, any possibility of return would be greatly diminished. Beginning during World War II but continuing right through the 1950s, the U.S. military displaced a quarter million Okinawans, or half the population, from their land, forcing people into refugee camps and shipping thousands of them off to Bolivia — where land and money were promised but not delivered. In 1953, the United States made a deal with Denmark to remove 150 Inughuit people from Thule, Greenland, giving them four days to get out or face bulldozers. They are being denied the right to return. Between 1968 and 1973, the United States and Great Britain exiled all 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants of Diego Garcia, rounding people up and forcing them onto boats while killing their dogs in a gas chamber and seizing possession of their entire homeland for the use of the U.S. military. The South Korean government, which evicted people for U.S. base expansion on the mainland in 2006, has, at the behest of the U.S. Navy, in recent years been devastating a village, its coast, and 130 acres of farmland on Jeju Island in order to provide the United States with another massive military base. None of this is mentioned in Hathaway and Shapiro’s book, or of course in the database called Correlates of War that they drew data from. The U.S. role as dominant military force on earth is simply missing. The arms trade in which the U.S. leads the way and a half dozen nations dominate the arming of the globe makes no appearance. But China’s efforts to claim islands in the South China Sea are as threatening to the authors as to Hillary Clinton at a Goldman Sachs event, if not more so. Shapiro and Hathaway might argue that “forced expulsions” are a product of hard borders, which are a product of outlawing war. Tony Judt wrote: “At the conclusion of the first world war it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place. After 1945 what happened was rather the opposite: with one major exception, boundaries stay broadly intact and people were moved instead.” But niether this nor anything else I’ve seen constitutes a serious claim or evidence that forced expulsions were fewer or nonexistent prior to 1928. What of the forced expulsion of so many Native Americans? But, increased or decreased or continuing at a steady pace, these crimes, these acts of war, these conquerings of territory, do not make it into the book. Instead we’re falsely told that the United States takes no new territory. Tell that to the residents of Vicenza, Italy, or any of dozens of towns around the world where U.S. military bases are forcibly expanded against the will of the people living there. As a result of the authors’ exceptionalist view of the world, and perhaps a focus on written law, Hathaway and Shapiro find shortcomings in the Kellogg-Briand Pact by looking at its words rather than looking at our failure to comply with them. They believe the Pact leaves open (does not provide permission but simply fails to address) the option to wage war over territorial disputes, as well as the option for non-state actors to wage war. The former depends on the idea that the Pact only banned aggressive war, rather than all war — decidedly not what the Outlawrists intended. They — the originators of outlawry — intended to ban war entirely, with no exception for the common excuse of territorial disputes. The latter, the ability of non-state actors to wage war, depends on irrational fear mongering around enemies, such as ISIS, generated by the counterproductive, blowback-producing, routine violation of the Pact by S.O. Levinson’s own nation, the greatest purveyor of violence on earth. In Hathaway and Shapiro’s view, I am simply wrong about what the Outlawrists meant, and defensive wars were not being renounced. But my point is not to comment on how some senators interpreted what they were ratifying, but rather to recall the better-developed thinking of the originators of and promoters of the idea of outlawing war. I quoted Levinson in *When the World Outlawed War:* “Suppose this same distinction had been urged when the institution of duelling [sic] was outlawed. . . . Suppose it had then been urged that only ‘aggressive duelling’ should be outlawed and that ‘defensive duelling’ be left intact. . . . Such a suggestion relative to duelling would have been silly, but the analogy is perfectly sound. What we did was to outlaw the institution of duelling, a method theretofore recognized by law for the settlement of disputes of so-called honor.” By failing to focus on what the Outlawrists wanted, rather than on what governments made of their creation, the authors conclude that in 1928 nobody had really considered what to replace war with, how to resolve disputes without wars. They also conclude that the U.N. Charter made the Pact a “reality,” rather than weakening it. But many knew full well the need for new types of nonviolent sanction, for global courts, for moral and economic tools, for disarmament, and for cultural changes still eluding us. Levinson drafted implementing legislation to make advocacy for war a felony. The U.N. Charter’s loopholes for “defensive” and “authorized” wars have made the U.N. — which has the second-largest imperial army now deployed on earth — a tool of warmaking, rather than peacemaking. The authors fault the Pact for protecting weak states from invasion, allowing them to become failed states, creating warfare. But it takes more than protection from attack to damage a country. It often requires weapons dealing, the propping up of dictators, and the foreign exploitation of people and resources. Surely eliminating these further evils would be preferable to reinstating the evil of conquest. Where Hathaway and Shapiro’s book shines, despite all the red, white, and bluism, is in its analysis of the replacement of war with alternative systems of security, something I’ve also looked into . They propose, in particular, recognition of and expansion of what they call outcasting. The name is derived from the ancient practice on Iceland of punishing a law violator by making them an outcast from society. “The law was effective,” Hathaway and Shapiro write, “even though there were no public institutions of law enforcement, because outlawry turned *all* Icelanders into law enforcers.” Based on this model, the authors describe the manner in which institutions like those handling international mail or trade create compliance with standards through the threat of banishment. Of course extending the powers of corporate trade organizations to allow their lawyers to rewrite nations’ domestic laws is not desirable or necessary. And outcasting is only one tool in the tool chest of a non-war system. But what if the United Nations were replaced with or evolved into a democratized nonviolent club of peacemakers, using unarmed peaceworkers, and maintaining the threat of banishment from its ranks? What if the world had an independent court in place of the ICC, which the authors say can prosecute “aggression,” but which in reality cannot do so without the approval of the U.N. Security Council? More importantly, what if we had a *global culture* that allowed us to confront the evil of war without nationalized biases? What if we took the accomplishments of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as motivation to see the vision of its creators through to the end: the abolition of all wars and militaries? Book video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSy1CuwP3k Radio: https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-scott-shapiro-and-oona-hathaway-on-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world Video of event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -- *David Swanson *is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include *War Is A Lie *. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org . He hosts Talk Nation Radio . He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidcnswanson at gmail.com Tue Sep 12 04:19:51 2017 From: davidcnswanson at gmail.com (David Swanson) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:19:51 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How Outlawing War Changed the World in 1928 By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928/ When I wrote a book about the Kellogg-Briand Pact my goals were to draw lessons from the movement that created it, and to call attention to its existence as a still-current law being routinely violated — in hopes of encouraging compliance. After all, it is a law that bans nations from engaging in war — the primary thing my nation’s government does, with a half-dozen U.S. wars going at any time now. Now Oona Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro have published *The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World*. Their goals seems to be to show us how different and worse the world was in certain ways before the Pact, and to claim for the pact enormous success and general compliance. I have learned a great deal from this phenomenal book, easily the best book I’ve read in years. I could write an essay about each of its over 400 pages. While I agree with a great deal of it and strongly disagree with certain parts, the two are easily separable. The brilliant sections are no less valuable because of those sections that fall short. This book constitutes the ultimate refutation of the childishly simplistic notion that because World War II followed the outlawing of war in 1928 that outlawing was a failure — a standard that as far as I know has never been applied to any other law. (Has no one driven drunk since the banning of drunk driving?) In fact, the very first prosecutions for violation of the law, at Nuremberg and Tokyo, have been followed by a reduction in wars that has most notably included the absence of any further wars waged directly between wealthy well-armed nations — at least so far. As Hathaway and Shapiro show, the Peace Pact of Paris has so transformed the world that it is hard to recall what preceded it. War was legal in 1927. Both sides of a war were legal. Atrocities committed during wars were almost always legal. The conquest of territory was legal. Burning and looting and pillaging were legal. War was, in fact, not just legal; it was itself understood to be law enforcement. War could be used to attempt to right any perceived injustice. The seizing of other nations as colonies was legal. The motivation for colonies to try to free themselves was weak because they were likely to be seized by some other nation if they broke free from their current oppressor. Economic sanctions by neutral nations were not legal, though joining in a war could be. And making trade agreements under the threat of war was perfectly legal and acceptable, as was starting another war if such a coerced agreement was violated. Raping a woman in war could be illegal, but killing her could be in perfect compliance with the law. Killing was, in fact, legal whenever deemed part of a war, and illegal otherwise. Some of this may sound familiar. You may have heard Rosa Brooks tell Congress that drone murders are acceptable if part of a war and crimes otherwise, whereas torture is a crime either way. But the extent to which the label of “war” is understood to permit killing today is limited greatly in theory and significantly even in reality. And today war is understood to license mass murder alone, whereas it used to give free rein for participants to murder, trespass, break and enter, steal, assault, maim, kidnap, extort, destroy property, or commit arson. Today a soldier can return from a mass killing spree and be prosecuted for cheating on his taxes. He or she has been given a license to kill and only to kill, nothing more. Demanding today that the U.S. Congress repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 and revert to its old practice of declaring wars, rather than simply funding (and whining about) any wars a president wages, may or may not be an effective means of curtailing warmaking, but it does amount to demanding a return to a barbaric antiquity, a practice that when it was used constituted an announcement that all would henceforth be permitted as long as it victimized whichever people war was being declared against. To the very limited extent that the pre-1928 world had laws against wars, they were only laws against particular atrocities. In other words, the world in which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch try to live today, in which war is perfectly acceptable, but each inevitable atrocious component of the wars is a crime: that was the best the West had to offer from ancient times through 1928. The world after 1928 was different. The outlawing of war reduced the need for large nations, and smaller nations began to form by the dozens, exercising their right to self-determination. Colonies, likewise, sought their freedom. Conquests of territory after 1928 were undone. The year 1928 became the dividing line for determining which conquests were legal and which not. And the Pact of course was central to the prosecution of (the losers) of World War II for the crime of war. International trade has flourished in the absence of legal conquest. While it is not even true, much less a statement of causation, that nations with McDonalds do not attack each other, it may be true that a world with a reduced risk of attack, for better or worse, generates more McDonalds. All of these positive changes have indeed come about as a result of a treaty generally mocked when not ignored. But they don’t add up to the positive view of the world pushed by people like Steven Pinker as well as Hathaway and Shapiro. That positive view of a world ridding itself of war comes about through selective statistics, also known as lies, damn lies, and U.S. exceptionalism. In Pinker, deaths are radically undercounted, then compared to the entire population of the world rather than the relevant nation, or erased by re-categorizing them as “civil war” and therefore not war deaths at all. Hathaway and Shapiro recognize one U.S. coup (Iran) and war (Iraq) as if none of the others have happened or are happening. The Nakba seems not to exist. That is, the crime and the suffering it entailed do not get mentioned, though the “Arab-Israeli conflict” does. The authors refer to Iraq 2003-present as a war that in 2015 had “greater than ten thousand” people killed in “battle-related” killing. (I’m unclear which killings are excluded by “battle-related.”) Never do they mention that “greater than one million” have been killed in that war . Since World War II, during what the authors call a “period of unprecedented peace,” the United States military has killed some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 82 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. This extravaganza of criminal killing is documented here . The United States killed some 5 million people in Southeast Asia in a war that Hathaway and Shapiro mention only as an act of conquest by the North of the South when the invaders finally fled. I arrive at that number using the Harvard study from 2008 on Vietnam (3.8 million) plus Nick Turse’s case in *Kill Anything That Moves* that this is a significant under-counting. Using 4 million for Vietnam, I add 1 million for the combined hundreds of thousands killed by the U.S. bombing campaigns in each of the two countries of Laos and Cambodia (both rough estimates). I do not add in the 1 to 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge, though blame can be given to the United States (without taking it away from anyone else) for that horror. While the United States military did not kill all of the 4 million killed in Vietnam, there would not have been a war, or certainly not a war resembling what the Vietnamese call the American War without the United States. For the past almost 16 years, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces stationed in three-quarters of them. This is the “period of unprecedented peace” that Hathaway and Shapiro describe as threatened by Russia, China, and ISIS. (“Even as [the Pact’s] bright promises have been fulfilled, other darker threats have rushed into the void.” Guess who those are!) Quite obviously one cannot fit everything tangentially related to the topic of a book into a book. But to write about the problem of war without mentioning the U.S. dominance of the field is a bias. There is a reason that most countries polled in December 2013 by Gallup *called* the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world. But it is a reason that eludes that strain of U.S. academia that first defines war as something that nations and groups other than the United States do, and then concludes that war has nearly vanished from the earth, or is on its way out, and that the greatest threats of war come from China, Russia, and ISIS. Ironically, a brilliant analysis giving the Kellogg-Briand Pact its due could probably only have been written by Americans — the rest of the world viewing U.S. actions on war and peace with too much cynicism and resentment. But anything written by Americans comes with American baggage. The *Lusitania* was attacked by Germany without warning, we’re told, despite Germany literally having published warnings in New York newspapers and newspapers around the United States. These warnings were printed right next to ads for sailing on the *Lusitania* and were signed by the German embassy. Newspapers wrote articles about the warnings. The Cunard company was asked about the warnings. The former captain of the *Lusitania* had already quit — reportedly due to the stress of sailing through what Germany had publicly declared a war zone. Meanwhile Winston Churchill is quoted as having said “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” It was under his command that the usual British military protection was not provided to the *Lusitania*, despite Cunard having stated that it was counting on that protection. Much of Hathaway and Shapiro’s book is devoted to the pre-1928 responsibilities of neutral nations to remain neutral. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned over the U.S. failure to remain neutral. That the *Lusitania* was carrying weapons and troops to aid the British in the war against Germany was asserted by Germany and by other observers, and was true. Of course sinking the *Lusitania* was a horrible act of mass-murder, as was loading it up with weapons and troops to ship to a war. Behavior on all sides was reprehensible. But the authors only provide one side, only slightly mitigated by a footnote. Occupations are meant to be temporary we’re told, despite the unlikelihood that the authors would dare make such an assertion in Kabul. The U.S. military *now has *approximately 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus 6,000 other NATO troops, 1,000 mercenaries, and another 26,000 contractors (of whom about 8,000 are from the United States). That’s *41,000* people engaged in a foreign occupation of a country over 15 years after the accomplishment of their stated mission to overthrow the Taliban government. The Department of so-called Defense has informed the U.S. Congress that it will soon produce yet another new plan for “winning” in Afghanistan. No plans for ending the occupation have been forthcoming or even requested. When the U.S. occupation of Iraq “ended,” troops and mercenaries remained. That they were invited back by the Iraqi government hardly excuses their actions, including the destruction of Mosul this past summer. The single biggest threat to the peace on earth that was established in 1928 turns out to have been, according to Hathaway and Shapiro, the 2014 vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia — an action that of course involved zero casualties and has never been repeated because poll after poll shows the people happy with their vote. The authors produce no written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 3 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course one of the many U.S.-backed coups unnoticed by this book had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea was voting to secede from a coup government. The United States had supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in the 1990s despite Serbian opposition. When Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia, the U.S. did not urge any opposition. The U.S. (and Hathaway and Shapiro) support the right of South Sudan to have seceded from Sudan, although violence and chaos reigned. U.S. politicians like Joe Biden and Jane Harman even proposed breaking Iraq up into pieces, as others have proposed for Syria. But let’s grant for the sake of argument that the Crimean vote was problematic, even horrendous, even criminal. Its depiction in this book as the single biggest threat to peace on earth would still be ludicrous. Compare it to a trillion dollars a year in U.S. military spending, new missiles in Romania and Poland, massive bombing of Iraq and Syria, the destruction of Iraq and Libya, the endless war on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S.-Saudi devastation of Yemen and the creation of famine and disease epidemics, or the explicit threats to attack Iran. I’m sure your average American would rather visit “liberated Mosul” than “annexed Crimea,” but should we deal with facts or slogans? Hathaway and Shapiro give S. O. Levinson and the outlawrists of the 1920s their due for what they accomplished, but the authors view the world as 2017 CNN consumers. They favor “defensive” wars. They fault Trump for suggesting that NATO be scrapped. They maintain silence on NATO’s aggressive expansion, as well as on U.S. military bases ringing the globe. In fact they make this blatantly false statement: “The United States, United Kingdom, and France . . . took no new territory after the war.” During World War II the U.S. Navy seized the small Hawaiian island of Koho’alawe for a weapons testing range and ordered its inhabitants to leave. The island has been devastated . In 1942, the U.S. Navy displaced Aleutian Islanders. Those practices did not end in 1928 or in 1945. President Harry Truman made up his mind that the 170 native inhabitants of Bikini Atoll had no right to their island in 1946. He had them evicted in February and March of 1946, and dumped as refugees on other islands without means of support or a social structure in place. In the coming years, the United States would remove 147 people from Enewetak Atoll and all the people on Lib Island. U.S. atomic and hydrogen bomb testing rendered various depopulated and still-populated islands uninhabitable, leading to further displacements. Up through the 1960s, the U.S. military displaced hundreds of people from Kwajalein Atoll. A super-densely populated ghetto was created on Ebeye. On Vieques , off Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy displaced thousands of inhabitants between 1941 and 1947, announced plans to evict the remaining 8,000 in 1961, but was forced to back off and — in 2003 — to stop bombing the island. On nearby Culebra, the Navy displaced thousands between 1948 and 1950 and attempted to remove those remaining up through the 1970s. The Navy is right now looking at the island of Pagan as a possible replacement for Vieques, the population already having been removed by a volcanic eruption. Of course, any possibility of return would be greatly diminished. Beginning during World War II but continuing right through the 1950s, the U.S. military displaced a quarter million Okinawans, or half the population, from their land, forcing people into refugee camps and shipping thousands of them off to Bolivia — where land and money were promised but not delivered. In 1953, the United States made a deal with Denmark to remove 150 Inughuit people from Thule, Greenland, giving them four days to get out or face bulldozers. They are being denied the right to return. Between 1968 and 1973, the United States and Great Britain exiled all 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants of Diego Garcia, rounding people up and forcing them onto boats while killing their dogs in a gas chamber and seizing possession of their entire homeland for the use of the U.S. military. The South Korean government, which evicted people for U.S. base expansion on the mainland in 2006, has, at the behest of the U.S. Navy, in recent years been devastating a village, its coast, and 130 acres of farmland on Jeju Island in order to provide the United States with another massive military base. None of this is mentioned in Hathaway and Shapiro’s book, or of course in the database called Correlates of War that they drew data from. The U.S. role as dominant military force on earth is simply missing. The arms trade in which the U.S. leads the way and a half dozen nations dominate the arming of the globe makes no appearance. But China’s efforts to claim islands in the South China Sea are as threatening to the authors as to Hillary Clinton at a Goldman Sachs event, if not more so. Shapiro and Hathaway might argue that “forced expulsions” are a product of hard borders, which are a product of outlawing war. Tony Judt wrote: “At the conclusion of the first world war it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place. After 1945 what happened was rather the opposite: with one major exception, boundaries stay broadly intact and people were moved instead.” But niether this nor anything else I’ve seen constitutes a serious claim or evidence that forced expulsions were fewer or nonexistent prior to 1928. What of the forced expulsion of so many Native Americans? But, increased or decreased or continuing at a steady pace, these crimes, these acts of war, these conquerings of territory, do not make it into the book. Instead we’re falsely told that the United States takes no new territory. Tell that to the residents of Vicenza, Italy, or any of dozens of towns around the world where U.S. military bases are forcibly expanded against the will of the people living there. As a result of the authors’ exceptionalist view of the world, and perhaps a focus on written law, Hathaway and Shapiro find shortcomings in the Kellogg-Briand Pact by looking at its words rather than looking at our failure to comply with them. They believe the Pact leaves open (does not provide permission but simply fails to address) the option to wage war over territorial disputes, as well as the option for non-state actors to wage war. The former depends on the idea that the Pact only banned aggressive war, rather than all war — decidedly not what the Outlawrists intended. They — the originators of outlawry — intended to ban war entirely, with no exception for the common excuse of territorial disputes. The latter, the ability of non-state actors to wage war, depends on irrational fear mongering around enemies, such as ISIS, generated by the counterproductive, blowback-producing, routine violation of the Pact by S.O. Levinson’s own nation, the greatest purveyor of violence on earth. In Hathaway and Shapiro’s view, I am simply wrong about what the Outlawrists meant, and defensive wars were not being renounced. But my point is not to comment on how some senators interpreted what they were ratifying, but rather to recall the better-developed thinking of the originators of and promoters of the idea of outlawing war. I quoted Levinson in *When the World Outlawed War:* “Suppose this same distinction had been urged when the institution of duelling [sic] was outlawed. . . . Suppose it had then been urged that only ‘aggressive duelling’ should be outlawed and that ‘defensive duelling’ be left intact. . . . Such a suggestion relative to duelling would have been silly, but the analogy is perfectly sound. What we did was to outlaw the institution of duelling, a method theretofore recognized by law for the settlement of disputes of so-called honor.” By failing to focus on what the Outlawrists wanted, rather than on what governments made of their creation, the authors conclude that in 1928 nobody had really considered what to replace war with, how to resolve disputes without wars. They also conclude that the U.N. Charter made the Pact a “reality,” rather than weakening it. But many knew full well the need for new types of nonviolent sanction, for global courts, for moral and economic tools, for disarmament, and for cultural changes still eluding us. Levinson drafted implementing legislation to make advocacy for war a felony. The U.N. Charter’s loopholes for “defensive” and “authorized” wars have made the U.N. — which has the second-largest imperial army now deployed on earth — a tool of warmaking, rather than peacemaking. The authors fault the Pact for protecting weak states from invasion, allowing them to become failed states, creating warfare. But it takes more than protection from attack to damage a country. It often requires weapons dealing, the propping up of dictators, and the foreign exploitation of people and resources. Surely eliminating these further evils would be preferable to reinstating the evil of conquest. Where Hathaway and Shapiro’s book shines, despite all the red, white, and bluism, is in its analysis of the replacement of war with alternative systems of security, something I’ve also looked into . They propose, in particular, recognition of and expansion of what they call outcasting. The name is derived from the ancient practice on Iceland of punishing a law violator by making them an outcast from society. “The law was effective,” Hathaway and Shapiro write, “even though there were no public institutions of law enforcement, because outlawry turned *all* Icelanders into law enforcers.” Based on this model, the authors describe the manner in which institutions like those handling international mail or trade create compliance with standards through the threat of banishment. Of course extending the powers of corporate trade organizations to allow their lawyers to rewrite nations’ domestic laws is not desirable or necessary. And outcasting is only one tool in the tool chest of a non-war system. But what if the United Nations were replaced with or evolved into a democratized nonviolent club of peacemakers, using unarmed peaceworkers, and maintaining the threat of banishment from its ranks? What if the world had an independent court in place of the ICC, which the authors say can prosecute “aggression,” but which in reality cannot do so without the approval of the U.N. Security Council? More importantly, what if we had a *global culture* that allowed us to confront the evil of war without nationalized biases? What if we took the accomplishments of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as motivation to see the vision of its creators through to the end: the abolition of all wars and militaries? Book video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSy1CuwP3k Radio: https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-scott-shapiro-and-oona-hathaway-on-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world Video of event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -- *David Swanson *is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include *War Is A Lie *. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org . He hosts Talk Nation Radio . He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue Sep 12 06:37:43 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:37:43 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Syria=E2=80=99s_victory_at_Deir_ez-Zor_?= =?utf-8?q?turns_the_tide_on_US_regime-change_plans?= Message-ID: <6DA05CED-E84D-4ABC-8224-7741E9184006@illinois.edu> Syria’s victory at Deir ez-Zor turns the tide on US regime-change plans https://www.rt.com/op-edge/402354-syrias-victory-deir-ez-zor/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Image-1.png Type: image/png Size: 353501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Sent from my iPhone From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 12 11:39:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:39:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Swanson is one of the Leaders of the American Peace Movement today. Now you know why. Yale Law Oona is a Sick and Demented Person for having gone to work for Harvard Law Obama’s Department of War and Facilitate their Warmaking all over the world and then got a special Gold Medal from the Department of War and the Secretary of War for Excellence in Warmaking. QED. Like getting a Special Iron Cross from Goering. Ditto for Yale/Harvard Law Killer Koh. And if I can get Killer Koh and Obama prosecuted somewhere, I shall. Just like I did to Milosevic. On my list of things to do.Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:20 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact How Outlawing War Changed the World in 1928 By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928/ When I wrote a book about the Kellogg-Briand Pact my goals were to draw lessons from the movement that created it, and to call attention to its existence as a still-current law being routinely violated — in hopes of encouraging compliance. After all, it is a law that bans nations from engaging in war — the primary thing my nation’s government does, with a half-dozen U.S. wars going at any time now. Now Oona Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro have published The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Their goals seems to be to show us how different and worse the world was in certain ways before the Pact, and to claim for the pact enormous success and general compliance. I have learned a great deal from this phenomenal book, easily the best book I’ve read in years. I could write an essay about each of its over 400 pages. While I agree with a great deal of it and strongly disagree with certain parts, the two are easily separable. The brilliant sections are no less valuable because of those sections that fall short. This book constitutes the ultimate refutation of the childishly simplistic notion that because World War II followed the outlawing of war in 1928 that outlawing was a failure — a standard that as far as I know has never been applied to any other law. (Has no one driven drunk since the banning of drunk driving?) In fact, the very first prosecutions for violation of the law, at Nuremberg and Tokyo, have been followed by a reduction in wars that has most notably included the absence of any further wars waged directly between wealthy well-armed nations — at least so far. [https://i0.wp.com/davidswanson.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/scott.jpg?resize=167%2C250]As Hathaway and Shapiro show, the Peace Pact of Paris has so transformed the world that it is hard to recall what preceded it. War was legal in 1927. Both sides of a war were legal. Atrocities committed during wars were almost always legal. The conquest of territory was legal. Burning and looting and pillaging were legal. War was, in fact, not just legal; it was itself understood to be law enforcement. War could be used to attempt to right any perceived injustice. The seizing of other nations as colonies was legal. The motivation for colonies to try to free themselves was weak because they were likely to be seized by some other nation if they broke free from their current oppressor. Economic sanctions by neutral nations were not legal, though joining in a war could be. And making trade agreements under the threat of war was perfectly legal and acceptable, as was starting another war if such a coerced agreement was violated. Raping a woman in war could be illegal, but killing her could be in perfect compliance with the law. Killing was, in fact, legal whenever deemed part of a war, and illegal otherwise. Some of this may sound familiar. You may have heard Rosa Brooks tell Congress that drone murders are acceptable if part of a war and crimes otherwise, whereas torture is a crime either way. But the extent to which the label of “war” is understood to permit killing today is limited greatly in theory and significantly even in reality. And today war is understood to license mass murder alone, whereas it used to give free rein for participants to murder, trespass, break and enter, steal, assault, maim, kidnap, extort, destroy property, or commit arson. Today a soldier can return from a mass killing spree and be prosecuted for cheating on his taxes. He or she has been given a license to kill and only to kill, nothing more. Demanding today that the U.S. Congress repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 and revert to its old practice of declaring wars, rather than simply funding (and whining about) any wars a president wages, may or may not be an effective means of curtailing warmaking, but it does amount to demanding a return to a barbaric antiquity, a practice that when it was used constituted an announcement that all would henceforth be permitted as long as it victimized whichever people war was being declared against. To the very limited extent that the pre-1928 world had laws against wars, they were only laws against particular atrocities. In other words, the world in which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch try to live today, in which war is perfectly acceptable, but each inevitable atrocious component of the wars is a crime: that was the best the West had to offer from ancient times through 1928. The world after 1928 was different. The outlawing of war reduced the need for large nations, and smaller nations began to form by the dozens, exercising their right to self-determination. Colonies, likewise, sought their freedom. Conquests of territory after 1928 were undone. The year 1928 became the dividing line for determining which conquests were legal and which not. And the Pact of course was central to the prosecution of (the losers) of World War II for the crime of war. International trade has flourished in the absence of legal conquest. While it is not even true, much less a statement of causation, that nations with McDonalds do not attack each other, it may be true that a world with a reduced risk of attack, for better or worse, generates more McDonalds. All of these positive changes have indeed come about as a result of a treaty generally mocked when not ignored. But they don’t add up to the positive view of the world pushed by people like Steven Pinker as well as Hathaway and Shapiro. That positive view of a world ridding itself of war comes about through selective statistics, also known as lies, damn lies, and U.S. exceptionalism. In Pinker, deaths are radically undercounted, then compared to the entire population of the world rather than the relevant nation, or erased by re-categorizing them as “civil war” and therefore not war deaths at all. Hathaway and Shapiro recognize one U.S. coup (Iran) and war (Iraq) as if none of the others have happened or are happening. The Nakba seems not to exist. That is, the crime and the suffering it entailed do not get mentioned, though the “Arab-Israeli conflict” does. The authors refer to Iraq 2003-present as a war that in 2015 had “greater than ten thousand” people killed in “battle-related” killing. (I’m unclear which killings are excluded by “battle-related.”) Never do they mention that “greater than one million” have been killed in that war. Since World War II, during what the authors call a “period of unprecedented peace,” the United States military has killed some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 82 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. This extravaganza of criminal killing is documented here. [https://i0.wp.com/davidswanson.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/oona.jpg?resize=179%2C250]The United States killed some 5 million people in Southeast Asia in a war that Hathaway and Shapiro mention only as an act of conquest by the North of the South when the invaders finally fled. I arrive at that number using the Harvard study from 2008 on Vietnam (3.8 million) plus Nick Turse’s case in Kill Anything That Moves that this is a significant under-counting. Using 4 million for Vietnam, I add 1 million for the combined hundreds of thousands killed by the U.S. bombing campaigns in each of the two countries of Laos and Cambodia (both rough estimates). I do not add in the 1 to 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge, though blame can be given to the United States (without taking it away from anyone else) for that horror. While the United States military did not kill all of the 4 million killed in Vietnam, there would not have been a war, or certainly not a war resembling what the Vietnamese call the American War without the United States. For the past almost 16 years, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces stationed in three-quarters of them. This is the “period of unprecedented peace” that Hathaway and Shapiro describe as threatened by Russia, China, and ISIS. (“Even as [the Pact’s] bright promises have been fulfilled, other darker threats have rushed into the void.” Guess who those are!) Quite obviously one cannot fit everything tangentially related to the topic of a book into a book. But to write about the problem of war without mentioning the U.S. dominance of the field is a bias. There is a reason that most countries polled in December 2013 by Gallup called the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world. But it is a reason that eludes that strain of U.S. academia that first defines war as something that nations and groups other than the United States do, and then concludes that war has nearly vanished from the earth, or is on its way out, and that the greatest threats of war come from China, Russia, and ISIS. Ironically, a brilliant analysis giving the Kellogg-Briand Pact its due could probably only have been written by Americans — the rest of the world viewing U.S. actions on war and peace with too much cynicism and resentment. But anything written by Americans comes with American baggage. The Lusitania was attacked by Germany without warning, we’re told, despite Germany literally having published warnings in New York newspapers and newspapers around the United States. These warnings were printed right next to ads for sailing on the Lusitania and were signed by the German embassy. Newspapers wrote articles about the warnings. The Cunard company was asked about the warnings. The former captain of the Lusitania had already quit — reportedly due to the stress of sailing through what Germany had publicly declared a war zone. Meanwhile Winston Churchill is quoted as having said “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” It was under his command that the usual British military protection was not provided to the Lusitania, despite Cunard having stated that it was counting on that protection. Much of Hathaway and Shapiro’s book is devoted to the pre-1928 responsibilities of neutral nations to remain neutral. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned over the U.S. failure to remain neutral. That the Lusitania was carrying weapons and troops to aid the British in the war against Germany was asserted by Germany and by other observers, and was true. Of course sinking the Lusitania was a horrible act of mass-murder, as was loading it up with weapons and troops to ship to a war. Behavior on all sides was reprehensible. But the authors only provide one side, only slightly mitigated by a footnote. Occupations are meant to be temporary we’re told, despite the unlikelihood that the authors would dare make such an assertion in Kabul. The U.S. military now has approximately 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus 6,000 other NATO troops, 1,000 mercenaries, and another 26,000 contractors (of whom about 8,000 are from the United States). That’s 41,000 people engaged in a foreign occupation of a country over 15 years after the accomplishment of their stated mission to overthrow the Taliban government. The Department of so-called Defense has informed the U.S. Congress that it will soon produce yet another new plan for “winning” in Afghanistan. No plans for ending the occupation have been forthcoming or even requested. When the U.S. occupation of Iraq “ended,” troops and mercenaries remained. That they were invited back by the Iraqi government hardly excuses their actions, including the destruction of Mosul this past summer. The single biggest threat to the peace on earth that was established in 1928 turns out to have been, according to Hathaway and Shapiro, the 2014 vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia — an action that of course involved zero casualties and has never been repeated because poll after poll shows the people happy with their vote. The authors produce no written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 3 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course one of the many U.S.-backed coups unnoticed by this book had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea was voting to secede from a coup government. The United States had supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in the 1990s despite Serbian opposition. When Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia, the U.S. did not urge any opposition. The U.S. (and Hathaway and Shapiro) support the right of South Sudan to have seceded from Sudan, although violence and chaos reigned. U.S. politicians like Joe Biden and Jane Harman even proposed breaking Iraq up into pieces, as others have proposed for Syria. But let’s grant for the sake of argument that the Crimean vote was problematic, even horrendous, even criminal. Its depiction in this book as the single biggest threat to peace on earth would still be ludicrous. Compare it to a trillion dollars a year in U.S. military spending, new missiles in Romania and Poland, massive bombing of Iraq and Syria, the destruction of Iraq and Libya, the endless war on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S.-Saudi devastation of Yemen and the creation of famine and disease epidemics, or the explicit threats to attack Iran. I’m sure your average American would rather visit “liberated Mosul” than “annexed Crimea,” but should we deal with facts or slogans? [https://i1.wp.com/davidswanson.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/theinternationalists300.jpg?resize=199%2C300]Hathaway and Shapiro give S. O. Levinson and the outlawrists of the 1920s their due for what they accomplished, but the authors view the world as 2017 CNN consumers. They favor “defensive” wars. They fault Trump for suggesting that NATO be scrapped. They maintain silence on NATO’s aggressive expansion, as well as on U.S. military bases ringing the globe. In fact they make this blatantly false statement: “The United States, United Kingdom, and France . . . took no new territory after the war.” During World War II the U.S. Navy seized the small Hawaiian island of Koho’alawe for a weapons testing range and ordered its inhabitants to leave. The island has been devastated. In 1942, the U.S. Navy displaced Aleutian Islanders. Those practices did not end in 1928 or in 1945. President Harry Truman made up his mind that the 170 native inhabitants of Bikini Atoll had no right to their island in 1946. He had them evicted in February and March of 1946, and dumped as refugees on other islands without means of support or a social structure in place. In the coming years, the United States would remove 147 people from Enewetak Atoll and all the people on Lib Island. U.S. atomic and hydrogen bomb testing rendered various depopulated and still-populated islands uninhabitable, leading to further displacements. Up through the 1960s, the U.S. military displaced hundreds of people from Kwajalein Atoll. A super-densely populated ghetto was created on Ebeye. On Vieques, off Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy displaced thousands of inhabitants between 1941 and 1947, announced plans to evict the remaining 8,000 in 1961, but was forced to back off and — in 2003 — to stop bombing the island. On nearby Culebra, the Navy displaced thousands between 1948 and 1950 and attempted to remove those remaining up through the 1970s. The Navy is right now looking at the island of Pagan as a possible replacement for Vieques, the population already having been removed by a volcanic eruption. Of course, any possibility of return would be greatly diminished. Beginning during World War II but continuing right through the 1950s, the U.S. military displaced a quarter million Okinawans, or half the population, from their land, forcing people into refugee camps and shipping thousands of them off to Bolivia — where land and money were promised but not delivered. In 1953, the United States made a deal with Denmark to remove 150 Inughuit people from Thule, Greenland, giving them four days to get out or face bulldozers. They are being denied the right to return. Between 1968 and 1973, the United States and Great Britain exiled all 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants of Diego Garcia, rounding people up and forcing them onto boats while killing their dogs in a gas chamber and seizing possession of their entire homeland for the use of the U.S. military. The South Korean government, which evicted people for U.S. base expansion on the mainland in 2006, has, at the behest of the U.S. Navy, in recent years been devastating a village, its coast, and 130 acres of farmland on Jeju Island in order to provide the United States with another massive military base. None of this is mentioned in Hathaway and Shapiro’s book, or of course in the database called Correlates of War that they drew data from. The U.S. role as dominant military force on earth is simply missing. The arms trade in which the U.S. leads the way and a half dozen nations dominate the arming of the globe makes no appearance. But China’s efforts to claim islands in the South China Sea are as threatening to the authors as to Hillary Clinton at a Goldman Sachs event, if not more so. Shapiro and Hathaway might argue that “forced expulsions” are a product of hard borders, which are a product of outlawing war. Tony Judt wrote: “At the conclusion of the first world war it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place. After 1945 what happened was rather the opposite: with one major exception, boundaries stay broadly intact and people were moved instead.” But niether this nor anything else I’ve seen constitutes a serious claim or evidence that forced expulsions were fewer or nonexistent prior to 1928. What of the forced expulsion of so many Native Americans? But, increased or decreased or continuing at a steady pace, these crimes, these acts of war, these conquerings of territory, do not make it into the book. Instead we’re falsely told that the United States takes no new territory. Tell that to the residents of Vicenza, Italy, or any of dozens of towns around the world where U.S. military bases are forcibly expanded against the will of the people living there. As a result of the authors’ exceptionalist view of the world, and perhaps a focus on written law, Hathaway and Shapiro find shortcomings in the Kellogg-Briand Pact by looking at its words rather than looking at our failure to comply with them. They believe the Pact leaves open (does not provide permission but simply fails to address) the option to wage war over territorial disputes, as well as the option for non-state actors to wage war. The former depends on the idea that the Pact only banned aggressive war, rather than all war — decidedly not what the Outlawrists intended. They — the originators of outlawry — intended to ban war entirely, with no exception for the common excuse of territorial disputes. The latter, the ability of non-state actors to wage war, depends on irrational fear mongering around enemies, such as ISIS, generated by the counterproductive, blowback-producing, routine violation of the Pact by S.O. Levinson’s own nation, the greatest purveyor of violence on earth. In Hathaway and Shapiro’s view, I am simply wrong about what the Outlawrists meant, and defensive wars were not being renounced. But my point is not to comment on how some senators interpreted what they were ratifying, but rather to recall the better-developed thinking of the originators of and promoters of the idea of outlawing war. I quoted Levinson in When the World Outlawed War: “Suppose this same distinction had been urged when the institution of duelling [sic] was outlawed. . . . Suppose it had then been urged that only ‘aggressive duelling’ should be outlawed and that ‘defensive duelling’ be left intact. . . . Such a suggestion relative to duelling would have been silly, but the analogy is perfectly sound. What we did was to outlaw the institution of duelling, a method theretofore recognized by law for the settlement of disputes of so-called honor.” By failing to focus on what the Outlawrists wanted, rather than on what governments made of their creation, the authors conclude that in 1928 nobody had really considered what to replace war with, how to resolve disputes without wars. They also conclude that the U.N. Charter made the Pact a “reality,” rather than weakening it. But many knew full well the need for new types of nonviolent sanction, for global courts, for moral and economic tools, for disarmament, and for cultural changes still eluding us. Levinson drafted implementing legislation to make advocacy for war a felony. The U.N. Charter’s loopholes for “defensive” and “authorized” wars have made the U.N. — which has the second-largest imperial army now deployed on earth — a tool of warmaking, rather than peacemaking. The authors fault the Pact for protecting weak states from invasion, allowing them to become failed states, creating warfare. But it takes more than protection from attack to damage a country. It often requires weapons dealing, the propping up of dictators, and the foreign exploitation of people and resources. Surely eliminating these further evils would be preferable to reinstating the evil of conquest. Where Hathaway and Shapiro’s book shines, despite all the red, white, and bluism, is in its analysis of the replacement of war with alternative systems of security, something I’ve also looked into. They propose, in particular, recognition of and expansion of what they call outcasting. The name is derived from the ancient practice on Iceland of punishing a law violator by making them an outcast from society. “The law was effective,” Hathaway and Shapiro write, “even though there were no public institutions of law enforcement, because outlawry turned all Icelanders into law enforcers.” Based on this model, the authors describe the manner in which institutions like those handling international mail or trade create compliance with standards through the threat of banishment. Of course extending the powers of corporate trade organizations to allow their lawyers to rewrite nations’ domestic laws is not desirable or necessary. And outcasting is only one tool in the tool chest of a non-war system. But what if the United Nations were replaced with or evolved into a democratized nonviolent club of peacemakers, using unarmed peaceworkers, and maintaining the threat of banishment from its ranks? What if the world had an independent court in place of the ICC, which the authors say can prosecute “aggression,” but which in reality cannot do so without the approval of the U.N. Security Council? More importantly, what if we had a global culture that allowed us to confront the evil of war without nationalized biases? What if we took the accomplishments of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as motivation to see the vision of its creators through to the end: the abolition of all wars and militaries? Book video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSy1CuwP3k Radio: https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-scott-shapiro-and-oona-hathaway-on-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world Video of event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -- David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 12 11:39:35 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:39:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Swanson is one of the Leaders of the American Peace Movement today. Now you know why. Yale Law Oona is a Sick and Demented Person for having gone to work for Harvard Law Obama’s Department of War and Facilitate their Warmaking all over the world and then got a special Gold Medal from the Department of War and the Secretary of War for Excellence in Warmaking. QED. Like getting a Special Iron Cross from Goering. Ditto for Yale/Harvard Law Killer Koh. And if I can get Killer Koh and Obama prosecuted somewhere, I shall. Just like I did to Milosevic. On my list of things to do.Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Swanson [mailto:davidcnswanson at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 11:20 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G Subject: Re: NYT: Yale "Law" Warmonger Oona Sheds Crocodile Tears for Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact How Outlawing War Changed the World in 1928 By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928/ When I wrote a book about the Kellogg-Briand Pact my goals were to draw lessons from the movement that created it, and to call attention to its existence as a still-current law being routinely violated — in hopes of encouraging compliance. After all, it is a law that bans nations from engaging in war — the primary thing my nation’s government does, with a half-dozen U.S. wars going at any time now. Now Oona Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro have published The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World. Their goals seems to be to show us how different and worse the world was in certain ways before the Pact, and to claim for the pact enormous success and general compliance. I have learned a great deal from this phenomenal book, easily the best book I’ve read in years. I could write an essay about each of its over 400 pages. While I agree with a great deal of it and strongly disagree with certain parts, the two are easily separable. The brilliant sections are no less valuable because of those sections that fall short. This book constitutes the ultimate refutation of the childishly simplistic notion that because World War II followed the outlawing of war in 1928 that outlawing was a failure — a standard that as far as I know has never been applied to any other law. (Has no one driven drunk since the banning of drunk driving?) In fact, the very first prosecutions for violation of the law, at Nuremberg and Tokyo, have been followed by a reduction in wars that has most notably included the absence of any further wars waged directly between wealthy well-armed nations — at least so far. [https://i0.wp.com/davidswanson.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/scott.jpg?resize=167%2C250]As Hathaway and Shapiro show, the Peace Pact of Paris has so transformed the world that it is hard to recall what preceded it. War was legal in 1927. Both sides of a war were legal. Atrocities committed during wars were almost always legal. The conquest of territory was legal. Burning and looting and pillaging were legal. War was, in fact, not just legal; it was itself understood to be law enforcement. War could be used to attempt to right any perceived injustice. The seizing of other nations as colonies was legal. The motivation for colonies to try to free themselves was weak because they were likely to be seized by some other nation if they broke free from their current oppressor. Economic sanctions by neutral nations were not legal, though joining in a war could be. And making trade agreements under the threat of war was perfectly legal and acceptable, as was starting another war if such a coerced agreement was violated. Raping a woman in war could be illegal, but killing her could be in perfect compliance with the law. Killing was, in fact, legal whenever deemed part of a war, and illegal otherwise. Some of this may sound familiar. You may have heard Rosa Brooks tell Congress that drone murders are acceptable if part of a war and crimes otherwise, whereas torture is a crime either way. But the extent to which the label of “war” is understood to permit killing today is limited greatly in theory and significantly even in reality. And today war is understood to license mass murder alone, whereas it used to give free rein for participants to murder, trespass, break and enter, steal, assault, maim, kidnap, extort, destroy property, or commit arson. Today a soldier can return from a mass killing spree and be prosecuted for cheating on his taxes. He or she has been given a license to kill and only to kill, nothing more. Demanding today that the U.S. Congress repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force of 2001 and revert to its old practice of declaring wars, rather than simply funding (and whining about) any wars a president wages, may or may not be an effective means of curtailing warmaking, but it does amount to demanding a return to a barbaric antiquity, a practice that when it was used constituted an announcement that all would henceforth be permitted as long as it victimized whichever people war was being declared against. To the very limited extent that the pre-1928 world had laws against wars, they were only laws against particular atrocities. In other words, the world in which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch try to live today, in which war is perfectly acceptable, but each inevitable atrocious component of the wars is a crime: that was the best the West had to offer from ancient times through 1928. The world after 1928 was different. The outlawing of war reduced the need for large nations, and smaller nations began to form by the dozens, exercising their right to self-determination. Colonies, likewise, sought their freedom. Conquests of territory after 1928 were undone. The year 1928 became the dividing line for determining which conquests were legal and which not. And the Pact of course was central to the prosecution of (the losers) of World War II for the crime of war. International trade has flourished in the absence of legal conquest. While it is not even true, much less a statement of causation, that nations with McDonalds do not attack each other, it may be true that a world with a reduced risk of attack, for better or worse, generates more McDonalds. All of these positive changes have indeed come about as a result of a treaty generally mocked when not ignored. But they don’t add up to the positive view of the world pushed by people like Steven Pinker as well as Hathaway and Shapiro. That positive view of a world ridding itself of war comes about through selective statistics, also known as lies, damn lies, and U.S. exceptionalism. In Pinker, deaths are radically undercounted, then compared to the entire population of the world rather than the relevant nation, or erased by re-categorizing them as “civil war” and therefore not war deaths at all. Hathaway and Shapiro recognize one U.S. coup (Iran) and war (Iraq) as if none of the others have happened or are happening. The Nakba seems not to exist. That is, the crime and the suffering it entailed do not get mentioned, though the “Arab-Israeli conflict” does. The authors refer to Iraq 2003-present as a war that in 2015 had “greater than ten thousand” people killed in “battle-related” killing. (I’m unclear which killings are excluded by “battle-related.”) Never do they mention that “greater than one million” have been killed in that war. Since World War II, during what the authors call a “period of unprecedented peace,” the United States military has killed some 20 million people, overthrown at least 36 governments, interfered in at least 82 foreign elections, attempted to assassinate over 50 foreign leaders, and dropped bombs on people in over 30 countries. This extravaganza of criminal killing is documented here. [https://i0.wp.com/davidswanson.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/oona.jpg?resize=179%2C250]The United States killed some 5 million people in Southeast Asia in a war that Hathaway and Shapiro mention only as an act of conquest by the North of the South when the invaders finally fled. I arrive at that number using the Harvard study from 2008 on Vietnam (3.8 million) plus Nick Turse’s case in Kill Anything That Moves that this is a significant under-counting. Using 4 million for Vietnam, I add 1 million for the combined hundreds of thousands killed by the U.S. bombing campaigns in each of the two countries of Laos and Cambodia (both rough estimates). I do not add in the 1 to 2 million killed by the Khmer Rouge, though blame can be given to the United States (without taking it away from anyone else) for that horror. While the United States military did not kill all of the 4 million killed in Vietnam, there would not have been a war, or certainly not a war resembling what the Vietnamese call the American War without the United States. For the past almost 16 years, the United States has been systematically destroying a region of the globe, bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, not to mention the Philippines. The United States has “special forces” operating in two-thirds of the world’s countries and non-special forces stationed in three-quarters of them. This is the “period of unprecedented peace” that Hathaway and Shapiro describe as threatened by Russia, China, and ISIS. (“Even as [the Pact’s] bright promises have been fulfilled, other darker threats have rushed into the void.” Guess who those are!) Quite obviously one cannot fit everything tangentially related to the topic of a book into a book. But to write about the problem of war without mentioning the U.S. dominance of the field is a bias. There is a reason that most countries polled in December 2013 by Gallup called the United States the greatest threat to peace in the world. But it is a reason that eludes that strain of U.S. academia that first defines war as something that nations and groups other than the United States do, and then concludes that war has nearly vanished from the earth, or is on its way out, and that the greatest threats of war come from China, Russia, and ISIS. Ironically, a brilliant analysis giving the Kellogg-Briand Pact its due could probably only have been written by Americans — the rest of the world viewing U.S. actions on war and peace with too much cynicism and resentment. But anything written by Americans comes with American baggage. The Lusitania was attacked by Germany without warning, we’re told, despite Germany literally having published warnings in New York newspapers and newspapers around the United States. These warnings were printed right next to ads for sailing on the Lusitania and were signed by the German embassy. Newspapers wrote articles about the warnings. The Cunard company was asked about the warnings. The former captain of the Lusitania had already quit — reportedly due to the stress of sailing through what Germany had publicly declared a war zone. Meanwhile Winston Churchill is quoted as having said “It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope especially of embroiling the United States with Germany.” It was under his command that the usual British military protection was not provided to the Lusitania, despite Cunard having stated that it was counting on that protection. Much of Hathaway and Shapiro’s book is devoted to the pre-1928 responsibilities of neutral nations to remain neutral. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan resigned over the U.S. failure to remain neutral. That the Lusitania was carrying weapons and troops to aid the British in the war against Germany was asserted by Germany and by other observers, and was true. Of course sinking the Lusitania was a horrible act of mass-murder, as was loading it up with weapons and troops to ship to a war. Behavior on all sides was reprehensible. But the authors only provide one side, only slightly mitigated by a footnote. Occupations are meant to be temporary we’re told, despite the unlikelihood that the authors would dare make such an assertion in Kabul. The U.S. military now has approximately 8,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus 6,000 other NATO troops, 1,000 mercenaries, and another 26,000 contractors (of whom about 8,000 are from the United States). That’s 41,000 people engaged in a foreign occupation of a country over 15 years after the accomplishment of their stated mission to overthrow the Taliban government. The Department of so-called Defense has informed the U.S. Congress that it will soon produce yet another new plan for “winning” in Afghanistan. No plans for ending the occupation have been forthcoming or even requested. When the U.S. occupation of Iraq “ended,” troops and mercenaries remained. That they were invited back by the Iraqi government hardly excuses their actions, including the destruction of Mosul this past summer. The single biggest threat to the peace on earth that was established in 1928 turns out to have been, according to Hathaway and Shapiro, the 2014 vote by the people of Crimea to re-join Russia — an action that of course involved zero casualties and has never been repeated because poll after poll shows the people happy with their vote. The authors produce no written or oral statement from Russia threatening war or violence. If the threat was implicit, there remains the problem of being unable to find Crimeans who say they felt threatened. (Although I have seen reports of discrimination against Tartars during the past 3 years.) If the vote was influenced by the implicit threat, there remains the problem that polls consistently get the same result. Of course one of the many U.S.-backed coups unnoticed by this book had just occurred in Kiev, meaning that Crimea was voting to secede from a coup government. The United States had supported the secession of Kosovo from Serbia in the 1990s despite Serbian opposition. When Slovakia seceded from Czechoslovakia, the U.S. did not urge any opposition. The U.S. (and Hathaway and Shapiro) support the right of South Sudan to have seceded from Sudan, although violence and chaos reigned. U.S. politicians like Joe Biden and Jane Harman even proposed breaking Iraq up into pieces, as others have proposed for Syria. But let’s grant for the sake of argument that the Crimean vote was problematic, even horrendous, even criminal. Its depiction in this book as the single biggest threat to peace on earth would still be ludicrous. Compare it to a trillion dollars a year in U.S. military spending, new missiles in Romania and Poland, massive bombing of Iraq and Syria, the destruction of Iraq and Libya, the endless war on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S.-Saudi devastation of Yemen and the creation of famine and disease epidemics, or the explicit threats to attack Iran. I’m sure your average American would rather visit “liberated Mosul” than “annexed Crimea,” but should we deal with facts or slogans? [https://i1.wp.com/davidswanson.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/theinternationalists300.jpg?resize=199%2C300]Hathaway and Shapiro give S. O. Levinson and the outlawrists of the 1920s their due for what they accomplished, but the authors view the world as 2017 CNN consumers. They favor “defensive” wars. They fault Trump for suggesting that NATO be scrapped. They maintain silence on NATO’s aggressive expansion, as well as on U.S. military bases ringing the globe. In fact they make this blatantly false statement: “The United States, United Kingdom, and France . . . took no new territory after the war.” During World War II the U.S. Navy seized the small Hawaiian island of Koho’alawe for a weapons testing range and ordered its inhabitants to leave. The island has been devastated. In 1942, the U.S. Navy displaced Aleutian Islanders. Those practices did not end in 1928 or in 1945. President Harry Truman made up his mind that the 170 native inhabitants of Bikini Atoll had no right to their island in 1946. He had them evicted in February and March of 1946, and dumped as refugees on other islands without means of support or a social structure in place. In the coming years, the United States would remove 147 people from Enewetak Atoll and all the people on Lib Island. U.S. atomic and hydrogen bomb testing rendered various depopulated and still-populated islands uninhabitable, leading to further displacements. Up through the 1960s, the U.S. military displaced hundreds of people from Kwajalein Atoll. A super-densely populated ghetto was created on Ebeye. On Vieques, off Puerto Rico, the U.S. Navy displaced thousands of inhabitants between 1941 and 1947, announced plans to evict the remaining 8,000 in 1961, but was forced to back off and — in 2003 — to stop bombing the island. On nearby Culebra, the Navy displaced thousands between 1948 and 1950 and attempted to remove those remaining up through the 1970s. The Navy is right now looking at the island of Pagan as a possible replacement for Vieques, the population already having been removed by a volcanic eruption. Of course, any possibility of return would be greatly diminished. Beginning during World War II but continuing right through the 1950s, the U.S. military displaced a quarter million Okinawans, or half the population, from their land, forcing people into refugee camps and shipping thousands of them off to Bolivia — where land and money were promised but not delivered. In 1953, the United States made a deal with Denmark to remove 150 Inughuit people from Thule, Greenland, giving them four days to get out or face bulldozers. They are being denied the right to return. Between 1968 and 1973, the United States and Great Britain exiled all 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants of Diego Garcia, rounding people up and forcing them onto boats while killing their dogs in a gas chamber and seizing possession of their entire homeland for the use of the U.S. military. The South Korean government, which evicted people for U.S. base expansion on the mainland in 2006, has, at the behest of the U.S. Navy, in recent years been devastating a village, its coast, and 130 acres of farmland on Jeju Island in order to provide the United States with another massive military base. None of this is mentioned in Hathaway and Shapiro’s book, or of course in the database called Correlates of War that they drew data from. The U.S. role as dominant military force on earth is simply missing. The arms trade in which the U.S. leads the way and a half dozen nations dominate the arming of the globe makes no appearance. But China’s efforts to claim islands in the South China Sea are as threatening to the authors as to Hillary Clinton at a Goldman Sachs event, if not more so. Shapiro and Hathaway might argue that “forced expulsions” are a product of hard borders, which are a product of outlawing war. Tony Judt wrote: “At the conclusion of the first world war it was borders that were invented and adjusted, while people were on the whole left in place. After 1945 what happened was rather the opposite: with one major exception, boundaries stay broadly intact and people were moved instead.” But niether this nor anything else I’ve seen constitutes a serious claim or evidence that forced expulsions were fewer or nonexistent prior to 1928. What of the forced expulsion of so many Native Americans? But, increased or decreased or continuing at a steady pace, these crimes, these acts of war, these conquerings of territory, do not make it into the book. Instead we’re falsely told that the United States takes no new territory. Tell that to the residents of Vicenza, Italy, or any of dozens of towns around the world where U.S. military bases are forcibly expanded against the will of the people living there. As a result of the authors’ exceptionalist view of the world, and perhaps a focus on written law, Hathaway and Shapiro find shortcomings in the Kellogg-Briand Pact by looking at its words rather than looking at our failure to comply with them. They believe the Pact leaves open (does not provide permission but simply fails to address) the option to wage war over territorial disputes, as well as the option for non-state actors to wage war. The former depends on the idea that the Pact only banned aggressive war, rather than all war — decidedly not what the Outlawrists intended. They — the originators of outlawry — intended to ban war entirely, with no exception for the common excuse of territorial disputes. The latter, the ability of non-state actors to wage war, depends on irrational fear mongering around enemies, such as ISIS, generated by the counterproductive, blowback-producing, routine violation of the Pact by S.O. Levinson’s own nation, the greatest purveyor of violence on earth. In Hathaway and Shapiro’s view, I am simply wrong about what the Outlawrists meant, and defensive wars were not being renounced. But my point is not to comment on how some senators interpreted what they were ratifying, but rather to recall the better-developed thinking of the originators of and promoters of the idea of outlawing war. I quoted Levinson in When the World Outlawed War: “Suppose this same distinction had been urged when the institution of duelling [sic] was outlawed. . . . Suppose it had then been urged that only ‘aggressive duelling’ should be outlawed and that ‘defensive duelling’ be left intact. . . . Such a suggestion relative to duelling would have been silly, but the analogy is perfectly sound. What we did was to outlaw the institution of duelling, a method theretofore recognized by law for the settlement of disputes of so-called honor.” By failing to focus on what the Outlawrists wanted, rather than on what governments made of their creation, the authors conclude that in 1928 nobody had really considered what to replace war with, how to resolve disputes without wars. They also conclude that the U.N. Charter made the Pact a “reality,” rather than weakening it. But many knew full well the need for new types of nonviolent sanction, for global courts, for moral and economic tools, for disarmament, and for cultural changes still eluding us. Levinson drafted implementing legislation to make advocacy for war a felony. The U.N. Charter’s loopholes for “defensive” and “authorized” wars have made the U.N. — which has the second-largest imperial army now deployed on earth — a tool of warmaking, rather than peacemaking. The authors fault the Pact for protecting weak states from invasion, allowing them to become failed states, creating warfare. But it takes more than protection from attack to damage a country. It often requires weapons dealing, the propping up of dictators, and the foreign exploitation of people and resources. Surely eliminating these further evils would be preferable to reinstating the evil of conquest. Where Hathaway and Shapiro’s book shines, despite all the red, white, and bluism, is in its analysis of the replacement of war with alternative systems of security, something I’ve also looked into. They propose, in particular, recognition of and expansion of what they call outcasting. The name is derived from the ancient practice on Iceland of punishing a law violator by making them an outcast from society. “The law was effective,” Hathaway and Shapiro write, “even though there were no public institutions of law enforcement, because outlawry turned all Icelanders into law enforcers.” Based on this model, the authors describe the manner in which institutions like those handling international mail or trade create compliance with standards through the threat of banishment. Of course extending the powers of corporate trade organizations to allow their lawyers to rewrite nations’ domestic laws is not desirable or necessary. And outcasting is only one tool in the tool chest of a non-war system. But what if the United Nations were replaced with or evolved into a democratized nonviolent club of peacemakers, using unarmed peaceworkers, and maintaining the threat of banishment from its ranks? What if the world had an independent court in place of the ICC, which the authors say can prosecute “aggression,” but which in reality cannot do so without the approval of the U.N. Security Council? More importantly, what if we had a global culture that allowed us to confront the evil of war without nationalized biases? What if we took the accomplishments of the Kellogg-Briand Pact as motivation to see the vision of its creators through to the end: the abolition of all wars and militaries? Book video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlSy1CuwP3k Radio: https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-scott-shapiro-and-oona-hathaway-on-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world Video of event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6X2N0aaK3s&t=10s -- David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015, 2016, 2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed Sep 13 03:09:29 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 22:09:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Call/email our senators on war amendment Message-ID: http://news.antiwar.com/2017/09/12/senate-will-vote-on-amendment-to-repeal-war-authorization/ Call/email Senators Durbin & Duckworth to vote in favor of this amendment. The vote will probably be Wednesday afternoon 9/13. Durbin: (202) 224-2152 > Duckworth: (202) 224-2854 > —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Sep 13 05:03:17 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 05:03:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Avoiding face-saving defensiveness, whether theirs or yours Message-ID: <50BCAA6F-DB93-4A24-99BE-BD33A3697F2D@illinois.edu> NOTE: Written & published in October 2016, when it was widely assumed that Hillary would win the national election (which she did, in ordinary terms of getting more votes). ~~ Ron How to Build an Exit Ramp for Trump Supporters * Deepak Malhotra OCTOBER 14, 2016 Despite recent setbacks — from video of Donald Trump bragging about committing sexual assaults, to increasing concerns regarding his preparedness and temperament, to the unprecedented pace at which high-profile Republicans are pulling their support — polls show that approximately 40% of likely voters continue to support Trump. On the one hand, this is good news for Clinton supporters who foresee a comfortable margin of victory. On the other, unless Trump loses by historic margins, it is bad news for America. When Americans wake up on November 9, we will need to reexamine how we can work with and live with each other. We will have to re-learn how to respect and listen to one another. It’s never easy after a national election, but it has also never been more difficult. There is one simple reason for this. While presidential candidates of both parties, throughout American history, have often relied on fear and anger to boost their electoral odds, Trump is the first major party candidate to have relied so intensely on hate. Hate is unique in its ability to spare neither perpetrator nor victim. It’s very hard to hate without inspiring hate in others. Hate is not easily contained. Fear can grow or shrink, anger can escalate or subside, but hate sinks in. It becomes a part of us. It even begins to dictate what is to be feared, why we should be angry, and who is good or evil. Fear and anger might make it difficult for us to work with each other, but hate strips away our willingness to even try. It’s normal—and okay—for some people to be jubilant and others to be upset after an election. It’s okay for fear and even anger to linger in the wake of a national referendum. There is a lot at stake. But hate is not normal, and it cannot be allowed to gain legitimacy. If it does, it can irreparably rend the constituent fabric of a country. If this ends up being a close election, it will allow hate to retain the foothold it needs to survive. That is why, for the first time in U.S. history, Americans need one candidate—in this case, Donald Trump—to lose decisively. A loss of historic proportions is the only way to ensure that future candidates are never again tempted to consort with the politics of hate. It is the only outcome that will allow Americans of tomorrow to peer into the reflecting pool of history and say “that is not who we are.” So how do we get there? Is it really possible to change the minds of those who continue to support Donald Trump? In some cases, almost certainly not. But in others, I am confident that it is. More generally, how can you nudge someone to reevaluate a deep-seated belief? How do you make progress when people are entrenched in their positions? How can you convince someone to abandon a course of action to which they are emotionally, ideologically, or publically committed? In my research, consulting, advisory work with businesses and governments, and in my book Negotiating the Impossible, I focus precisely on situations that seem hopeless. One of the problems that we regularly face in these environments is how to get someone to challenge a long-held belief or preference. As it turns out, having facts and data on your side is not enough. If someone’s ego or identity is on the line, overwhelming them with evidence will do little good. If you want people to change course, you have to create an “exit ramp” for them. This entails creating the space and safety they need to acknowledge and pursue a better way forward. Here’s how you might go about doing that when the situation is emotionally or ideologically charged. 1. Don’t force them to defend their beliefs. Whether you’re having drinks at a bar or scrolling through your Facebook feed, when you come across someone whose views you find abhorrent or absurd, it’s tempting to engage them in a debate. After all, it seems like a reasonable way to get someone to change their mind. The problem is, when you tell people they are wrong, stupid, immoral or irrational, they simply dig in and get more entrenched in their views. This is because no matter how confident you are that they are misguided, they will always be able to find at least one line of defense. All they need is one reason that you might be wrong, one weakness in your argument, or one factor that supports their position—and then they can claim it is the most important factor in the entire debate. When your “discussion” is over, they are more firmly committed to their position than they were before. 1. Provide information, and then give them time. When dealing with someone who passionately disagrees with you, a more effective approach than debating is to provide information without demanding anything in return. You might say (or post on Facebook) something along the lines of: “That’s interesting. Here’s some information I came across. You might find it useful given your interest in this topic.” Or, “when you get a chance, I’d appreciate you taking a look at this.” You’ve done about as much as you can for now. If they can consider what you’ve said without carrying the additional burden of having to agree with you, it is more likely it sinks in a little bit. This is why, over weeks and months, polls do change. Trump has lost ground as additional information about his behavior and temperament and weak grasp of issues has come to light. But the change doesn’t tend to happen during a heated argument. It doesn’t happen immediately. 1. Don’t fight bias with bias. If you do end up debating an issue, protect your legitimacy at all cost. If they are making a completely one-sided argument with selective (or misleading) evidence, don’t retaliate with a similarly biased or flawed argument to defend yourself. If there is some merit to their argument, acknowledge it. If you fight fire with fire, it will cost you the one thing you can’t afford to lose if you want to one day change their mind: their belief about your integrity. They will not acknowledge or thank you for your even-handedness at the time they’re arguing with you, but they will remember and appreciate it later, behind closed doors. And that’s where change happens. 1. Don’t force them to choose between their idea and yours. “Clinton is better than Trump” is not an argument that is going to win the day with someone who has been a long-time supporter of Trump, or someone who has learned to hate Clinton. Once disillusioned, as a number of Trump supporters are becoming, they are much more likely to vote for a third party, or not vote at all, than to completely switch their allegiance and vote for Clinton. More generally, you will be much more effective if you encourage people to reconsider their perspective without saying that this requires them to adopt yours. 1. Help them save face. Just because you’ve finally convinced someone that they were wrong, or that they should reconsider their point of view, doesn’t mean they will actually change course. People won’t change their behavior if they can’t find a way to do it without losing face. The question we often fail to ask is: have we made it safe for them to change course? How will they change their mind without looking like they have been foolish or naïve? If you can’t find a way for them to change their attitude or actions without being able to save face, you still have a problem. 1. Give them the cover they need. Often what’s required is some change in the situation—however small or symbolic—that allows them to say, “That’s why I changed my mind.” For example, a former Trump supporter who is looking to abandon Trump might find the excuse they need to do so after a poor debate performance (“It showed me he is not prepared for the job”), a new allegation of sexual assault (“It’s now too many for them to have all been made up”), or a recent Trump attack on other Republicans (“Going after Paul Ryan shows that he really isn’t a conservative”). For most people, these events are just “one more thing” that happened, but don’t underestimate the powerful role they can play in helping people who, while finally mentally ready to change their position, are worried about how to take the last, decisive step. 1. Let them in. If they fear you will punish them the moment they change their mind, they will stick to their guns until the bitter end. This punishment takes many forms, from taunts of “I told you so” to being labeled “a flip-flopper” to still being treated like an outsider or lesser member of the team by those who were “on the right side all along.” This is a grave mistake. If you want someone to stop clinging to a failing course of action or a bad idea, you will do yourself a huge favor if you reward rather than punish them for admitting they were wrong. You can’t ask them to leave the comfort of their own tribe and then abandon them once they do. You have to let them in and give them the respect they want and need just as much as you. Some of the above advice requires that we temper our natural inclinations for how to behave when someone is yelling and screaming or pushing and shoving. It is well worth building this discipline. Of course, not everyone is ready to change their mind. Equally, not all minds can (or need) to be changed. But you will have a much greater likelihood of navigating the path to change if you invest in building an exit ramp. The election of 2016 is as important a time as any to do it. Deepak Malhotra is the Eli Goldston Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and the author of Negotiating the Impossible. Connect with him on Twitter: @Prof_Malhotra. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed Sep 13 09:54:49 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 04:54:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Avoiding face-saving defensiveness, whether theirs or yours In-Reply-To: <50BCAA6F-DB93-4A24-99BE-BD33A3697F2D@illinois.edu> References: <50BCAA6F-DB93-4A24-99BE-BD33A3697F2D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <048C0A81-8F60-47CC-9AFB-C4C2B2A7E058@gmail.com> It would be much more worthwhile to ‘build an exit ramp' from Obama’s wars - rather than adopting them, as Trump seems now to have done (and of course Clinton would have). —CGE > On Sep 13, 2017, at 12:03 AM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > NOTE: Written & published in October 2016, when it was widely assumed that Hillary would win the national election (which she did, in ordinary terms of getting more votes). ~~ Ron > > How to Build an Exit Ramp for Trump Supporters > • Deepak Malhotra OCTOBER 14, 2016 > > Despite recent setbacks — from video of Donald Trump bragging about committing sexual assaults, to increasing concerns regarding his preparedness and temperament, to the unprecedented pace at which high-profile Republicans are pulling their support — polls show that approximately 40% of likely voters continue to support Trump. On the one hand, this is good news for Clinton supporters who foresee a comfortable margin of victory. On the other, unless Trump loses by historic margins, it is bad news for America. > When Americans wake up on November 9, we will need to reexamine how we can work with and live with each other. We will have to re-learn how to respect and listen to one another. It’s never easy after a national election, but it has also never been more difficult. There is one simple reason for this. While presidential candidates of both parties, throughout American history, have often relied on fear and anger to boost their electoral odds, Trump is the first major party candidate to have relied so intensely on hate. > Hate is unique in its ability to spare neither perpetrator nor victim. It’s very hard to hate without inspiring hate in others. Hate is not easily contained. Fear can grow or shrink, anger can escalate or subside, but hate sinks in. It becomes a part of us. It even begins to dictate what is to be feared, why we should be angry, and who is good or evil. Fear and anger might make it difficult for us to work with each other, but hate strips away our willingness to even try. > It’s normal—and okay—for some people to be jubilant and others to be upset after an election. It’s okay for fear and even anger to linger in the wake of a national referendum. There is a lot at stake. But hate is not normal, and it cannot be allowed to gain legitimacy. If it does, it can irreparably rend the constituent fabric of a country. > If this ends up being a close election, it will allow hate to retain the foothold it needs to survive. That is why, for the first time in U.S. history, Americans need one candidate—in this case, Donald Trump—to lose decisively. A loss of historic proportions is the only way to ensure that future candidates are never again tempted to consort with the politics of hate. It is the only outcome that will allow Americans of tomorrow to peer into the reflecting pool of history and say “that is not who we are.” > So how do we get there? Is it really possible to change the minds of those who continue to support Donald Trump? In some cases, almost certainly not. But in others, I am confident that it is. More generally, how can you nudge someone to reevaluate a deep-seated belief? How do you make progress when people are entrenched in their positions? How can you convince someone to abandon a course of action to which they are emotionally, ideologically, or publically committed? > In my research, consulting, advisory work with businesses and governments, and in my book Negotiating the Impossible, I focus precisely on situations that seem hopeless. One of the problems that we regularly face in these environments is how to get someone to challenge a long-held belief or preference. As it turns out, having facts and data on your side is not enough. If someone’s ego or identity is on the line, overwhelming them with evidence will do little good. > If you want people to change course, you have to create an “exit ramp” for them. This entails creating the space and safety they need to acknowledge and pursue a better way forward. Here’s how you might go about doing that when the situation is emotionally or ideologically charged. > • Don’t force them to defend their beliefs. Whether you’re having drinks at a bar or scrolling through your Facebook feed, when you come across someone whose views you find abhorrent or absurd, it’s tempting to engage them in a debate. After all, it seems like a reasonable way to get someone to change their mind. The problem is, when you tell people they are wrong, stupid, immoral or irrational, they simply dig in and get more entrenched in their views. This is because no matter how confident you are that they are misguided, they will always be able to find at least one line of defense. All they need is one reason that you might be wrong, one weakness in your argument, or one factor that supports their position—and then they can claim it is the most important factor in the entire debate. When your “discussion” is over, they are more firmly committed to their position than they were before. > • Provide information, and then give them time. When dealing with someone who passionately disagrees with you, a more effective approach than debating is to provide information without demanding anything in return. You might say (or post on Facebook) something along the lines of: “That’s interesting. Here’s some information I came across. You might find it useful given your interest in this topic.” Or, “when you get a chance, I’d appreciate you taking a look at this.” You’ve done about as much as you can for now. If they can consider what you’ve said without carrying the additional burden of having to agree with you, it is more likely it sinks in a little bit. This is why, over weeks and months, polls do change. Trump has lost ground as additional information about his behavior and temperament and weak grasp of issues has come to light. But the change doesn’t tend to happen during a heated argument. It doesn’t happen immediately. > • Don’t fight bias with bias. If you do end up debating an issue, protect your legitimacy at all cost. If they are making a completely one-sided argument with selective (or misleading) evidence, don’t retaliate with a similarly biased or flawed argument to defend yourself. If there is some merit to their argument, acknowledge it. If you fight fire with fire, it will cost you the one thing you can’t afford to lose if you want to one day change their mind: their belief about your integrity. They will not acknowledge or thank you for your even-handedness at the time they’re arguing with you, but they will remember and appreciate it later, behind closed doors. And that’s where change happens. > • Don’t force them to choose between their idea and yours. “Clinton is better than Trump” is not an argument that is going to win the day with someone who has been a long-time supporter of Trump, or someone who has learned to hate Clinton. Once disillusioned, as a number of Trump supporters are becoming, they are much more likely to vote for a third party, or not vote at all, than to completely switch their allegiance and vote for Clinton. More generally, you will be much more effective if you encourage people to reconsider their perspective without saying that this requires them to adopt yours. > • Help them save face. Just because you’ve finally convinced someone that they were wrong, or that they should reconsider their point of view, doesn’t mean they will actually change course. People won’t change their behavior if they can’t find a way to do it without losing face. The question we often fail to ask is: have we made it safe for them to change course? How will they change their mind without looking like they have been foolish or naïve? If you can’t find a way for them to change their attitude or actions without being able to save face, you still have a problem. > • Give them the cover they need. Often what’s required is some change in the situation—however small or symbolic—that allows them to say, “That’s why I changed my mind.” For example, a former Trump supporter who is looking to abandon Trump might find the excuse they need to do so after a poor debate performance (“It showed me he is not prepared for the job”), a new allegation of sexual assault (“It’s now too many for them to have all been made up”), or a recent Trump attack on other Republicans (“Going after Paul Ryan shows that he really isn’t a conservative”). For most people, these events are just “one more thing” that happened, but don’t underestimate the powerful role they can play in helping people who, while finally mentally ready to change their position, are worried about how to take the last, decisive step. > • Let them in. If they fear you will punish them the moment they change their mind, they will stick to their guns until the bitter end. This punishment takes many forms, from taunts of “I told you so” to being labeled “a flip-flopper” to still being treated like an outsider or lesser member of the team by those who were “on the right side all along.” This is a grave mistake. If you want someone to stop clinging to a failing course of action or a bad idea, you will do yourself a huge favor if you reward rather than punish them for admitting they were wrong. You can’t ask them to leave the comfort of their own tribe and then abandon them once they do. You have to let them in and give them the respect they want and need just as much as you. > Some of the above advice requires that we temper our natural inclinations for how to behave when someone is yelling and screaming or pushing and shoving. It is well worth building this discipline. Of course, not everyone is ready to change their mind. Equally, not all minds can (or need) to be changed. But you will have a much greater likelihood of navigating the path to change if you invest in building an exit ramp. The election of 2016 is as important a time as any to do it. > > Deepak Malhotra is the Eli Goldston Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and the author of Negotiating the Impossible. Connect with him on Twitter: @Prof_Malhotra. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 12:56:52 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 12:56:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Call your Senators today and demand: Message-ID: They support Sanders healthcare “Single Payer” for all. They support Rand Paul’s Amendment to Repeal War Authorization. In Illinois call Dick Durbin at ; 217-492-4062 / Tammy Duckworth at 217-528-6124 * Antiwar.com Home * About Antiwar.com * Donate * Blog * US Casualties * Contact * Latest News Senate Will Vote on Amendment to Repeal War Authorization Amendment Would Give Congress Six Months to Debate a ReplacementJason Ditz Posted onSeptember 12, 2017CategoriesNewsTagsAUMF, McCain, Rand Paul Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)’s push for a vote on his amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) appears to have been successful, and his office issued a press release confirming that such a vote will take place after all. Previously, there were doubts, as the Senate leadership sought to severely limit discussion of amendments and just push the NDAA through. [http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/312.jpg]Sen. Rand Paul The amendment is short and simple. It would repeal the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as well as the 2002 AUMF against Iraq. The two authorizations would sunset in six months, giving Congress a window in which to debate a replacement authorization. Limited debate on the amendment was held Tuesday evening, with expectations of further debate Wednesday morning. There is no formal time set for the vote, but it’s expected Wednesday in the late morning. Paul has advocated the repeal of the AUMF because it has been used by recent presidents as a blanket justification for new wars. Despite the 2001 AUMF not having anything to do with them, it is presently used as the legal cover for seven US military operations worldwide. The hope is that it will attract support not just from antiwar senators, but also from senators who have wanted a new AUMF that is directly applicable to current wars, since the repeals would oblige the leadership to finally allow debate on such an effort. At the same time, some ultra-hawks, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), oppose the effort, because an AUMF directly applicable to current wars would inevitably include specific limits on those wars. These hawks prefer to keep the wars effectively unauthorized to give the president limitless power to escalate. A new AUMF, informed by the abuses caused by the vagueness of the past ones, would doubtless be more limited, and make it difficult for presidents to unilaterally launch new wars. Sen. Paul is already getting new support for the vote now that it’s going to happen. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who had just days prior publicly attacked the amendment as a “disservice” to the military, now says he supports it. Those interested in contacting their senators to express support for the amendment can find contact information here. With the vote expected soon, those wishing to do so should contact them as soon as possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Sep 13 13:52:36 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:52:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Worth a listen. Patrick Henningsen nails it!!! Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/403140-trump-administration-on-religon/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 00:45:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:45:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Cake Night -- Sept 16 References: Message-ID: This isn’t “let them eat cake” on our Peace List, but it is a “eat cake event." To: Janie > Yes, that's right -- Everyone's favorite social event of the year is coming up on Saturday, September 16. Remember: The Purpose of Cake Night is to EAT CAKE. What a concept! Saturday, September 16 7-10 pm The Baha'i Center in Urbana See the attached flier for all the details, and feel free to print it out and give it to your friends. The whole world is invited! Hope to see you there. 😛 Janie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cake Night Flier 2017.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 469796 bytes Desc: Cake Night Flier 2017.pdf URL: From deb.pdamerica at gmail.com Thu Sep 14 09:37:26 2017 From: deb.pdamerica at gmail.com (Debra Schrishuhn) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 04:37:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] call Sens Durbin and Duckworth today Message-ID: Thanks to Karen A for posting yesterday about calling our Senators urging them to co-sponsor S.1804, Medicare for All. Sen Sanders and 16 original co-sponsors introduced S.1804 yesterday, nad today we need to keep up the pressure, working hard to get our Senators here in Illinois on board with this vital piece of legislation. I am writing to ask you to call Sens Duckworth and Durbin today and tomorrow and next week to ask them to co-sponsor S.1804, Medicare for All. We need Medicare for All as a long-term solution to this country's vast health care problems, and we need S.1804 as a launchpad for a serious discussion about the long-term solution to health care in the U.S. Please call our Senators' DC offices first; if you get a recording, call their Springfield offices. Tell them that the time is NOW to show leadership and put their names on Medicare for All, S. 1804. Sen. Dick Durbin 202-224-2152 217-492-4378 Sen Tammy Duckworth 202-224-2854 217-528-6124 It is important to keep up pressure on them to co-sponsor S.1804, Medicare for All. Thanks for all you do, Deb From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Sep 14 11:52:16 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 06:52:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Peace and Enviro Activists Seek Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01d32d4f$e9e98d20$bdbca760$@comcast.net> From: David Sladky [mailto:tanstl at hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 5:55 PM Subject: Peace and Enviro Activists Seek Collaboration https://www.blackagendareport.com/peace-and-enviro-activists-seek-collaborat ion Description: Image removed by sender. Peace and Enviro Activists Seek Collaboration | Black Agenda Report www.blackagendareport.com Anti-war and environmental activists will hold a joint conference at American University, in Washington DC, September 22 and 23, to foster closer collaboration between the two movements. Historically, said veteran peace activist David Swanson, the big environmental groups "don't think it's strategic to get involved with offending funders and media outlets by taking on the 'patriotic' public warmongering machine." The U.S. military is the world's biggest polluter. Peace and Enviro Activists Seek Collaboration Nellie Bailey and Glen Ford 12 Sep 2017 Description: Image removed by sender. Description: Image removed by sender. Description: Image removed by sender. Anti-war and environmental activists will hold a joint conference at American University, in Washington DC, September 22 and 23, to foster closer collaboration between the two movements. Historically, said veteran peace activist David Swanson, the big environmental groups "don't think it's strategic to get involved with offending funders and media outlets by taking on the 'patriotic' public warmongering machine." The U.S. military is the world's biggest polluter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 764 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Sep 14 13:40:24 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:40:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Green's Letter in News Gazette Message-ID: David Green has a very fine letter in today's New Gazette. Maybe David would like to take more than the 10 minutes he had originally requested for our Peace Teach-in next weekend in order to expand upon these comments. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Sep 14 13:40:24 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 13:40:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] David Green's Letter in News Gazette Message-ID: David Green has a very fine letter in today's New Gazette. Maybe David would like to take more than the 10 minutes he had originally requested for our Peace Teach-in next weekend in order to expand upon these comments. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 14:36:02 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:36:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Healthcare proposal Message-ID: My rant this morning: Forgive my lack of enthusiasm for Bernie's successful vote on Single Payer Healthcare, which though better than what we currently have, is still flawed, covering only 80%, and with deductibles as high as $6,700. It is not what other developed nations provide. Bernies' one small step for mankind is a very small step indeed. It provides little if nothing for the next four years, which will keep those five Democratic Presidential hopefuls who supported his bill, with enough support for their campaigns, and discussion of the details, to keep us all distracted from the realities of our drowning nation. According to "left" economist Dean Baker, we don't want to scare people too much, he is referring of course to the powers that be, who are supported by the medical and pharma industries. Yes, we wouldn't want to scare our government now would we? Yet, he has no problem scaring the working class when he insists, rightfully so, that the middle or working classes, not the wealthy will be taxed to pay for it, the elephant in the room, that Bernie has failed to address, that of how to finance it, will be debated endlessly over the next four years, with it likely failing. No one, not one person on "The Real News" or elsewhere has mentioned our military budget which is eating middle class/or working class taxpayers alive, is what we should be focused on in respect to paying for a "universal healthcare system" as other nations possess. What we have is another example of Americans being forced to scramble for crumbs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Sep 14 14:41:51 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:41:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Healthcare proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00dc01d32d67$9a8671e0$cf9355a0$@comcast.net> Where are you getting your info Karen ? This is not what I saw in the draft legislation, provided by ; The national Labor Campaign for Single Payer, Physicians for a National healthcare Program, Healthcare NOW and Margaret Flowers organization Healthcare over Profit. Below is what Physicians for a National Healthcare Program have said about Sanders bill and their criticisms of it. Below is PNHP's breakdown of the bill. They support it and are asking people to call their senators, but point out areas for improvement: What's in the bill? Based on our initial analysis, we find the Medicare For All Act of 2017 to be a significant step forward in the fight for single payer. Taken together with the Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Act ( H.R. 676), it would transform the U.S. healthcare system in a manner consistent with PNHP's vision. Eligibility Everyone is covered automatically at birth. All residents covered regardless of immigration status. Benefits Covers medically-necessary services including primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision and dental care, and prescription drugs. Patient Choice Full choice of any participating doctor or hospital. Providers may not dual-practice within and outside the Medicare system. Patient Costs No premiums, deductibles or copays for medical services. Balance billing prohibited. Copays for some drugs. Cost Controls Eliminates most roles for private insurance by prohibiting duplicative coverage. Drug prices negotiated with manufacturers. How can the bill be improved? Based on decades of careful analysis and research, PNHP recommends several improvements to the Medicare for All Act that would save even more money and improve patient care: Fully cover all medications, without copayment: Sen. Sanders' bill requires patient copays on some non-generic prescription drugs. Research shows that copays of any kind discourage patients from seeking needed medical care, increasing sickness and long-term costs. Experience in other nations prove that they are not needed for cost control. Establish a national long-term care program: In Sen. Sanders' plan, long-term care would be administered by the states only for low-income individuals, similar to Medicaid today. Long-term care should be provided to all as part of a national health plan. Nearly 10 million Americans need help with the basic tasks of living or help to maintain their independence. More than 80 percent of those who need care live in their communities, not in nursing homes, and nearly 40 percent of them are under age 65. Fund hospitals through global budgeting: A "global budget" is a lump sum paid to hospitals and similar institutions to cover operating expenses, thereby eliminating wasteful per-patient billing. Global budgets could not be used for expansion or modernization (which would be funded separately through capital allocations), advertising, profit, or bonuses. Global budgeting minimizes hospitals' incentives to avoid (or seek out) particular patients or services, inflate volumes, or upcode. Without global budgets, the national system has little power to constrain long-term cost growth. Ban investor-owned health facilities: For-profit health care facilities and agencies provide lower-quality care at higher costs than non-profits, resulting in both higher mortality rates and greater payments compared to not-for-profit providers. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:36 AM To: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Healthcare proposal My rant this morning: Forgive my lack of enthusiasm for Bernie's successful vote on Single Payer Healthcare, which though better than what we currently have, is still flawed, covering only 80%, and with deductibles as high as $6,700. It is not what other developed nations provide. Bernies' one small step for mankind is a very small step indeed. It provides little if nothing for the next four years, which will keep those five Democratic Presidential hopefuls who supported his bill, with enough support for their campaigns, and discussion of the details, to keep us all distracted from the realities of our drowning nation. According to "left" economist Dean Baker, we don't want to scare people too much, he is referring of course to the powers that be, who are supported by the medical and pharma industries. Yes, we wouldn't want to scare our government now would we? Yet, he has no problem scaring the working class when he insists, rightfully so, that the middle or working classes, not the wealthy will be taxed to pay for it, the elephant in the room, that Bernie has failed to address, that of how to finance it, will be debated endlessly over the next four years, with it likely failing. No one, not one person on "The Real News" or elsewhere has mentioned our military budget which is eating middle class/or working class taxpayers alive, is what we should be focused on in respect to paying for a "universal healthcare system" as other nations possess. What we have is another example of Americans being forced to scramble for crumbs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 14:57:12 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 14:57:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Healthcare proposal In-Reply-To: <00dc01d32d67$9a8671e0$cf9355a0$@comcast.net> References: <00dc01d32d67$9a8671e0$cf9355a0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: David The information you have provided below looks great, but as I said, listen to “The Real News” reviewing the reality of politics in relation to the Healthcare proposal. While everyone hails it as a phenomenal 1st. step forward, there are problems, political problems related to financing. I urge everyone to get behind it, and push and demand it be implemented asap, We need to cut military spending, and huge tax breaks for the super rich. The political wrangling over “how to finance it” is going to be a major force preventing it from happening. Raising taxes on the working class will invite a back lash, supported by those who profit from our current medical industry. There are too many people who do not believe that healthcare is a “human right, if it impacts on them.” See FOX news. On Sep 14, 2017, at 07:41, David Johnson > wrote: Where are you getting your info Karen ? This is not what I saw in the draft legislation, provided by ; The national Labor Campaign for Single Payer, Physicians for a National healthcare Program, Healthcare NOW and Margaret Flowers organization Healthcare over Profit. Below is what Physicians for a National Healthcare Program have said about Sanders bill and their criticisms of it. Below is PNHP's breakdown of the bill. They support it and are asking people to call their senators, but point out areas for improvement: What’s in the bill? Based on our initial analysis, we find the Medicare For All Act of 2017 to be a significant step forward in the fight for single payer. Taken together with the Expanded & Improved Medicare for All Act (H.R. 676), it would transform the U.S. healthcare system in a manner consistent with PNHP’s vision. Eligibility Everyone is covered automatically at birth. All residents covered regardless of immigration status. Benefits Covers medically-necessary services including primary and preventive care, mental health care, reproductive care, vision and dental care, and prescription drugs. Patient Choice Full choice of any participating doctor or hospital. Providers may not dual-practice within and outside the Medicare system. Patient Costs No premiums, deductibles or copays for medical services. Balance billing prohibited. Copays for some drugs. Cost Controls Eliminates most roles for private insurance by prohibiting duplicative coverage. Drug prices negotiated with manufacturers. How can the bill be improved? Based on decades of careful analysis and research, PNHP recommends several improvements to the Medicare for All Act that would save even more money and improve patient care: Fully cover all medications, without copayment: Sen. Sanders’ bill requires patient copays on some non-generic prescription drugs. Research shows that copays of any kind discourage patients from seeking needed medical care, increasing sickness and long-term costs. Experience in other nations prove that they are not needed for cost control. Establish a national long-term care program: In Sen. Sanders’ plan, long-term care would be administered by the states only for low-income individuals, similar to Medicaid today. Long-term care should be provided to all as part of a national health plan. Nearly 10 million Americans need help with the basic tasks of living or help to maintain their independence. More than 80 percent of those who need care live in their communities, not in nursing homes, and nearly 40 percent of them are under age 65. Fund hospitals through global budgeting: A “global budget” is a lump sum paid to hospitals and similar institutions to cover operating expenses, thereby eliminating wasteful per-patient billing. Global budgets could not be used for expansion or modernization (which would be funded separately through capital allocations), advertising, profit, or bonuses. Global budgeting minimizes hospitals’ incentives to avoid (or seek out) particular patients or services, inflate volumes, or upcode. Without global budgets, the national system has little power to constrain long-term cost growth. Ban investor-owned health facilities: For-profit health care facilities and agencies provide lower-quality care at higher costs than non-profits, resulting in both higher mortality rates and greater payments compared to not-for-profit providers. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:36 AM To: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Healthcare proposal My rant this morning: Forgive my lack of enthusiasm for Bernie's successful vote on Single Payer Healthcare, which though better than what we currently have, is still flawed, covering only 80%, and with deductibles as high as $6,700. It is not what other developed nations provide. Bernies' one small step for mankind is a very small step indeed. It provides little if nothing for the next four years, which will keep those five Democratic Presidential hopefuls who supported his bill, with enough support for their campaigns, and discussion of the details, to keep us all distracted from the realities of our drowning nation. According to "left" economist Dean Baker, we don't want to scare people too much, he is referring of course to the powers that be, who are supported by the medical and pharma industries. Yes, we wouldn't want to scare our government now would we? Yet, he has no problem scaring the working class when he insists, rightfully so, that the middle or working classes, not the wealthy will be taxed to pay for it, the elephant in the room, that Bernie has failed to address, that of how to finance it, will be debated endlessly over the next four years, with it likely failing. No one, not one person on "The Real News" or elsewhere has mentioned our military budget which is eating middle class/or working class taxpayers alive, is what we should be focused on in respect to paying for a "universal healthcare system" as other nations possess. What we have is another example of Americans being forced to scramble for crumbs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 15:13:55 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:13:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Real News/healthcare Message-ID: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19985 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 15:47:19 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:47:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] My letter in today's NG References: <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Francis; I'll be happy to expound on this and related topics. See links to articles referenced below: The News-Gazette has recently published two “SundayExtra” commentaries representing Hineni CU, a progressive Jewish organization,addressing Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this adds to thecacophony of decontextualized, uninformed, and non-insightful views currentlybeing expressed from the “Alt-right” to the “Antifa left." Those generally calling themselves “progressive” in thecurrent context have little stomach for acknowledging the morbid continuity ofadministrations from Carter to Trump, inclusive: perpetual resource warsabroad, war on the working class abetted by structural racism (including drugwar/mass incarceration) at home. Instead, we are urged into a moral panic inresponse to disparate and pathetic groups whose violent potential isalleged—inaccurately and egregiously so—to be analogous to Nazi Germany. The hypocrisy of “Jewish progressivism” in relation toIsraeli apartheid is obvious. The increased reliance of “progressives” ingeneral on the thin and exaggerated thought crime “data collection” of the(Zionist) Anti-Defamation League and (cynical, filthy rich) Southern PovertyLaw Center only further reveals an advanced, intellectually decrepit stage ofidentity politics, now transparently dressed in the academic jargon of“intersectionality.” In this context of decontextualized, social media-drivenmoral panic, basic social justice movement tenets regarding principles,strategy, and tactics are carelessly and shockingly rationalized away: freedomof speech and assembly, non-violence, and the necessity of rational andinformed debate. Unfortunately, Students for Justice in Palestine appears tohave joined this descent. Thus, as Noam Chomsky has correctly described theridiculous “Antifa” as a “gift to the Alt-Right,” it now becomes a gift toZionists. http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-09-10/sunday-extra-leaders-must-denounce-hate-crimes.html http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-08-13/sunday-extra-lets-stand-together-against-hate-c-u.html   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Sep 14 16:31:03 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:31:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My letter in today's NG In-Reply-To: <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Fine. How about if you take up to 20 minutes like everyone else? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Green [mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List Cc: Boyle, Francis A Subject: My letter in today's NG Thanks Francis; I'll be happy to expound on this and related topics. See links to articles referenced below: The News-Gazette has recently published two “Sunday Extra” commentaries representing Hineni CU, a progressive Jewish organization, addressing Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this adds to the cacophony of decontextualized, uninformed, and non-insightful views currently being expressed from the “Alt-right” to the “Antifa left." Those generally calling themselves “progressive” in the current context have little stomach for acknowledging the morbid continuity of administrations from Carter to Trump, inclusive: perpetual resource wars abroad, war on the working class abetted by structural racism (including drug war/mass incarceration) at home. Instead, we are urged into a moral panic in response to disparate and pathetic groups whose violent potential is alleged—inaccurately and egregiously so—to be analogous to Nazi Germany. The hypocrisy of “Jewish progressivism” in relation to Israeli apartheid is obvious. The increased reliance of “progressives” in general on the thin and exaggerated thought crime “data collection” of the (Zionist) Anti-Defamation League and (cynical, filthy rich) Southern Poverty Law Center only further reveals an advanced, intellectually decrepit stage of identity politics, now transparently dressed in the academic jargon of “intersectionality.” In this context of decontextualized, social media-driven moral panic, basic social justice movement tenets regarding principles, strategy, and tactics are carelessly and shockingly rationalized away: freedom of speech and assembly, non-violence, and the necessity of rational and informed debate. Unfortunately, Students for Justice in Palestine appears to have joined this descent. Thus, as Noam Chomsky has correctly described the ridiculous “Antifa” as a “gift to the Alt-Right,” it now becomes a gift to Zionists. http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-09-10/sunday-extra-leaders-must-denounce-hate-crimes.html http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-08-13/sunday-extra-lets-stand-together-against-hate-c-u.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 14 17:34:08 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 17:34:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] My letter in today's NG In-Reply-To: References: <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1598226133.1439026.1505410448095@mail.yahoo.com> Absolutely; given my notes, I'll probably need it. On ‎Thursday‎, ‎September‎ ‎14‎, ‎2017‎ ‎11‎:‎31‎:‎57‎ ‎AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: #yiv9228628556 #yiv9228628556 -- _filtered #yiv9228628556 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9228628556 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9228628556 {panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9228628556 {font-family:Garamond;panose-1:2 2 4 4 3 3 1 1 8 3;}#yiv9228628556 #yiv9228628556 p.yiv9228628556MsoNormal, #yiv9228628556 li.yiv9228628556MsoNormal, #yiv9228628556 div.yiv9228628556MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9228628556 a:link, #yiv9228628556 span.yiv9228628556MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9228628556 a:visited, #yiv9228628556 span.yiv9228628556MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9228628556 p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9228628556 p.yiv9228628556msonormal0, #yiv9228628556 li.yiv9228628556msonormal0, #yiv9228628556 div.yiv9228628556msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9228628556 span.yiv9228628556EmailStyle19 {color:black;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none none;}#yiv9228628556 .yiv9228628556MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv9228628556 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv9228628556 div.yiv9228628556WordSection1 {}#yiv9228628556 Fine. How about if you take up to 20 minutes like everyone else?   Fab     Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: David Green [mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List Cc: Boyle, Francis A Subject: My letter in today's NG   Thanks Francis; I'll be happy to expound on this and related topics.   See links to articles referenced below:   TheNews-Gazette has recently published two “Sunday Extra” commentaries representing Hineni CU, a progressive Jewish organization, addressing Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this adds to the cacophony of decontextualized, uninformed, and non-insightful views currently being expressed from the “Alt-right” to the “Antifa left." Those generally calling themselves “progressive” in the current context have little stomach for acknowledging the morbid continuity of administrations from Carter to Trump, inclusive: perpetual resource wars abroad, war on the working class abetted by structural racism (including drug war/mass incarceration) at home. Instead, we are urged into a moral panic in response to disparate and pathetic groups whose violent potential is alleged—inaccurately and egregiously so—to be analogous to Nazi Germany. The hypocrisy of “Jewish progressivism” in relation to Israeli apartheid is obvious. The increased reliance of “progressives” in general on the thin and exaggerated thought crime “data collection” of the (Zionist) Anti-Defamation League and (cynical, filthy rich) Southern Poverty Law Center only further reveals an advanced, intellectually decrepit stage of identity politics, now transparently dressed in the academic jargon of “intersectionality.” In this context of decontextualized, social media-driven moral panic, basic social justice movement tenets regarding principles, strategy, and tactics are carelessly and shockingly rationalized away: freedom of speech and assembly, non-violence, and the necessity of rational and informed debate. Unfortunately, Students for Justice in Palestine appears to have joined this descent. Thus, as Noam Chomsky has correctly described the ridiculous “Antifa” as a “gift to the Alt-Right,” it now becomes a gift to Zionists.   http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-09-10/sunday-extra-leaders-must-denounce-hate-crimes.html   http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-08-13/sunday-extra-lets-stand-together-against-hate-c-u.html         -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Sep 14 19:07:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 19:07:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My letter in today's NG In-Reply-To: <1598226133.1439026.1505410448095@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1515145424.1784884.1505404039994@mail.yahoo.com> <1598226133.1439026.1505410448095@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Good! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Green [mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 12:34 PM To: Peace-discuss List ; Boyle, Francis A Subject: Re: RE: My letter in today's NG Absolutely; given my notes, I'll probably need it. On ‎Thursday‎, ‎September‎ ‎14‎, ‎2017‎ ‎11‎:‎31‎:‎57‎ ‎AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Fine. How about if you take up to 20 minutes like everyone else? Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: David Green [mailto:davegreen84 at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 10:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List > Cc: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: My letter in today's NG Thanks Francis; I'll be happy to expound on this and related topics. See links to articles referenced below: The News-Gazette has recently published two “Sunday Extra” commentaries representing Hineni CU, a progressive Jewish organization, addressing Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Unfortunately, this adds to the cacophony of decontextualized, uninformed, and non-insightful views currently being expressed from the “Alt-right” to the “Antifa left." Those generally calling themselves “progressive” in the current context have little stomach for acknowledging the morbid continuity of administrations from Carter to Trump, inclusive: perpetual resource wars abroad, war on the working class abetted by structural racism (including drug war/mass incarceration) at home. Instead, we are urged into a moral panic in response to disparate and pathetic groups whose violent potential is alleged—inaccurately and egregiously so—to be analogous to Nazi Germany. The hypocrisy of “Jewish progressivism” in relation to Israeli apartheid is obvious. The increased reliance of “progressives” in general on the thin and exaggerated thought crime “data collection” of the (Zionist) Anti-Defamation League and (cynical, filthy rich) Southern Poverty Law Center only further reveals an advanced, intellectually decrepit stage of identity politics, now transparently dressed in the academic jargon of “intersectionality.” In this context of decontextualized, social media-driven moral panic, basic social justice movement tenets regarding principles, strategy, and tactics are carelessly and shockingly rationalized away: freedom of speech and assembly, non-violence, and the necessity of rational and informed debate. Unfortunately, Students for Justice in Palestine appears to have joined this descent. Thus, as Noam Chomsky has correctly described the ridiculous “Antifa” as a “gift to the Alt-Right,” it now becomes a gift to Zionists. http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-09-10/sunday-extra-leaders-must-denounce-hate-crimes.html http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/guest-commentary/2017-08-13/sunday-extra-lets-stand-together-against-hate-c-u.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 14 20:50:09 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 20:50:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Muslim genocide in Burma Message-ID: Is ASSK responsible? Does she have the power to change things? Or is she attempting to bring progress by working within the system, rather than externally? I don’t know the answer. However working within the system of a government that commits genocide is doomed to fail, and her resignation would be of greater value, than her continued support. Once my hero, no more. Burma’s Aung San Suu Kyi and the fraud of human rights imperialism By Peter Symonds WSWS.ORG 14 September 2017 The plight of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims fleeing the Burmese military’s rampage in the western state of Rakhine is a devastating exposure of the fraud of human rights imperialism practiced by the US and its allies and their chief political asset in Burma (Myanmar)—Aung San Suu Kyi. The brutality and scale of the military operations have occasioned a great deal of hypocritical handwringing in the UN and by those who have aggressively promoted Suu Kyi as a “democracy icon.” Despite the media and humanitarian agencies being barred from the operational area, there is substantial and mounting evidence that the Burmese army has been systematically torching villages and there are numerous eyewitness accounts of soldiers gunning down civilians. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres yesterday described what was taking place in Rakhine state as “ethnic cleansing,” saying: “When one-third of the Rohingya population had to flee the country, could you find a better word to describe it?” The UN Security Council issued a statement that “expressed concern about reports of excessive violence” and appealed for steps to “de-escalate the situation,” protect civilians and resolve the refugee problem. British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson last week joined the chorus of international appeals to Suu Kyi to use her influence to rein in the military. “Aung San Suu Kyi is rightly regarded as one of the most inspiring figures of our age, but the treatment of the Rohingya is alas besmirching the reputation of Burma,” he declared. If the military’s ethnic cleansing had taken place a decade ago, when the Burmese junta had Suu Kyi under house arrest, the reaction would have been quite different. There would have been ringing condemnations from Western imperialism of the “rogue regime,” denunciations of its long history of human rights abuses and moves for even tougher diplomatic and economic sanctions against Burma. Why is Washington now soft-peddling now the latest military outrages in Burma? As is the case around the world, the US has never had the slightest interest in promoting basic democratic rights in Burma. Rather, its attitude toward the Burmese military dictatorship was always determined by economic and strategic interests—in particular, Washington’s hostility to the junta’s close ties with China. As the Obama administration began to ramp up its “pivot to Asia” against China throughout the Asia Pacific, the Burmese junta, facing a mounting economic and social crisis at home, signalled a shift away from Beijing in 2011 and a willingness to find a political role for Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy (NLD). It was as if a switch had been flicked. Virtually overnight, Burma was designated in the US and international media not as a rogue state, but as a "developing democracy." A string of top American officials trooped in, culminating in a visit by President Barack Obama in 2012. Sanctions were progressively dropped and Suu Kyi became a roving ambassador for the junta, hustling for investment and aid. The victory of the NLD in the carefully managed elections in 2016 and installation of Suu Kyi as de facto head of government was universally hailed by the establishment media, middle-class liberals and various pseudo-left organisations as the flowering of democracy. In reality, the military remains in charge: it appointed officers to a quarter of the parliamentary seats and installed serving generals to the key cabinet posts of defence, home affairs and border affairs. Suu Kyi and the NLD went along with this charade because their basic concern was never with democratic rights as such. Rather, the NLD represents those sections of the Burmese bourgeoisie whose economic interests were stifled under the military junta. Aligned with Western imperialism, they sought to open up the country to investment. Moreover, the NLD, Suu Kyi included, is just as mired as the military in the reactionary ideology of Burmese Buddhist supremacism, which has repeatedly been exploited to sow religious and ethnic divisions among working people. As hopes for an economic boom in Burma have faded, the military, with the NLD’s backing, has escalated violence against Muslim Rohingyas, who long have been used as a scapegoat for the country’s problems. Suu Kyi and the NLD have taken no steps to address the lack of fundamental rights for the Rohingya minority, who are branded as “illegal immigrants” from Bangladesh. Despite having lived, in many cases for generations, in Burma, they are not citizens and thus have no rights or access to social services. Suu Kyi has openly defended the military’s ethnic cleansing campaign, justified in the name of the “war on terrorism” and the need to suppress Rohingya militias that have sprung up in response to the army’s outrages. After criticism from the Turkish president last week, Suu Kyi lashed out against “fake news photographs” and “a huge iceberg of misinformation” that creates problems “with the aim of promoting the interest of the terrorists.” The events in Burma are a graphic example of the cynical use of “human rights” to promote the interests of imperialism. But it is far from the only one. Time and again, the demonisation of leaders and regimes over “human rights” has been exploited as the pretext for illegal wars of aggression and regime-change operations. The US and its allies, supported by various liberals and pseudo-left groups, have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and Syria, leading to millions of deaths in a bid to shore up American hegemony in the strategic, energy-rich Middle East. The situation in Burma underscores the basic conclusion drawn by Leon Trotsky more than a century ago in his Theory of Permanent Revolution, and confirmed by the Russian Revolution in 1917: the organic inability of any section of the bourgeoisie in countries with a belated capitalist development that are dominated by imperialism, such as Burma, to establish basic democratic rights. That task falls to the working class, in the fight to take power at the head of a revolutionary movement as an integral component of the struggle for socialism internationally. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Sep 15 20:24:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 20:24:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chris Hedges best speech in 2017 Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycuw9Cvh6W4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Sep 15 22:01:26 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:01:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 7:30pm Mon 9/18 - RSVP for UFPJ National Briefing Call on Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty In-Reply-To: <59bbd5159d60e_c663fc48680df10135917b6@ip-10-0-0-142.mail> References: <59bbd5159d60e_c663fc48680df10135917b6@ip-10-0-0-142.mail> Message-ID: FYI: United for Peace and Justice is having a conf. call on Monday, Sep. 18th, 7:30pm Central time, about prospects for a nuclear weapons ban. You have to respond to get contact information for the call... in case anyone's interested. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Still Time to RSVP for UFPJ National Briefing Call on Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:26:46 +0000 (UTC) From: Christopher Vinales Reply-To: info at unitedforpeace.org To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com Action Network Email Photo: International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons UFPJ National Briefing Call on the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Monday, September 18, 2017 8:30 pm EDT/5:30 pm PDT Please RSVP to receive call-in number RSVP for the call by clicking here Presenters: *Dr. John Burroughs* is Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy in New York City, the UN Office of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms. He represents LCNP in Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review proceedings, the United Nations, and other international forums,including the 2017 UN negotiations on a nuclear ban treaty. His publications include contributor, “Unspeakable suffering - the humanitarian impact of nuclearweapons” (2013), and author, “The Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: A Guide to the Historic Opinion of the International Court of Justice” (1998). He has additionally published articles and op-eds in journals and newspapers including the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the World Policy Journal, and Newsday. *Jackie Cabasso* is Executive Director of Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland, California. A leading voice for nuclear abolition, she has been involved in nuclear disarmament, peace and environmental advocacy locally, nationally andinternationally for more than 35 years. She was a “founding mother” of the Abolition 2000 Global Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons in 1995. Since2007, she has served as North American Coordinator for Mayors for Peace. She currently serves as National Co convener for United for Peace and Justice. Jackie received the International Peace Bureau’s 2008 Sean MacBride Peace Award, and Agape Foundation’s 2009 Enduring Visionary Prize. /*On December 22, 2016, President-elect Trump tweeted: “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”.*/ On July 7, 2017, at the United Nations, the majority of the world’s countries adopted a historic treaty to prohibit the possession, development, testing, use and *threat of use* of nuclear weapons. The vote, by 122 to 1, unambiguously demonstrates that most of the world has indeed come to its senses regarding nuclear weapons. The treaty opens for signature on September 20 at United Nations headquarters in New York, during the High-Level Segment of the 72 nd Session of the UN General Assembly, where heads of state, foreign ministers and other representatives of governments are expected to publicly sign the treaty. Fifty countries must sign and ratify the treaty for it to enter into force. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons represents the total repudiation of nuclear deterrence by most of the states that don’t possess or rely on nuclear weapons. But the US and the eight other nuclear-armed states boycotted the negotiations, along with Japan, Australia, South Korea and all but one of the 28 NATO member states (The Netherlands) – all countries under the US nuclear umbrella. In a joint statement following the vote, the US, France and the United Kingdom declared: “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to [the Treaty].” Meanwhile, nuclear tensions have risen to levels not seen for decades. While the Ban Treaty negotiations were taking place in the United Nations, two floors up in the same building, in an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, the United States was threatening military action against North Korea, in response to its July 4 missile test. We must keep both realities – the promise of the Ban Treaty *and* growing dangers of nuclear war – fully in mind as we develop strategies to accomplish the urgent goal of a world without nuclear weapons. /*What does the Ban Treaty mean in our sharply divided world? How can we best utilize it in the United States to stigmatize nuclear weapons and delegitimize the doctrine of nuclear deterrence? How can we move from prohibition to disarmament?*/ Join UFPJ’s National Briefing Call on the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Monday, September 18, 2017 8:30 pm EDT/5:30 pm PDT Please RSVP to receive call-in number Click here to watch a short interview with Jackie Cabasso at the United Nations on July 7, 2017, immediately following the historic vote on the Ban Treaty. Help us continue to do this critical work and more-- make a donation to UFPJ today. Sent via ActionNetwork.org . To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from United for Peace & Justice, please click here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Sep 16 14:02:18 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 14:02:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Defeat of the AUMF bill, or a refusal to stop war Message-ID: >From POGO: "Project on Government Oversight" "Congress Again Demonstrates Cowardice When It Comes to Declaring War Congress has been spending trillions of dollars and sacrificing countless American lives for what is appearing to be an endless war that is no longer confined to the original bill. See if your Senator voted to keep kicking the can down the road" My thoughts: It's not just cowardice, its corruption. See below the vote: REFERENCE Roll Call Vote 115th Congress - 1st Session XML Vote Summary Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Paul Amdt. No. 871 ) Vote Number: 195 Vote Date: September 13, 2017, 12:17 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 871 to S.Amdt. 1003 to H.R. 2810 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018) Statement of Purpose: To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Vote Counts: YEAs61 NAYs36 Not Voting3 *Information compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Alphabetical by Senator Name Alexander (R-TN), Yea Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Bennet (D-CO), Nay Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Blunt (R-MO), Yea Booker (D-NJ), Nay Boozman (R-AR), Yea Brown (D-OH), Nay Burr (R-NC), Yea Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Capito (R-WV), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Cassidy (R-LA), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Coons (D-DE), Nay Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea Cotton (R-AR), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea Daines (R-MT), Yea Donnelly (D-IN), Yea Duckworth (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Yea Ernst (R-IA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Fischer (R-NE), Yea Flake (R-AZ), Yea Franken (D-MN), Nay Gardner (R-CO), Yea Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harris (D-CA), Nay Hassan (D-NH), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea Heinrich (D-NM), Nay Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay Heller (R-NV), Nay Hirono (D-HI), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (R-WI), Yea Kaine (D-VA), Nay Kennedy (R-LA), Yea King (I-ME), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Lankford (R-OK), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Nay Lee (R-UT), Nay Manchin (D-WV), Yea Markey (D-MA), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting Merkley (D-OR), Nay Moran (R-KS), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murphy (D-CT), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting Paul (R-KY), Nay Perdue (R-GA), Yea Peters (D-MI), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rounds (R-SD), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting Sanders (I-VT), Nay Sasse (R-NE), Yea Schatz (D-HI), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Nay Scott (R-SC), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea Shelby (R-AL), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Strange (R-AL), Yea Sullivan (R-AK), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Tillis (R-NC), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea Udall (D-NM), Nay Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Warren (D-MA), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay Young (R-IN), Yea Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---61 Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Burr (R-NC) Capito (R-WV) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Cassidy (R-LA) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Cortez Masto (D-NV) Cotton (R-AR) Crapo (R-ID) Cruz (R-TX) Daines (R-MT) Donnelly (D-IN) Enzi (R-WY) Ernst (R-IA) Fischer (R-NE) Flake (R-AZ) Gardner (R-CO) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hassan (D-NH) Hatch (R-UT) Hoeven (R-ND) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (R-WI) Kennedy (R-LA) Lankford (R-OK) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Moran (R-KS) Murkowski (R-AK) Perdue (R-GA) Portman (R-OH) Reed (D-RI) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Rounds (R-SD) Sasse (R-NE) Schatz (D-HI) Scott (R-SC) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Stabenow (D-MI) Strange (R-AL) Sullivan (R-AK) Thune (R-SD) Tillis (R-NC) Toomey (R-PA) Warner (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS) Young (R-IN) NAYs ---36 Baldwin (D-WI) Bennet (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Coons (D-DE) Duckworth (D-IL) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harris (D-CA) Heinrich (D-NM) Heitkamp (D-ND) Heller (R-NV) Hirono (D-HI) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Lee (R-UT) Markey (D-MA) Merkley (D-OR) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Paul (R-KY) Peters (D-MI) Sanders (I-VT) Schumer (D-NY) Tester (D-MT) Udall (D-NM) Van Hollen (D-MD) Warren (D-MA) Wyden (D-OR) Not Voting - 3 Menendez (D-NJ) Nelson (D-FL) Rubio (R-FL) Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Grouped by Home State Alabama: Shelby (R-AL), Yea Strange (R-AL), Yea Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Sullivan (R-AK), Yea Arizona: Flake (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea Arkansas: Boozman (R-AR), Yea Cotton (R-AR), Yea California: Feinstein (D-CA), Nay Harris (D-CA), Nay Colorado: Bennet (D-CO), Nay Gardner (R-CO), Yea Connecticut: Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay Murphy (D-CT), Nay Delaware: Carper (D-DE), Yea Coons (D-DE), Nay Florida: Nelson (D-FL), Not Voting Rubio (R-FL), Not Voting Georgia: Isakson (R-GA), Yea Perdue (R-GA), Yea Hawaii: Hirono (D-HI), Nay Schatz (D-HI), Yea Idaho: Crapo (R-ID), Yea Risch (R-ID), Yea Illinois: Duckworth (D-IL), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Indiana: Donnelly (D-IN), Yea Young (R-IN), Yea Iowa: Ernst (R-IA), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Kansas: Moran (R-KS), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Yea Kentucky: McConnell (R-KY), Yea Paul (R-KY), Nay Louisiana: Cassidy (R-LA), Yea Kennedy (R-LA), Yea Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea King (I-ME), Nay Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Van Hollen (D-MD), Nay Massachusetts: Markey (D-MA), Nay Warren (D-MA), Nay Michigan: Peters (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Minnesota: Franken (D-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Missouri: Blunt (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Yea Montana: Daines (R-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Nebraska: Fischer (R-NE), Yea Sasse (R-NE), Yea Nevada: Cortez Masto (D-NV), Yea Heller (R-NV), Nay New Hampshire: Hassan (D-NH), Yea Shaheen (D-NH), Yea New Jersey: Booker (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Not Voting New Mexico: Heinrich (D-NM), Nay Udall (D-NM), Nay New York: Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Tillis (R-NC), Yea North Dakota: Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Yea Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Portman (R-OH), Yea Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Lankford (R-OK), Yea Oregon: Merkley (D-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Nay Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Toomey (R-PA), Yea Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Yea Scott (R-SC), Yea South Dakota: Rounds (R-SD), Yea Thune (R-SD), Yea Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Cruz (R-TX), Yea Utah: Hatch (R-UT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay Virginia: Kaine (D-VA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Murray (D-WA), Nay West Virginia: Capito (R-WV), Yea Manchin (D-WV), Yea Wisconsin: Baldwin (D-WI), Nay Johnson (R-WI), Yea Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cge at shout.net Sun Sep 17 02:11:22 2017 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 21:11:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune, 15 September 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <5880c407a1db5_222964d980682c3@asgworker-qmb2-1.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> <3014b58c3080570ba473a4b2bdcb0659@shout.net> <1f26ef3688b593a338a8fbc7cd45b7a6@shout.net> <38dd9634ddb6d642a9e18e34d02ee607@shout.net> <11a3e6f7cbc9fa68332a0079c6684e49@shout.net> Message-ID: <4a674713df54241c58707027b4a957e4@shout.net> AN ANTI-FA-LA-LA EDITION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAmgWZHTOdE From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 14:44:53 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:44:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Poems Against the Empire Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:39 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Poems Against the Empire [cid:image003.jpg at 01D32F3D.89377560] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 14:44:53 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 14:44:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Poems Against the Empire Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:39 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Poems Against the Empire [cid:image003.jpg at 01D32F3D.89377560] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 14:47:37 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:47:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Poems Against the Empire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Love it! Thanks for alerting us, I'll share the news. Jay On Sep 17, 2017 09:45, "Boyle, Francis A" wrote: > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:39 AM > *To:* sectns.aals at lists.aals.org > *Subject:* Poems Against the Empire > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: not available URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 14:47:37 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:47:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Poems Against the Empire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Love it! Thanks for alerting us, I'll share the news. Jay On Sep 17, 2017 09:45, "Boyle, Francis A" wrote: > > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > * > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA > * > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Boyle, Francis A > *Sent:* Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:39 AM > *To:* sectns.aals at lists.aals.org > *Subject:* Poems Against the Empire > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 15:00:34 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:00:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Poems Against the Empire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks a lot Jay! Francis. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Jay Becker [mailto:futureup2us at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Johnson ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Lina Thorne ; Estabrook, Carl G ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Arlene Hickory ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; abass10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Hoffman, Valerie J ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Green ; David Swanson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: FW: Poems Against the Empire Love it! Thanks for alerting us, I'll share the news. Jay On Sep 17, 2017 09:45, "Boyle, Francis A" > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:39 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Poems Against the Empire [cid:image001.jpg at 01D32F9B.CC500930] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 15:00:34 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:00:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Poems Against the Empire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks a lot Jay! Francis. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Jay Becker [mailto:futureup2us at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:48 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Johnson ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Lina Thorne ; Estabrook, Carl G ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; Szoke, Ron ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; C. G. ESTABROOK ; Arlene Hickory ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; abass10 at gmail.com; Joe Lauria ; Karen Aram ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; mickalideh at gmail.com; Hoffman, Valerie J ; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; David Green ; David Swanson ; Mildred O'brien Subject: Re: FW: Poems Against the Empire Love it! Thanks for alerting us, I'll share the news. Jay On Sep 17, 2017 09:45, "Boyle, Francis A" > wrote: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 9:39 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Poems Against the Empire [cid:image001.jpg at 01D32F9B.CC500930] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 17 15:35:59 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 15:35:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Poems Against the Empire References: Message-ID: [cid:image003.jpg at 01D32F3D.89377560] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 124563 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 15:59:35 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:59:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Secrets From the Biggest Snowden Reveal References: <43fc0c0fce9292d8bed09ca27.de122948a6.20170916123547.eace27778c.28960472@mail86.us4.mcsv.net> Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: The Intercept > Date: September 16, 2017 at 7:36:47 AM CDT > To: Reader > Subject: Secrets From the Biggest Snowden Reveal > Reply-To: > > > > > September 10-16, 2017 > Share > Tweet > Forward > Editor’s Picks > Secrets From the Biggest Snowden Reveal > On Wednesday, The Intercept published the most documents ever released at once from the cache provided by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 294 articles from an internal NSA news site, SIDtoday, many of them classified. After combing through the documents, staffers Margot Williams, Micah Lee, and Talya Cooper wrote an overview of their findings, which included revelations on how U.S. spies misused a covert network for personal business and the many ways the U.S. tried to bug Iraq after removing Saddam Hussein. Longtime contributor Nick Turse separately used the NSA documents to investigate how the spy agency helped a draconian regime in Ethiopia exponentially expand its surveillance network, while investigative reporter Ryan Gallagher revealed how the NSA secretly operated drones from a base in the English countryside. > Ahead of this flood of information on electronic spying by the U.S. government, The Intercept’s Sam Biddle reminded readers of the unparalleled surveillance powers of a private American corporation, Facebook. Academics told him that Facebook’s behavior in handling cloaked advertising from the Russian government was “stunning” and raised “crucial questions” about “most of the public’s personal data.” Biddle called for CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify before Congress. > > > Ryan Tate > Technology Editor > > Sloppy U.S. Spies Misused a Covert Network for Personal Shopping — and Other Stories From Internal NSA Documents > Micah Lee, Margot Williams, Talya Cooper > Campaigns to spy on internet cafes and tap Iraqi communications, as well as an intimate NSA examination of Czech spying, are detailed in NSA newsletters. > > > Make Mark Zuckerberg Testify > Sam Biddle > The Facebook CEO needs to explain how bad actors can (and cannot) exploit Facebook’s vast trove of personal information and proprietary algorithms. > > > Top Stories > > > > Hurricane Irma Unleashes the Forces of Privatization in Puerto Rico > Kate Aronoff, Angel Manuel Soto, Averie Timm > Vultures circling the wreckage of Puerto Rico in the wake of Hurricane Irma are closing in on a long-sought prize. > > > In Surprise Vote, House Passes Amendment to Restrict Asset Forfeiture > Zaid Jilani > On Tuesday, the House approved an amendment that will roll back Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s expansion of asset forfeiture. > > > Irma Won’t “Wake Up” Climate Change-Denying Republicans. Their Whole Ideology Is on the Line. > Naomi Klein > Science is a battle zone because it is revealing again and again that pro-corporate business as usual leads to a species-threatening catastrophe. > > > Pharma CEO Worries Americans Will Say “Enough Is Enough” and Embrace Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer Plan > Lee Fang > These concerns don’t appear to be changing corporate behavior, however. > > Whole Foods “Free-Range” Chicken Supplier Said to Actually Run Factory Farm > David Dayen > Despite the promises of Whole Foods and its supplier, animal welfare activists found no evidence that chickens were even allowed outdoors. > > > Follow The Intercept > > > > > > > > > > > > This email was sent to cge at shout.net > why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences > First Look Media · 114 Fifth Avenue · New York, NY 10010 · USA > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun Sep 17 18:13:59 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:13:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" Message-ID: <1136BBFD-3FC9-4769-AF17-E590B261214D@gmail.com> . Street's essay is a curate's egg. ('The term derives from a cartoon published in the humorous British magazine Punch on 9 November 1895. Drawn by George du Maurier and titled True Humility, it pictures a timid-looking curate eating breakfast in his bishop's house. The bishop says: "I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr Jones." The curate, desperate not to offend his eminent host and ultimate employer, replies: "Oh no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!"’) Here are some excellent parts: ~ '...Trump owes his election and hence presidency not to white racism but rather to the neoliberal Democrats’ betrayal of the “white working class” – a betrayal that pushed white workers into the arms of the pseudopopulist Trump.” ~ '...the Democratic Party lost its way when it abandoned everyday economic issues like job creation for the softer fare of social justice [ = anti-discrimination] ... To their neoliberal economics, Democrats and liberals have married a condescending elitist affect that sneers at blue-collar culture and mocks the white man as history’s greatest monster and prime-time television’s biggest doofus ... Donald Trump is not the product of white supremacy so much as the product of a backlash against contempt for white working-class people.' ~ 'Coates’ definition of the “modern left” is absurd. It includes people who aren’t remotely left at all, like the vanguard arch-neoliberal Bill Clinton, “national [neo]liberal politicians” like Obama and Hillary (“proud to have been a Goldwater Girl”) Clinton, and leading neoliberal Democratic pundits and essayists like Nicholas Kristof and George Packer. The radical-leftmost extreme of Coates’ American “left” is the supposed socialist Bernie Sanders, a vaguely social-democrat-ish New Deal Democrat who backs Israel and the F-35 fighter jet boondoggle and who lustily backed Bill Clinton’s criminal bombing of Serbia.' ~ 'Democrats and liberals really did “marr[y] a condescending elitist affect that sneers at blue-collar culture” to “their neoliberal economics” in ways that are highly relevant to the Democrats’ electoral collapse ... The marriage has cost the Democrats the sympathies and votes of working- and lower-class people of all races and ethnicities, including working-class whites. This has quite obviously redounded to the benefit of the Republican Party...' ~ “It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me! No, that’s no good enough…One of the struggles that you’re going to see seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics.” ~ '...Obama advanced the deadly corporate-neoliberal, surveillance-state, and imperial agendas with a special absence of serious progressive resistance (including left and liberal white resistance) thanks in no small part to the simple fact of his technical half-Blackness. The color of Obama’s skin blinded many on Coates’ broad “left” to the neoliberal/capitalist, imperialist, police-statist, and ideologically white-supremacist content of his character. A Hillary Clinton presidency might well have performed some of the same trick with gender substituted for race.' ~ '...the nation’s savage New Gilded Age class inequalities reached new levels of extreme disparity during the years of the openly Wall Street-captive Obama White House, itself chock full of Goldman Sachs operatives – a presidency that came to end with its fake-progressive standard bearer pushing for the explicitly global-corporatist Trans-Pacific Partnership and (as ... Sanders correctly noted in 2016) the top tenth of upper U.S. 1 Percent owning nearly as much wealth as the bottom U.S. 90 percent...' ~ 'Following in that great “leftist” Bill Clinton’s right-wing neoliberal footstep, Obama’s presidency has epitomized the left-liberal political scientist Sheldon Wolin’s early 2008 description of “the Democrats’ politics” as “the inauthentic opposition.” Wolin prophesied that “should Democrats somehow be elected,” they would do nothing “to alter significantly the direction of society” and to “substantially revers[e] the drift rightwards. … The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts points to the crucial fact that for the poor, minorities, the working class and anti-corporatists there is no opposition party working on their behalf.” The corporatist Democrats would work to “marginalize any possible threat to the corporate allies of the Republicans.”' ~ 'A nominal Democrat was elected president along with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008. What followed under Obama (as under his Democratic presidential predecessors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) was the standard “elite” neoliberal manipulation of campaign populism and identity politics in service to the reigning big money bankrollers and their global empire. The Wall Street takeover of Washington and the related imperial agenda of the “Pentagon System” were advanced more effectively by the nation’s first half-white president than they could have been by any white Republican. New Gilded Age class and race inequality soared to new levels of abject obscenity under Obama’s “progressive” presidency, when nearly all of nation’s income gains went to the top 5 percent.' ~ “I don’t think the role of Coates is to inform us about race and racism; instead, I think his chief goal is to question the relevance of class and class analysis. Is it even true that ‘leftists’ fixate on class struggle over other matters’? The leftists I know are active in Black Lives Matter, BDS, the Confederate statue removal movement, etc…What Coates is doing here, I think, reflects the role that liberal academics and writers have been doing since at least the 1980s: suggesting that those interested in class routinely dismiss other divisions in society. This is not true, as scholarship from Du Bois to the present reminds us. But we can thank folks like Nell Irvin Painter, Joan Scott, some whiteness studies, and now Coates for making these cases. Every few months we get a Coates-like essay telling us, ‘hey, sure we have class, but don’t forget other divisions.’ Do we really need the reminding?” —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 17 19:27:25 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:27:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Rand Paul speech on AUMF References: Message-ID: > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutu.be%2FCpt8Hex8NMI&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7C9dd38747bbc442d79f1d08d4fe01f6d5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636412731759888114&sdata=636FPAFJexpaQNUWJs6NpS6PismOZjH5Gp16a99%2BOUA%3D&reserved=0 From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Sep 17 21:37:48 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" In-Reply-To: <1136BBFD-3FC9-4769-AF17-E590B261214D@gmail.com> References: <1136BBFD-3FC9-4769-AF17-E590B261214D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008a01d32ffd$357cf790$a076e6b0$@comcast.net> Thanks Carl, Good response ( for the most part ) from Paul Street. Professor Cedric Johnson at UIC / African American Studies Dept. did a great analysis of Coates a few years ago entitled ; "An Open Letter to Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Liberals Who Love Him " - https://www.jacobinmag.com/.../ta-nehisi-coates-case-for-reparations-bernie-sanders-r.. Gus Wood tore into Ta- Nehisi Coates on the World Labor Hour this last Saturday and will soon write a response to Coates's article. Coates is a neo-liberal propagandist and is well compensated for his efforts. In addition to his annual salary at " THE ATLANTIC " magazine ( a conservative neo-liberal rag of the first magnitude ) he receives $ 625,000 per year from a MacArthur foundation " Genius award " grant and royalties from his books, putting Coates well into the Millionaire annual income category. David J. -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 1:14 PM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" . Street's essay is a curate's egg. ('The term derives from a cartoon published in the humorous British magazine Punch on 9 November 1895. Drawn by George du Maurier and titled True Humility, it pictures a timid-looking curate eating breakfast in his bishop's house. The bishop says: "I'm afraid you've got a bad egg, Mr Jones." The curate, desperate not to offend his eminent host and ultimate employer, replies: "Oh no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!"’) Here are some excellent parts: ~ '...Trump owes his election and hence presidency not to white racism but rather to the neoliberal Democrats’ betrayal of the “white working class” – a betrayal that pushed white workers into the arms of the pseudopopulist Trump.” ~ '...the Democratic Party lost its way when it abandoned everyday economic issues like job creation for the softer fare of social justice [ = anti-discrimination] ... To their neoliberal economics, Democrats and liberals have married a condescending elitist affect that sneers at blue-collar culture and mocks the white man as history’s greatest monster and prime-time television’s biggest doofus ... Donald Trump is not the product of white supremacy so much as the product of a backlash against contempt for white working-class people.' ~ 'Coates’ definition of the “modern left” is absurd. It includes people who aren’t remotely left at all, like the vanguard arch-neoliberal Bill Clinton, “national [neo]liberal politicians” like Obama and Hillary (“proud to have been a Goldwater Girl”) Clinton, and leading neoliberal Democratic pundits and essayists like Nicholas Kristof and George Packer. The radical-leftmost extreme of Coates’ American “left” is the supposed socialist Bernie Sanders, a vaguely social-democrat-ish New Deal Democrat who backs Israel and the F-35 fighter jet boondoggle and who lustily backed Bill Clinton’s criminal bombing of Serbia.' ~ 'Democrats and liberals really did “marr[y] a condescending elitist affect that sneers at blue-collar culture” to “their neoliberal economics” in ways that are highly relevant to the Democrats’ electoral collapse ... The marriage has cost the Democrats the sympathies and votes of working- and lower-class people of all races and ethnicities, including working-class whites. This has quite obviously redounded to the benefit of the Republican Party...' ~ “It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me! No, that’s no good enough…One of the struggles that you’re going to see seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics.” ~ '...Obama advanced the deadly corporate-neoliberal, surveillance-state, and imperial agendas with a special absence of serious progressive resistance (including left and liberal white resistance) thanks in no small part to the simple fact of his technical half-Blackness. The color of Obama’s skin blinded many on Coates’ broad “left” to the neoliberal/capitalist, imperialist, police-statist, and ideologically white-supremacist content of his character. A Hillary Clinton presidency might well have performed some of the same trick with gender substituted for race.' ~ '...the nation’s savage New Gilded Age class inequalities reached new levels of extreme disparity during the years of the openly Wall Street-captive Obama White House, itself chock full of Goldman Sachs operatives – a presidency that came to end with its fake-progressive standard bearer pushing for the explicitly global-corporatist Trans-Pacific Partnership and (as ... Sanders correctly noted in 2016) the top tenth of upper U.S. 1 Percent owning nearly as much wealth as the bottom U.S. 90 percent...' ~ 'Following in that great “leftist” Bill Clinton’s right-wing neoliberal footstep, Obama’s presidency has epitomized the left-liberal political scientist Sheldon Wolin’s early 2008 description of “the Democrats’ politics” as “the inauthentic opposition.” Wolin prophesied that “should Democrats somehow be elected,” they would do nothing “to alter significantly the direction of society” and to “substantially revers[e] the drift rightwards. … The timidity of a Democratic Party mesmerized by centrist precepts points to the crucial fact that for the poor, minorities, the working class and anti-corporatists there is no opposition party working on their behalf.” The corporatist Democrats would work to “marginalize any possible threat to the corporate allies of the Republicans.”' ~ 'A nominal Democrat was elected president along with Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008. What followed under Obama (as under his Democratic presidential predecessors Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) was the standard “elite” neoliberal manipulation of campaign populism and identity politics in service to the reigning big money bankrollers and their global empire. The Wall Street takeover of Washington and the related imperial agenda of the “Pentagon System” were advanced more effectively by the nation’s first half-white president than they could have been by any white Republican. New Gilded Age class and race inequality soared to new levels of abject obscenity under Obama’s “progressive” presidency, when nearly all of nation’s income gains went to the top 5 percent.' ~ “I don’t think the role of Coates is to inform us about race and racism; instead, I think his chief goal is to question the relevance of class and class analysis. Is it even true that ‘leftists’ fixate on class struggle over other matters’? The leftists I know are active in Black Lives Matter, BDS, the Confederate statue removal movement, etc…What Coates is doing here, I think, reflects the role that liberal academics and writers have been doing since at least the 1980s: suggesting that those interested in class routinely dismiss other divisions in society. This is not true, as scholarship from Du Bois to the present reminds us. But we can thank folks like Nell Irvin Painter, Joan Scott, some whiteness studies, and now Coates for making these cases. Every few months we get a Coates-like essay telling us, ‘hey, sure we have class, but don’t forget other divisions.’ Do we really need the reminding?” —CGE _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 21:44:46 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:44:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order In-Reply-To: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In answer to your question: He is a NeoCon Warmonger. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Dianna Visek via Peace Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:25 PM To: Yahoogroups ; Peace List Subject: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order I don't know where the speaker or the Cline Center is on the political spectrum. This is their FB announcement. Dianna Please help us spread the word about this year’s Cline Symposium to anyone interested in America’s fundamental foreign policy challenges. At 7:30 on November 9th, Professor Eliot A. Cohen will deliver the 2017-2018 the Cline Symposium keynote entitled “The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump.” Dr. Cohen is the Director of the at the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | SAIS, and has served in several prominent positions at the Departments of State and Defense. He is also a US Army veteran, a highly-regarded commentator, and an award-winning teacher. Anyone can attend the talk at the Alice Campbell Alumni Center in Urbana, but if you are unable to attend we will post an open invitation to our Facebook page, so if you want a reminder or a notification of the livestream, just ‘like’ or follow us here. To learn more about the event, please use the link below: Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois [cid:image001.png at 01D32FD4.428F0DC0] [Text Box:] Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cline Center for Democracy news -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 173 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2571 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 21:47:00 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:47:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order References: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:45 PM To: 'Dianna Visek' ; Yahoogroups Cc: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: RE: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order In answer to your question: He is a NeoCon Warmonger. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Dianna Visek via Peace Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:25 PM To: Yahoogroups >; Peace List > Subject: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order I don't know where the speaker or the Cline Center is on the political spectrum. This is their FB announcement. Dianna Please help us spread the word about this year’s Cline Symposium to anyone interested in America’s fundamental foreign policy challenges. At 7:30 on November 9th, Professor Eliot A. Cohen will deliver the 2017-2018 the Cline Symposium keynote entitled “The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump.” Dr. Cohen is the Director of the at the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | SAIS, and has served in several prominent positions at the Departments of State and Defense. He is also a US Army veteran, a highly-regarded commentator, and an award-winning teacher. Anyone can attend the talk at the Alice Campbell Alumni Center in Urbana, but if you are unable to attend we will post an open invitation to our Facebook page, so if you want a reminder or a notification of the livestream, just ‘like’ or follow us here. To learn more about the event, please use the link below: Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois [cid:image003.png at 01D32FD4.9445F020] [Text Box:] Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cline Center for Democracy news -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 173 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 2571 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 21:47:00 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 21:47:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order References: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:45 PM To: 'Dianna Visek' ; Yahoogroups Cc: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: RE: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order In answer to your question: He is a NeoCon Warmonger. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Dianna Visek via Peace Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:25 PM To: Yahoogroups >; Peace List > Subject: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order I don't know where the speaker or the Cline Center is on the political spectrum. This is their FB announcement. Dianna Please help us spread the word about this year’s Cline Symposium to anyone interested in America’s fundamental foreign policy challenges. At 7:30 on November 9th, Professor Eliot A. Cohen will deliver the 2017-2018 the Cline Symposium keynote entitled “The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump.” Dr. Cohen is the Director of the at the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | SAIS, and has served in several prominent positions at the Departments of State and Defense. He is also a US Army veteran, a highly-regarded commentator, and an award-winning teacher. Anyone can attend the talk at the Alice Campbell Alumni Center in Urbana, but if you are unable to attend we will post an open invitation to our Facebook page, so if you want a reminder or a notification of the livestream, just ‘like’ or follow us here. To learn more about the event, please use the link below: Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois [cid:image003.png at 01D32FD4.9445F020] [Text Box:] Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cline Center for Democracy news -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 173 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 2571 bytes Desc: image004.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 22:18:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:18:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order References: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As for the so-called Cline Center for Democracy at UIUC, the fact that they would invite a notorious NeoCon Warmonger out here to give a special lecture tells you everything you need to know about them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:47 PM To: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: FW: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:45 PM To: 'Dianna Visek' >; Yahoogroups > Cc: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: RE: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order In answer to your question: He is a NeoCon Warmonger. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Dianna Visek via Peace Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:25 PM To: Yahoogroups >; Peace List > Subject: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order I don't know where the speaker or the Cline Center is on the political spectrum. This is their FB announcement. Dianna Please help us spread the word about this year’s Cline Symposium to anyone interested in America’s fundamental foreign policy challenges. At 7:30 on November 9th, Professor Eliot A. Cohen will deliver the 2017-2018 the Cline Symposium keynote entitled “The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump.” Dr. Cohen is the Director of the at the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | SAIS, and has served in several prominent positions at the Departments of State and Defense. He is also a US Army veteran, a highly-regarded commentator, and an award-winning teacher. Anyone can attend the talk at the Alice Campbell Alumni Center in Urbana, but if you are unable to attend we will post an open invitation to our Facebook page, so if you want a reminder or a notification of the livestream, just ‘like’ or follow us here. To learn more about the event, please use the link below: Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois [cid:image001.png at 01D32FD9.0890C370] [Text Box:] Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cline Center for Democracy news -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 173 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2571 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 17 22:18:56 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 22:18:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order References: <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1500826472.3854312.1505683508152@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: As for the so-called Cline Center for Democracy at UIUC, the fact that they would invite a notorious NeoCon Warmonger out here to give a special lecture tells you everything you need to know about them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:47 PM To: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; Karen Aram ; abass10 at gmail.com; mickalideh at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: FW: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:45 PM To: 'Dianna Visek' >; Yahoogroups > Cc: Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: RE: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order In answer to your question: He is a NeoCon Warmonger. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Dianna Visek via Peace Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 4:25 PM To: Yahoogroups >; Peace List > Subject: [Peace] American Grand Strategy and the Changing Global Order I don't know where the speaker or the Cline Center is on the political spectrum. This is their FB announcement. Dianna Please help us spread the word about this year’s Cline Symposium to anyone interested in America’s fundamental foreign policy challenges. At 7:30 on November 9th, Professor Eliot A. Cohen will deliver the 2017-2018 the Cline Symposium keynote entitled “The Big Stick: Military Power and American Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump.” Dr. Cohen is the Director of the at the Strategic Studies Program at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies | SAIS, and has served in several prominent positions at the Departments of State and Defense. He is also a US Army veteran, a highly-regarded commentator, and an award-winning teacher. Anyone can attend the talk at the Alice Campbell Alumni Center in Urbana, but if you are unable to attend we will post an open invitation to our Facebook page, so if you want a reminder or a notification of the livestream, just ‘like’ or follow us here. To learn more about the event, please use the link below: Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois [cid:image001.png at 01D32FD9.0890C370] [Text Box:] Cline Symposium | Cline Center for Democracy | University of Illinois University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Cline Center for Democracy news -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 173 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 2571 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon Sep 18 01:34:24 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:34:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" Message-ID: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" From bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon Sep 18 01:34:24 2017 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 20:34:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" Message-ID: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 12:07:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:07:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" In-Reply-To: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> References: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> Message-ID: I have to admit the first time I heard him speak, I cried. He really knows how to pull the heartstrings, though, sometimes, it doesn’t take much to make me cry. The second time I heard him speak, I was irritated at his lack of solutions and obvious manipulation. Since then reading his words has angered me because he is so transparent in his attempts to promote racism, and guilt, with a “just suck it up, thats the way it is attitude,” When they ignore class, you know it’s another distraction from that which needs to be understood if we are to bring any change or progress to the world. When they focus on the personal, with no concern for the millions we have murdered……… > On Sep 17, 2017, at 18:34, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates"_______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cbf22e39d73f2429928c908d4fe3575a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636412952934261624&sdata=hUQdlO88TIhfsz4uIqSSgs9NC%2FfYbpOv2M1hiz4%2FlYY%3D&reserved=0 From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 12:07:49 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 12:07:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" In-Reply-To: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> References: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> Message-ID: I have to admit the first time I heard him speak, I cried. He really knows how to pull the heartstrings, though, sometimes, it doesn’t take much to make me cry. The second time I heard him speak, I was irritated at his lack of solutions and obvious manipulation. Since then reading his words has angered me because he is so transparent in his attempts to promote racism, and guilt, with a “just suck it up, thats the way it is attitude,” When they ignore class, you know it’s another distraction from that which needs to be understood if we are to bring any change or progress to the world. When they focus on the personal, with no concern for the millions we have murdered……… > On Sep 17, 2017, at 18:34, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates"_______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cbf22e39d73f2429928c908d4fe3575a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636412952934261624&sdata=hUQdlO88TIhfsz4uIqSSgs9NC%2FfYbpOv2M1hiz4%2FlYY%3D&reserved=0 From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Sep 18 14:11:39 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:11:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" In-Reply-To: References: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <3EFAF71F-31AC-428B-B5A6-87B2D2D01FBD@illinois.edu> I assume you mean Coates (a friend of my wife’s), not Street (who's spoken here several times). Neither would agree with all the quotes I pulled from their articles. I do think the Great Refusal (pace Dante) of American liberals - under the assault of neoliberalism - has been to choose to ignore economic exploitation, and substitute social discrimination (on race, gender, etc.) as the explanation for increasing (and accelerating) inequality over the last 40 years. (American wages have been flat since 1973.) But class position is objective (you’re a member whether you know it or not) while identity is chosen - as Coates and Chelsea Manning show. "The defensible heart of identity politics is its commitment to opposing forms of discrimination like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I share that commitment. But opposing discrimination today has no more to do with a left politics than do equally powerful ethical commitments against, say, violence or dishonesty. Why? Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism — its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail... "Discrimination is neoliberalism’s theory of inequality. Even poor whites have started to buy it — a large number appear to think anti-white bias is their real problem! Obviously, they’re wrong, but when, as Barbara and Karen Fields point out, the language of victimization has become so impoverished that it consists of nothing but discrimination, you go with what you’ve got. A new left politics will need to change that. Instead of a more complicated understanding of identity — of race, sex, and intersectionality (that opiate of the professional managerial class) — we need a more profound understanding of exploitation.” [W. B. Michaels] —CGE > On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I have to admit the first time I heard him speak, I cried. He really knows how to pull the heartstrings, though, sometimes, it doesn’t take much to make me cry. > > The second time I heard him speak, I was irritated at his lack of solutions and obvious manipulation. > > Since then reading his words has angered me because he is so transparent in his attempts to promote racism, and guilt, with a “just suck it up, thats the way it is attitude,” > > When they ignore class, you know it’s another distraction from that which needs to be understood if we are to bring any change or progress to the world. > > When they focus on the personal, with no concern for the millions we have murdered……… > > >> On Sep 17, 2017, at 18:34, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates"_______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cbf22e39d73f2429928c908d4fe3575a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636412952934261624&sdata=hUQdlO88TIhfsz4uIqSSgs9NC%2FfYbpOv2M1hiz4%2FlYY%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Sep 18 14:11:39 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:11:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" In-Reply-To: References: <6lm8o9angdefnth1h81cjn13.1505698414724@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <3EFAF71F-31AC-428B-B5A6-87B2D2D01FBD@illinois.edu> I assume you mean Coates (a friend of my wife’s), not Street (who's spoken here several times). Neither would agree with all the quotes I pulled from their articles. I do think the Great Refusal (pace Dante) of American liberals - under the assault of neoliberalism - has been to choose to ignore economic exploitation, and substitute social discrimination (on race, gender, etc.) as the explanation for increasing (and accelerating) inequality over the last 40 years. (American wages have been flat since 1973.) But class position is objective (you’re a member whether you know it or not) while identity is chosen - as Coates and Chelsea Manning show. "The defensible heart of identity politics is its commitment to opposing forms of discrimination like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I share that commitment. But opposing discrimination today has no more to do with a left politics than do equally powerful ethical commitments against, say, violence or dishonesty. Why? Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism — its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail... "Discrimination is neoliberalism’s theory of inequality. Even poor whites have started to buy it — a large number appear to think anti-white bias is their real problem! Obviously, they’re wrong, but when, as Barbara and Karen Fields point out, the language of victimization has become so impoverished that it consists of nothing but discrimination, you go with what you’ve got. A new left politics will need to change that. Instead of a more complicated understanding of identity — of race, sex, and intersectionality (that opiate of the professional managerial class) — we need a more profound understanding of exploitation.” [W. B. Michaels] —CGE > On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I have to admit the first time I heard him speak, I cried. He really knows how to pull the heartstrings, though, sometimes, it doesn’t take much to make me cry. > > The second time I heard him speak, I was irritated at his lack of solutions and obvious manipulation. > > Since then reading his words has angered me because he is so transparent in his attempts to promote racism, and guilt, with a “just suck it up, thats the way it is attitude,” > > When they ignore class, you know it’s another distraction from that which needs to be understood if we are to bring any change or progress to the world. > > When they focus on the personal, with no concern for the millions we have murdered……… > > >> On Sep 17, 2017, at 18:34, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates"_______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cbf22e39d73f2429928c908d4fe3575a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636412952934261624&sdata=hUQdlO88TIhfsz4uIqSSgs9NC%2FfYbpOv2M1hiz4%2FlYY%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 18 15:57:45 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:57:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-War Teach In reminder Message-ID: Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Foundation The corner of Oregon and Matthews, Urbana Saturday, September 23rd 1:00 - 5:00pm Speakers and topics include: Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law (Illegalities) Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, Retired (History of U.S. Foreign Policy) David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace (Palestine & Israel) David Johnson, World Labor Hour (The Costs of War & Venezuela) Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D Candidate U of I (Africa) Father Tom Royer (El Salvador) Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party (US support for Dictatorships) Paula Bradshaw, Radio Show Host in Carbondale, Illinois Green Party ( Libya and Syria) Karen Aram (Coordinator/Facilitator) For info. contact: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Sep 19 13:23:24 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:23:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cornel West, Chris Hedges, and Richard Wolf 2014 Message-ID: One of the most informative and interesting dialogs….. https://youtu.be/dMefZH1R9Rk From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 19 19:32:50 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:32:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Tulane's Law References: <438EF415F313C647B9F9B4DF29FE77C34BFEA296@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:31 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Tulane's Law Tulane's Law September 1993 Interview for Chair Tulane Law Helping out them all On International Law Human Rights too Got there Ambushed! Zionized Faculty My Love for Palestinians Against bigots, racists, ignoramuses Beat me up all day Could not fight back Not used to that: You Gang of Bigots, Racists, Ignoramuses! Being polite and smiling Patiently enduring their pummeling Splitting headache at day's end Home flew Immediately withdrew Not working with bigots, racists, ignoramuses! That is how My Wife and Kids missed Hurricane Katrina Karma! Adios Tulane Law! Bigots, racists, ignoramuses Tulane's Law: Bigotry, Racism, Ignorance for All! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 19 19:32:50 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 19:32:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Tulane's Law References: <438EF415F313C647B9F9B4DF29FE77C34BFEA296@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:31 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Tulane's Law Tulane's Law September 1993 Interview for Chair Tulane Law Helping out them all On International Law Human Rights too Got there Ambushed! Zionized Faculty My Love for Palestinians Against bigots, racists, ignoramuses Beat me up all day Could not fight back Not used to that: You Gang of Bigots, Racists, Ignoramuses! Being polite and smiling Patiently enduring their pummeling Splitting headache at day's end Home flew Immediately withdrew Not working with bigots, racists, ignoramuses! That is how My Wife and Kids missed Hurricane Katrina Karma! Adios Tulane Law! Bigots, racists, ignoramuses Tulane's Law: Bigotry, Racism, Ignorance for All! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Tue Sep 19 22:32:14 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 18:32:14 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: October 2017 Harper's article: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: <15e9c432de6-c0d-b428@webjas-vac160.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <15e9c453265-c05-4895@webjas-vab076.srv.aolmail.net> The October 2017 Harper's article "Will the 9/11 Case Finally Go to Trial?, by Andrew Cockburn reported that Sharron Premoli, a 9/11 survivor injured in the North Tower and one of the 6500 plaintiffs against Saudi Arabia, said. "We started a war because of 9/11--more than one war--and the wars are still going on.  Every war we start now, we say it's because of 9/11.  They keep fighting the 'war on terror,' but we are giving the Saudis a pass, despite all the evidence."  Cockburn says there has always been evidence--in abundance.  The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attack began work in February 2002 under the leadership of former Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, who has been active even since he retired from the Senate in 2005.  With low oil revenues and the effect on Saudi Aramco stock prices, the war in Yemen dragging on at a cost of $200 million a day, the Sauds are afraid of a default judgment against them and some of their assets will be seized, curtailing their bellicose plans, said Premoli.  "That is precisely the goal," she said.  As the suit drags on into some 12 years, the Saudi expenditure on lobbyists and attorneys in Washington mounts, adding to the expense into a possible hundreds of billions.  The lawyers for the plaintiffs are committed in spite of obstacles put in their way by the Bush and Obama administrations and FBI and CIA.   Back in 2002 Senator Bob Graham himself was already coming to the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks must have had an elaborate support network, abroad and in the U.S.A.  As he later wrote, "I believed almost intuitively that the terrorists who pulled off the attacks could not have been the work of a stand-alone terrorist cell.  In reality, the Obama Administration was well aware that Saudi Arabia was a supporter of terrorism, though it kept the information to itself.  Only through WikiLeaks did we learn of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified cable, circulated to department officials in December 2009 stating as fact that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."  On this side of the Middle East, the CIA and FBI were complicit in not revealing what they knew about the 9/11 attackers.. A successful conclusion of the lawsuit for the plaintiffs could strike a more powerful blow for peace and withdrawal of Saudi support for Middle East wars than organized protests against Saudi Arabia!. The entire article at Harper's.org is worth a read. Midge O'Brien -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook To: Mildred O'brien Sent: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 11:35 am Subject: Re: Breaking News from NPR: The VietNam War is Starting This Week! ‘Intersectionality’ is a weasel-word that tries to make up for the abandonment of class politics. Class (an objective reality) is turned into ‘classism’ - like racism and sexism, a matter of subjective identity. Then discrimination against all three identities (and others) can be seen as ‘intersecting’ and can be equally opposed.  All three Cockburn brothers have done remarkable work over the years. Alex requiescat in pace. —CGE On Sep 18, 2017, at 11:13 AM, Mildred O'brien wrote: OH, NO!  NOT AGAIN!  Thanks for this clarification, Carl; I'm learning more and more about jargon like "political identity" and "intersectionality" (which I share with your disdain: "that opiate of the professional class"). I want to point out Andrew Cockburn's latest report (I read his jaw-dropping initial one about 10 years ago on the topic of 9/11 & Saudi Arabia) in the Oct issue of Harper's which interests me a great deal.  A lot of skeletons in the closet. Midge   -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss To: Karen Aram Cc: peace-discuss ; C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 9:13 am Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates" I assume you mean Coates (a friend of my wife’s), not Street (who's spoken here several times). Neither would agree with all the quotes I pulled from their articles. I do think the Great Refusal (pace Dante) of American liberals - under the assault of neoliberalism - has been to choose to ignore economic exploitation, and substitute social discrimination (on race, gender, etc.) as the explanation for increasing (and accelerating) inequality over the last 40 years. (American wages have been flat since 1973.) But class position is objective (you’re a member whether you know it or not) while identity is chosen - as Coates and Chelsea Manning show. "The defensible heart of identity politics is its commitment to opposing forms of discrimination like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I share that commitment. But opposing discrimination today has no more to do with a left politics than do equally powerful ethical commitments against, say, violence or dishonesty. Why? Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism — its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail... "Discrimination is neoliberalism’s theory of inequality. Even poor whites have started to buy it — a large number appear to think anti-white bias is their real problem! Obviously, they’re wrong, but when, as Barbara and Karen Fields point out, the language of victimization has become so impoverished that it consists of nothing but discrimination, you go with what you’ve got. A new left politics will need to change that. Instead of a more complicated understanding of identity — of race, sex, and intersectionality (that opiate of the professional managerial class) — we need a more profound understanding of exploitation.” [W. B. Michaels] —CGE > On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I have to admit the first time I heard him speak, I cried. He really knows how to pull the heartstrings, though, sometimes, it doesn’t take much to make me cry. > > The second time I heard him speak, I was irritated at his lack of solutions and obvious manipulation. > > Since then reading his words has angered me because he is so transparent in his attempts to promote racism, and guilt, with a “just suck it up, thats the way it is attitude,” > > When they ignore class, you know it’s another distraction from that which needs to be understood if we are to bring any change or progress to the world. > > When they focus on the personal, with no concern for the millions we have murdered……… > > >> On Sep 17, 2017, at 18:34, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates"_______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cbf22e39d73f2429928c908d4fe3575a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636412952934261624&sdata=hUQdlO88TIhfsz4uIqSSgs9NC%2FfYbpOv2M1hiz4%2FlYY%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Sep 20 01:55:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:45 AM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik on Monday. "The proposal by Russia and China for a ‘dual-freeze’ is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between the United States and the Democratic ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Sep 20 01:55:59 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 01:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:45 AM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik on Monday. "The proposal by Russia and China for a ‘dual-freeze’ is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between the United States and the Democratic ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Wed Sep 20 12:48:29 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:48:29 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: October 2017 Harper's article: Crime and Punishment In-Reply-To: <15e9f5269d1-c06-21f84@webjas-vac220.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <15e9f551d5b-c02-e0f3@webjas-vac108.srv.aolmail.net> The following article in Harper's Magazine on the status of In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 grew out of a suit filed in 2002 on behalf of family members and other victims of the attacks:https://harpers.org/arch/2017/crime-and-punishment/4 The October 2017 Harper's article "Will the 9/11 Case Finally Go to Trial?, by Andrew Cockburn reported that Sharron Premoli, a 9/11 survivor injured in the North Tower and one of the 6500 plaintiffs against Saudi Arabia, said. "We started a war because of 9/11--more than one war--and the wars are still going on.  Every war we start now, we say it's because of 9/11.  They keep fighting the 'war on terror,' but we are giving the Saudis a pass, despite all the evidence."  Cockburn says there has always been evidence--in abundance.  The Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attack began work in February 2002 under the leadership of former Senator Bob Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, who has been active even since he retired from the Senate in 2005. With low oil revenues and the effect on Saudi Aramco stock prices, the war in Yemen dragging on at a cost of $200 million a day, the Sauds are afraid of a default judgment against them and some of their assets will be seized, curtailing their bellicose plans, said Premoli.  "That is precisely the goal," she said.  As the suit drags on into some 12 years, the Saudi expenditure on lobbyists and attorneys in Washington mounts, adding to the expense into a possible hundreds of billions.  The lawyers for the plaintiffs are committed in spite of obstacles put in their way by the Bush and Obama administrations and FBI and CIA.  Back in 2002 Senator Bob Graham himself was already coming to the conclusion that the 9/11 attacks must have had an elaborate support network, abroad and in the U.S.A.  As he later wrote, "I believed almost intuitively that the terrorists who pulled off the attacks could not have been the work of a stand-alone terrorist cell.  In reality, the Obama Administration was well aware that Saudi Arabia was a supporter of terrorism, though it kept the information to itself.  Only through WikiLeaks did we learn of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified cable, circulated to department officials in December 2009 stating as fact that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."  On this side of the Middle East, the CIA and FBI were complicit in not revealing what they knew about the 9/11 attackers..A successful conclusion of the lawsuit for the plaintiffs could strike a more powerful blow for peace and withdrawal of Saudi support for Middle East wars than organized protests against Saudi Arabia!.The entire article at Harpers.org is worth a read.Midge O'Brien-----Original Message-----From: Carl G. Estabrook To: Mildred O'brien Sent: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 11:35 amSubject: Re: Breaking News from NPR: The VietNam War is Starting This Week! ‘Intersectionality’ is a weasel-word that tries to make up for the abandonment of class politics.Class (an objective reality) is turned into ‘classism’ - like racism and sexism, a matter of subjective identity.Then discrimination against all three identities (and others) can be seen as ‘intersecting’ and can be equally opposed. All three Cockburn brothers have done remarkable work over the years. Alex requiescat in pace. —CGEOn Sep 18, 2017, at 11:13 AM, Mildred O'brien wrote:OH, NO!  NOT AGAIN!  Thanks for this clarification, Carl; I'm learning more and more about jargon like "political identity" and "intersectionality" (which I share with your disdain: "that opiate of the professional class").I want to point out Andrew Cockburn's latest report (I read his jaw-dropping initial one about 10 years ago on the topic of 9/11 & Saudi Arabia) in the Oct issue of Harper's which interests me a great deal.  A lot of skeletons in the closet.Midge  -----Original Message-----From: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss To: Karen Aram Cc: peace-discuss ; C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Mon, Sep 18, 2017 9:13 amSubject: Re: [Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates"I assume you mean Coates (a friend of my wife’s), not Street (who's spoken here several times). Neither would agree with all the quotes I pulled from their articles. I do think the Great Refusal (pace Dante) of American liberals - under the assault of neoliberalism - has been to choose to ignore economic exploitation, and substitute social discrimination (on race, gender, etc.) as the explanation for increasing (and accelerating) inequality over the last 40 years. (American wages have been flat since 1973.) But class position is objective (you’re a member whether you know it or not) while identity is chosen - as Coates and Chelsea Manning show. "The defensible heart of identity politics is its commitment to opposing forms of discrimination like racism, sexism, and homophobia. I share that commitment. But opposing discrimination today has no more to do with a left politics than do equally powerful ethical commitments against, say, violence or dishonesty. Why? Because the core of a left politics is its critique of and resistance to capitalism — its commitment to decommodifying education, health care, and housing, and creating a more economically equal society. Neither hostility to discrimination nor the accompanying enthusiasm for diversity makes the slightest contribution to accomplishing any of those goals. Just the opposite, in fact. They function instead to provide inequality with a meritocratic justification: If everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed, there’s no injustice when some people fail... "Discrimination is neoliberalism’s theory of inequality. Even poor whites have started to buy it — a large number appear to think anti-white bias is their real problem! Obviously, they’re wrong, but when, as Barbara and Karen Fields point out, the language of victimization has become so impoverished that it consists of nothing but discrimination, you go with what you’ve got. A new left politics will need to change that. Instead of a more complicated understanding of identity — of race, sex, and intersectionality (that opiate of the professional managerial class) — we need a more profound understanding of exploitation.” [W. B. Michaels] —CGE > On Sep 18, 2017, at 7:07 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I have to admit the first time I heard him speak, I cried. He really knows how to pull the heartstrings, though, sometimes, it doesn’t take much to make me cry. > > The second time I heard him speak, I was irritated at his lack of solutions and obvious manipulation. > > Since then reading his words has angered me because he is so transparent in his attempts to promote racism, and guilt, with a “just suck it up, thats the way it is attitude,” > > When they ignore class, you know it’s another distraction from that which needs to be understood if we are to bring any change or progress to the world. > > When they focus on the personal, with no concern for the millions we have murdered……… > > >> On Sep 17, 2017, at 18:34, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Agreed. Have never found Ta-Nahesi Coates at all interesting. >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, Sep 17, 2017 1:14 PMTo: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] P. Street on "Race v. Class? More Brilliant Bourgeois Bullshit from Ta-Nehesi Coates"_______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.chambana.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fpeace-discuss&data=02%7C01%7Ckarenaram%40hotmail.com%7Cbf22e39d73f2429928c908d4fe3575a2%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636412952934261624&sdata=hUQdlO88TIhfsz4uIqSSgs9NC%2FfYbpOv2M1hiz4%2FlYY%3D&reserved=0 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Sep 20 13:37:34 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:37:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: After Failing to Prosecute Bankers, Obama Cashes In With Wall Street Speeches Message-ID: <000d01d33215$9e3b1310$dab13930$@comcast.net> Published on Monday, September 18, 2017 by Common Dreams After Failing to Prosecute Bankers, Obama Cashes In With Wall Street Speeches The former president is reportedly raking in $400,000 per speech to massive financial firms by Jake Johnson, staff writer 139 Comments Description: Former U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during the Seeds&Chips Global Food Innovation Summit on May 9, 2017 in Milan, Italy. Former U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during the Seeds&Chips Global Food Innovation Summit on May 9, 2017 in Milan, Italy. (Photo: Pier Marco Tacca/Getty Images) Less than a year has passed since he departed from the White House, and former President Barack Obama has already joined the "well trod and well paid " Wall Street speaking circuit, a decision many argued will negatively impact the Democratic Party's credibility as it attempts to fashion a message around taking on corporate monopolies , tackling income inequality , and loosening the insurance industry's control over the American healthcare system. "This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration." -Matt Stoller, Open Markets InstituteAccording to a Bloomberg report published Monday, Obama has in the last month delivered two speeches to massive financial firms-Northern Trust Corp and the Carlyle Group-for around $400,000 a pop, and he is slated to attend a three-day conference hosted by Cantor Fitzgerald next week, for which he will make another $400,000. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced a wave of intense criticism following her paid speeches to Wall Street during the 2016 presidential campaign, and later conceded that they weren't politically wise. Obama, however, doesn't appear to harbor any concerns about the political impact his speeches may have-a fact that could be problematic for the Democratic Party, Bloomberg's Max Abelson notes. "While he can't run for president, he continues to be an influential voice in a party torn between celebrating and vilifying corporate power," Abelson writes. "His new work with banks might suggest which side of the debate he'll be on." News of Obama's decision to "cash in " following his eight-year presidency drew significant ire, particularly given his administration's failure to enact sufficient structural changes to the financial system following the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. As Abelson observes, Obama's "Justice Department prosecuted no major bankers for their roles in the financial crisis, and he resisted calls to break up the biggest banks, signing a regulatory overhaul that annoyed them with new rules but didn't stop them from pulling in record profits." Responding to Bloomberg's report, a Twitter user asked Ryan Cooper, national correspondent for The Week, what a person could do in order to receive $400,000 for a single speech. Cooper responded with a two-step plan: Others reacted similarly to the former president's lucrative speeches, noting that given Obama's continued power over the direction of the Democratic Party-which was demonstrated in his successful push for former Labor Secretary Tom Perez to become chair of the Democratic National Committee over Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.)-is reason enough for him to abandon the Wall Street circuit. "This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration," concluded Matt Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. "Hillary Clinton publicly talking about why she lost [the 2016 election] is far healthier than private speeches to the Carlyle Group." For investigative journalist Nomi Prins, Obama's Wall Street speeches are indicative of the deep, inescapable influence the nation's largest financial institutions exert over political discussion and policy in the United States. "Wall Street knows no party," Prins concluded . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26785 bytes Desc: not available URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 13:53:05 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:53:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CE712FC-4671-4886-8FFD-ED34FA3F50A1@gmail.com> Thank you, Francis, sharing! Jay > On Sep 19, 2017, at 20:55, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews > Posted on: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:45 AM > Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews > Subject: Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences > > University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik on Monday. "The proposal by Russia and China for a ‘dual-freeze’ is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between the United States and the Democratic ... > > View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From futureup2us at gmail.com Wed Sep 20 13:53:05 2017 From: futureup2us at gmail.com (Jay Becker) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:53:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CE712FC-4671-4886-8FFD-ED34FA3F50A1@gmail.com> Thank you, Francis, sharing! Jay > On Sep 19, 2017, at 20:55, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews > Posted on: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 8:45 AM > Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews > Subject: Washington's 'Game of Chicken' With N Korea Could Have Catastrophic Consequences > > University of Illinois Professor of Law Francis Boyle told Sputnik on Monday. "The proposal by Russia and China for a ‘dual-freeze’ is an excellent basis to produce good faith and direct negotiations between the United States and the Democratic ... > > View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Sep 20 16:50:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:50:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYU Law Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 11:48 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYU Law 23. NYU Law October 1988 NYU Law Afternoon Lecture/Conference/Debate Palestine v. Israel Daniel enters lion's den Forthcoming Palestinian Peace Initiative Two States! Heads up! Look out! Pay attention! Take it! Best offer you'll get! Mugged by NYU Law all Bigots, racists, ignoramuses Beaten up four hours Splitting headache Stiffed on expenses 8 weeks Cash flow problem for Wife and Kids NYU Law sticking it in Yo! NYU Law! Have fun dealing with: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Salafis, et al They don't need a lawyer! NYU Law never figured that out Bigots, racists, ignoramuses all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Sep 20 16:50:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:50:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYU Law Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 11:48 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYU Law 23. NYU Law October 1988 NYU Law Afternoon Lecture/Conference/Debate Palestine v. Israel Daniel enters lion's den Forthcoming Palestinian Peace Initiative Two States! Heads up! Look out! Pay attention! Take it! Best offer you'll get! Mugged by NYU Law all Bigots, racists, ignoramuses Beaten up four hours Splitting headache Stiffed on expenses 8 weeks Cash flow problem for Wife and Kids NYU Law sticking it in Yo! NYU Law! Have fun dealing with: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Salafis, et al They don't need a lawyer! NYU Law never figured that out Bigots, racists, ignoramuses all! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 19:25:22 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:25:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program Message-ID: Francis/Carl Stuart has suggested we have Q & A before the two breaks, rather than making everyone wait until after all panelists have spoken. I agree it would be preferable, but don't know how to manage it given the time constraints. It might mean, after Francis, Carl, and Rich speak, we have Q&A. Then the break, which means some Q&A might roll over into the break. Again we have David Green, Paula and Vukoni speak and Q&A then break. This would then leave Mort, David Johnson and Father Tom towards the end, with little time for Q&A I don't like doing this, and it will mean strict control over Q&A timing. What do you suggest? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Sep 21 19:30:29 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:30:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How about if you ask Channing Murray for an extra hour for the room. That should take care of it. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:25 PM To: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss ; Boyle, Francis A Subject: Saturday's program Francis/Carl Stuart has suggested we have Q & A before the two breaks, rather than making everyone wait until after all panelists have spoken. I agree it would be preferable, but don't know how to manage it given the time constraints. It might mean, after Francis, Carl, and Rich speak, we have Q&A. Then the break, which means some Q&A might roll over into the break. Again we have David Green, Paula and Vukoni speak and Q&A then break. This would then leave Mort, David Johnson and Father Tom towards the end, with little time for Q&A I don't like doing this, and it will mean strict control over Q&A timing. What do you suggest? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 19:59:36 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:59:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6b475ee4-e9ac-7242-a40e-872de8400a0c@gmail.com> It's partly that it would be hard on the patience of people attending. Four hours is a long time. On 09/21/2017 02:30 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > *How about if you ask Channing Murray for an extra hour for the room. > That should take care of it. Fab.* > > * * > > */Francis A. Boyle/* > > */Law Building/* > > */504 E. Pennsylvania Ave./* > > */Champaign, IL 61820 USA/* > > */217-333-7954 (phone)/* > > */217-244-1478 (fax)/* > > */_(personal comments only)_/* > > * * > > *From:*Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, September 21, 2017 2:25 PM > *To:* Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > ; Boyle, Francis A > *Subject:* Saturday's program > > > > Francis/Carl > > > > Stuart has suggested we have Q & A before the two breaks, rather than > making everyone wait until after all panelists have spoken. I agree it > would be preferable, but don't know how to manage it given the time > constraints. It might mean, after Francis, Carl, and Rich speak, we > have Q&A. Then the break, which means some Q&A might roll over into > the break. Again we have David Green, Paula and Vukoni speak and Q&A > then break. This would then leave Mort, David Johnson and Father Tom > towards the end, with little time for Q&A I don't like doing this, > and it will mean strict control over Q&A timing. > > > > What do you suggest? > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu Sep 21 20:51:07 2017 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 15:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87B772A2-F685-4F72-A99E-466506C0F611@gmail.com> I’m willing to give up my slot in the first session, to make room for Q&A. With other absences, you’d have two speakers, then discussion, as follows: ======= Start about 1:00pm Grant & Nick on behalf of SEE ( Up to 3-4 min.) Karen Aram on behalf of AWARE (Up to 3-4 min.) First hour Prof. Francis Boyle (Illegalities) Rich Whitney (USG support for Dictatorships) Q&A Break with Student Groups taking a min. or two to speak on their organizations. If time left, Harry sings his anti-war songs. Second hour Paula Bradshaw (Libya & Syria) David Green (Israel & Palestine) Q&A 15 min. Break with Harry singing Third hour Mort Brussel (Costs of War) David Johnson (Venezuela other Central American nations, leading to domestic implications) Q&A 5:00 Finish > On Sep 21, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Francis/Carl > > Stuart has suggested we have Q & A before the two breaks, rather than making everyone wait until after all panelists have spoken. I agree it would be preferable, but don't know how to manage it given the time constraints. It might mean, after Francis, Carl, and Rich speak, we have Q&A. Then the break, which means some Q&A might roll over into the break. Again we have David Green, Paula and Vukoni speak and Q&A then break. This would then leave Mort, David Johnson and Father Tom towards the end, with little time for Q&A I don't like doing this, and it will mean strict control over Q&A timing. > > What do you suggest? > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Sep 21 20:52:26 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:52:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program In-Reply-To: <87B772A2-F685-4F72-A99E-466506C0F611@gmail.com> References: <87B772A2-F685-4F72-A99E-466506C0F611@gmail.com> Message-ID: With all due respect, we need Carl there for sure. again, just have some slack time at the end in case we run over. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:51 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss ; Boyle, Francis A Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program I’m willing to give up my slot in the first session, to make room for Q&A. With other absences, you’d have two speakers, then discussion, as follows: ======= Start about 1:00pm Grant & Nick on behalf of SEE ( Up to 3-4 min.) Karen Aram on behalf of AWARE (Up to 3-4 min.) First hour Prof. Francis Boyle (Illegalities) Rich Whitney (USG support for Dictatorships) Q&A Break with Student Groups taking a min. or two to speak on their organizations. If time left, Harry sings his anti-war songs. Second hour Paula Bradshaw (Libya & Syria) David Green (Israel & Palestine) Q&A 15 min. Break with Harry singing Third hour Mort Brussel (Costs of War) David Johnson (Venezuela other Central American nations, leading to domestic implications) Q&A 5:00 Finish On Sep 21, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis/Carl Stuart has suggested we have Q & A before the two breaks, rather than making everyone wait until after all panelists have spoken. I agree it would be preferable, but don't know how to manage it given the time constraints. It might mean, after Francis, Carl, and Rich speak, we have Q&A. Then the break, which means some Q&A might roll over into the break. Again we have David Green, Paula and Vukoni speak and Q&A then break. This would then leave Mort, David Johnson and Father Tom towards the end, with little time for Q&A I don't like doing this, and it will mean strict control over Q&A timing. What do you suggest? _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 20:59:32 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 20:59:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program In-Reply-To: <87B772A2-F685-4F72-A99E-466506C0F611@gmail.com> References: , <87B772A2-F685-4F72-A99E-466506C0F611@gmail.com> Message-ID: No way, you're not getting out of this. We need you. You were great on AOTA Tuesday covering everything. ________________________________ From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:51:07 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; Francis A Boyle Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program I’m willing to give up my slot in the first session, to make room for Q&A. With other absences, you’d have two speakers, then discussion, as follows: ======= Start about 1:00pm Grant & Nick on behalf of SEE ( Up to 3-4 min.) Karen Aram on behalf of AWARE (Up to 3-4 min.) First hour Prof. Francis Boyle (Illegalities) Rich Whitney (USG support for Dictatorships) Q&A Break with Student Groups taking a min. or two to speak on their organizations. If time left, Harry sings his anti-war songs. Second hour Paula Bradshaw (Libya & Syria) David Green (Israel & Palestine) Q&A 15 min. Break with Harry singing Third hour Mort Brussel (Costs of War) David Johnson (Venezuela other Central American nations, leading to domestic implications) Q&A 5:00 Finish On Sep 21, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis/Carl Stuart has suggested we have Q & A before the two breaks, rather than making everyone wait until after all panelists have spoken. I agree it would be preferable, but don't know how to manage it given the time constraints. It might mean, after Francis, Carl, and Rich speak, we have Q&A. Then the break, which means some Q&A might roll over into the break. Again we have David Green, Paula and Vukoni speak and Q&A then break. This would then leave Mort, David Johnson and Father Tom towards the end, with little time for Q&A I don't like doing this, and it will mean strict control over Q&A timing. What do you suggest? _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 21 21:02:52 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 21:02:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program In-Reply-To: <87B772A2-F685-4F72-A99E-466506C0F611@gmail.com> References: , <87B772A2-F685-4F72-A99E-466506C0F611@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl No Way, are you getting out of this. You will not give up your slot. You will speak immediately after Francis as planned. We need your coverage, of the wars. ________________________________ From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 3:51 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss; Francis A Boyle Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Saturday's program I’m willing to give up my slot in the first session, to make room for Q&A. With other absences, you’d have two speakers, then discussion, as follows: ======= Start about 1:00pm Grant & Nick on behalf of SEE ( Up to 3-4 min.) Karen Aram on behalf of AWARE (Up to 3-4 min.) First hour Prof. Francis Boyle (Illegalities) Rich Whitney (USG support for Dictatorships) Q&A Break with Student Groups taking a min. or two to speak on their organizations. If time left, Harry sings his anti-war songs. Second hour Paula Bradshaw (Libya & Syria) David Green (Israel & Palestine) Q&A 15 min. Break with Harry singing Third hour Mort Brussel (Costs of War) David Johnson (Venezuela other Central American nations, leading to domestic implications) Q&A 5:00 Finish On Sep 21, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Francis/Carl Stuart has suggested we have Q & A before the two breaks, rather than making everyone wait until after all panelists have spoken. I agree it would be preferable, but don't know how to manage it given the time constraints. It might mean, after Francis, Carl, and Rich speak, we have Q&A. Then the break, which means some Q&A might roll over into the break. Again we have David Green, Paula and Vukoni speak and Q&A then break. This would then leave Mort, David Johnson and Father Tom towards the end, with little time for Q&A I don't like doing this, and it will mean strict control over Q&A timing. What do you suggest? _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Fri Sep 22 16:35:30 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:35:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Neo-liberals and necons unite to form the "Committee to Investigate Russia" Message-ID: <00e601d333c0$ce3a6ff0$6aaf4fd0$@comcast.net> Who are the 5 people on Advisory Board behind Morgan Freeman "We are at War with Russia" video? Neo-liberals and necons unite to form the "Committee to Investigate Russia" The "Committee to Investigate Russia" is the crystallization of neo-liberals merging with the neoconservatives united by one common goal.war with Russia. is an important event showcasing how these diametrically opposite ideologies have joined forces under the umbrella of war with Russia. The committee is designed to appeal to the popular masses and consumers of popular media, as evidenced by Morgan Freeman's despicable video. The public has been assured that the committee is a bipartisan effort with real geo-political experts, but "it would help if there were any actual. Russian experts." the advisory board of the committee is made up of these 5 so called "experts" (in their respective order): a neocon blogger - Max Boot - Champion of the Iraq WMD invasiona perjurer James Clapper - Obama's former spy chief and a man who committed perjury on live television. Norman Ornstein - wonk with no Russia background: A resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) who knows nothing about Russia, Rob Reiner - the director of When Harry Met Sally: Also known on "Meathead" on the hit show "All in the Family."frequents HBO's Bill Maher and MSNBC, and has been a lover of Hillary Clinton from day one. bought into the Hillary concocted "Russia election meddling" story from the get go, and uses his Hollywood platform to push for war with Russia. Reiner has no problem with Hillary stealing the primary from Bernie Sanders. Charles Sykes - right-wing talk radio guy:." The hysteria continues, and this time Hollywood has been enlisted. No this is not The Onion, but yet another serious committee for serious people. Meet the "Committee to Investigate Russia" which launched on Tuesday and immediately garnered broad coverage in pop-culture and entertainment news sites for its release of a short Morgan Freeman narrated video which aims to supposedly "tell us the truth" about Russian meddling in the US election. "We have been attacked," Freeman says in his familiarreassuring voice while gazing into the camera. "We are at war." Not only did the video burn up social media on Tuesday, but the founders of the lobbying group behind the production, barely one day old, were given substantial air time on cable news from CNN to MSNBC. Of course, it helps that actor, director, and lifelong Democratic Rob Reiner is behind it Similar to other recently launched 'Russiagate' campaigns and organizations the initiative is enjoying fawning corporate media coverage from the very start. And apparently the historical irony is completely lost on Hollywood, a town which itself fell victim to the original McCarthyite witch hunt and its celebrity 'blacklist'. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Sep 22 20:03:50 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:03:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "No War 2017: War and the Environment" livestream of conference in Germany In-Reply-To: <59c54dadc4fc6_5f7772bd8c3476711a@ip-10-0-0-142.mail> References: <59c54dadc4fc6_5f7772bd8c3476711a@ip-10-0-0-142.mail> Message-ID: <0df72176-42fa-e614-f42b-4adf6391542b@gmail.com> The live stream of this War and the Environment conference should be ongoing now - it started at 7pm Berlin time, which was noon Central Daylight Time. Saturday's and Sunday's sessions (9am - 9pm Berlin time) should be 2am - 2pm Central time on Sat and Sun here. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Live Stream of #NoWar2017 Starts Soon Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:51:42 +0000 (UTC) From: World Beyond War via ActionNetwork.org Reply-To: info at worldbeyondwar.org To: stuartnlevy at gmail.com Action Network Email No War 2017: War and the Environment *September 22-24 Conference in **Washington, D.C.* *We will use Facebook Live to stream this conference. You do not need a Facebook account to watch it. To watch the livestream simply visit facebook.com/worldbeyondwar at the time of the conference. If you miss it you can watch it anytime later at the same page. Numerous groups around the world are organizing events to watch the livestream. You can do the same and let us know to help promote your event.* *Livestream event in Berlin Germany .* *WHO:* Speakers will include: Medea Benjamin, Nadine Bloch, Max Blumenthal, Natalia Cardona, Terry Crawford-Browne, Alice Day, Lincoln Day, Tim DeChristopher, Dale Dewar, Thomas Drake, Pat Elder, Dan Ellsberg, Bruce Gagnon, Will Griffin, Tiffany Jenkins, Tony Jenkins, Kathy Kelly, Jonathan King, Lindsay Koshgarian, James Marc Leas, Annie Machon, Ray McGovern, Rev Lukata Mjumbe, Bill Moyer, Elizabeth Murray, Emanuel Pastreich, Anthony Rogers-Wright, Alice Slater, Gar Smith, Edward Snowden (by video), Susi Snyder, Mike Stagg, Jill Stein, David Swanson, Robin Taubenfeld, Brian Terrell, Brian Trautman, Richard Tucker, Donnal Walter, Ann Wright, Emily Wurth, Kevin Zeese. *Read speakers’ bios. * Music by The Irthlingz Duo: Sharon Abreu and Michael Hurwicz , and by Emma’s Revolution , and by Bryan Cahall . *WHEN: *Friday, Sept 22: 7-10 p.m. Saturday, Sept 23: 9 a.m. – 9 p.m. Sunday, Sept 24: 9 a.m. – 9 p.m. Sponsors include: *EndWarForever.com* *Steve Shafarman* Dr. Art Milholland and Dr. Luann Mostello of Physicians for Social Responsibility Supporters of #NoWar2017 include: Nonviolence International, OnEarthPeace, WarIsACrime.org, DC 350.org, Peace Action Montgomery, and United for Peace and Justice. *AGENDA:* *Sept 22* 7:00-7:55 p.m. Conference Opening Plenary: David Swanson, Jill Stein, Tim DeChristopher. 7:55 p.m. music by Bryan Cahall. 8:10-10 p.m. Begining with Edward Snowden (by video) introduced by Elizabeth Murray, our friends from the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence will present an event with Elizabeth Murray, Annie Machon, Daniel Ellsberg (now by video), Thomas Drake, Ray McGovern, Ann Wright, John Kiriakou. (Note: Chelsea Manning sends regrets that she cannot attend as we had hoped, as does Seymour Hersh.) *Sept 23* 9-10:15 a.m. Understanding the intersection of pro-environment and anti-war activism, with Richard Tucker, Gar Smith, and Dale Dewar. Moderator: Leah Bolger 10:30-11:45 a.m. Preventing domestic environmental damage of militarism, with Mike Stagg, Pat Elder, James Marc Leas. Moderator: Pat Elder 11:45 a.m. – 1 p.m. catered lunch by D.C. Vegan 12:45 p.m. – 1 p.m. welcome back music by The Irthlingz Duo: Sharon Abreu and Michael Hurwicz . 1-2:15 p.m. Combining movements globally, with Robin Taubenfeld, Rev Lukata Mjumbe, Emily Wurth. Moderator: Mary Dean 2:30-3:45 p.m. Financial tradeoffs, budgets, and conversion, with Lindsay Koshgarian, Bruce Gagnon, Emanuel Pastreich, and Natalia Cardona. Moderator: Jean Athey 4:00-4:05 Presentation of World Beyond War’s new online Study Guide with Tony Jenkins. 4:05-5:15 p.m. Divestment from fossil fuels and weapons with Jonathan King, Susi Snyder, Terry Crawford-Browne. Moderator: Tony Jenkins 5:15-6:45 dinner on your own Here is a map showing restaurants and coffee shops on campus (PDF ). There are many more options just up Nebraska Avenue to Wisconsin Avenue and the area of the American University / Tenleytown Metro stop. A shuttlebus makes it easy to get there and back. 6:45-7:30 Music by Emma’s Revolution . 7:30-9:00 Screening of episode 7 of /Untold History of the United States/ , followed by discussion with Ray McGovern, David Swanson, and Dan Ellsberg (now by video). *Sept 24* 9-10:15 a.m. Creative activism for the earth and peace, with Nadine Bloch, Bill Moyer, Brian Trautman. Moderator: Alice Slater 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Breakout workshop strategic planning sessions in Recital Hall, and in Rooms 112, 115, 123, and 128, and possibly outdoors. Workshop 1: /How the Internet Changes Activism/ with Donnal Walter. Creating a culture of environmental responsibility, social justice, and peace requires viewing our individual efforts in continuity with the past and in cooperation with each other, all of us. What has greater potential for bringing the planet together than the World Wide Web? How can we as activists use the Web and social media to foster such collaboration? How do we tell a new story? And how do we use the global vision to motivate local action? The Internet is also known to contribute to division and polarization. How do we as activists resist /this/ tendency? Yes, bring your laptop. Workshop 2: /Creative activism/ with Nadine Bloch and Bill Moyer. Join Bill Moyer, Backbone , and Nadine Bloch, BeautifulTrouble for an exploration of strategic creative cultural resistance and action. This will be an interactive dive into what makes ‘best’ actions and ‘worst’ actions, with a look at core principles, theories, stories and tactics that every activist building for a more equitable and just world would want in their toolbox! Check out BeautifulTrouble.org and BackboneCampaign.org for more info. Workshop 3: /Educational Approaches to Foster Political Engagement for Peace and Planet/, with Tony Jenkins and Tiffany Jenkins. How do we move people from concern to engagement and action? This is a fundamental challenge of both the peace and environmental movements. This interactive workshop – intended for both educators and activists – will introduce practical, formal, and non-formal transformative educational theories, strategies and approaches intended to foster active social and political engagement. Workshop 4: /Don’t Bank on the Bomb: Divestment Campaign from Corporations Involved in the Manufacture and Maintenance of Nuclear Weapons,/ with Jonathan King, Alice Slater, Susi Snyder. These campaigns, which can be carried out by a small group, educate the public to the profits that are one of the driving forces for the continuation of nuclear weapons programs, and offers the possibility of bringing economic pressure in support of nuclear disarmament. The “Don’t Bank on the Bomb” campaign was developed in the Netherlands and operates throughout Europe.There the focus is on requesting investment funds to exclude corporations making nuclear weapons from their portfolios. Since the launch of that Campaign, 122 nations with a mandate from the UN General Assembly voted for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons which bans them and outlaws any prohibited activities related to nuclear weapons, including use, threat to use, development, testing, production, manufacturing, acquiring, possession, stockpiling, transferring, receiving, stationing, installation, and deployment. In the U.S. the nuclear weapons corporations are a much more significant component of the economy.The first successful campaign in the US was requesting the Cambridge City Council to ask its Municipal Pension Fund to divest from such corporations, in particular Lockheed-Martin. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has adapted a supportive resolution. Such campaigns can be directed at Pension Funds, College and University endowments, Church holdings, and related investments. The Future of Life Institute is leading the effort to make it easy for individuals to move their retirement and other personal investments out of funds that includes nuclear weapons manufacture in their portfolio. Workshop 5: /Closing Military Bases/ with Ann Wright, Will Griffin. The U.S. has 800 bases around the planet. These bases are provocations to the rest of the world. With so many bases the Department of Defense should be called the Department of Offense. U.S. military bases don’t just provoke other militaries, but they also displace entire communities, break democratic systems, violate human rights, destroy their environments, and so much more. But in response to these bases, struggles around the world have risen up and are fighting back against US imperialism. These are the struggles we can learn about and support to create an international citizens movement to close all foreign bases. 12-1 p.m. catered lunch by D.C. Vegan 1-2 p.m. Reporting back and discussion in Recital Hall. Moderator: Leah Bolger 2:15-3:30 p.m. Halting the environmental damage of distant U.S. wars, with Kathy Kelly, Brian Terrell, Max Blumenthal. Moderator: Bob Fantina 3:45-5:00 p.m. Building a Joint Peacenvironmentalist / Envirantiwar Movement, with Kevin Zeese, Anthony Rogers-Wright, Medea Benjamin. Moderator: Donnal Walter 5:00-6:30 p.m. dinner on your own Here is a map showing restaurants and coffee shops on campus (PDF ). There are many more options just up Nebraska Avenue to Wisconsin Avenue and the area of the American University / Tenleytown Metro stop. A shuttlebus makes it easy to get there and back. 6:30-7:15 Music by The Irthlingz Duo: Sharon Abreu and Michael Hurwicz . 7:15-9:00 p.m. Film screening and discussion: /Scarred Lands and Wounded Lives: The Environmental Footprint of War/ , with Alice Day and Lincoln Day. ** Action Network Sent via Action Network, a free online toolset anyone can use to organize. Click here to sign up and get started building an email list and creating online actions today. Action Network is an open platform that empowers individuals and groups to organize for progressive causes. We encourage responsible activism, and do not support using the platform to take unlawful or other improper action. We do not control or endorse the conduct of users and make no representations of any kind about them. You can unsubscribe or update your email address by changing your subscription preferences here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sat Sep 23 13:20:34 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:20:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003701d3346e$bd14f2f0$373ed8d0$@comcast.net> Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years https://www.globalresearch.ca/happy-birthday-cia-seven-truly-terrible-things-the-agency-has-done-in-70-years/5610040 By Carey Wedler Global Research, September 22, 2017 Activist Post 19 September 2017 Description: Image removed by sender. On Monday, President Trump tweeted birthday wishes to the Air Force and the CIA. Both became official organizations 70 years ago on September 18, 1947, with the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947. After spending years as a wartime intelligence agency called the Office of Strategic Services, the agency was solidified as a key player in the federal government’s operations with then-President Harry Truman’s authorization. In the seventy years since, the CIA has committed a wide variety of misdeeds, crimes, coups, and violence. Here are seven of the worst programs they’ve carried out (that are known to the public): 1 – Toppling governments around the world — The CIA is best known for its first coup, Operation Ajax, in 1953, in which it ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, reinstating the autocratic Shah, who favored western oil interests. That operation, which the CIA now admits to waging with British intelligence, ultimately resulted in the 1979 revolution and subsequent U.S. hostage crisis. Relations between the U.S. and Iran remain strained to this day, aptly described by the CIA-coined term “ blowback.” But the CIA has had a hand in toppling a number of other democratically elected governments, from Guatemala (1954) and the Congo (1960) to the Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). The CIA has aimed to install leaders who appease American interests, often empowering oppressive, violent dictators. This is only a partial list of countries where the CIA covertly attempted to exploit and manipulate sovereign nations’ governments. 2 – Operation Paperclip — In one of the more bizarre CIA plots, the agency and other government departments employed Nazi scientists both within and outside the United States to gain an advantage over the Soviets. As summarized by NPR: The aim [of Operation Paperclip] was to find and preserve German weapons, including biological and chemical agents, but American scientific intelligence officers quickly realized the weapons themselves were not enough. Description: Image removed by sender. Wernher von Braun 1960.jpg Wernher von Braun (Source: Wikimedia Commons) They decided the United States needed to bring the Nazi scientists themselves to the U.S. Thus began a mission to recruit top Nazi doctors, physicists and chemists — including Wernher von Braun, who went on to design the rockets that took man to the moon. They kept this plot secret, though they admitted to it upon the release of Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists To America by Annie Jacobsen. In a book review, the CIA wrote that “Henry Wallace, former vice president and secretary of commerce, believed the scientists’ ideas could launch new civilian industries and produce jobs.” They praised the book’s historical accuracy, noting “that the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.” They acknowledged that “General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany.” Remarkably, they noted that Jacobsen “understandably questions the morality of the decision to hire Nazi SS scientists,” but praise her for pointing out that it was done to fight Soviets. They also made sure to add that the Soviets hired Nazis, too, apparently justifying their own questionable actions by citing their most loathed enemy. 3 – Operation CHAOS — The FBI is widely known for its COINTELPRO schemes to undermine communist movements in the 1950s and anti-war, civil rights, and black power movements in the 1960s, but the CIA has not been implicated nearly as deeply because, technically, the CIA cannot legally engage in domestic spying. But that was of little concern to President Lyndon B. Johnson as opposition to the Vietnam war grew. According to former New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner, as documented in his extensive CIA history, Legacy of Ashes, Johnson instructed then-CIA Director Richard Helms to break the law: Description: Image removed by sender. Richard M Helms.jpg Richard Helms (Source: Wikimedia Commons) In October 1967, a handful of CIA analysts joined in the first big Washington march against the war. The president regarded protesters as enemies of the state. He was convinced that the peace movement was controlled and financed by Moscow and Beijing. He wanted proof. He ordered Richard Helms to produce it. Helms reminded the president that the CIA was barred from spying on Americans. He says Johnson told him: ‘I’m quite aware of that. What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this intolerable interference in our domestic affairs…’ Helms obeyed. Weiner wrote: In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of central intelligence became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic surveillance operation, code-named Chaos. It went on for almost seven years… Eleven CIA officers grew long hair, learned the jargon of the New Left, and went off to infiltrate peace groups in the United States and Europe. According to Weiner, “the agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations, and extensive files on 7,200 citizens. It began working in secret with police departments all over America.” Because they could not draw a “clear distinction” between the new far left and mainstream opposition to the war, the CIA spied on every major peace organization in the country. President Johnson also wanted them to prove a connection between foreign communists and the black power movement. “The agency tried its best,” Weiner noted, ultimately noting that “the CIA never found a shred of evidence that linked the leaders of the American left or the black-power movement to foreign governments.” 4 – Infiltrating the media — Over the years, the CIA has successfully gained influence in the news media, as well as popular media like film and television. Its influence over the news began almost immediately after the agency was formed. As Weiner explained, CIA Director Allen Dulles established firm ties with newspapers: Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo. He continued: It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information…The men who responded to the CIA’s call included Henry Luce and his editors at Time, Life, and Fortune; popular magazines such as Parade, the Saturday Review, and Reader’s Digest; and the most powerful executives at CBS News. Dulles built a public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most powerful press baron. The CIA’s influence had not waned by 1977 when journalist Carl Bernstein reported on publications with CIA agents in their employ, as well as “more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” The CIA has also successfully advised on and influenced numerous television shows, such as Homeland and 24 and films like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo, which push narratives that ultimately favor the agency. According to Tricia Jenkins, author of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film & Television, a concerted agency effort began in the 1990s to counteract negative public perceptions of the CIA, but their influence reaches back decades. In the 1950s, filmmakers produced films for the CIA, including the 1954 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Researchers Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, whose work has been published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, say their recent Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the CIA — along with the military — have influenced over 1,800 films and television shows, many of which have nothing to do with CIA or military themes. 5 – Drug-induced Mind control – In the 1950s, the CIA began experimenting with drugs to determine whether they might be useful in extracting information. As Smithsonian Magazine has noted of the MKUltra project: The project, which continued for more than a decade, was originally intended to make sure the United States government kept up with presumed Soviet advances in mind-control technology. It ballooned in scope and its ultimate result, among other things, was illegal drug testing on thousands of Americans. Further: The intent of the project was to study ‘the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior,’ according to the official testimony of CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1977. The project was conducted in extreme secrecy, Turner said, because of ethical and legal questions surrounding the program and the negative public response that the CIA anticipated if MKUltra should become public. Under MKUltra, the CIA gave itself the authority to research how drugs could:’ ‘promote the intoxicating effects of alcohol;’ ‘render the induction of hypnosis easier;’ ‘enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion;’ produce amnesia, shock and confusion; and much more. Many of these questions were investigated using unwitting test subjects, like drug-addicted prisoners, marginalized sex workers and terminal cancer patients– ‘people who could not fight back,’ in the words of Sidney Gottlieb, the chemist who introduced LSD to the CIA. Further, as Weiner noted: Under its auspices, seven prisoners at a federal penitentiary in Kentucky were kept high on LSD for seventy-seven consecutive days. When the CIA slipped the same drug to an army civilian employee, Frank Olson, he leaped out of the window of a New York Hotel. Weiner added that senior CIA officers destroyed “almost all of the records” of the programs, but that while the “evidence that remains is fragmentary…it strongly suggests that use of secret prisons for the forcible drug-induced questioning of suspect agents went on throughout the 1950s.” Description: Image removed by sender. File:ProjectMKULTRA Senate Report.pdf Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research into Behavioral Modification. Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United State Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session (Source: Wikimedia Commons) Years later, the CIA would be accused of distributing crack-cocaine into poor black communities, though this is currently less substantiated and supported mostly by accounts of those who claim to have been involved. 6 – Brutal torture tactics — More recently, the CIA was exposed for sponsoring abusive, disturbing terror tactics against detainees at prisons housing terror suspects. An extensive 2014 Senate report documented agents committing sexual abuse, forcing detainees to stand on broken legs, waterboarding them so severely it sometimes led to convulsions, and imposing forced rectal feeding, to name a few examples. Ultimately, the agency had very little actionable intelligence to show for their torture tactics but lied to suggest they did, according to the torture report. Their torture tactics led the International Criminal Court to suggest the CIA, along with the U.S. armed forces, could be guilty of war crimes for their abuses. 7 – Arming radicals — The CIA has a long habit of arming radical, extremist groups that view the United States as enemies. In 1979, the CIA set out to support Afghan rebels in their bid to defeat the Soviet occupation of the Middle Eastern country. As Weiner wrote, in 1979, “Prompted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter signed a covert-action order for the CIA to provide the Afghan rebels with medical aid, money, and propaganda.” As Weiner detailed later in his book: The Pakistani intelligence chiefs who doled out the CIA’s guns and money favored the Afghan factions who proved themselves most capable in battle. Those factions also happened to be the most committed Islamists. No one dreamed that the holy warriors could ever turn their jihad against the United States. Though some speculate the CIA directly armed Osama bin Laden, that is yet to be fully proven or admitted. What is clear is that western media revered him as a valuable fighter against the Soviets, that he arrived to fight in Afghanistan in1980, and that al-Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen, who were beneficiaries of the CIA’s program. Stanford University has noted that Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a prominent Palestinian cleric, “established Al Qaeda from the fighters, financial resources, and training and recruiting structures left over from the anti-Soviet war.” Much of those “structures” were provided by the agency. Intentionally or not, the CIA helped fuel the rise of the terror group. Weiner noted that as the CIA failed in other countries like Libya, by the late 1980s “Only the mujahideen, the Afghan holy warriors, were drawing blood and scenting victory. The CIA’s Afghan operation was now a $700-million-dollar-a-year-program” and represented 80% of the overseas budget of the clandestine services. “The CIA’s briefing books never answered the question of what would happen when a militant Islamic army defeated the godless invaders of Afghanistan,” though Tom Twetten, “the number two man in the clandestine service in the summer of 1988,” was tasked with figuring out what would happen with the Afghan rebels. “We don’t have any plan,” he concluded. Apparently failing to learn their lesson, the CIA adopted nearly the exact same policy in Syria decades later, arming what they called “moderate rebels” against the Assad regime. Those groups ultimately aligned with al-Qaeda groups. One CIA-backed faction made headlines last year for beheading a child (though President Trump cut off the CIA program in June, the military continues to align with “moderate” groups). Unsurprisingly, this list is far from complete. The CIA has engaged in a wide variety of extrajudicial practice, and there are likely countless transgressions we have yet to learn about. As Donald Trump cheers the birthday of an agency he himself once criticized, it should be abundantly clear that the nation’s covert spy agency deserves scrutiny and skepticism — not celebration. Featured image is from the author. The original source of this article is Activist Post -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1067 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1151 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2945 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 15:04:19 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 10:04:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] *Anti-War Teach-In* /Sponsored by/* * *Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE)* *Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE)* Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so *Opening remarks* Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE *1:10 p.m.* Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party* Q & A* *2:10 p.m.* Brief statements by student groups *2:25 p.m.* Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate* Q & A* *3:25 p.m.* Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine *3:40 p.m.* Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU)* * *Final Q & A * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Sep 23 15:09:44 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:09:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss ; Peace Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Sep 23 15:09:44 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:09:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss ; Peace Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 18:14:37 2017 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > *My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are > carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Stuart > Levy via Peace > *Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM > *To:* Peace Discuss ; Peace < > peace at anti-war.net> > *Subject:* [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with > schedule of speakers > > > > The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm > or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. > > > Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go > through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] > > > *Anti-War Teach-In* > > *Sponsored by* > > *Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE)* > > *Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE)* > > Channing-Murray Chapel > > 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana > Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so > > *Opening remarks* > > Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE > Karen Aram, AWARE > > > > *1:10 p.m.* > > Illegalities of U.S. Wars > Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law > > > > History of U.S. War > Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired > > U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships > Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party > > * Q & A* > > > > *2:10 p.m.* > > Brief statements by student groups > > *2:25 p.m.* > > Libya and Syria > Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party > > Israel and Palestine > David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace > > Africa > Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate > > * Q & A* > > > > *3:25 p.m.* > > Musical entertainment > Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine > > > > *3:40 p.m.* > > Costs of War > Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus > > El Salvador > Father Tom Royer > > Venezuela and Central America > David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) > > *Final Q & A * > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Sat Sep 23 18:14:37 2017 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 13:14:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > *My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are > carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab.* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 <(217)%20333-7954> (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 <(217)%20244-1478> (fax)* > > *(personal comments only*) > > > > *From:* Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of *Stuart > Levy via Peace > *Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM > *To:* Peace Discuss ; Peace < > peace at anti-war.net> > *Subject:* [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with > schedule of speakers > > > > The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm > or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. > > > Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go > through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] > > > *Anti-War Teach-In* > > *Sponsored by* > > *Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE)* > > *Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE)* > > Channing-Murray Chapel > > 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana > Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so > > *Opening remarks* > > Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE > Karen Aram, AWARE > > > > *1:10 p.m.* > > Illegalities of U.S. Wars > Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law > > > > History of U.S. War > Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired > > U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships > Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party > > * Q & A* > > > > *2:10 p.m.* > > Brief statements by student groups > > *2:25 p.m.* > > Libya and Syria > Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party > > Israel and Palestine > David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace > > Africa > Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate > > * Q & A* > > > > *3:25 p.m.* > > Musical entertainment > Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine > > > > *3:40 p.m.* > > Costs of War > Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus > > El Salvador > Father Tom Royer > > Venezuela and Central America > David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) > > *Final Q & A * > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Sep 23 18:41:31 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 18:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Light at the End of the Tunnel Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:39 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Light at the End of the Tunnel Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Light at the End of the Tunnel By Professor Francis A. Boyle Peace Teach-In University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign September 23, 2017 © Copyright 2017 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this paper the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. After September 11, 2001 the people of the world witnessed successive governments in the United States that have demonstrated little respect for fundamental considerations of international law, human rights, and the United States Constitution. Instead, the world has watched a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international and domestic legal orders by gangs of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign affairs and American domestic policy. Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the U.S. government’s foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and United States domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950), as well as the Pentagon’s own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Depending on the substantive issues involved, these international and domestic crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offences of “crimes against peace”—e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerns crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare: torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, “shock and awe,” depleted uranium, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, drone strikes, etc. Furthermore, various officials of the United States government have committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are international crimes in their own right: planning, and preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the terrible irony of today’s situation is that seven decades ago at Nuremberg the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment, and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that these officials of the United States government currently inflict upon Peoples of Color all over the world. To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any human being for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes, whether they be Saddam Hussein, Bush Junior, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. According to basic principles of international criminal law set forth in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control (such as the C.I.A. or mercenary contractors), committed or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or should have known of the commission of these international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about them include at the very top of America’s criminal chain-of-command the President, the Vice-President, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A. Director, National Security Advisor and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff along with the appropriate Regional Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and now U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates are responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as by U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 of 1956. Today in international legal terms, the United States government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to “defense” and “counter-terrorism.” They are the terrorists! They terrorize the entire world! For that very reason, large numbers of American citizens have decided to act on their own cognizance by means of civil resistance in order to demand that U.S. government officials adhere to basic principles of international law, of U.S. domestic law, and of the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of foreign affairs and military operations. Mistakenly, however, such actions have been defined to constitute classic instances of "civil disobedience" as historically practiced in the United States. And the conventional status quo admonition by the U.S. power elite and its sycophantic news media for those who knowingly engage in “civil disobedience” has always been that they must meekly accept their punishment for having performed a prima facie breach of the positive laws as a demonstration of their good faith and moral commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth! Today’s civil resisters are the sheriffs! The U.S. government officials are the outlaws! Here I would like to suggest a different way of thinking about civil resistance activities that are specifically designed to thwart, prevent, or impede ongoing criminal activity by officials of the U.S. government under well‑recognized principles of international and U.S. domestic law. Such civil resistance activities represent the last constitutional avenue open to the American people to preserve their democratic form of government with its historical commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Civil resistance is the last hope Americans have to prevent the U.S. government from moving even farther down the paths of lawless violence in Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, military interventionism into Latin America, and nuclear confrontation with Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and China. Such measures of "civil resistance" must not be confused with, and indeed must be carefully distinguished from, acts of "civil disobedience" as traditionally defined. In today’s civil resistance cases, what we witness are American citizens attempting to prevent the ongoing commission of international and domestic crimes under well-recognized principles of international law and U.S. domestic law. This is a phenomenon essentially different from the classic civil disobedience cases of the 1950s and 1960s where incredibly courageous African Americans and their supporters were conscientiously violating domestic laws for the express purpose of changing them. By contrast, today’s civil resisters are acting for the express purpose of upholding the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, human rights, and international law. Applying the term “civil disobedience” to such civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus perversely exonerates the U.S. government criminals. Civil resistors disobeyed nothing, but to the contrary obeyed international law and the United States Constitution. By contrast, U.S. government officials grossly violated fundamental principles of international law as well as U.S. criminal law and thus committed international crimes and U.S. domestic crimes as well as impeachable violations of the United States Constitution. The civil resistors are the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the U.S. government! Today the American people must reaffirm their commitment to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles by holding their government officials fully accountable under international law and U.S. domestic law for the commission of such grievous international and domestic crimes. They must not permit any aspect of their foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged “war criminals” according to the U.S. government’s own official definition of that term as set forth in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations, inter alia. The American people must insist upon the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment, conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes. If not so restrained by civil resistance, the U.S. government could very well precipitate a Third World War. That is precisely what American civil resisters are doing today! The future of American foreign policy and the peace of the world lie in the hands of American citizens—not the bureaucrats, legislators, judges, lobbyists, think-tankers, professors, and self-styled experts who inhibit Washington, D.C., New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Hyde Park/Chicago, Illinois. Civil resistance is the way to go! This is our Nuremberg Moment now! Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Sep 23 18:41:31 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 18:41:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Light at the End of the Tunnel Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:39 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Light at the End of the Tunnel Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Light at the End of the Tunnel By Professor Francis A. Boyle Peace Teach-In University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign September 23, 2017 © Copyright 2017 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the line of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy… Historically this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-American War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the so-called “Pacific” Ocean would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War. Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched, waged, and menaced by the neoconservative Republican Bush Junior administration then the neoliberal Democratic Obama administration and now the reactionary Trump administration threaten to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Junior administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim States and Peoples of Color living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled humanitarian intervention and its avatar “responsibility to protect” (R2P). Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundaments and energizers of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Junior/ Obama administrations targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America (e.g., the Pentagon’s reactivization of the U.S. Fourth Fleet in 2008), and Southeast Asia for further conquest and domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation (e.g., Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Djibouti). Today the U.S. Fourth Fleet threatens oil-rich Venezuela and Ecuador for sure along with Cuba. Toward accomplishing that first objective, in 2007 the neoconservative Bush Junior administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, steal, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. In 2011 Libya and the Libyans proved to be the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the neoliberal Obama administration, thus demonstrating the truly bi-partisan and non-partisan nature of U.S. imperial foreign policy decision-making. Let us put aside as beyond the scope of this paper the American conquest, extermination, and ethnic cleansing of the Indians from off the face of the continent of North America. Since America’s instigation of the Spanish-American War in 1898, U.S. foreign policy decision-making has been alternatively conducted by reactionary imperialists, conservative imperialists, and liberal imperialists for the past 119 years and counting. Trump is just another White Racist Iron Fist for Judeo-Christian U.S. Imperialism and Capitalism smashing all over the world. Trump forthrightly and proudly admitted that the United States is in the Middle East in order to steal their oil. At least he was honest about it. Unlike his predecessors who lied about the matter going back to President George Bush Sr. with his War for Persian Gulf oil against Iraq in 1991. Just recently, President Trump publicly threatened illegal U.S. military intervention against oil-rich Venezuela. Q.E.D. This world-girdling burst of U.S. imperialism at the start of humankind’s new millennium is what my teacher, mentor, and friend the late, great Professor Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal book Politics Among Nations 52-53 (4th ed. 1968): The outstanding historic examples of unlimited imperialism are the expansionist policies of Alexander the Great, Rome, the Arabs in the seventh and eighth centuries, Napoleon I, and Hitler. They all have in common an urge toward expansion which knows no rational limits, feeds on its own successes and, if not stopped by a superior force, will go on to the confines of the political world. This urge will not be satisfied so long as there remains anywhere a possible object of domination–a politically organized group of men which by its very independence challenges the conqueror’s lust for power. It is, as we shall see, exactly the lack of moderation, the aspiration to conquer all that lends itself to conquest, characteristic of unlimited imperialism, which in the past has been the undoing of the imperialistic policies of this kind…. Since September 11, 2001, it is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon, and Hitler who have been in charge of conducting American foreign policy decision-making. The factual circumstances surrounding the outbreaks of both the First World War and the Second World War currently hover like twin Swords of Damocles over the heads of all humanity. After September 11, 2001 the people of the world witnessed successive governments in the United States that have demonstrated little respect for fundamental considerations of international law, human rights, and the United States Constitution. Instead, the world has watched a comprehensive and malicious assault upon the integrity of the international and domestic legal orders by gangs of men and women who are thoroughly Machiavellian in their perception of international relations and in their conduct of both foreign affairs and American domestic policy. Even more seriously, in many instances specific components of the U.S. government’s foreign policies constitute ongoing criminal activity under well-recognized principles of both international law and United States domestic law, and in particular the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950), as well as the Pentagon’s own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution. Depending on the substantive issues involved, these international and domestic crimes typically include but are not limited to the Nuremberg offences of “crimes against peace”—e.g., Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Syria, and their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran. Their criminal responsibility also concerns crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the 1907 Hague Regulations on land warfare: torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, “shock and awe,” depleted uranium, white phosphorous, cluster bombs, drone strikes, etc. Furthermore, various officials of the United States government have committed numerous inchoate crimes incidental to these substantive offences that under the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) are international crimes in their own right: planning, and preparation, solicitation, incitement, conspiracy, complicity, attempt, aiding and abetting, etc. Of course the terrible irony of today’s situation is that seven decades ago at Nuremberg the U.S. government participated in the prosecution, punishment, and execution of Nazi government officials for committing some of the same types of heinous international crimes that these officials of the United States government currently inflict upon Peoples of Color all over the world. To be sure, I personally oppose the imposition of capital punishment upon any human being for any reason no matter how monstrous their crimes, whether they be Saddam Hussein, Bush Junior, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. According to basic principles of international criminal law set forth in paragraph 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, all high level civilian officials and military officers in the U.S. government who either knew or should have known that soldiers or civilians under their control (such as the C.I.A. or mercenary contractors), committed or were about to commit international crimes and failed to take the measures necessary to stop them, or to punish them, or both, are likewise personally responsible for the commission of international crimes. This category of officialdom who actually knew or should have known of the commission of these international crimes under their jurisdiction and failed to do anything about them include at the very top of America’s criminal chain-of-command the President, the Vice-President, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence, the C.I.A. Director, National Security Advisor and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff along with the appropriate Regional Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and now U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM). These U.S. government officials and their immediate subordinates are responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes as specified by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles as well as by U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 of 1956. Today in international legal terms, the United States government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international criminal law in violation of the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, because of its formulation and undertaking of serial wars of aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes that are legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany. As a consequence, American citizens possess the basic right under international law and the United States domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution, to engage in acts of civil resistance designed to prevent, impede, thwart, or terminate ongoing criminal activities perpetrated by U.S. government officials in their conduct of foreign affairs policies and military operations purported to relate to “defense” and “counter-terrorism.” They are the terrorists! They terrorize the entire world! For that very reason, large numbers of American citizens have decided to act on their own cognizance by means of civil resistance in order to demand that U.S. government officials adhere to basic principles of international law, of U.S. domestic law, and of the U.S. Constitution in their conduct of foreign affairs and military operations. Mistakenly, however, such actions have been defined to constitute classic instances of "civil disobedience" as historically practiced in the United States. And the conventional status quo admonition by the U.S. power elite and its sycophantic news media for those who knowingly engage in “civil disobedience” has always been that they must meekly accept their punishment for having performed a prima facie breach of the positive laws as a demonstration of their good faith and moral commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth! Today’s civil resisters are the sheriffs! The U.S. government officials are the outlaws! Here I would like to suggest a different way of thinking about civil resistance activities that are specifically designed to thwart, prevent, or impede ongoing criminal activity by officials of the U.S. government under well‑recognized principles of international and U.S. domestic law. Such civil resistance activities represent the last constitutional avenue open to the American people to preserve their democratic form of government with its historical commitment to the rule of law and human rights. Civil resistance is the last hope Americans have to prevent the U.S. government from moving even farther down the paths of lawless violence in Africa, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, military interventionism into Latin America, and nuclear confrontation with Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and China. Such measures of "civil resistance" must not be confused with, and indeed must be carefully distinguished from, acts of "civil disobedience" as traditionally defined. In today’s civil resistance cases, what we witness are American citizens attempting to prevent the ongoing commission of international and domestic crimes under well-recognized principles of international law and U.S. domestic law. This is a phenomenon essentially different from the classic civil disobedience cases of the 1950s and 1960s where incredibly courageous African Americans and their supporters were conscientiously violating domestic laws for the express purpose of changing them. By contrast, today’s civil resisters are acting for the express purpose of upholding the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, human rights, and international law. Applying the term “civil disobedience” to such civil resistors mistakenly presumes their guilt and thus perversely exonerates the U.S. government criminals. Civil resistors disobeyed nothing, but to the contrary obeyed international law and the United States Constitution. By contrast, U.S. government officials grossly violated fundamental principles of international law as well as U.S. criminal law and thus committed international crimes and U.S. domestic crimes as well as impeachable violations of the United States Constitution. The civil resistors are the sheriffs enforcing international law, U.S. criminal law and the U.S. Constitution against the criminals working for the U.S. government! Today the American people must reaffirm their commitment to the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles by holding their government officials fully accountable under international law and U.S. domestic law for the commission of such grievous international and domestic crimes. They must not permit any aspect of their foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged “war criminals” according to the U.S. government’s own official definition of that term as set forth in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Geneva Conventions, and the Hague Regulations, inter alia. The American people must insist upon the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment, conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes. If not so restrained by civil resistance, the U.S. government could very well precipitate a Third World War. That is precisely what American civil resisters are doing today! The future of American foreign policy and the peace of the world lie in the hands of American citizens—not the bureaucrats, legislators, judges, lobbyists, think-tankers, professors, and self-styled experts who inhibit Washington, D.C., New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Hyde Park/Chicago, Illinois. Civil resistance is the way to go! This is our Nuremberg Moment now! Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Sep 24 01:08:11 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 20:08:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years In-Reply-To: References: , <003701d3346e$bd14f2f0$373ed8d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <005101d334d1$97e40a30$c7ac1e90$@comcast.net> An excellent complimentary book to Tim Weiner’s “ Legacy of Ashes “ is “ The Devils Chessboard “, which goes into specifics about Allen Dulles and the successes of the CIA in terms of destabilizing lesser devolved countries as well as domestic interference / manipulation etc., here in the U.S. from the end of World War 2 into the early 1970’s. We should NEVER over estimate our enemy nor under estinate. David J. From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:38 AM To: David Johnson Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years Good article, and why many of us, anti-war activists from the past, are often skeptical of individuals who promote violence or counterproductive actions to end war. Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" is an excellent, well documented history of the CIA, to be recommended to all. _____ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of David Johnson via Peace-discuss Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:20:34 AM To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years https://www.globalresearch.ca/happy-birthday-cia-seven-truly-terrible-things-the-agency-has-done-in-70-years/5610040 By Carey Wedler Global Research, September 22, 2017 Activist Post 19 September 2017 Description: Image removed by sender. On Monday, President Trump tweeted birthday wishes to the Air Force and the CIA. Both became official organizations 70 years ago on September 18, 1947, with the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947. After spending years as a wartime intelligence agency called the Office of Strategic Services, the agency was solidified as a key player in the federal government’s operations with then-President Harry Truman’s authorization. In the seventy years since, the CIA has committed a wide variety of misdeeds, crimes, coups, and violence. Here are seven of the worst programs they’ve carried out (that are known to the public): 1 – Toppling governments around the world — The CIA is best known for its first coup, Operation Ajax, in 1953, in which it ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, reinstating the autocratic Shah, who favored western oil interests. That operation, which the CIA now admits to waging with British intelligence, ultimately resulted in the 1979 revolution and subsequent U.S. hostage crisis. Relations between the U.S. and Iran remain strained to this day, aptly described by the CIA-coined term “ blowback.” But the CIA has had a hand in toppling a number of other democratically elected governments, from Guatemala (1954) and the Congo (1960) to the Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). The CIA has aimed to install leaders who appease American interests, often empowering oppressive, violent dictators. This is only a partial list of countries where the CIA covertly attempted to exploit and manipulate sovereign nations’ governments. 2 – Operation Paperclip — In one of the more bizarre CIA plots, the agency and other government departments employed Nazi scientists both within and outside the United States to gain an advantage over the Soviets. As summarized by NPR: The aim [of Operation Paperclip] was to find and preserve German weapons, including biological and chemical agents, but American scientific intelligence officers quickly realized the weapons themselves were not enough. Description: Image removed by sender. Wernher von Braun 1960.jpg Wernher von Braun (Source: Wikimedia Commons) They decided the United States needed to bring the Nazi scientists themselves to the U.S. Thus began a mission to recruit top Nazi doctors, physicists and chemists — including Wernher von Braun, who went on to design the rockets that took man to the moon. They kept this plot secret, though they admitted to it upon the release of Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists To America by Annie Jacobsen. In a book review, the CIA wrote that “Henry Wallace, former vice president and secretary of commerce, believed the scientists’ ideas could launch new civilian industries and produce jobs.” They praised the book’s historical accuracy, noting “that the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.” They acknowledged that “General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany.” Remarkably, they noted that Jacobsen “understandably questions the morality of the decision to hire Nazi SS scientists,” but praise her for pointing out that it was done to fight Soviets. They also made sure to add that the Soviets hired Nazis, too, apparently justifying their own questionable actions by citing their most loathed enemy. 3 – Operation CHAOS — The FBI is widely known for its COINTELPRO schemes to undermine communist movements in the 1950s and anti-war, civil rights, and black power movements in the 1960s, but the CIA has not been implicated nearly as deeply because, technically, the CIA cannot legally engage in domestic spying. But that was of little concern to President Lyndon B. Johnson as opposition to the Vietnam war grew. According to former New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner, as documented in his extensive CIA history, Legacy of Ashes, Johnson instructed then-CIA Director Richard Helms to break the law: Description: Image removed by sender. Richard M Helms.jpg Richard Helms (Source: Wikimedia Commons) In October 1967, a handful of CIA analysts joined in the first big Washington march against the war. The president regarded protesters as enemies of the state. He was convinced that the peace movement was controlled and financed by Moscow and Beijing. He wanted proof. He ordered Richard Helms to produce it. Helms reminded the president that the CIA was barred from spying on Americans. He says Johnson told him: ‘I’m quite aware of that. What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this intolerable interference in our domestic affairs…’ Helms obeyed. Weiner wrote: In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of central intelligence became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic surveillance operation, code-named Chaos. It went on for almost seven years… Eleven CIA officers grew long hair, learned the jargon of the New Left, and went off to infiltrate peace groups in the United States and Europe. According to Weiner, “the agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations, and extensive files on 7,200 citizens. It began working in secret with police departments all over America.” Because they could not draw a “clear distinction” between the new far left and mainstream opposition to the war, the CIA spied on every major peace organization in the country. President Johnson also wanted them to prove a connection between foreign communists and the black power movement. “The agency tried its best,” Weiner noted, ultimately noting that “the CIA never found a shred of evidence that linked the leaders of the American left or the black-power movement to foreign governments.” 4 – Infiltrating the media — Over the years, the CIA has successfully gained influence in the news media, as well as popular media like film and television. Its influence over the news began almost immediately after the agency was formed. As Weiner explained, CIA Director Allen Dulles established firm ties with newspapers: Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo. He continued: It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information…The men who responded to the CIA’s call included Henry Luce and his editors at Time, Life, and Fortune; popular magazines such as Parade, the Saturday Review, and Reader’s Digest; and the most powerful executives at CBS News. Dulles built a public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most powerful press baron. The CIA’s influence had not waned by 1977 when journalist Carl Bernstein reported on publications with CIA agents in their employ, as well as “more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” The CIA has also successfully advised on and influenced numerous television shows, such as Homeland and 24 and films like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo, which push narratives that ultimately favor the agency. According to Tricia Jenkins, author of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film & Television, a concerted agency effort began in the 1990s to counteract negative public perceptions of the CIA, but their influence reaches back decades. In the 1950s, filmmakers produced films for the CIA, including the 1954 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Researchers Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, whose work has been published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, say their recent Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the CIA — along with the military — have influenced over 1,800 films and television shows, many of which have nothing to do with CIA or military themes. 5 – Drug-induced Mind control – In the 1950s, the CIA began experimenting with drugs to determine whether they might be useful in extracting information. As Smithsonian Magazine has noted of the MKUltra project: The project, which continued for more than a decade, was originally intended to make sure the United States government kept up with presumed Soviet advances in mind-control technology. It ballooned in scope and its ultimate result, among other things, was illegal drug testing on thousands of Americans. Further: The intent of the project was to study ‘the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior,’ according to the official testimony of CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1977. The project was conducted in extreme secrecy, Turner said, because of ethical and legal questions surrounding the program and the negative public response that the CIA anticipated if MKUltra should become public. Under MKUltra, the CIA gave itself the authority to research how drugs could:’ ‘promote the intoxicating effects of alcohol;’ ‘render the induction of hypnosis easier;’ ‘enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion;’ produce amnesia, shock and confusion; and much more. Many of these questions were investigated using unwitting test subjects, like drug-addicted prisoners, marginalized sex workers and terminal cancer patients– ‘people who could not fight back,’ in the words of Sidney Gottlieb, the chemist who introduced LSD to the CIA. Further, as Weiner noted: Under its auspices, seven prisoners at a federal penitentiary in Kentucky were kept high on LSD for seventy-seven consecutive days. When the CIA slipped the same drug to an army civilian employee, Frank Olson, he leaped out of the window of a New York Hotel. Weiner added that senior CIA officers destroyed “almost all of the records” of the programs, but that while the “evidence that remains is fragmentary…it strongly suggests that use of secret prisons for the forcible drug-induced questioning of suspect agents went on throughout the 1950s.” Description: Image removed by sender. File:ProjectMKULTRA Senate Report.pdf Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research into Behavioral Modification. Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United State Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session (Source: Wikimedia Commons) Years later, the CIA would be accused of distributing crack-cocaine into poor black communities, though this is currently less substantiated and supported mostly by accounts of those who claim to have been involved. 6 – Brutal torture tactics — More recently, the CIA was exposed for sponsoring abusive, disturbing terror tactics against detainees at prisons housing terror suspects. An extensive 2014 Senate report documented agents committing sexual abuse, forcing detainees to stand on broken legs, waterboarding them so severely it sometimes led to convulsions, and imposing forced rectal feeding, to name a few examples. Ultimately, the agency had very little actionable intelligence to show for their torture tactics but lied to suggest they did, according to the torture report. Their torture tactics led the International Criminal Court to suggest the CIA, along with the U.S. armed forces, could be guilty of war crimes for their abuses. 7 – Arming radicals — The CIA has a long habit of arming radical, extremist groups that view the United States as enemies. In 1979, the CIA set out to support Afghan rebels in their bid to defeat the Soviet occupation of the Middle Eastern country. As Weiner wrote, in 1979, “Prompted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter signed a covert-action order for the CIA to provide the Afghan rebels with medical aid, money, and propaganda.” As Weiner detailed later in his book: The Pakistani intelligence chiefs who doled out the CIA’s guns and money favored the Afghan factions who proved themselves most capable in battle. Those factions also happened to be the most committed Islamists. No one dreamed that the holy warriors could ever turn their jihad against the United States. Though some speculate the CIA directly armed Osama bin Laden, that is yet to be fully proven or admitted. What is clear is that western media revered him as a valuable fighter against the Soviets, that he arrived to fight in Afghanistan in1980, and that al-Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen, who were beneficiaries of the CIA’s program. Stanford University has noted that Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a prominent Palestinian cleric, “established Al Qaeda from the fighters, financial resources, and training and recruiting structures left over from the anti-Soviet war.” Much of those “structures” were provided by the agency. Intentionally or not, the CIA helped fuel the rise of the terror group. Weiner noted that as the CIA failed in other countries like Libya, by the late 1980s “Only the mujahideen, the Afghan holy warriors, were drawing blood and scenting victory. The CIA’s Afghan operation was now a $700-million-dollar-a-year-program” and represented 80% of the overseas budget of the clandestine services. “The CIA’s briefing books never answered the question of what would happen when a militant Islamic army defeated the godless invaders of Afghanistan,” though Tom Twetten, “the number two man in the clandestine service in the summer of 1988,” was tasked with figuring out what would happen with the Afghan rebels. “We don’t have any plan,” he concluded. Apparently failing to learn their lesson, the CIA adopted nearly the exact same policy in Syria decades later, arming what they called “moderate rebels” against the Assad regime. Those groups ultimately aligned with al-Qaeda groups. One CIA-backed faction made headlines last year for beheading a child (though President Trump cut off the CIA program in June, the military continues to align with “moderate” groups). Unsurprisingly, this list is far from complete. The CIA has engaged in a wide variety of extrajudicial practice, and there are likely countless transgressions we have yet to learn about. As Donald Trump cheers the birthday of an agency he himself once criticized, it should be abundantly clear that the nation’s covert spy agency deserves scrutiny and skepticism — not celebration. Featured image is from the author. The original source of this article is Activist Post -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1067 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1151 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2945 bytes Desc: not available URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 01:19:01 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 20:19:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years In-Reply-To: <005101d334d1$97e40a30$c7ac1e90$@comcast.net> References: <003701d3346e$bd14f2f0$373ed8d0$@comcast.net> <005101d334d1$97e40a30$c7ac1e90$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <72F9549F-D6C6-4A4E-A448-679E74C509FB@illinois.edu> Chomsky’s "Rethinking Camelot” has just been republished by Haymarket. "'Rethinking Camelot' is a thorough analysis of John F. Kennedy's role in the U/S. invasion of Vietnam and a probing reflection on the elite political culture that allowed and encouraged the Cold War. In it, Chomsky dismisses effort to resurrect Camelot—an attractive American myth portraying JFK as a shining knight promising peace, fooled only by assassins bent on stopping this lone hero who wold have unilaterally withdraws from Vietnam had he lived. Chomsky argues that U.S. institutions and political culture, not individual presidents, are the key to understanding U.S. behavior during Vietnam." —CGE > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:08 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > An excellent complimentary book to Tim Weiner’s “ Legacy of Ashes “ is “ The Devils Chessboard “, which goes into specifics about Allen Dulles and the successes of the CIA in terms of destabilizing lesser devolved countries as well as domestic interference / manipulation etc., here in the U.S. from the end of World War 2 into the early 1970’s. > > We should NEVER over estimate our enemy nor under estinate. > > David J. > > From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:38 AM > To: David Johnson > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years > > Good article, and why many of us, anti-war activists from the past, are often skeptical of individuals who promote violence or counterproductive actions to end war. > > Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" is an excellent, well documented history of the CIA, to be recommended to all. > > > From: Peace-discuss on behalf of David Johnson via Peace-discuss > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:20:34 AM > To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years > > > > > Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years > > > https://www.globalresearch.ca/happy-birthday-cia-seven-truly-terrible-things-the-agency-has-done-in-70-years/5610040 > > By Carey Wedler > Global Research, September 22, 2017 > Activist Post 19 September 2017 > > > > On Monday, President Trump tweeted birthday wishes to the Air Force and the CIA. Both became official organizations 70 years ago on September 18, 1947, with the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947. > > > After spending years as a wartime intelligence agency called the Office of Strategic Services, the agency was solidified as a key player in the federal government’s operations with then-President Harry Truman’s authorization. > In the seventy years since, the CIA has committed a wide variety of misdeeds, crimes, coups, and violence. Here are seven of the worst programs they’ve carried out (that are known to the public): > > 1 – Toppling governments around the world — The CIA is best known for its first coup, Operation Ajax, in 1953, in which it ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, reinstating the autocratic Shah, who favored western oil interests. That operation, which the CIA now admits to waging with British intelligence, ultimately resulted in the 1979 revolution and subsequent U.S. hostage crisis. Relations between the U.S. and Iran remain strained to this day, aptly described by the CIA-coined term “blowback.” > But the CIA has had a hand in toppling a number of other democratically elected governments, from Guatemala (1954) and the Congo (1960) to the Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). The CIA has aimed to install leaders who appease American interests, often empowering oppressive, violent dictators. This is only a partial list of countries where the CIA covertly attempted to exploit and manipulate sovereign nations’ governments. > 2 – Operation Paperclip — In one of the more bizarre CIA plots, the agency and other government departments employed Nazi scientists both within and outside the United States to gain an advantage over the Soviets. As summarized by NPR: >> The aim [of Operation Paperclip] was to find and preserve German weapons, including biological and chemical agents, but American scientific intelligence officers quickly realized the weapons themselves were not enough. >> > > Wernher von Braun (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >> They decided the United States needed to bring the Nazi scientists themselves to the U.S. Thus began a mission to recruit top Nazi doctors, physicists and chemists — including Wernher von Braun, who went on to design the rockets that took man to the moon. > They kept this plot secret, though they admitted to it upon the release of Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists To America by Annie Jacobsen. In a book review, the CIA wrote that >> “Henry Wallace, former vice president and secretary of commerce, believed the scientists’ ideas could launch new civilian industries and produce jobs.” > They praised the book’s historical accuracy, noting “that the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.” They acknowledged that >> “General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany.” > Remarkably, they noted that Jacobsen “understandably questions the morality of the decision to hire Nazi SS scientists,” but praise her for pointing out that it was done to fight Soviets. They also made sure to add that the Soviets hired Nazis, too, apparently justifying their own questionable actions by citing their most loathed enemy. > > 3 – Operation CHAOS — The FBI is widely known for its COINTELPRO schemes to undermine communist movements in the 1950s and anti-war, civil rights, and black power movements in the 1960s, but the CIA has not been implicated nearly as deeply because, technically, the CIA cannot legally engage in domestic spying. But that was of little concern to President Lyndon B. Johnson as opposition to the Vietnam war grew. According to former New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner, as documented in his extensive CIA history, Legacy of Ashes, Johnson instructed then-CIA Director Richard Helms to break the law: > > Richard Helms (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >> In October 1967, a handful of CIA analysts joined in the first big Washington march against the war. The president regarded protesters as enemies of the state. He was convinced that the peace movement was controlled and financed by Moscow and Beijing. He wanted proof. He ordered Richard Helms to produce it. >> Helms reminded the president that the CIA was barred from spying on Americans. He says Johnson told him: ‘I’m quite aware of that. What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this intolerable interference in our domestic affairs…’ >> > Helms obeyed. Weiner wrote: > >> In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of central intelligence became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic surveillance operation, code-named Chaos. It went on for almost seven years… Eleven CIA officers grew long hair, learned the jargon of the New Left, and went off to infiltrate peace groups in the United States and Europe. >> > According to Weiner, “the agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations, and extensive files on 7,200 citizens. It began working in secret with police departments all over America.” Because they could not draw a “clear distinction” between the new far left and mainstream opposition to the war, the CIA spied on every major peace organization in the country. President Johnson also wanted them to prove a connection between foreign communists and the black power movement. “The agency tried its best,” Weiner noted, ultimately noting that “the CIA never found a shred of evidence that linked the leaders of the American left or the black-power movement to foreign governments.” > > 4 – Infiltrating the media — Over the years, the CIA has successfully gained influence in the news media, as well as popular media like film and television. Its influence over the news began almost immediately after the agency was formed. As Weiner explained, CIA Director Allen Dulles established firm ties with newspapers: >> Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo. >> > He continued: > >> It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information…The men who responded to the CIA’s call included Henry Luce and his editors at Time, Life, and Fortune; popular magazines such as Parade, the Saturday Review, and Reader’s Digest; and the most powerful executives at CBS News. Dulles built a public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most powerful press baron. >> > The CIA’s influence had not waned by 1977 when journalist Carl Bernstein reported on publications with CIA agents in their employ, as well as “more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” > The CIA has also successfully advised on and influenced numerous television shows, such as Homeland and 24 and films like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo, which push narratives that ultimately favor the agency. According to Tricia Jenkins, author of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film & Television, a concerted agency effort began in the 1990s to counteract negative public perceptions of the CIA, but their influence reaches back decades. In the 1950s, filmmakers produced films for the CIA, including the 1954 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. > Researchers Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, whose work has been published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, say their recent Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the CIA — along with the military — have influenced over 1,800 films and television shows, many of which have nothing to do with CIA or military themes. > 5 – Drug-induced Mind control – In the 1950s, the CIA began experimenting with drugs to determine whether they might be useful in extracting information. As Smithsonian Magazine has noted of the MKUltra project: >> The project, which continued for more than a decade, was originally intended to make sure the United States government kept up with presumed Soviet advances in mind-control technology. It ballooned in scope and its ultimate result, among other things, was illegal drug testing on thousands of Americans. >> > Further: > >> The intent of the project was to study ‘the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior,’ according to the official testimony of CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1977. The project was conducted in extreme secrecy, Turner said, because of ethical and legal questions surrounding the program and the negative public response that the CIA anticipated if MKUltra should become public. >> Under MKUltra, the CIA gave itself the authority to research how drugs could:’ ‘promote the intoxicating effects of alcohol;’ ‘render the induction of hypnosis easier;’ ‘enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion;’ produce amnesia, shock and confusion; and much more. Many of these questions were investigated using unwitting test subjects, like drug-addicted prisoners, marginalized sex workers and terminal cancer patients– ‘people who could not fight back,’ in the words of Sidney Gottlieb, the chemist who introduced LSD to the CIA. > Further, as Weiner noted: > >> Under its auspices, seven prisoners at a federal penitentiary in Kentucky were kept high on LSD for seventy-seven consecutive days. When the CIA slipped the same drug to an army civilian employee, Frank Olson, he leaped out of the window of a New York Hotel. > Weiner added that senior CIA officers destroyed “almost all of the records” of the programs, but that while the “evidence that remains is fragmentary…it strongly suggests that use of secret prisons for the forcible drug-induced questioning of suspect agents went on throughout the 1950s.” > > > > Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research into Behavioral Modification. Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United State Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session (Source: Wikimedia Commons) > Years later, the CIA would be accused of distributing crack-cocaine into poor black communities, though this is currently less substantiated and supported mostly by accounts of those who claim to have been involved. > 6 – Brutal torture tactics — More recently, the CIA was exposed for sponsoring abusive, disturbing terror tactics against detainees at prisons housing terror suspects. An extensive 2014 Senate report documented agents committing sexual abuse, forcing detainees to stand on broken legs, waterboarding them so severely it sometimes led to convulsions, and imposing forced rectal feeding, to name a few examples. Ultimately, the agency had very little actionable intelligence to show for their torture tactics but lied to suggest they did, according to the torture report. Their torture tactics led the International Criminal Court to suggest the CIA, along with the U.S. armed forces, could be guilty of war crimes for their abuses. > 7 – Arming radicals — The CIA has a long habit of arming radical, extremist groups that view the United States as enemies. In 1979, the CIA set out to support Afghan rebels in their bid to defeat the Soviet occupation of the Middle Eastern country. As Weiner wrote, in 1979, >> “Prompted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter signed a covert-action order for the CIA to provide the Afghan rebels with medical aid, money, and propaganda.” > As Weiner detailed later in his book: > >> The Pakistani intelligence chiefs who doled out the CIA’s guns and money favored the Afghan factions who proved themselves most capable in battle. Those factions also happened to be the most committed Islamists. No one dreamed that the holy warriors could ever turn their jihad against the United States. >> > Though some speculate the CIA directly armed Osama bin Laden, that is yet to be fully proven or admitted. What is clear is that western media revered him as a valuable fighter against the Soviets, that he arrived to fight in Afghanistan in1980, and that al-Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen, who were beneficiaries of the CIA’s program. Stanford University has noted that Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a prominent Palestinian cleric, “established Al Qaeda from the fighters, financial resources, and training and recruiting structures left over from the anti-Soviet war.” Much of those “structures” were provided by the agency. Intentionally or not, the CIA helped fuel the rise of the terror group. > Weiner noted that as the CIA failed in other countries like Libya, by the late 1980s “Only the mujahideen, the Afghan holy warriors, were drawing blood and scenting victory. The CIA’s Afghan operation was now a $700-million-dollar-a-year-program” and represented 80% of the overseas budget of the clandestine services. “The CIA’s briefing books never answered the question of what would happen when a militant Islamic army defeated the godless invaders of Afghanistan,” though Tom Twetten, “the number two man in the clandestine service in the summer of 1988,” was tasked with figuring out what would happen with the Afghan rebels. “We don’t have any plan,” he concluded. > Apparently failing to learn their lesson, the CIA adopted nearly the exact same policy in Syria decades later, arming what they called “moderate rebels” against the Assad regime. Those groups ultimately aligned with al-Qaeda groups. One CIA-backed faction made headlines last year for beheading a child (though President Trump cut off the CIA program in June, the military continues to align with “moderate” groups). > Unsurprisingly, this list is far from complete. The CIA has engaged in a wide variety of extrajudicial practice, and there are likely countless transgressions we have yet to learn about. > As Donald Trump cheers the birthday of an agency he himself once criticized, it should be abundantly clear that the nation’s covert spy agency deserves scrutiny and skepticism — not celebration. > Featured image is from the author. > The original source of this article is Activist Post > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 01:25:08 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:25:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , Message-ID: David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 01:25:08 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:25:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , Message-ID: David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 01:27:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:27:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , Message-ID: Yeah, we needed Harry's songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide ; Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 01:27:05 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:27:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , Message-ID: Yeah, we needed Harry's songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide ; Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 01:36:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:36:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , , Message-ID: Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide ; Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 01:36:28 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:36:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , , Message-ID: Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide ; Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 01:38:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:38:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , , Message-ID: Yeah, it was truly informative. And when we get it on YouTube everyone can follow our example at teach-ins all over the country. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:36 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry's songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide >; Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 01:38:49 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 01:38:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , , Message-ID: Yeah, it was truly informative. And when we get it on YouTube everyone can follow our example at teach-ins all over the country. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:36 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry's songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide >; Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 04:23:15 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:23:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1887732064.8092279.1506226995725@mail.yahoo.com> Oops, my apologies to Harry for getting my wires crossed. On ‎Saturday‎, ‎September‎ ‎23‎, ‎2017‎ ‎08‎:‎39‎:‎22‎ ‎PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: #yiv2289801254 #yiv2289801254 -- _filtered #yiv2289801254 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2289801254 #yiv2289801254 p.yiv2289801254MsoNormal, #yiv2289801254 li.yiv2289801254MsoNormal, #yiv2289801254 div.yiv2289801254MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2289801254 a:link, #yiv2289801254 span.yiv2289801254MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2289801254 a:visited, #yiv2289801254 span.yiv2289801254MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2289801254 p {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2289801254 span.yiv2289801254EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2289801254 .yiv2289801254MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2289801254 div.yiv2289801254WordSection1 {}#yiv2289801254 Yeah, it was truly informative. And when we get it on YouTube everyone can follow our example at teach-ins all over the country. Fab.   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:36 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers.   From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK;a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory;abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab.   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide ; Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ;sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ;a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs.    Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific.  From: Harry Mickalide Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK;a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram;abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine"   On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab.   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net]On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss ; Peace Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE   1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law   History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A   2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A   3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine   3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 04:23:15 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:23:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1887732064.8092279.1506226995725@mail.yahoo.com> Oops, my apologies to Harry for getting my wires crossed. On ‎Saturday‎, ‎September‎ ‎23‎, ‎2017‎ ‎08‎:‎39‎:‎22‎ ‎PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: #yiv2289801254 #yiv2289801254 -- _filtered #yiv2289801254 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {panose-1:2 11 10 4 2 1 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2289801254 #yiv2289801254 p.yiv2289801254MsoNormal, #yiv2289801254 li.yiv2289801254MsoNormal, #yiv2289801254 div.yiv2289801254MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2289801254 a:link, #yiv2289801254 span.yiv2289801254MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2289801254 a:visited, #yiv2289801254 span.yiv2289801254MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2289801254 p {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2289801254 span.yiv2289801254EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2289801254 .yiv2289801254MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv2289801254 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv2289801254 div.yiv2289801254WordSection1 {}#yiv2289801254 Yeah, it was truly informative. And when we get it on YouTube everyone can follow our example at teach-ins all over the country. Fab.   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:36 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers.   From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK;a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory;abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab.   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide ; Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ;sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ;a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ;chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs.    Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific.  From: Harry Mickalide Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com;peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK;a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria;Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram;abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine"   On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab.   Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only)   From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net]On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss ; Peace Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE   1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law   History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A   2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A   3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine   3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 05:03:59 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 05:03:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53E11389-8786-4223-A560-5ECFD75EE7E6@illinois.edu> It was not "time constraints" that prevented two from presenting their talks, but terrible management of the time allowed for some speakers, most notably the fellow who talked about Africa. Terribly unfair! —mkb On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide >; Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 05:03:59 2017 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 05:03:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53E11389-8786-4223-A560-5ECFD75EE7E6@illinois.edu> It was not "time constraints" that prevented two from presenting their talks, but terrible management of the time allowed for some speakers, most notably the fellow who talked about Africa. Terribly unfair! —mkb On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide >; Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 09:26:10 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 04:26:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years In-Reply-To: <72F9549F-D6C6-4A4E-A448-679E74C509FB@illinois.edu> References: <003701d3346e$bd14f2f0$373ed8d0$@comcast.net> <005101d334d1$97e40a30$c7ac1e90$@comcast.net> <72F9549F-D6C6-4A4E-A448-679E74C509FB@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Perhaps a better book than “The Devil's Chessboard” but arguing a similar thesis is Jim Douglass’ "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters” (2010): "The acclaimed book Oliver Stone called 'the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance,’ 'JFK and the Unspeakable' details not just how the conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy was carried out, but WHY it was done…and why it still matters today. "At the height of the Cold War, JFK risked committing the greatest crime in human history: starting a nuclear war. Horrified by the specter of nuclear annihilation, Kennedy gradually turned away from his long-held Cold Warrior beliefs and toward a policy of lasting peace. But to the military and intelligence agencies in the United States, who were committed to winning the Cold War at any cost, Kennedy’s change of heart was a direct threat to their power and influence. Once these dark “Unspeakable” forces recognized that Kennedy’s interests were in direct opposition to their own, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor, plotted his assassination, and orchestrated the subsequent cover-up. "Douglass takes readers into the Oval Office during the tense days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, along on the strange journey of Lee Harvey Oswald and his shadowy handlers, and to the winding road in Dallas where an ambush awaited the President’s motorcade. As Douglass convincingly documents, at every step along the way these forces of the Unspeakable were present, moving people like pawns on a chessboard to promote a dangerous and deadly agenda. "JFK and the Unspeakable shot up to the top of the bestseller charts when Oliver Stone first brought it to the world’s attention on Bill Maher’s show. Since then, it has been lauded by Mark Lane (author of Rush to Judgment, who calls it 'an exciting work with the drama of a first-rate thriller'), John Perkins (author of 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,' who proclaims it is 'arguably the most important book yet written about an American president'), and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who calls it 'a very well-documented and convincing portrait…I urge all Americans to read this book and come to their own conclusions.’” Optimists believe that a virtuous course for the US government is perverted by conspirators (e.g., Kennedy assassins). Pessimists (realists?) think that that course is already perverse, far above our poor power to add or detract… —CGE > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Chomsky’s "Rethinking Camelot” has just been republished by Haymarket. > > "'Rethinking Camelot' is a thorough analysis of John F. Kennedy's role in the U/S. invasion of Vietnam and a probing reflection on the elite political culture that allowed and encouraged the Cold War. In it, Chomsky dismisses effort to resurrect Camelot—an attractive American myth portraying JFK as a shining knight promising peace, fooled only by assassins bent on stopping this lone hero who wold have unilaterally withdraws from Vietnam had he lived. Chomsky argues that U.S. institutions and political culture, not individual presidents, are the key to understanding U.S. behavior during Vietnam." > > —CGE > > >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:08 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> An excellent complimentary book to Tim Weiner’s “ Legacy of Ashes “ is “ The Devils Chessboard “, which goes into specifics about Allen Dulles and the successes of the CIA in terms of destabilizing lesser devolved countries as well as domestic interference / manipulation etc., here in the U.S. from the end of World War 2 into the early 1970’s. >> >> We should NEVER over estimate our enemy nor under estinate. >> >> David J. >> >> From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:38 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years >> >> Good article, and why many of us, anti-war activists from the past, are often skeptical of individuals who promote violence or counterproductive actions to end war. >> >> Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" is an excellent, well documented history of the CIA, to be recommended to all. >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss on behalf of David Johnson via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:20:34 AM >> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years >> >> >> >> >> Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years >> >> >> https://www.globalresearch.ca/happy-birthday-cia-seven-truly-terrible-things-the-agency-has-done-in-70-years/5610040 >> >> By Carey Wedler >> Global Research, September 22, 2017 >> Activist Post 19 September 2017 >> >> >> >> On Monday, President Trump tweeted birthday wishes to the Air Force and the CIA. Both became official organizations 70 years ago on September 18, 1947, with the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947. >> >> >> After spending years as a wartime intelligence agency called the Office of Strategic Services, the agency was solidified as a key player in the federal government’s operations with then-President Harry Truman’s authorization. >> In the seventy years since, the CIA has committed a wide variety of misdeeds, crimes, coups, and violence. Here are seven of the worst programs they’ve carried out (that are known to the public): >> >> 1 – Toppling governments around the world — The CIA is best known for its first coup, Operation Ajax, in 1953, in which it ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, reinstating the autocratic Shah, who favored western oil interests. That operation, which the CIA now admits to waging with British intelligence, ultimately resulted in the 1979 revolution and subsequent U.S. hostage crisis. Relations between the U.S. and Iran remain strained to this day, aptly described by the CIA-coined term “blowback.” >> But the CIA has had a hand in toppling a number of other democratically elected governments, from Guatemala (1954) and the Congo (1960) to the Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). The CIA has aimed to install leaders who appease American interests, often empowering oppressive, violent dictators. This is only a partial list of countries where the CIA covertly attempted to exploit and manipulate sovereign nations’ governments. >> 2 – Operation Paperclip — In one of the more bizarre CIA plots, the agency and other government departments employed Nazi scientists both within and outside the United States to gain an advantage over the Soviets. As summarized by NPR: >>> The aim [of Operation Paperclip] was to find and preserve German weapons, including biological and chemical agents, but American scientific intelligence officers quickly realized the weapons themselves were not enough. >>> >> >> Wernher von Braun (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >>> They decided the United States needed to bring the Nazi scientists themselves to the U.S. Thus began a mission to recruit top Nazi doctors, physicists and chemists — including Wernher von Braun, who went on to design the rockets that took man to the moon. >> They kept this plot secret, though they admitted to it upon the release of Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists To America by Annie Jacobsen. In a book review, the CIA wrote that >>> “Henry Wallace, former vice president and secretary of commerce, believed the scientists’ ideas could launch new civilian industries and produce jobs.” >> They praised the book’s historical accuracy, noting “that the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.” They acknowledged that >>> “General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany.” >> Remarkably, they noted that Jacobsen “understandably questions the morality of the decision to hire Nazi SS scientists,” but praise her for pointing out that it was done to fight Soviets. They also made sure to add that the Soviets hired Nazis, too, apparently justifying their own questionable actions by citing their most loathed enemy. >> >> 3 – Operation CHAOS — The FBI is widely known for its COINTELPRO schemes to undermine communist movements in the 1950s and anti-war, civil rights, and black power movements in the 1960s, but the CIA has not been implicated nearly as deeply because, technically, the CIA cannot legally engage in domestic spying. But that was of little concern to President Lyndon B. Johnson as opposition to the Vietnam war grew. According to former New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner, as documented in his extensive CIA history, Legacy of Ashes, Johnson instructed then-CIA Director Richard Helms to break the law: >> >> Richard Helms (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >>> In October 1967, a handful of CIA analysts joined in the first big Washington march against the war. The president regarded protesters as enemies of the state. He was convinced that the peace movement was controlled and financed by Moscow and Beijing. He wanted proof. He ordered Richard Helms to produce it. >>> Helms reminded the president that the CIA was barred from spying on Americans. He says Johnson told him: ‘I’m quite aware of that. What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this intolerable interference in our domestic affairs…’ >>> >> Helms obeyed. Weiner wrote: >> >>> In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of central intelligence became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic surveillance operation, code-named Chaos. It went on for almost seven years… Eleven CIA officers grew long hair, learned the jargon of the New Left, and went off to infiltrate peace groups in the United States and Europe. >>> >> According to Weiner, “the agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations, and extensive files on 7,200 citizens. It began working in secret with police departments all over America.” Because they could not draw a “clear distinction” between the new far left and mainstream opposition to the war, the CIA spied on every major peace organization in the country. President Johnson also wanted them to prove a connection between foreign communists and the black power movement. “The agency tried its best,” Weiner noted, ultimately noting that “the CIA never found a shred of evidence that linked the leaders of the American left or the black-power movement to foreign governments.” >> >> 4 – Infiltrating the media — Over the years, the CIA has successfully gained influence in the news media, as well as popular media like film and television. Its influence over the news began almost immediately after the agency was formed. As Weiner explained, CIA Director Allen Dulles established firm ties with newspapers: >>> Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo. >>> >> He continued: >> >>> It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information…The men who responded to the CIA’s call included Henry Luce and his editors at Time, Life, and Fortune; popular magazines such as Parade, the Saturday Review, and Reader’s Digest; and the most powerful executives at CBS News. Dulles built a public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most powerful press baron. >>> >> The CIA’s influence had not waned by 1977 when journalist Carl Bernstein reported on publications with CIA agents in their employ, as well as “more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” >> The CIA has also successfully advised on and influenced numerous television shows, such as Homeland and 24 and films like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo, which push narratives that ultimately favor the agency. According to Tricia Jenkins, author of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film & Television, a concerted agency effort began in the 1990s to counteract negative public perceptions of the CIA, but their influence reaches back decades. In the 1950s, filmmakers produced films for the CIA, including the 1954 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. >> Researchers Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, whose work has been published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, say their recent Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the CIA — along with the military — have influenced over 1,800 films and television shows, many of which have nothing to do with CIA or military themes. >> 5 – Drug-induced Mind control – In the 1950s, the CIA began experimenting with drugs to determine whether they might be useful in extracting information. As Smithsonian Magazine has noted of the MKUltra project: >>> The project, which continued for more than a decade, was originally intended to make sure the United States government kept up with presumed Soviet advances in mind-control technology. It ballooned in scope and its ultimate result, among other things, was illegal drug testing on thousands of Americans. >>> >> Further: >> >>> The intent of the project was to study ‘the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior,’ according to the official testimony of CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1977. The project was conducted in extreme secrecy, Turner said, because of ethical and legal questions surrounding the program and the negative public response that the CIA anticipated if MKUltra should become public. >>> Under MKUltra, the CIA gave itself the authority to research how drugs could:’ ‘promote the intoxicating effects of alcohol;’ ‘render the induction of hypnosis easier;’ ‘enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion;’ produce amnesia, shock and confusion; and much more. Many of these questions were investigated using unwitting test subjects, like drug-addicted prisoners, marginalized sex workers and terminal cancer patients– ‘people who could not fight back,’ in the words of Sidney Gottlieb, the chemist who introduced LSD to the CIA. >> Further, as Weiner noted: >> >>> Under its auspices, seven prisoners at a federal penitentiary in Kentucky were kept high on LSD for seventy-seven consecutive days. When the CIA slipped the same drug to an army civilian employee, Frank Olson, he leaped out of the window of a New York Hotel. >> Weiner added that senior CIA officers destroyed “almost all of the records” of the programs, but that while the “evidence that remains is fragmentary…it strongly suggests that use of secret prisons for the forcible drug-induced questioning of suspect agents went on throughout the 1950s.” >> >> >> >> Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research into Behavioral Modification. Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United State Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >> Years later, the CIA would be accused of distributing crack-cocaine into poor black communities, though this is currently less substantiated and supported mostly by accounts of those who claim to have been involved. >> 6 – Brutal torture tactics — More recently, the CIA was exposed for sponsoring abusive, disturbing terror tactics against detainees at prisons housing terror suspects. An extensive 2014 Senate report documented agents committing sexual abuse, forcing detainees to stand on broken legs, waterboarding them so severely it sometimes led to convulsions, and imposing forced rectal feeding, to name a few examples. Ultimately, the agency had very little actionable intelligence to show for their torture tactics but lied to suggest they did, according to the torture report. Their torture tactics led the International Criminal Court to suggest the CIA, along with the U.S. armed forces, could be guilty of war crimes for their abuses. >> 7 – Arming radicals — The CIA has a long habit of arming radical, extremist groups that view the United States as enemies. In 1979, the CIA set out to support Afghan rebels in their bid to defeat the Soviet occupation of the Middle Eastern country. As Weiner wrote, in 1979, >>> “Prompted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter signed a covert-action order for the CIA to provide the Afghan rebels with medical aid, money, and propaganda.” >> As Weiner detailed later in his book: >> >>> The Pakistani intelligence chiefs who doled out the CIA’s guns and money favored the Afghan factions who proved themselves most capable in battle. Those factions also happened to be the most committed Islamists. No one dreamed that the holy warriors could ever turn their jihad against the United States. >>> >> Though some speculate the CIA directly armed Osama bin Laden, that is yet to be fully proven or admitted. What is clear is that western media revered him as a valuable fighter against the Soviets, that he arrived to fight in Afghanistan in1980, and that al-Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen, who were beneficiaries of the CIA’s program. Stanford University has noted that Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a prominent Palestinian cleric, “established Al Qaeda from the fighters, financial resources, and training and recruiting structures left over from the anti-Soviet war.” Much of those “structures” were provided by the agency. Intentionally or not, the CIA helped fuel the rise of the terror group. >> Weiner noted that as the CIA failed in other countries like Libya, by the late 1980s “Only the mujahideen, the Afghan holy warriors, were drawing blood and scenting victory. The CIA’s Afghan operation was now a $700-million-dollar-a-year-program” and represented 80% of the overseas budget of the clandestine services. “The CIA’s briefing books never answered the question of what would happen when a militant Islamic army defeated the godless invaders of Afghanistan,” though Tom Twetten, “the number two man in the clandestine service in the summer of 1988,” was tasked with figuring out what would happen with the Afghan rebels. “We don’t have any plan,” he concluded. >> Apparently failing to learn their lesson, the CIA adopted nearly the exact same policy in Syria decades later, arming what they called “moderate rebels” against the Assad regime. Those groups ultimately aligned with al-Qaeda groups. One CIA-backed faction made headlines last year for beheading a child (though President Trump cut off the CIA program in June, the military continues to align with “moderate” groups). >> Unsurprisingly, this list is far from complete. The CIA has engaged in a wide variety of extrajudicial practice, and there are likely countless transgressions we have yet to learn about. >> As Donald Trump cheers the birthday of an agency he himself once criticized, it should be abundantly clear that the nation’s covert spy agency deserves scrutiny and skepticism — not celebration. >> Featured image is from the author. >> The original source of this article is Activist Post >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 12:56:10 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 12:56:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: <53E11389-8786-4223-A560-5ECFD75EE7E6@illinois.edu> References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> , <53E11389-8786-4223-A560-5ECFD75EE7E6@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Mort I am truly sorry you put in so much time and effort and didn't have a chance to speak on this panel. I'm also sorry you were one of the last speakers and had to sit through the whole four hours. . It's also unfortunate that you didn't enjoy your time there with the other panelists. Stuart has kindly offered to film/record you in in the studio when convenient. You also have the opportunity to post your presentation, or have it published, as you did with your previous presentation. Everyone was aware of the 20 minute limitation, but some did go over the 20 minutes time allowed. Yes, Vukoni did take more time than others, he spoke slower than usual which was likely due to the fact that he was the youngest panelist, still a student, a non American, informing a group of white Americans of the atrocities they are responsible for committing in his homeland. What was important was the substance or quality of the speeches of the panelists, or the message. This was not a debate with a timer. It was poor management on my part to have nine panelists, but given the subject material that needed to be covered, and those panelists who have never been heard from before, certainly not in this town, I couldn't resist. I'm not a professional event planner, and in fact really dislike planning events, but it needed doing. Focus on Africa, with US interventions both past, present and future is extremely important. Most Americans haven't a clue what is taking place across the African continent. Let alone what is going to take place there given our military presence that was brought about by the Obama administration. And, what will likely take place under the Trump administration. We were privileged to have someone who truly knows the history and the likely future of the many nations within that continent of which we hear only the propaganda. I just hope someone else continues "anti-war teach ins," because unless Americans understand, where all the money is going, supporting the war machine, and stop it. There will be no funding to prevent or curb global warming, which is already destroying us. ________________________________ From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 12:03:59 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Boyle, Francis A; Harry Mickalide; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; Jay; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Joe Lauria; David Swanson; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; abass10 at gmail.com; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; Arlene Hickory; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers It was not "time constraints" that prevented two from presenting their talks, but terrible management of the time allowed for some speakers, most notably the fellow who talked about Africa. Terribly unfair! —mkb On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide >; Boyle, Francis A > Cc: David Green >; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK >; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Joe Lauria >; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Szoke, Ron >; Arlene Hickory >; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne >; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay >; David Johnson >; Mildred O'brien >; Estabrook, Carl G >; David Swanson > Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs. Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine" On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss >; Peace > Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel 1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE 1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A 2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A 3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine 3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 24 13:16:59 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 13:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers In-Reply-To: <53E11389-8786-4223-A560-5ECFD75EE7E6@illinois.edu> References: <6cc1f290-f246-773a-28d9-760af21ff4f2@gmail.com> <53E11389-8786-4223-A560-5ECFD75EE7E6@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <2145595197.8203799.1506259019571@mail.yahoo.com> I agree; very unfair. I hope you'll go on AWARE on the Air and give your presentation. I would look forward to watching it. DG On ‎Sunday‎, ‎September‎ ‎24‎, ‎2017‎ ‎12‎:‎04‎:‎45‎ ‎AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: It was not "time constraints" that prevented two from presenting their talks, but terrible management of the time allowed for some speakers, most notably the fellow who talked about Africa. Terribly unfair! —mkb On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:36 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Everyone was absolutely awesome. I'm sorry two of the panelists didn't have a chance to speak, due to time constraints, but it was truly an awesome line up of speakers. From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:27 PM To: Karen Aram; Harry Mickalide Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: RE: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers Yeah, we needed Harry’s songs. And thanks to Karen for making it all happen. Fab. Francis A. BoyleLaw Building504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.Champaign IL 61820 USA217-333-7954 (phone)217-244-1478 (fax)(personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com]  Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:25 PM To: Harry Mickalide ; Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green ; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK ; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Joe Lauria ; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Szoke, Ron ; Arlene Hickory ; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne ; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay ; David Johnson ; Mildred O'brien ; Estabrook, Carl G ; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   David Green is responsible for formatting and printing the flyers. I assume he thought it applicable to your topic and songs.    Thanks Harry, you were as always terrific. From: Harry Mickalide Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 1:14:37 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: David Green; sherwoodross10 at gmail.com; peace-discuss at anti-war.net; C. G. ESTABROOK; a-fields at uiuc.edu; Hoffman, Valerie J; Joe Lauria; Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net; peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Szoke, Ron; Arlene Hickory; Karen Aram; abass10 at gmail.com; Lina Thorne; chicago at worldcantwait.net; Jay; David Johnson; Mildred O'brien; Estabrook, Carl G; David Swanson Subject: Re: FW: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   Haha, I appreciate the Rage Against the Machine reference, but my organization is called "STEM Strikes the War Machine"   On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: My thanks to everyone involved for getting this organized. We are carrying on with the tradition of our anti-Killer-Koh Protest. Fab. Francis A. BoyleLaw Building504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.Champaign IL 61820 USA217-333-7954 (phone)217-244-1478 (fax)(personal comments only) From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 10:04 AM To: Peace Discuss ; Peace Subject: [Peace] anti-war teach in *today* 9/23 1pm-5pm -- with schedule of speakers   The anti-war teach-in is happening *today*, Saturday 9/23, 1pm until 5pm or so, at Channing-Murray Foundation. Here is the planned schedule of speakers (making it easier to come & go through an event this long) ... [sorry if you get this twice] Anti-War Teach-In Sponsored byStudents for Economic Empowerment (SEE)Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE) Channing-Murray Chapel1204 West Oregon Ave. (Oregon & Matthews), Urbana Saturday, September 23rd, 1pm - 5pm or so Opening remarks Grant Neal and Nick Goodell, SEE Karen Aram, AWARE   1:10 p.m. Illegalities of U.S. Wars Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law   History of U.S. War Carl Estabrook, Professor of Sociology, retired U.S. Government Support for Dictatorships Rich Whitney Esq., Illinois Green Party Q & A   2:10 p.m. Brief statements by student groups 2:25 p.m. Libya and Syria Paula Bradshaw, Illinois Green Party Israel and Palestine David Green, Jewish Voice for Peace Africa Vukoni Lupa Lasaga, Ph.D. candidate Q & A   3:25 p.m. Musical entertainment Harry Mickalide, STEM Students Rage Against the War Machine   3:40 p.m. Costs of War Morton Brussel, Professor of Physics Emeritus El Salvador Father Tom Royer Venezuela and Central America David Johnson, retired union carpenter, World Labor Hour (WRFU) Final Q & A    _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Sep 24 15:55:20 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:55:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years In-Reply-To: References: <003701d3346e$bd14f2f0$373ed8d0$@comcast.net> <005101d334d1$97e40a30$c7ac1e90$@comcast.net> <72F9549F-D6C6-4A4E-A448-679E74C509FB@illinois.edu>, Message-ID: Another book or opinion from I know not who: Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on Smoke and Mirrors [http://1.gravatar.com/blavatar/71c401cdd13b08a361e28195c5cae882?s=32&d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Femails%2Fblavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/5af2cf3964f6ce7ef87f07a4f8c6bf0e?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] Send in the Clown: Trump and American Credibility by mjw51 With all the knicker-twisting going on about how the big baby with the brain of a reptile and his own transplanted anus for a mouth is dribbling the world toward the brink of a possibly nuclear exchange with North Korea, it might be wise to try to remember at least one previous American approach to war even though it's not really a part of anyone's Twitter stream or the all-seeing-all hiding news cycle. According to David Halberstam, in his monumental pre-Twitter takedown of the notion of meritocracy, the ironically titled "The Best and The Brightest", the sainted John F Kennedy remarked to James Reston, apropos of having had his ass taken to the woodshed over American imperialism by Nikita Kruschev, that he needed to beat up on some little 3rd world country that couldn't be expected to fight back because “...now we have a problem in trying to make our power credible, and Vietnam looks like the place.” [look ma no hands] Let that sink in while others of our kind are reveling in Ken Burns proto-fascist contention that the Vietnam War was entered into in "good faith". One does not normally associate the brutal slaughter of millions and the near-total destruction of 3 small countries in order to make a nation's power "credible" with anything like "good faith" but, you know, American. Halberstam's book makes a hash of the currently popular notion that intelligence and an Ivy League education make for better political decisions than knuckle-dragging racist morons like Trump are capable of making. And given that Kennedy and his circle of really smart white men were also profoundly racist, a lot of what passes for "insight" in the era of Trump versus all the smart people is obviously profoundly a-historical and as dumb as the proverbial sackful of hammers. But I digress. The bottom line is this: American Presidents and their co-conspirators in the security and defense establishments go to war on a regular basis. And those wars are pretty much always aimed at killing lots of people who aren't white and not part of "The West". It is also the case they they are often entered into to establish the "credibility of American power", an ever-shifting notion that is, apparently, regularly in need of reconfirmation. And nothing confirms power better than images of little mountains of dead men, women and children of a colour other than American white or black. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would question the observation that American power is perceived to be at a very low ebb at the moment; the wailing and the gnashing of teeth over the end of the "liberal global order" can even be heard over the sounds of the record-breaking seven wars that Obama-the-Intelligent conducted during his graceful and educated sojourn in the White House. It is not so commonly noted but equally clear that yet another invasion of yet another military non-entity like Iraq is not likely to impress anyone the American establishment thinks needs to be impressed with "the credibility of American power". Now that Russia is back on the military intervention circuit and China is transmitting images of its ultra-modern hi-tech weaponry and building military bases in the South China Sea, establishing the "credibility" of American power might take something more along the lines of a limited nuclear exchange with a feisty little rabbit like North Korea. And who better to establish the innocence of Ken Burns and all those American tax-payers who can't stand being held responsible for the actions of their democratically-elected leaders than Donald "Not My President" Trump, "progressive" America's very own Hitler? I mean, think about it, once the smoke clears (not the radiation mind you or the global fear and trembling), all Good Americans will be able to blame the war on Evil Clown Trump and most of the dead will be non-white foreigners anyway. Just the way they like it in the land of the free and home of the brave. Just the way they blame Bush-Cheney for Iraq and Johnson-Nixon for Vietnam. And hell, they've already forgotten what they did to Korea last time around. As George Carlin once sagely noted: What did we do wrong in Vietnam? We pulled out! Huh? Not a very manly thing to do is it? When you’re fucking people, you gotta stay in there and fuck 'em good. Fuck ‘em all the way, fuck ‘em ‘til the end, stay in there and keep fucking 'em until they’re all dead. We left a few women and children alive in Vietnam and we haven’t felt good about ourselves since! ________________________________ From: Carl G. Estabrook Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2017 4:26:10 AM To: David Johnson Cc: Karen Aram; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years Perhaps a better book than “The Devil's Chessboard” but arguing a similar thesis is Jim Douglass’ "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters” (2010): "The acclaimed book Oliver Stone called 'the best account I have read of this tragedy and its significance,’ 'JFK and the Unspeakable' details not just how the conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy was carried out, but WHY it was done…and why it still matters today. "At the height of the Cold War, JFK risked committing the greatest crime in human history: starting a nuclear war. Horrified by the specter of nuclear annihilation, Kennedy gradually turned away from his long-held Cold Warrior beliefs and toward a policy of lasting peace. But to the military and intelligence agencies in the United States, who were committed to winning the Cold War at any cost, Kennedy’s change of heart was a direct threat to their power and influence. Once these dark “Unspeakable” forces recognized that Kennedy’s interests were in direct opposition to their own, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor, plotted his assassination, and orchestrated the subsequent cover-up. "Douglass takes readers into the Oval Office during the tense days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, along on the strange journey of Lee Harvey Oswald and his shadowy handlers, and to the winding road in Dallas where an ambush awaited the President’s motorcade. As Douglass convincingly documents, at every step along the way these forces of the Unspeakable were present, moving people like pawns on a chessboard to promote a dangerous and deadly agenda. "JFK and the Unspeakable shot up to the top of the bestseller charts when Oliver Stone first brought it to the world’s attention on Bill Maher’s show. Since then, it has been lauded by Mark Lane (author of Rush to Judgment, who calls it 'an exciting work with the drama of a first-rate thriller'), John Perkins (author of 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,' who proclaims it is 'arguably the most important book yet written about an American president'), and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who calls it 'a very well-documented and convincing portrait…I urge all Americans to read this book and come to their own conclusions.’” Optimists believe that a virtuous course for the US government is perverted by conspirators (e.g., Kennedy assassins). Pessimists (realists?) think that that course is already perverse, far above our poor power to add or detract… —CGE > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:19 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Chomsky’s "Rethinking Camelot” has just been republished by Haymarket. > > "'Rethinking Camelot' is a thorough analysis of John F. Kennedy's role in the U/S. invasion of Vietnam and a probing reflection on the elite political culture that allowed and encouraged the Cold War. In it, Chomsky dismisses effort to resurrect Camelot—an attractive American myth portraying JFK as a shining knight promising peace, fooled only by assassins bent on stopping this lone hero who wold have unilaterally withdraws from Vietnam had he lived. Chomsky argues that U.S. institutions and political culture, not individual presidents, are the key to understanding U.S. behavior during Vietnam." > > —CGE > > >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:08 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> An excellent complimentary book to Tim Weiner’s “ Legacy of Ashes “ is “ The Devils Chessboard “, which goes into specifics about Allen Dulles and the successes of the CIA in terms of destabilizing lesser devolved countries as well as domestic interference / manipulation etc., here in the U.S. from the end of World War 2 into the early 1970’s. >> >> We should NEVER over estimate our enemy nor under estinate. >> >> David J. >> >> From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:38 AM >> To: David Johnson >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years >> >> Good article, and why many of us, anti-war activists from the past, are often skeptical of individuals who promote violence or counterproductive actions to end war. >> >> Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" is an excellent, well documented history of the CIA, to be recommended to all. >> >> >> From: Peace-discuss on behalf of David Johnson via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 8:20:34 AM >> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years >> >> >> >> >> Happy Birthday CIA: Seven Truly Terrible Things the Agency Has Done in 70 Years >> >> >> https://www.globalresearch.ca/happy-birthday-cia-seven-truly-terrible-things-the-agency-has-done-in-70-years/5610040 >> >> By Carey Wedler >> Global Research, September 22, 2017 >> Activist Post 19 September 2017 >> >> >> >> On Monday, President Trump tweeted birthday wishes to the Air Force and the CIA. Both became official organizations 70 years ago on September 18, 1947, with the implementation of the National Security Act of 1947. >> >> >> After spending years as a wartime intelligence agency called the Office of Strategic Services, the agency was solidified as a key player in the federal government’s operations with then-President Harry Truman’s authorization. >> In the seventy years since, the CIA has committed a wide variety of misdeeds, crimes, coups, and violence. Here are seven of the worst programs they’ve carried out (that are known to the public): >> >> 1 – Toppling governments around the world — The CIA is best known for its first coup, Operation Ajax, in 1953, in which it ousted the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh, reinstating the autocratic Shah, who favored western oil interests. That operation, which the CIA now admits to waging with British intelligence, ultimately resulted in the 1979 revolution and subsequent U.S. hostage crisis. Relations between the U.S. and Iran remain strained to this day, aptly described by the CIA-coined term “blowback.” >> But the CIA has had a hand in toppling a number of other democratically elected governments, from Guatemala (1954) and the Congo (1960) to the Dominican Republic (1961), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), and Chile (1973). The CIA has aimed to install leaders who appease American interests, often empowering oppressive, violent dictators. This is only a partial list of countries where the CIA covertly attempted to exploit and manipulate sovereign nations’ governments. >> 2 – Operation Paperclip — In one of the more bizarre CIA plots, the agency and other government departments employed Nazi scientists both within and outside the United States to gain an advantage over the Soviets. As summarized by NPR: >>> The aim [of Operation Paperclip] was to find and preserve German weapons, including biological and chemical agents, but American scientific intelligence officers quickly realized the weapons themselves were not enough. >>> >> >> Wernher von Braun (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >>> They decided the United States needed to bring the Nazi scientists themselves to the U.S. Thus began a mission to recruit top Nazi doctors, physicists and chemists — including Wernher von Braun, who went on to design the rockets that took man to the moon. >> They kept this plot secret, though they admitted to it upon the release of Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program That Brought Nazi Scientists To America by Annie Jacobsen. In a book review, the CIA wrote that >>> “Henry Wallace, former vice president and secretary of commerce, believed the scientists’ ideas could launch new civilian industries and produce jobs.” >> They praised the book’s historical accuracy, noting “that the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.” They acknowledged that >>> “General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany.” >> Remarkably, they noted that Jacobsen “understandably questions the morality of the decision to hire Nazi SS scientists,” but praise her for pointing out that it was done to fight Soviets. They also made sure to add that the Soviets hired Nazis, too, apparently justifying their own questionable actions by citing their most loathed enemy. >> >> 3 – Operation CHAOS — The FBI is widely known for its COINTELPRO schemes to undermine communist movements in the 1950s and anti-war, civil rights, and black power movements in the 1960s, but the CIA has not been implicated nearly as deeply because, technically, the CIA cannot legally engage in domestic spying. But that was of little concern to President Lyndon B. Johnson as opposition to the Vietnam war grew. According to former New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize-winner Tim Weiner, as documented in his extensive CIA history, Legacy of Ashes, Johnson instructed then-CIA Director Richard Helms to break the law: >> >> Richard Helms (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >>> In October 1967, a handful of CIA analysts joined in the first big Washington march against the war. The president regarded protesters as enemies of the state. He was convinced that the peace movement was controlled and financed by Moscow and Beijing. He wanted proof. He ordered Richard Helms to produce it. >>> Helms reminded the president that the CIA was barred from spying on Americans. He says Johnson told him: ‘I’m quite aware of that. What I want for you is to pursue this matter, and to do what is necessary to track down the foreign communists who are behind this intolerable interference in our domestic affairs…’ >>> >> Helms obeyed. Weiner wrote: >> >>> In a blatant violation of his powers under the law, the director of central intelligence became a part-time secret police chief. The CIA undertook a domestic surveillance operation, code-named Chaos. It went on for almost seven years… Eleven CIA officers grew long hair, learned the jargon of the New Left, and went off to infiltrate peace groups in the United States and Europe. >>> >> According to Weiner, “the agency compiled a computer index of 300,000 names of American people and organizations, and extensive files on 7,200 citizens. It began working in secret with police departments all over America.” Because they could not draw a “clear distinction” between the new far left and mainstream opposition to the war, the CIA spied on every major peace organization in the country. President Johnson also wanted them to prove a connection between foreign communists and the black power movement. “The agency tried its best,” Weiner noted, ultimately noting that “the CIA never found a shred of evidence that linked the leaders of the American left or the black-power movement to foreign governments.” >> >> 4 – Infiltrating the media — Over the years, the CIA has successfully gained influence in the news media, as well as popular media like film and television. Its influence over the news began almost immediately after the agency was formed. As Weiner explained, CIA Director Allen Dulles established firm ties with newspapers: >>> Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran the New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nation’s leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story, make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of men such as Time’s Berlin bureau chief and Newsweek’s man in Tokyo. >>> >> He continued: >> >>> It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms were dominated by veterans of the government’s wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War Information…The men who responded to the CIA’s call included Henry Luce and his editors at Time, Life, and Fortune; popular magazines such as Parade, the Saturday Review, and Reader’s Digest; and the most powerful executives at CBS News. Dulles built a public-relations and propaganda machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany’s most powerful press baron. >>> >> The CIA’s influence had not waned by 1977 when journalist Carl Bernstein reported on publications with CIA agents in their employ, as well as “more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.” >> The CIA has also successfully advised on and influenced numerous television shows, such as Homeland and 24 and films like Zero Dark Thirty and Argo, which push narratives that ultimately favor the agency. According to Tricia Jenkins, author of The CIA in Hollywood: How the Agency Shapes Film & Television, a concerted agency effort began in the 1990s to counteract negative public perceptions of the CIA, but their influence reaches back decades. In the 1950s, filmmakers produced films for the CIA, including the 1954 film adaptation of George Orwell’s Animal Farm. >> Researchers Tom Secker and Matthew Alford, whose work has been published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, say their recent Freedom of Information Act requests have shown that the CIA — along with the military — have influenced over 1,800 films and television shows, many of which have nothing to do with CIA or military themes. >> 5 – Drug-induced Mind control – In the 1950s, the CIA began experimenting with drugs to determine whether they might be useful in extracting information. As Smithsonian Magazine has noted of the MKUltra project: >>> The project, which continued for more than a decade, was originally intended to make sure the United States government kept up with presumed Soviet advances in mind-control technology. It ballooned in scope and its ultimate result, among other things, was illegal drug testing on thousands of Americans. >>> >> Further: >> >>> The intent of the project was to study ‘the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior,’ according to the official testimony of CIA director Stansfield Turner in 1977. The project was conducted in extreme secrecy, Turner said, because of ethical and legal questions surrounding the program and the negative public response that the CIA anticipated if MKUltra should become public. >>> Under MKUltra, the CIA gave itself the authority to research how drugs could:’ ‘promote the intoxicating effects of alcohol;’ ‘render the induction of hypnosis easier;’ ‘enhance the ability of individuals to withstand privation, torture and coercion;’ produce amnesia, shock and confusion; and much more. Many of these questions were investigated using unwitting test subjects, like drug-addicted prisoners, marginalized sex workers and terminal cancer patients– ‘people who could not fight back,’ in the words of Sidney Gottlieb, the chemist who introduced LSD to the CIA. >> Further, as Weiner noted: >> >>> Under its auspices, seven prisoners at a federal penitentiary in Kentucky were kept high on LSD for seventy-seven consecutive days. When the CIA slipped the same drug to an army civilian employee, Frank Olson, he leaped out of the window of a New York Hotel. >> Weiner added that senior CIA officers destroyed “almost all of the records” of the programs, but that while the “evidence that remains is fragmentary…it strongly suggests that use of secret prisons for the forcible drug-induced questioning of suspect agents went on throughout the 1950s.” >> >> >> >> Project MKULTRA, the CIA’s Program of Research into Behavioral Modification. Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, United State Senate, Ninety-Fifth Congress, First Session (Source: Wikimedia Commons) >> Years later, the CIA would be accused of distributing crack-cocaine into poor black communities, though this is currently less substantiated and supported mostly by accounts of those who claim to have been involved. >> 6 – Brutal torture tactics — More recently, the CIA was exposed for sponsoring abusive, disturbing terror tactics against detainees at prisons housing terror suspects. An extensive 2014 Senate report documented agents committing sexual abuse, forcing detainees to stand on broken legs, waterboarding them so severely it sometimes led to convulsions, and imposing forced rectal feeding, to name a few examples. Ultimately, the agency had very little actionable intelligence to show for their torture tactics but lied to suggest they did, according to the torture report. Their torture tactics led the International Criminal Court to suggest the CIA, along with the U.S. armed forces, could be guilty of war crimes for their abuses. >> 7 – Arming radicals — The CIA has a long habit of arming radical, extremist groups that view the United States as enemies. In 1979, the CIA set out to support Afghan rebels in their bid to defeat the Soviet occupation of the Middle Eastern country. As Weiner wrote, in 1979, >>> “Prompted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter signed a covert-action order for the CIA to provide the Afghan rebels with medical aid, money, and propaganda.” >> As Weiner detailed later in his book: >> >>> The Pakistani intelligence chiefs who doled out the CIA’s guns and money favored the Afghan factions who proved themselves most capable in battle. Those factions also happened to be the most committed Islamists. No one dreamed that the holy warriors could ever turn their jihad against the United States. >>> >> Though some speculate the CIA directly armed Osama bin Laden, that is yet to be fully proven or admitted. What is clear is that western media revered him as a valuable fighter against the Soviets, that he arrived to fight in Afghanistan in1980, and that al-Qaeda emerged from the mujahideen, who were beneficiaries of the CIA’s program. Stanford University has noted that Bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam, a prominent Palestinian cleric, “established Al Qaeda from the fighters, financial resources, and training and recruiting structures left over from the anti-Soviet war.” Much of those “structures” were provided by the agency. Intentionally or not, the CIA helped fuel the rise of the terror group. >> Weiner noted that as the CIA failed in other countries like Libya, by the late 1980s “Only the mujahideen, the Afghan holy warriors, were drawing blood and scenting victory. The CIA’s Afghan operation was now a $700-million-dollar-a-year-program” and represented 80% of the overseas budget of the clandestine services. “The CIA’s briefing books never answered the question of what would happen when a militant Islamic army defeated the godless invaders of Afghanistan,” though Tom Twetten, “the number two man in the clandestine service in the summer of 1988,” was tasked with figuring out what would happen with the Afghan rebels. “We don’t have any plan,” he concluded. >> Apparently failing to learn their lesson, the CIA adopted nearly the exact same policy in Syria decades later, arming what they called “moderate rebels” against the Assad regime. Those groups ultimately aligned with al-Qaeda groups. One CIA-backed faction made headlines last year for beheading a child (though President Trump cut off the CIA program in June, the military continues to align with “moderate” groups). >> Unsurprisingly, this list is far from complete. The CIA has engaged in a wide variety of extrajudicial practice, and there are likely countless transgressions we have yet to learn about. >> As Donald Trump cheers the birthday of an agency he himself once criticized, it should be abundantly clear that the nation’s covert spy agency deserves scrutiny and skepticism — not celebration. >> Featured image is from the author. >> The original source of this article is Activist Post >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Sep 24 18:16:04 2017 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 18:16:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dealing with the Enemy (N Korea, Iran) Message-ID: <37E9976F-3E5C-49FF-808E-D484F148F3A8@illinois.edu> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Dealing w enemy.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 4984 bytes Desc: Dealing w enemy.rtfd.zip URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Sun Sep 24 22:01:45 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 18:01:45 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war Teach In Message-ID: <15eb5e91520-c03-27f0@webjas-vaa082.srv.aolmail.net> To All Participants in yesterday's Teach-In: Congratulations and thank you to all the facilitators (especially Karen Aram, who invested so much effort toward its success), to the panelists for their excellent preparations as well as the two who were unable to deliver theirs due to the long day (fortunately they both had timely articles in the latest Public-i, except for David Johnson's presentation on Venezuela, which I was anxious to hear).  Special thanks also for the excellent contributions of Rich Whitney and Paula Bradshaw who traveled the 200 miles from Carbondale .  It was a long arduous day on a depressing topic but a worthwhile commitment.  Harry Micklehide's as always creative entertainment helped lift the tedium of the dreary topic of endless war, and thanks also to those who provided refreshment, to Stuart Levy who recorded the speeches (it's worthy of viewing by wider audience, if it could be broadcast on You-Tube or possibly transcripts published in CounterPunch, or some such). I appreciate having the opportunity of learning so much from so many well qualified presenters, and all I had to do was travel a couple of miles from Savoy!  Thanks again to all. Midge O'Brien -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Sep 25 12:03:38 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 07:03:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net> Could not open the attachment and could find nothing via a google search. Could someone please copy and paste the relevant articles ? Thanks David J. From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Niloofar Shambayati via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:57 PM To: Dianna Visek Cc: Peace List Subject: Re: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! Would be good to send it to DSA and smaller socialist parties too! On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: I'm not aware of any news articles. I will send it to Tom Kacich in hopes that his editors will let him report on it. Media that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant to cover it. And Michael Madigan is probably peeved. I will also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and Constitution Party. Dianna On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM CDT, James M wrote: I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this right, this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties in Illinois. Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of this decision? How long will it take independent parties to start fielding candidates? On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral arguments and we won! This is great for all minor parties in Illinois! Hallelujah! Dianna ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Sep 25 12:04:37 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 08:04:37 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Youth Against Settlements: We are protesting In-Reply-To: <15eb8eac8af-c06-691@webjas-vab047.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <15eb8ecc302-c04-140eb@webjas-vaa219.srv.aolmail.net> Did everyone get this?  Israel (again) displays its violation of free speech protected almost everywhere except in China and the University of Illinois.  (Hebron/al Khalil is the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank)MO'B-----Original Message-----From: Youth Against Settlements To: Midge O'Brien Sent: Sun, Sep 24, 2017 12:16 pmSubject: We are protesting #AOLMsgPart_2_b3d00b78-cb3b-4002-84b0-d96382cb4193 td { color: black } .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_4f569312-4463-49c9-95a1-d2a11b214eee td { color: black } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody #aolmail_aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_454c9b87-8e94-49e1-9785-cbea1fa969a3 td { color: black } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody { background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); -webkit-text-size-adjust: none; -ms-text-size-adjust: none } .aolReplacedBody { color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Times, "Times NewRoman", serif; margin: 0; padding: 0 } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table { border-spacing: 0; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0 } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table td { border-collapse: collapse } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody p { margin-bottom: 1em } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody img { max-width: 100% } @media screen and (max-width: 600px) {.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table[class="aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_container"] { width: 100% !important } } @media screen and (max-width: 480px) {.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table[class="aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_container"] { width: 100% !important } } @media only screen and (max-width: 600px) {.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table[class="aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_container"] { width: 100% !important } } Dear Midge -- Last week, 3000 settlers forced their way into the Ibrahimi mosque. The Israeli military provided them with protection. This followed last month’s declaration by Israel that Hebron settlers would receive their own municipality and official settlement status. Can you make a donation so we can continue our resistance work? A few weeks ago, Issa Amro was taken into custody by the Palestinian Authority for a Facebook post. Though outrageous, it wasn’t a surprise. The US and EU provide millions of dollars to the PA for “security cooperation” with Israel. Though the occupation continues to tighten its grips, we are not deterred in our commitment to struggling for freedom and equality. All month long, including since Issa was released from PA custody, we have been protesting. In our sights is dismantling Israel’s fence that imprisons the Salayma neighborhood next to the Ibrahimi mosque. The fence is locked each night from 11pm to 6am. Children lead the protests, holding signs of “Apartheid 2017” and “Segregated and Unequal”. Help us continue our work by making a donation. Your generosity will supply bail funds as needed and support our #SegregatedAndUnequal protests and campaign. Issa continues to face 18 charges in Israeli military court. He now has three additional charges against him by the Palestinian Authority. He is currently out on bail. Despite this, Issa is forging ahead with his human rights work. He is currently giving talks in the UK and will soon arrive in Washington, DC for meetings with members of congress and more. Your support gives him, and all of us, the strength to continue our struggle. Towards liberation, Everyone at Youth Against Settlements P.S. See Issa in person in London or Washington, DC: London, September 25, with Palestinian lawyer and co-defendant Farid al-Atrash and othersWashington, DC, September 28, with Peter BeinartWashington, DC, October 2, with with Yousef Munayyer Working for Peace and Justice: Hebron Freedom Fund  -=-=- Working for Peace and Justice · United States This email was sent to moboct1 at aim.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Youth Against Settlements on Twitter or Facebook. -=-=- Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon Sep 25 12:08:55 2017 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 08:08:55 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Fwd: Youth Against Settlements: We are protesting In-Reply-To: <15eb8ecc302-c04-140eb@webjas-vaa219.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <15eb8f0b075-c04-422c8@webjas-vac032.srv.aolmail.net> P.S.  I should have added the Palestinian Authority to the list of violaters.Did everyone get this?  Israel (again) displays its violation of free speech protected almost everywhere except in China and the University of Illinois.  (Hebron/al Khalil is the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank)MO'B-----Original Message-----From: Youth Against Settlements To: Midge O'Brien Sent: Sun, Sep 24, 2017 12:16 pmSubject: We are protesting .aolReplacedBody #aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_b3d00b78-cb3b-4002-84b0-d96382cb4193 td { color: black } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody #aolmail_aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_4f569312-4463-49c9-95a1-d2a11b214eee td { color: black } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody #aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_AOLMsgPart_2_454c9b87-8e94-49e1-9785-cbea1fa969a3 td { color: black } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody { background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); -webkit-text-size-adjust: none; -ms-text-size-adjust: none } .aolReplacedBody { color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Times, "Times NewRoman", serif; margin: 0; padding: 0 } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table { border-spacing: 0; border-collapse: collapse; border-spacing: 0 } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table td { border-collapse: collapse } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody p { margin-bottom: 1em } .aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody img { max-width: 100% } @media screen and (max-width: 600px) {.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table[class="aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_container"] { width: 100% !important } } @media screen and (max-width: 480px) {.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table[class="aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_container"] { width: 100% !important } } @media only screen and (max-width: 600px) {.aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody .aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolReplacedBody table[class="aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_aolmail_container"] { width: 100% !important } } Dear Midge -- Last week, 3000 settlers forced their way into the Ibrahimi mosque. The Israeli military provided them with protection. This followed last month’s declaration by Israel that Hebron settlers would receive their own municipality and official settlement status. Can you make a donation so we can continue our resistance work? A few weeks ago, Issa Amro was taken into custody by the Palestinian Authority for a Facebook post. Though outrageous, it wasn’t a surprise. The US and EU provide millions of dollars to the PA for “security cooperation” with Israel. Though the occupation continues to tighten its grips, we are not deterred in our commitment to struggling for freedom and equality. All month long, including since Issa was released from PA custody, we have been protesting. In our sights is dismantling Israel’s fence that imprisons the Salayma neighborhood next to the Ibrahimi mosque. The fence is locked each night from 11pm to 6am. Children lead the protests, holding signs of “Apartheid 2017” and “Segregated and Unequal”. Help us continue our work by making a donation. Your generosity will supply bail funds as needed and support our #SegregatedAndUnequal protests and campaign. Issa continues to face 18 charges in Israeli military court. He now has three additional charges against him by the Palestinian Authority. He is currently out on bail. Despite this, Issa is forging ahead with his human rights work. He is currently giving talks in the UK and will soon arrive in Washington, DC for meetings with members of congress and more. Your support gives him, and all of us, the strength to continue our struggle. Towards liberation, Everyone at Youth Against Settlements P.S. See Issa in person in London or Washington, DC: London, September 25, with Palestinian lawyer and co-defendant Farid al-Atrash and othersWashington, DC, September 28, with Peter BeinartWashington, DC, October 2, with with Yousef Munayyer Working for Peace and Justice: Hebron Freedom Fund  -=-=- Working for Peace and Justice · United States This email was sent to moboct1 at aim.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Youth Against Settlements on Twitter or Facebook. -=-=- Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Mon Sep 25 13:17:53 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: <002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net> References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> <002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1321231604.8707627.1506345473225@mail.yahoo.com> There aren't any articles yet, as far as I know.  The decision says that  Illinois' full slate requirement is unconstitutional. Dianna On Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:04:01 AM CDT, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: #yiv3210346349 #yiv3210346349 -- _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv3210346349 #yiv3210346349 p.yiv3210346349MsoNormal, #yiv3210346349 li.yiv3210346349MsoNormal, #yiv3210346349 div.yiv3210346349MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3210346349 a:link, #yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3210346349 a:visited, #yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349hoenzb {}#yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349m-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130hoenzb {}#yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3210346349 .yiv3210346349MsoChpDefault {}#yiv3210346349 .yiv3210346349MsoPapDefault {text-align:justify;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3210346349 div.yiv3210346349WordSection1 {}#yiv3210346349 Could not open the attachment and could find nothing via a google search. Could someone please copy and paste the relevant articles ?   Thanks   David J.   From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Niloofar Shambayati via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:57 PM To: Dianna Visek Cc: Peace List Subject: Re: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit!   Would be good to send it to DSA and smaller socialist parties too!   On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: I'm not aware of any news articles.  I will send it to Tom Kacich in hopes that his editors will let him report on it.   Media that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant to cover it.  And Michael Madigan is probably peeved.   I will also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and Constitution Party.   Dianna     On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM CDT, James M wrote:     I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this right, this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties in Illinois. Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of this decision? How long will it take independent parties to start fielding candidates?   On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral arguments and we won!  This is great for all minor parties in Illinois!  Hallelujah!   Dianna ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace   _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace   _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Mon Sep 25 13:17:53 2017 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:17:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! In-Reply-To: <002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net> References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> <002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1321231604.8707627.1506345473225@mail.yahoo.com> There aren't any articles yet, as far as I know.  The decision says that  Illinois' full slate requirement is unconstitutional. Dianna On Monday, September 25, 2017, 7:04:01 AM CDT, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: #yiv3210346349 #yiv3210346349 -- _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {font-family:Verdana;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv3210346349 #yiv3210346349 p.yiv3210346349MsoNormal, #yiv3210346349 li.yiv3210346349MsoNormal, #yiv3210346349 div.yiv3210346349MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv3210346349 a:link, #yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3210346349 a:visited, #yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349hoenzb {}#yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349m-1055415338916285665ydp11abb947yiv6298124130hoenzb {}#yiv3210346349 span.yiv3210346349EmailStyle19 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3210346349 .yiv3210346349MsoChpDefault {}#yiv3210346349 .yiv3210346349MsoPapDefault {text-align:justify;} _filtered #yiv3210346349 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3210346349 div.yiv3210346349WordSection1 {}#yiv3210346349 Could not open the attachment and could find nothing via a google search. Could someone please copy and paste the relevant articles ?   Thanks   David J.   From: Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Niloofar Shambayati via Peace Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:57 PM To: Dianna Visek Cc: Peace List Subject: Re: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit!   Would be good to send it to DSA and smaller socialist parties too!   On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: I'm not aware of any news articles.  I will send it to Tom Kacich in hopes that his editors will let him report on it.   Media that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant to cover it.  And Michael Madigan is probably peeved.   I will also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and Constitution Party.   Dianna     On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM CDT, James M wrote:     I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this right, this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties in Illinois. Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of this decision? How long will it take independent parties to start fielding candidates?   On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace wrote: We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral arguments and we won!  This is great for all minor parties in Illinois!  Hallelujah!   Dianna ______________________________ _________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace   _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace   _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 13:40:16 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 13:40:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Fwd: Youth Against Settlements: We are protesting In-Reply-To: <15eb8f0b075-c04-422c8@webjas-vac032.srv.aolmail.net> References: <15eb8f0b075-c04-422c8@webjas-vac032.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: Midge, Coincidentally, like Israel, our aircraft carrier in the middle east, Thailand, one of our naval carriers in SE Asia, does not have freedom of speech, say anything about the government or monarchy and you will be arrested, and jailed. This applies to foreigners as well as Thai nationals. It matters not whether private conversations or public. If someone reports a private conversation, the person targeted will be arrested. We generally only discussed matters of government in whispers, if at all. Thailand has a law of lese majeste, which dates back to ancient times, this nation/friend of the US. keeps the people generally passive, until they boil over as a result of unbearable conditions. China on the other hand, does not prevent people from discussing politics, many people, taxi drivers, students speak out on the issue of politics all the time, privately and among themselves, but also with foreigners, at least in Shanghai and Beijing. Making public statements against the government, is another story. The people of China are not passive, and they have had many demonstrations against their exploiters over the years, more than most nations. Generally they demonstrate against working conditions or pollution. On Sep 25, 2017, at 05:08, Mildred O'brien via Peace-discuss > wrote: P.S. I should have added the Palestinian Authority to the list of violaters. Did everyone get this? Israel (again) displays its violation of free speech protected almost everywhere except in China and the University of Illinois. (Hebron/al Khalil is the largest Palestinian city in the West Bank) MO'B -----Original Message----- From: Youth Against Settlements > To: Midge O'Brien > Sent: Sun, Sep 24, 2017 12:16 pm Subject: We are protesting [Fence_protest.jpg] Dear Midge -- Last week, 3000 settlers forced their way into the Ibrahimi mosque. The Israeli military provided them with protection. This followed last month’s declaration by Israel that Hebron settlers would receive their own municipality and official settlement status. Can you make a donation so we can continue our resistance work? A few weeks ago, Issa Amro was taken into custody by the Palestinian Authority for a Facebook post. Though outrageous, it wasn’t a surprise. The US and EU provide millions of dollars to the PA for “security cooperation” with Israel. Though the occupation continues to tighten its grips, we are not deterred in our commitment to struggling for freedom and equality. All month long, including since Issa was released from PA custody, we have been protesting. In our sights is dismantling Israel’s fence that imprisons the Salayma neighborhood next to the Ibrahimi mosque. The fence is locked each night from 11pm to 6am. Children lead the protests, holding signs of “Apartheid 2017” and “Segregated and Unequal”. Help us continue our work by making a donation. Your generosity will supply bail funds as needed and support our #SegregatedAndUnequal protests and campaign. Issa continues to face 18 charges in Israeli military court. He now has three additional charges against him by the Palestinian Authority. He is currently out on bail. Despite this, Issa is forging ahead with his human rights work. He is currently giving talks in the UK and will soon arrive in Washington, DC for meetings with members of congress and more. Your support gives him, and all of us, the strength to continue our struggle. Towards liberation, Everyone at Youth Against Settlements P.S. See Issa in person in London or Washington, DC: London, September 25, with Palestinian lawyer and co-defendant Farid al-Atrash and others Washington, DC, September 28, with Peter Beinart Washington, DC, October 2, with with Yousef Munayyer [16325572_1196694163771584_1442140711_o_(1).jpg] Working for Peace and Justice: Hebron Freedom Fund -=-=- Working for Peace and Justice · United States This email was sent to moboct1 at aim.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Youth Against Settlements on Twitter or Facebook. -=-=- Created with NationBuilder, software for leaders. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 14:28:41 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:28:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Presentation by Carl Estabrook at SEE & AWARE's Anti-War Teach In Message-ID: Remarks for the ANTI-WAR TEACH-IN sponsored by Students for Economic Empowerment (SEE) and the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana (AWARE), September 23, 2017 U.S. WAR-MAKING SINCE WORLD WAR II: WHAT HAVE WE DONE, AND WHY? [Q: Why have US presidents killed more than 20 million people since 1945? A: Ask Halford Mackinder*.] 1. When the Second World War ended, in 1945, the US was the only major undamaged country, among the victors or the vanquished. It’s a US propaganda myth that it was the US who won the war against Germany (and an even greater myth that we did it to save Jews). The war in Europe was won by the Soviet Union, which lost 27 million citizens; the US in comparison lost less than a half million in the entire war. Even German casualties were less than a third of the Russian dead. 2. Even after the US belatedly joined the war in Europe by invading France in 1944, the great majority of German troops remained on the eastern front, against Russia. The US government attitude toward the war had been candidly expressed by the unlikely man who became the 33rd president of the US, Harry Truman: when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941, Truman said, “If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible...” 3. But with the ending of the war in 1945, US government planners - who, in the State Department and the Council of Foreign Relations, had been planning for US economic control of the post-war world since before Pearl Harbor - had a serious problem: the Great Depression, that had produced the Roosevelt administration and the economic reforms of the New Deal, had been ended, not by those reforms, but by war-time production; that is what bought back the jobs lost in the 1930s. But with the ending of the war, there was every indication that the Depression would come back. 4. Military production was the answer, but with the defeat of Germany and Japan, the US public was happy to see the end of war. The US public is historically anti-war: they had to be tricked, propagandized, and forced into both the First and Second World Wars, by the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, respectively. They wanted no more war in 1945. 5. The solution was offered to President Truman by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Arthur Vandenberg, who urged the president to present the threat of Soviet expansionism to Congress and the nation in the starkest of terms. The only way to get renewed military spending Vandenberg advised, was to “make a personal appearance before Congress and scare the hell out of the American people.” On March 12, 1947, Truman, before a joint session of the House and Senate, did just that, painting the picture of a world teetering toward communist domination. In articulating a set of principles—later known as the Truman Doctrine—the president declared: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." 6. That may remind you of a presidential comment from this past week, 70 years after Truman’s, but it was nonsense then: At that time, half of the mechanized divisions of the exhausted Russian army were horse-drawn - but that mattered little: the Cold War was launched, and the US government had a cover story for becoming what ML King called it - “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” 7. Truman “governed the country with the cooperation of a small number of Wall Street lawyers and bankers" - so said Samuel Huntington, professor of the Science of Government [sic] at Harvard (Huntington was called ‘Mad Dog’ long before the present Secretary of Defense, General Mattis), but Truman and his successors also had a way to control the only enemy modern American presidents really fear - American public opinion. Australian social scientist Alex Carey wrote, ”The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance : the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." 8. The Cold War propaganda of 70 years ago was new, but the goal of US foreign policy was not; it remains the same today. We sometimes regard US foreign policy as “blundering attempts to do good,” as the NYT’s liberal columnist said about the Vietnam war, after it ended. But the truth is that at least since the Open Door policy of 1899, the cynosure of American planners has been Eurasia. The bedrock of US foreign policy since the 19th century has been the prevention of the economic integration of Eurasia, under whatever auspices, for fear that it would delimit the world-wide profits of the American economic elite, the 1%. 9. That’s what the Second World War in the Pacific was about - the defeat of Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” And America’s vicious wars in Korea and Vietnam were in aid of maintaining the economic control that the US had won in Asia in WWII. 10. That is today at the heart of the Obama and Trump administration’s war provocations against the Russia-China-Iran triad, who threaten once again the American bete noire, the economic integration of Eurasia, now most clearly in China’s Belt and Road initiative. 11. Since the Second World War, American presidents have killed between 20 and 30 million people in pursuit of that goal. And a subsidiary goal has been the control of world energy flows, principally from the Mideast, which has provided the US with a chokehold over competing economies in Europe and Asia, most notably over China. The US has shown itself willing to kill a lot of people for that. 12. The Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War (and even more obviously the parallel Tokyo Trials), in which officials of the defeated governments, Germany and Japan, were tried and hanged by the US and allied governments, were of course ‘victors’ justice’: one can easily imagine a reversed scenario, had the war ended differently. But in order to execute enemy officials, the US had to create law - law which also condemned the future behavior of the principal victor of the war, the US government. 13. The ‘International Military Tribunal for Germany,’ as it was called, declared at Nuremberg in 1946 (Sep. 30) that “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." 14. Wars of aggression - that is, not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council - are thus wars without international legality - indeed, the are “the supreme international crime.” And under that standard, the supreme international criminal in our lifetimes is the government of the United States. 15. It has been pointed out that all post-WWII US presidents would have been hanged, if they had been tried by a Nuremberg Tribunal, because they all launched aggressive war. 16. That most of America’s violence across the world has been perpetrated not by Republicans, or mutants like Trump, but by liberal Democrats, remains a taboo [subject]. 17. Barack Obama provided the apotheosis, with seven simultaneous wars, a presidential record, including the destruction of Libya as a modern state. Obama’s overthrow of Ukraine’s elected government has had the desired effect: the massing of American-led Nato forces on Russia’s western borderland through which the Nazis invaded in 1941. 18. Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’ in 2011 signalled the transfer of the majority of America’s naval and air forces to Asia and the Pacific for no purpose other than to confront and provoke China. The Nobel Peace Laureate’s worldwide campaign of assassinations is arguably the most extensive campaign of terrorism since 9/11. 19. What is known in the US as ‘the left’ has effectively allied with the darkest recesses of institutional power, notably the Pentagon and the CIA, to see off a peace deal between Trump and Vladimir Putin and to reinstate Russia as an enemy, on the basis of no evidence of its alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election. 20. The poets often get there first. The playwright Harold Pinter said, when he received the Nobel Prize in 2005, “The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them... 21. ”The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was an arbitrary military action inspired by a series of lies upon lies and gross manipulation of the media and therefore of the public; an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading – as a last resort – all other justifications having failed to justify themselves – as liberation. A formidable assertion of military force responsible for the death and mutilation of thousands and thousands of innocent people. We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death ... [and we] call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East’... 22. “The United States supported and in many cases engendered every right wing military dictatorship in the world after the end of the Second World War. I refer to Indonesia, Greece, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, Haiti, Turkey, the Philippines, Guatemala, El Salvador, and, of course, Chile. 23. “The horror the United States inflicted upon Chile in 1973 can never be purged and can never be forgiven. Hundreds of thousands of deaths took place throughout these countries ... The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. 24. “You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.” 25. That’s Harold Pinter, a dozen years ago. At this moment the US is making war and killing people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these WARS, although most Americans are not aware of it. 26. In addition, the 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads. 27. Why is our government terrorizing the world to the point that international polls show the US is by far the most feared country in the world - not Russia, China, N. Korea, or Iran? The answer is simple and horrible. The US is killing people to protect the profits of the 1%, the American economic elite. 28. The US government used the crimes of 9-11 as an excuse to carry on its wars in the Mideast. The US government says it is fighting terrorism, but it is in fact killing people in order to control Mideast oil - what the US State Department called in 1945 “the world’s greatest material prize.” 29. The US doesn’t need Mideast oil - what we use here comes principally from the US, Canada, Venezuela, and Nigeria - but control of oil from SW Asia and N Africa gives the US a choke-hold over economic rivals, from Germany to China. 30. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the US government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it... _________________________________ * Sir Halford John Mackinder PC (1861-1947) was an English academic, a founder of geopolitics and geostrategy. His 1904 article, "The Geographical Pivot of History," proposed his ‘Heartland Theory’: According to Mackinder, the Earth's land surface consists of ~ the world-island, the interlinked continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa - the largest, most populous, and richest of all possible land combinations; ~ the offshore islands, including the British Isles and the islands of Japan; and ~ the outlying islands, including North America, South America, and Australia. The Heartland lay at the center of the world-island, stretching from the Volga to the Yangtze and from the Himalayas to the Arctic. In 1919, Mackinder summarized his theory as "Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world." (He may have been wrong about East Europe: it seems now that the command of the Heartland may be coming from the other direction.) The bedrock of US foreign policy, at least since the Open Door Policy (1899), has been to prevent the economic integration of the ‘Heartland,’ under whatever auspices, which was seen as a threat to the profits of the US economic elite. That’s what the unpleasantness with the Japanese in the 1940s was all about - and why the greatest set-back to the American ruling elite (and at the very moment of its complete triumph) was the ‘loss of China,’ in 1949, which accomplished the much-feared exclusion of US economic exploitation from Eurasia. (US wars in Korea and Indochina were attempts to maintain that exploitation, at least in east and southeast Asia; as such, those wars were successful, even if the US did not attain its maximum war aims.) Most modern US foreign policy (including the generations-long attempt to control energy flows from the Mideast, as a choke-hold on Asian economies) can be inferred from a Mackinderesque outlook. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 14:44:17 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 14:44:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism In-Reply-To: <1812960111.8083889.1506348502790@mail.yahoo.com> References: <408444805.2725193.1504548891757.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <408444805.2725193.1504548891757@mail.yahoo.com> <1812960111.8083889.1506348502790@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Blame it on the “Left,” liberals is what the author must be referring to, as true “leftists” usually Marxists, would have us truly educated, in order to be better human beings, to understand society, to teach us to critically analyze. Instead what we have had over the many years is a neoliberal attempt to create robots with skills, and it doesn’t matter whether its Yale, Harvard or the U of I. Terrific skill sets, in order to perform. But let us not think, let us embrace and regurgitate the propaganda spewed from mainstream media and corporate lackey’s of the government. Let us continue to bomb, kill and exploit those who we don’t care to think about, labeled terrorism. Let us not critically analyze why we provide poverty and death to those Americans now deemed dispensable while 68% of our discretionary funding goes to support the military industrial complex. What we need is system change, one that provides true education for all, not just those that can afford it. Reform of academia is necessary, without question, because very few US schools encourage “questions.” On Sep 25, 2017, at 07:08, Dianna Visek via Peace > wrote: This lecture has been reworked. The new description is on he Center for Advanced Study website: The Educational Needs of Erstwhile Humans: Identity Fluidity in a Post-Work World | CAS The Educational Needs of Erstwhile Humans: Identity Fluidity in a Post-W... ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Dianna Visek via Peace > To: Peace List > Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017, 1:15:32 PM CDT Subject: [Peace] Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism CAS Initiative-David Blacker Event Type Lecture Sponsor Center for Advanced Study Location Levis Faculty Center-Room 210; 919 West Illinois Street; Urbana Date Sep 25, 2017 4:00 pm Speaker David Blacker; Professor of Philosophy of Education and Legal Studies Program, University of Delaware Cost Free and Open to the Public E-Mail cas at cas.illinois.edu Phone 217-333-6729 Views 3 Originating Calendar Center for Advanced Study Public Education in the Grand Sense: On the Limits and Possibilities of Left Egalitarianism Characterized by historic commitments to egalitarianism, the political left implicitly positions itself as moral educator to the public at large. As presently conceived, however, this enterprise has become antiquated. As decent durable jobs become scarcer and individuals more economically disposable, human identities are becoming more fluid, disconnecting from their erstwhile vocational anchors. In this context, the political left's educative capacity is structurally limited by its reluctance to confront its own philosophical contingencies, as its field of action is increasingly drained of shared comprehensive conceptions. In this setting of collective meaning deficit, an overly thin egalitarian imaginary is guaranteed to fail long-term. Yet public education in the grand sense is not impossible. This lecture describes several possibilities for the needed reconstruction. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Sep 25 15:15:37 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:15:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trojan-Horse Democrats Pile Into House of Single Payer Message-ID: <007901d33611$26e76840$74b638c0$@comcast.net> It’s important to recognize that we’re not in 2009, and we can’t let Franken Democrats drag us back into a poor sequel of Obama’s shunning of single-payer, played out within Bernie’s bill, as it were—which is exactly what they are trying to do. But Franken and Gillibrand are not Obama, and no cast of Clintonite characters today has anywhere near the political strength he had in 2009. Whatever hidden Easter egg neoliberal Democrats are hoping to hatch from it, Bernie’s bill has put single-payer front-and-center on the public agenda. The Obamacare can has reached the end of the road, and Trump and the Republicans can’t even find theirs. People are fed up with the half-assed schemes, and are open to, and literally dying for, the program that everybody needs: universal healthcare coverage as a right. It’s just about the easiest political sell one could imagine. Because of that, Medicare-for-all is becoming quite feasible, and every Democratic and Republican defender of capitalist healthcare is realizing that and fearing it. Hillary’s “never, ever” cannot be said by Democrats anymore. Trojan-Horse Democrats Pile Into House of Single Payer Description: Trojan-Horse Democrats Pile Into House of Single Payer 22 Sep 2017 | Campaign Updates By Jim Kavanaugh for The Polemicist. Duplicitous Democrats are trying to sabotage single-payer, again. It’s great that more than a third of Democratic senators have signed on to co-sponsor Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-All bill. It’s a potentially strong bill that’s been welcomed by single-payer activist organizations like Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and National Nurses United (NNU), and it represents a victory for the tireless work of single-payer activists and the popular pressure they stoked. It is also, we must recognize, only possible because of Bernie’s insistent promotion of healthcare as a right, in a campaign that widened the field of American political discourse. Above all, it is a result of continuing disgust with American for-profit health insurance system. It marks the exasperation with Obamacare’s half-assed attempt to patch up that system, and the rejection of the even crueler Republican schemes. At the very least, this bill puts single-payer “on the table” of legislative action and public discussion. The “public discussion” part is perhaps the most important. People will now hear about single-payer, and its advocates will not be completely shut out of media coverage from Fox to PBS, as they are now. Even the Democratic Party will have to talk about it. But please, please, do not be fooled. It does not mean that most, or any, of those co-sponsoring Democratic senators actually support single-payer. Most of those Democrats have signed on because they felt politically forced to, because they knew they could not face their constituents if they didn’t. But many of them do not support single-payer, have no intention of actually working to make it happen, and will, in fact, do their best to undermine and prevent it. In Homer’s Odyssey, both Helen of Troy and King Priam’s daughter, Cassandra, tried to warn the king that the elegant Horse, which was presented by the Greeks as an emblem of surrender, was actually an engine of attack that would destroy the city if allowed in. Call me Cassandra. The New York Times article of September 15th, “Buried Inside Bernie Sanders’s Bill: A Fallback Plan,” makes the danger clear. Duplicitous, Trojan-horse Democrats like Al Franken and Kirsten Gillibrand are jumping into this bill to hollow it out from within, and divert the tide of single-payer into another disappointing dead-end. Franken, who has always defined himself as “a DLC Democrat”* comes right out and says that he considers the bill only “aspirational,” a “marker,” and “a starting point for where we need to go.” In other words: This is not real legislation and a real policy that I’m really supporting, but a kind of thought-experiment that I’m going to use to lead you to something else. And that “something else” is something less than single-payer. Gillibrand puts that lesser card on the table. Bernie’s bill, it seems, has sections that “help establish a road map for what some other strategies might look like.” Gillibrand herself wrote into the bill an option to buy Medicare-like government plans on the “already available” Obamacare exchanges. This is the pernicious “public option” that the Times delicately and deceptively says “didn’t have enough support” to stay in the final ACA bill, (It didn’t have Obama’s support, and he killed it.) As Gillibrand describes it: “One part of the [Sanders] bill that I worked with my colleagues to put in was the ability for every American to buy into a nonprofit public option This would create affordable, public health care that is available to any American to purchase in the already available exchanges.” This “public option” is going to be pitched by Gillibrand as another “transition to get to single-payer.” But it is no such thing; it is not a move toward, but a diversion away from, single-payer, and a damaging one. The “public option” can be spun to sound like a reasonable and “realistic” progressive alternative, another Zeno step toward single payer, In fact, any “public option” with the real progressive intent Gillibrand claims would actually destroy the private health insurance industry and market rather quickly. But that is not what Gillibrand or any of these Democrats want. They want a public option that will preserve and stabilize the private insurance market. There are a number of more specific reasons the public option cannot be the progressive “step” it is touted as. You can find them in the analyses of RoseAnn DeMoro, Russell Mokhiber, Margaret Flowers, Adam Gaffney, Physicians for A National Health Program, Naked Capitalism, and many others. I’ll mention a couple of them here. First of all, the public option will not, and cannot, achieve universal coverage—something that single-payer advocates, including Bernie Sanders, have always presented as an indispensable goal. It will leave tens of millions of people without health insurance. Remember the vociferous moral outrage about the 24 million people Trumpcare would have taken coverage away from (and the missing moral outrage about the 28 million people Obamacare leaves uncovered)? Well, as Dr, Margaret Flowers asks, if Gillibrand and Franken think “it is acceptable to promote a policy that leaves some people out, then we want to know who should be left out.” Second, the public option leaves a segmented, multi-tier healthcare system (including the tier of the uninsured). As RoseAnn DeMoro of NNU notes: “Medicare works in large part by including all the people it covers in one large risk pool so that healthier patients balance out sicker patients in costs that must be reimbursed to providers.” The public option scheme prevents the equalization and cost-cutting that would come from a fully public Medicare-for-all program. As Adam Gaffney says: “We don’t need competing public and private insurance plans any more than we need competing public and private air traffic controllers.” Throwing a public option into the mix on the “already available exchanges”—which are different in every state—is a scheme that maintains the waste and inefficiency of unnecessary parallel healthcare programs, It also reinforces the class divisions and resentments those parallel programs create. One might be excused for thinking it maintains those wasteful inefficiencies in order to maintain those divisions. It would keep a “poor people’s” tier of healthcare (Medicaid, etc.) distinct from what people with extra money in their pockets can purchase in the exchange. Because it’s very important (for the intra-class division on which capitalism depends) for everyone to know, and continually parse, who gets “welfare” and who’s “paying their way.” Let’s keep some extra layers of bureaucracy just so desperately poor people can be reminded that they’re not precariously “middle-class,” and vice-versa. Furthermore, as long as the public option is competing in a market—i.e.,” exchange”—system, the private for-profit insurance sector will be a rallying point for conservative wedge attacks to undermine the public program. Conservative Republicans and corporatist Democrats will conjure ways to create market advantages for the private plans, via subsidies, tax breaks, reducing the payments to providers from the public plan, etc. As the devolution of Obamacare has shown—with its skyrocketing premiums, narrowing networks, and the flight of many insurance companies—keeping the health insurance market profitable requires a lot of care and feeding. It would be supremely foolish, for example, not to expect that “other strategies” coming from Gillibrand, Franken, and the neoliberal Democrats will be projects for “fixing”—more like resuscitating, at this point—Obamacare and its “exchanges” with a public option that, as DeMoro says: “becomes the ACA escape valve by welcoming in the sickest people selected out by the private insurers, in effect another bailout for a failed private insurance market.” What a waste of time. Any way you configure it, a ““public option” integrated into a private market paradigm offers no discrete improvements they can point to that wouldn’t be better achieved with a full public single-payer program. The only reason Clintonite Democrats want to divert the Medicare-for-all momentum into the “public option” cul-de-sac is to save the for-profit private health insurance industry. (I’ll address the other ostensible reason below.) They oppose single-payer and are now presenting themselves as supporters of it in order to make sure no plan gets through that will actually break the for-profit market system. Nothing indicates more clearly the fundamental commitment to the capitalist market paradigm the Democrats share with the Republicans than the game these Democrats are playing with healthcare. As Adam Gaffney points out, in 2016 Paul Ryan and the Republicans, insisting they only wanted to “save” Medicare, published a proposal by which “traditional Medicare would be transformed into a public plan that would compete against private insurance plans in a ‘Medicare Exchange.’” Every sentient person understood that as a plan to destroy Medicare, and the Democrats denounced it as such. Well, the Franken-Gillibrand ”other strategies” Democrats are trying to do the same thing to the Medicare-for-all proposal as Ryan and the Republicans tried to do with existing Medicare. In other words, as Obama did in 2009, today’s Clintonites are taking a Republican idea and dressing it up in Democratic finery. Their “other strategy” for taking a “step toward” it is to stop the train in its tracks and push it in the opposite direction. This time, as everybody did with Ryan, let’s recognize this “support” for what is, and let’s not let them get away with it. The fundamental character of these RepubliDem proposals is signaled in the language of “affordable” healthcare. The “public option” does not make healthcare a right; it maintains it as a commodity that you have to buy and “afford.” It’s more of the “Go shopping!”” mandate. As if people shopped for health insurance like they do for tomatoes. Maybe I’ll make some spaghetti sauce get some health insurance today. I’ll just buzz by Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s Aetna and Humana to see what’s on sale which policies are most “affordable.” Isn’t it great that they’re selling that store brand, too! This paradigm is a cruel joke. Anybody who’s spent year after year “shopping” in this market—i.e., slogging through ever-changing, ever-costlier, ever-crappier, and ever-more complicated plans—knows that. Haven’t we had enough of it? Health insurance, which effectively means healthcare, should not be presented as a discretionary consumer commodity, “available to purchase” by individuals in some kind of shopping mall, according to “affordability.” It should be organized as a necessary right, available via a publicly-funded program, on the basis of one’s humanity. This was the whole point of single-payer as Bernie Sanders emphatically presented it over the last two years. Putting a generic brand of bottled water on the shelf in the bottled-water store is not the same as providing a public water supply. Not the same at all. Not a “step towards.” Two entirely different principles at work. “Affordable” and “access” are words to be refused whenever they appear in these discussions. In January, Bernie quite rightly slapped down Trump’s HHS nominee, Tom Price, in this exchange: Price: I believe that every single American has access to the highest quality care and coverage that is possible. Sanders. ‘Has access to’ does not mean that they are guaranteed health care. I have access to buying a $10 million home; I don’t have the money to do that. Well, Bernie, make sure you tell that to Kirsten and Al and all the other Democrats who are crowding into your Medicare-for-All bill to make it the “starting point” for “other strategies” that will give “access” to healthcare—i.e., make it “available to purchase” for those who can afford it. Of course, there is final ostensible reason these Democrats who claim to support single-payer insist on promoting “other strategies” like the “public option”—because that is all that’s realistic, feasible, politically possible, etc. It’s a clinching argument for a lot of people, including some Democratic politicians who sincerely want and are not trying to sabotage single-payer but are honestly persuaded that it’s just not feasible. The obverse of this argument is that those who are not so persuaded are incapable of being “pragmatic” or of compromising, and always ruin possibilities of reasonable change by making the perfect the enemy of the good, yada, yada. To address this requires, first of all, to stop straw-manning. I’ve never met a leftist, no matter how radical, who rejects the general possibility of either reforms or compromises because they won’t achieve the workers’ revolution or some other state of perfection. The question is always about political judgement and the principles that govern it, and how they apply to specific reform proposals. Do the reforms deliver a concrete benefit in a secure and permanent way? Do the reforms change the balance of economic, political, and/or social power in favor of the working-class? Do they at least move in the right direction? In this regard, we might refer to André Gorz’s distinction between “reformist reforms” that stabilize the status quo and “non-reformist reforms” that advance real change. In the U.S. healthcare context, “reformist reforms” are those that seek to stabilize and protect the capitalist market healthcare system as well as the wealth and power of the class that controls it. “Non-reformist reforms” are those that establish new possibilities for a system that’s controlled by and for the public, and governed by “human needs and demands” rather than profitability. Similarly, there are positive and negative compromises. The way to get a radical reform like single-payer is to fight for it, to work to bring people around to it, not to pre-emptively offer something else that you think will be more palatable to those who are resistant. And if, after fighting hard for it, the balance of forces requires you to compromise, you do so in a way that still achieves a net gain for your principles and position. Otherwise, it’s not a compromise; it’s a loss. In this context, for example, short of universal coverage, increasing the number of people covered by the public program, Medicare, and strengthening it, would be preferable to diverting public resources to subsidizing private health insurance programs and “exchanges” (because markets, it seems, need government support). Which is why Obamacare, which did the opposite, was not a compromise, but a loss, for single-payer. So let’s, by all means, have reforms—even ones that won’t end capitalism and imperialism. Let’s just not reform the reform away pre-emptively. Medicare-for-all is a reform. As Bernie Sanders keeps pointing out, it’s the kind of system that’s standard practice in advanced capitalist countries. There’s no leftist or marxist who thinks instituting it will overthrow capitalism. We support it because it’s one of those “non-reformist reforms” that concretely benefits the lives of the great majority of citizens, and strengthens public control of an essential service, eliminating a needless and predatory capitalist industry. And that is why neoliberal Democrats reject it: they prefer a “public option” because it preserves the “profit option.” It seems that these two kinds of reform, based on two opposing principles, ominously coexist within Bernie Sanders’s bill and the political strategy around it. It’s King Bernie who has welcomed the Trojan Horse Democrats into his single-payer redoubt. He has let them bury inside his bill whatever poison pill they are going to try to extract and make us swallow: “It turns out that the Sanders bill also has provisions along those [‘more limited step’/public option] lines. (NYT)” The duplicity is inscribed within his carefully crafted Schrödinger’s bill, which is tamely “reformist” and/or radically “non-reformist reformist,” depending on who’s looking at it. And Bernie’s invited a lot of neo-liberal Democratic Senators to cast their defining gaze. That’s raised considerable suspicion about why he didn’t coordinate his proposal with the Conyers bill in the House, which has been “considered the gold standard” by the single-payer movement. I worry, with Margaret Flowers, that: “Sanders has it backwards: Rather than starting from a position of strong legislation and building support for it, he is starting from a position of weak legislation that he considers to be more politically feasible.” Beginning with compromise, ending with loss? Is Bernie again demonstrating his penchant for being an auxiliary Democrat, more eager to show his belly to the Party establishment than to be the leader of his change-hungry pack? Does Sanders think that allying with democratic legislators is more important than allying with a party-independent social movement? As Flower says, Bernie is “trying to walk the line between listening to the concerns of his constituency, and his fellow Democrats, whose campaigns are financed by the medical industrial complex . Sanders must decide whom he is working for.” If there’s one thing that Bernie has been consistently strong about, in a way that never caused me to doubt his commitment, it’s single-payer healthcare. But given the creatures gathering around his bill, it’s necessary to ask: Is Bernie shrewdly sheep-dogging the Democrats into supporting single-payer, or is he again sheep-dogging his constituency into supporting another Clintonite market-stabilizing scheme? I wish there were less reason to be suspicious. Comes the cry: But is anything else possible? (From those who’ve done so well lately foreseeing what’s politically possible.) It depends on how you think about the relation between what is possible and what you can make possible. Let’s, please, be realistic. The “public option” is impossible in this congress. Neither Bernie Sanders’s bill nor anything like it is going to pass this congress. Franken’s and Gillibrand’s “other strategies” are just as impossible as Bernie’s full single-payer in this congress, or in any congress that isn’t radically different. If one thinks about that for a bit, one realizes that tabling the “public option” isn’t really for the ostensible purpose of helping make single-payer more congressionally feasible or moving it closer to political reality, but for the purpose of replacing it. As mentioned above, any “public option” with real progressive intent would inevitably destroy the private health insurance industry. It would, for that reason, encounter the same stiff resistance from congressional Republicans who want to subordinate healthcare to profits. So why would anyone propose fighting the same “impossible” battle for a half-assed version of what you supposedly want, rather than for the full thing? Answer: Because those proposing it want the half-assed version, not the real thing; because they don’t want to destroy the private health-insurance industry; and because they, too, subordinate healthcare to profits. Neoliberal Democratic legislators are not pitching “other strategies” in order to make single-payer more feasible to Republicans. They are not trying to persuade Republicans, or even the many Democrats who are dead-set against it, to vote for a single-payer bill. They’re trying to persuade you not to fight for one. They want you to accept that they are not fighting for it and are going to present something less, and they want you to agree with and congratulate them for doing so. As Margaret Flowers says, introducing a public option will not convert any opponents, but it will “divide and confuse supporters of Medicare for all.” And that is its purpose. The number of Democratic co-sponsors of Bernie Sanders’s bill, which they know has no chance of passage, indicates nothing in this regard. As they did in California, Democrats will proclaim their commitment to single-payer, as long as they don’t have the power to make it happen. In California, they started back-pedaling the minute they had that power. Here, they’re already back-pedaling pre-emptively, from the moment they sign on to “aspirational” legislation. It would be foolish not to hear what they are saying. So the most difficult obstacle to single-payer isn’t that there are too many Republicans in congress. The most difficult obstacle to overcome is the commitment to capitalist market principles among Republicans and Democrats. Sure, the majority of Republican legislators adamantly opposed to any such thing makes single-payer impossible right now. But electing more Democrats won’t necessarily change that. If the congress were full of Bernies, I’m sure it would pass single-payer. If it were full of Cory Bookers, not so much. Everyone, Bernie Sanders included, who wants single-payer healthcare should understand clearly that this fight is not between the Democrats and Republicans. Single-payer won’t come as a result of congresspeople talking and negotiating amongst themselves, or of Democrats either persuading or outnumbering Republicans, It won’t pass a Republican-controlled Congress or a Democrat-controlled Congress. We saw that in 2009, where no Republican vote was received or needed for whatever the Democrats wanted to pass—which was not single-payer. The Democrats’ shunning of single-payer wasn’t because of Republicans in 2009, and it’s not now. The Democratic Party as an institution, as opposed to its constituency (to which it is opposed), is against single-payer. Through its financial infrastructure (and media assets), on which all of its candidates and legislators depend, it will pressure any of them who may have other ideas, and concoct any excuse or diversion, to prevent a robust and irreversible single-payer program. That’s what it did in 2009, and that’s what It will do again. If it can; if we let it. Pace Bernie Sanders, recognizing neoliberal Democrats’ opposition to single-payer, and fighting it, will be much better for advancing the cause than buying their pretense of support, and letting it bend you to their will. The fight for single-payer requires a fight against the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders kinda-sorta knows that, but really wants to avoid it. Without that fight, single-payer will never, ever happen. This is a tough fight, because we’re asking capitalist politicians to sacrifice a capitalist industry for the social good. (And, yes, it can and will be argued, for the good of the capitalist economy as a whole—but there’s a stubborn resistance to any such class disloyalty.) The only thing that will get single-payer done in any congress is a massive, in-their-face public demand that politicians of both parties are too afraid of to deny. It will be done by a popular movement, independent of both parties, that creates a political atmosphere which encourages single-payer supporting candidates from both parties (yes, there will be Republicans) to come forward, and elects a congress where even some of those who don’t want to vote for single-payer, will. That will only happen if single-payer advocates, many of them Bernie supporters, maintain a clear and consistent demand for publicly-funded, universal and equal coverage, for the easily comprehensible, proven-effective Medicare-for-all system—no if, ands, or doo-dads. That will only happen if single-payer advocates refuse to be divided and confused with any of the complicated schemes and doo-dads whose only purpose is to maintain a stream of payments to the private health-insurance industry. That will only happen if single-payer advocates, including Democrats and Bernie supporters, speak and act independently of the Democratic Party and Bernie Sanders, and in opposition to any dilution-complication either might put forward pre-emptively. There’s a reason—and it has everything to do with political feasibility—that there is not, never was, and will not be a “public option” movement. We cannot let anyone, even Bernie Sanders, try to turn the single-payer movement into one. It’s important to recognize that we’re not in 2009, and we can’t let Franken Democrats drag us back into a poor sequel of Obama’s shunning of single-payer, played out within Bernie’s bill, as it were—which is exactly what they are trying to do. The bill really wants single-payer, but “it turns out that [it] has provisions along those [public option] lines.” With Bernie playing the 2017 version of Dennis Kucinich. But Franken and Gillibrand are not Obama, and no cast of Clintonite characters today has anywhere near the political strength he had in 2009. Whatever hidden Easter egg neoliberal Democrats are hoping to hatch from it, Bernie’s bill has put single-payer front-and-center on the public agenda. The Obamacare can has reached the end of the road, and Trump and the Republicans can’t even find theirs. People are fed up with the half-assed schemes, and are open to, and literally dying for, the program that everybody needs: universal healthcare coverage as a right. It’s just about the easiest political sell one could imagine. Because of that, Medicare-for-all is becoming quite feasible, and every Democratic and Republican defender of capitalist healthcare is realizing that and fearing it. Hillary’s “never, ever” cannot be said by Democrats anymore. Even Max Baucus, who had single-payer advocates arrested in 2009, is now saying “We’re getting there. It’s going to happen.” That is why neoliberal Democrats are conjuring new, indirect ways of pushing against it—not because single-payer is not possible but because, more than ever, it is. If universal coverage, single-payer, Medicare-for-all is not a winnable “non-reformist reform,” there is none. Let’s not be diverted from single-payer again, for another scheme whose only purpose is to keep the private health insurance industry sucking profits and life out of people for another ten or fifteen years—after which it will again be obvious that single-payer is the only reasonable alternative. How many groundhog days will we wake up saying: “We’re getting there. It’s going to happen.”? What a waste. Let’s instead, right now, have a left-led movement, independent of any party or personality, that delivers something of material benefit to the entire working population of the country, irrespective of any half-assed ideas any of them have in their heads. Class solidarity based on material interest. Imagine that. __________________________ *The Democratic Leadership Council was, from 1985 to 2011, the incubator of corporatist neo-liberalism in the Democratic Party. It nurtured the career of Bill Clinton, who became its Chainman in 1990. Clintonism screwed the Democrats: How Bill, Hillary and the Democratic Leadership Council gutted progressivism – Salon.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 55839 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Mon Sep 25 15:37:11 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:37:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! (text of decision) In-Reply-To: <002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net> References: <984924339.8086858.1506218683045.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <984924339.8086858.1506218683045@mail.yahoo.com> <801227629.1814452.1506218776800@mail.yahoo.com> <1462344607.1819920.1506218890494@mail.yahoo.com> <531202441.8094989.1506224451392@mail.yahoo.com> <002101d335f6$5284faf0$f78ef0d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <9eab2553-9e11-3878-0b0e-e337f47226f0@gmail.com> The PDF worked OK for me.   Here's the text (with some clutter of page headings etc.): Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS , et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees. v. CHARLES W. SCHOLZ , et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 12-CV-02511 — Andrea R. Wood, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED FEBRUARY 24, 2017 — DECIDED S EPTEMBER 22, 2017 ____________________ Before EASTERBROOK , KANNE , and SYKES , Circuit Judges. SYKES , Circuit Judge. Illinois law prevents political parties from fielding candidates on election ballots unless they meet certain conditions. One condition is known as the full-slate requirement: If a party hasn’t attained sufficient voter sup- port in past elections, it must field candidates for all offices on the ballot in the political subdivision in which it wishes to compete. So in the 2012 election, the Libertarian Party of Illinois could field a candidate for county auditor in Kane Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 2 Pages: 12 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 County only if it also proposed candidates for circuit clerk, recorder, prosecutor, coroner, board chairman, and school superintendent. In this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Libertarian Party argues that the full-slate requirement violates its right of political association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district judge agreed and entered judg- ment invalidating the requirement. On appeal Illinois con- tends that the full-slate requirement is justified by its inter- ests in political stability, preventing ballot overcrowding, and avoiding voter confusion. We affirm the district court. The core of the fundamental right to political association is the right to band together in a political party to advance a policy agenda by electing the party’s members to office. That necessarily includes the party’s right to access the ballot and its candidates’ right to appear on the ballot under the party banner. For a minor party and its nominees, Illinois’s full-slate requirement extinguishes those rights unless the party fields candidates in races it may want no part of. This is a severe burden on fundamental constitutional rights, and Illinois hasn’t offered a compelling state interest to justify it. Indeed, by incentiviz- ing minor parties to manufacture frivolous candidacies as a means to an end, the full-slate requirement actually thwarts the interests Illinois invokes. I. Background Like other states, Illinois classifies general-election can- didates into three groups: those affiliated with an “estab- lished” political party, those affiliated with a “new” political party, and those running as independents. If a candidate is Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 Pages: 12 3 affiliated with a party, whether established or new, the party name appears alongside the candidate’s name on the ballot. A party becomes established through a strong electoral performance. If a party’s candidate in the most recent guber- natorial election received more than 5% of the vote, the party is established throughout the state. 10 I LL . C OMP . S TAT . 5/10-2 (2010). A party can also attain established status on a more limited basis. If its candidate (or candidates collectively) received more than 5% of the vote in a particular race in the most recent statewide election—for example, the race for Illinois Comptroller or Illinois Secretary of State—then the party becomes established for statewide elections. Likewise, if a party received more than 5% of the vote in a congres- sional or county race in the last election, it becomes estab- lished for congressional districts or for that county. 1 Id. 1 The statute provides in part: A political party which, at the last general election for State and county officers, polled for its candidate for Governor more than 5% of the entire vote cast for Governor, is hereby declared to be an “established polit- ical party” as to the State and as to any district or politi- cal subdivision thereof. A political party which, at the last election in any congressional district, legislative dis- trict, county, township, municipality or other political subdivision or district in the State, polled more than 5% of the entire vote cast within such territorial area or po- litical subdivision, as the case may be, has voted as a unit for the election of officers to serve the respective ter- ritorial area of such district or political subdivision, is hereby declared to be an “established political party” within the meaning of this Article as to such district or political subdivision. Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 4 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 A party that isn’t established can access the ballot only as a new party. Attaining new-party status involves different hurdles. Unlike in any other state, new parties in Illinois must submit a full slate of candidates, one for each race in the relevant political subdivision. 2 Id. Additionally, the party must gather a minimum number of signatures on nominat- ing petitions. For state offices, the number is the lower of 25,000 or 1% of votes cast in the preceding statewide elec- tion. For county offices, the number is 5% of the votes cast in the county’s preceding election. Id. The new-party petition— with signatures and a full slate—must be filed between 134 and 141 days before the election. 10 I LL . C OMP . S TAT . 5/10- 6 (2010). Finally, the conditions to ballot access for independent candidates are similar to those for new parties except that the full-slate requirement doesn’t apply. See id. § 5/10-3 (2010); id. § 5/10-6. So if a candidate’s party meets the signature requirement before the petition deadline but doesn’t field a full slate, the candidate can run as an independent. In the 2012 election, the Libertarian Party attempted to nominate Julie Fox as its candidate for auditor of Kane County. But the Libertarian Party wasn’t established, and it met neither the signature requirement nor the full-slate requirement necessary to receive the new-party designation. The Libertarian Party, Fox, and one of Fox’s supporters sued 10 I LL . C OMP . S TAT . 5/10-2 (2010). 2 The statute provides that a new-party petition “shall at the time of filing contain a complete list of candidates of such party for all offices to be filled in the State, or such district or political subdivision as the case may be, at the next ensuing election then to be held.” Id. Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 Pages: 12 5 Illinois election officials in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the full-slate requirement. 3 (The defendants were sued in their official capacities, so we refer to them collectively as “Illinois.”) Ruling on cross- motions for summary judgment, the judge held that the full- slate requirement violates the First and Fourteenth Amend- ments. Illinois appealed. II. Discussion We review a summary judgment de novo. Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017). Sum- mary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. F ED R. C IV . P. 56(a). Before addressing the merits, however, we take up a jurisdictional question of standing. A. Standing The Constitution empowers federal courts to adjudicate cases or controversies. U.S. C ONST . art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The Article III case-or-controversy limitation confines the federal judiciary to “the traditional role of Anglo–American courts, which is to redress or prevent actual or imminently threat- ened injury to persons caused by private or official violation of law.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 492 (2009). The doctrine of standing enforces this limitation. Id. To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) an injury in-fact; (2) fairly traceable to the defendant’s action; 3 The Libertarian Party challenges the full-slate requirement both as applied and facially. Because the requirement applies in the same way to all minor parties and their candidates, the suit is best understood as a facial challenge. Case: 16-1667 6 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 and (3) capable of being redressed by a favorable decision from the court.” Parvati Corp. v. City of Oak Forest, 630 F.3d 512, 516 (7th Cir. 2010). Illinois argues that a judgment favorable to the Libertarian Party wouldn’t redress its injury: The Party didn’t meet the signature requirement, so it would have been barred from the 2012 ballot even in the absence of the full-slate requirement. 4 This argument misconceives the Libertarian Party’s injury. It isn’t simply that the Party couldn’t run its candidate for county auditor in the 2012 election. It’s that Illinois law imposes a burdensome condi- tion on the Party’s exercise of its right of political associa- tion; that is, the Party’s injury is its inability to access the ballot unless it fields a full slate of candidates. That requirement persists and stands as an ongoing obstacle to ballot access. In other words, the full-slate requirement raises the cost of ballot access to minor parties. It’s a barrier to entry that operates directly on the Libertarian Party and is a continuing burden on its ability to field candidates for statewide and countywide office. As we’ve consistently held, that’s an injury easily sufficient to support a suit for prospective relief. See, e.g., Krislov v. Rednour, 226 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that the plaintiffs had standing because being “required to allocate additional campaign resources ... in itself can be an injury to First Amendment rights”); Nader v. 4 Illinois doesn’t argue that the controversy is moot, and it isn’t. See Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 n.8 (“The ... election is long over ... but this case is not moot, since the issues properly presented ... will persist as the ... statutes are applied in future elections. This is, therefore, a case where the controversy is capable of repetition, yet evading review.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 7 Keith, 385 F.3d 729, 736 (7th Cir. 2004) (observing that a candidate could challenge certain ballot-access restrictions before attempting to comply with them because “it was certain that it would cost him more to [comply with the re- strictions] than if the challenged provisions were invalidat- ed”) (emphasis added); Lee v. Keith, 463 F.3d 763, 767 (7th Cir. 2006) (asserting jurisdiction over an independent candi- date’s suit because the challenged statutes “continue to restrict potential independent candidacies”). We proceed to the merits. B. Full-Slate Requirement The First Amendment, which constrains state- government action by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment, “protects the right of citizens to associate and to form political parties for the advancement of common political goals and ideas.” Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 357 (1997). That right “means little if a party can be kept off the election ballot and thus denied an equal opportunity to win votes.” Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 31 (1968). Further, because “voters can assert their pref- erences only through candidates or parties,” their right to vote “is heavily burdened if that vote may be cast only for major-party candidates at a time when other parties or other candidates are clamoring for a place on the ballot.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 787 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). Laws restricting a party’s ballot access thus burden two rights: “the right of individuals to associate for the ad- vancement of political beliefs, and the right of qualified voters, regardless of their political persuasion, to cast their Case: 16-1667 8 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 votes effectively. Both of these rights, of course, rank among our most precious freedoms.” Williams, 393 U.S. at 30. 5 We evaluate ballot-access restrictions by weighing “the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate” against “the precise inter- ests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule,” taking into consideration “the extent to which those inter- ests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992) (quoting Anderson, 460 U.S. at 789). Under this flexible standard, the level of scrutiny de- pends on the regulation at issue: the more severely it bur- dens constitutional rights, the more rigorous the inquiry into its justifications. Id. Nondiscriminatory restrictions that impose only slight burdens are generally justified by the need for orderly and fair elections. Id. at 433–34. But given the importance of the rights at stake, a severe restriction on a party’s access to the ballot must be “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.” Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 451 (2008) (quota- tion marks omitted). 5 The Libertarian Party also challenges the full-slate requirement under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the requirement is unconstitutional on other grounds, we don’t address this claim.Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 9 We have little difficulty concluding that the full-slate re- quirement severely burdens the First Amendment rights of minor parties, their members, and voters. As a condition for ballot access, the requirement forces minor parties to find and recruit candidates for races they want nothing to do with. In many instances the minor party must locate candi- dates for relatively obscure offices like county recorder or coroner. Moreover, in order to support candidates genuinely interested in winning (Illinois assures us that the full-slate requirement isn’t meant to produce sham candidacies), a party must devote to each candidate the funding and other resources necessary to operate a full-fledged campaign. To take the example of Fox’s candidacy for Kane County audi- tor, running a fully funded candidate for each Kane County office would have increased the Libertarian Party’s costs sevenfold. The full-slate requirement similarly burdens the right of a candidate to run as the standard bearer for his party. Although a party’s failure to submit a full slate doesn’t prevent the candidate from accessing the ballot as an inde- pendent, party-affiliated campaigns and independent cam- paigns “are entirely different and neither is a satisfactory substitute for the other.” Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 745 (1974). To give just one example, a party loyal who must run an independent campaign is denied the ability to quickly communicate information about his views and values through association with his party. Relying on two Supreme Court cases, Illinois argues that parties and candidates have no right to appear next to each other on the ballot. See Timmons, 520 U.S. 351; Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. 442. But those cases—neither of which Case: 16-1667 10 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 involved a regulation limiting ballot access—do not stand for that principle. In Timmons a minor party challenged Minnesota’s antifusion statute, which prevented a person from running as the candidate for two parties in the same election. 520 U.S. at 353–54. The statute barred the minor party from nominating its chosen candidate because he’d already filed as a candidate for the state Democratic party. Id. at 354. The minor party alleged that the statute violated its political-association rights by denying it the ability to appear next to its candidate of choice on the ballot. In rejecting that argument, the Supreme Court observed the obvious: A party never has the option to select just anyone as its candidate because a “particular candidate might be ineligible for office, unwilling to serve, or, as here, another party’s candidate.” Id. at 359. The Court thus em- phasized that antifusion laws “do not directly limit the party’s access to the ballot” but merely “reduce the universe of potential candidates who may appear on the ballot as the party’s nominee only by ruling out those few individuals” already running with another party. Id. at 363. The full-slate requirement, on the other hand, does directly limit minor parties’ ballot access. Far from entailing nothing more than a slight drop in the pool of candidates from which a party can choose, it prevents minor parties from affiliating with anyone on the ballot unless they mount numerous additional cam- paigns. Washington State Grange was a forced-association case. The state of Washington adopted an initiative providing that primary-election ballots would identify each candidate with his self-designated party preference. 552 U.S. at 444. The law didn’t allow a party to prevent a candidate from designating Case: 16-1667 Document: 57 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 11 it as his party preference. In a preenforcement facial chal- lenge, the state Republican Party argued that the statute violated its associational rights by usurping its right to nominate its own candidates and by forcing it to appear on the ballot alongside candidates it didn’t approve. Id. at 448. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, reasoning that Washington might print the ballots in a manner that clarified the one-way nature of the party-preference designation. Id. at 455–56. That possibility was enough to defeat the facial challenge. Id. at 457. But the Court expressly declined to consider any ballot-access implications the statute might carry because those issues were outside the question pre- sented. Id. at 458 n.11. Neither Timmons nor Washington State Grange questioned the long-recognized right of political parties to access the ballot. Because the full-slate requirement—the only one of its kind in the country—severely burdens the First Amendment rights of minor parties and their members, it must be “nar- rowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling importance.” Norman v. Reed, 502 U.S. 279, 289 (1992). Illinois invokes three state interests in defense of the requirement: promoting political stability, avoiding overcrowded ballots, and preventing voter confusion. See Storer, 415 U.S. at 732 (affirming the validity of those objectives). Illinois empha- sizes that these interests are served by reserving the ballot for parties with at least a modicum of public support. No one doubts that Illinois’s stated interests are compel- ling in the abstract, but the full-slate requirement doesn’t advance them. By creating unwanted candidacies, the requirement increases political instability, ballot overcrowd- ing, and voter confusion. As Illinois would tell it, the re- Case: 16-1667 12 Document: 57 Filed: 09/22/2017 Pages: 12 Nos. 16-1667 & 16-1775 quirement exogenously sorts minor parties into two camps: those that have a bench of ready candidates for every race and those that don’t. But like other laws, the full-slate re- quirement shapes the behavior of those it binds. Whatever its aim, the requirement forces a minor party to field unseri- ous candidates as a condition of nominating a truly commit- ted candidate. The Libertarian Party, for example, might have filled the six other Kane County slots with Fox’s friends or relatives. In reality, then, the full-slate requirement does not ensure that only parties with a modicum of support reach the ballot. Instead it ensures that the only minor parties on the ballot are those that have strong public support or are willing and able to find enough frivolous “candidates” to comply with the law. To be sure, the full-slate requirement—like any regulation that increases the cost of ballot access—reduces the likelihood that a feeble party will secure a ballot position. But Illinois’s interest in reserving the ballot for strong parties is directly served by the signature requirement. That regula- tion—which at 5% of votes cast in the preceding election is restrictive in its own right—suffices to winnow out weak parties. Finally, the full-slate requirement doesn’t prevent ballot overcrowding or voter confusion; to the contrary—it clutters the ballot with numerous candidates who wouldn’t otherwise run and who may or may not be sincerely inter- ested in public office. The full-slate requirement severely burdens fundamental constitutional rights and is not narrowly tailored to a com- pelling state interest. We A FFIRM the judgment of the district court. On 09/25/2017 07:03 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Could not open the attachment and could find nothing via a google > search. Could someone please copy and paste the relevant articles ? > >   > > Thanks > >   > > David J. > >   > > *From:*Peace [mailto:peace-bounces at lists.chambana.net] *On Behalf Of > *Niloofar Shambayati via Peace > *Sent:* Saturday, September 23, 2017 11:57 PM > *To:* Dianna Visek > *Cc:* Peace List > *Subject:* Re: [Peace] We won our ballot access lawsuit! > >   > > Would be good to send it to DSA and smaller socialist parties too! > >   > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace > > wrote: > > I'm not aware of any news articles.  I will send it to Tom Kacich in > hopes that his editors will let him report on it. > >   > > Media that favor the status quo are going to be reluctant to cover > it.  And Michael Madigan is probably peeved. > >   > > I will also send it to the IIlinois Green Party and Constitution Party. > >   > > Dianna > >   > >   > > On Saturday, September 23, 2017, 10:19:18 PM CDT, James M > > wrote: > >   > >   > > I'm not seeing any news articles on this yet. If I'm reading this > right, this seems like huge news, and a big success for minor parties > in Illinois. Any further details or write-ups on the ramifications of > this decision? How long will it take independent parties to start > fielding candidates? > >   > > On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Dianna Visek via Peace > > wrote: > > We finally got a decision 7 months after the court heard our oral > arguments and we won!  This is great for all minor parties in > Illinois!  Hallelujah! > >   > > Dianna > > > ______________________________ _________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace > > >   > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > >   > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Sep 25 16:15:05 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:15:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Right to Resist War & Empire's event. References: Message-ID: Just now Greg Butterfield shared Right to Resist War & Empire's event. 16 years following the US invasion of Afghanistan and the start of the so-called war on terror, the longest war in US history has no end in sight. While the mainstream media would have us believe that the current rise of militarism in the US is a Trump phenomenon, we know that the violence of the US war machine is bipartisan, that by the end of Obama's second term the US was bombing seven Muslim-majority nations on any given day. On October 7 it's important that we come together to demand and end to this war of terror. But beyond condemning US imperialism, we are called upon to connect our local struggles against surveillance, criminalization, police occupation, raids, deportations, gentrification and displacement, to the global struggle against US empire. OCT 7 October 7th Rally to Resist War and Empire Sat 1 PM EDT · 34th and 6th Avenue, New York, NY Shared to International Action Center -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Sep 25 21:55:25 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 16:55:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] can someone please forward me the Chancellor's "massmail" concerning criticism of Israel? Message-ID: According to my Facebook feed, this happened: "The Chancellor ... sent out a massmail implying that criticism of Israel was the same as antisemitism, and likening it to dressing as the KKK." Can someone forward me this email from the Chancellor? === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 25 22:12:44 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] can someone please forward me the Chancellor's "massmail" concerning criticism of Israel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1886947530.9098360.1506377564349@mail.yahoo.com> Original letter from chancellor:  |   | |   | | Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:All of us at the University of Illinois are concerned about the growing national instances of intolerance, especially on college campuses. Painted swastikas, chalked epithets on sidewalks, KKK costumes and anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric are all too common. Members of our Jewish, African American, Latino/a and many other residents of our diverse community find themselves asking whether they are welcome and safe here. The answer to that – whether in Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, or any place in this country – must be a clear and resounding: “Yes, you are.”Discrimination against an individual based on race, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or other characteristics will always be in absolute opposition to our core values of inclusivity and respect. We will always recognize the rights of those on the campus to safely and freely express their perspectives and opinions. We will also be ready to condemn statements and actions that violate our shared values and seek to demean, intimidate or devalue others in our community.Bigotry, racism and hate will never be tolerated here at Illinois. It is our common responsibility to work together to see that this is a university where ALL can live, learn and thrive.Sincerely,Robert J. Jones Chancellor | | | | On ‎Monday‎, ‎September‎ ‎25‎, ‎2017‎ ‎04‎:‎55‎:‎49‎ ‎PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: According to my Facebook feed, this happened: "The Chancellor ... sent out a massmail implying that criticism of Israel was the same as antisemitism, and likening it to dressing as the KKK." Can someone forward me this email from the Chancellor? === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 25 22:12:44 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 22:12:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] can someone please forward me the Chancellor's "massmail" concerning criticism of Israel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1886947530.9098360.1506377564349@mail.yahoo.com> Original letter from chancellor:  |   | |   | | Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:All of us at the University of Illinois are concerned about the growing national instances of intolerance, especially on college campuses. Painted swastikas, chalked epithets on sidewalks, KKK costumes and anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric are all too common. Members of our Jewish, African American, Latino/a and many other residents of our diverse community find themselves asking whether they are welcome and safe here. The answer to that – whether in Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, or any place in this country – must be a clear and resounding: “Yes, you are.”Discrimination against an individual based on race, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or other characteristics will always be in absolute opposition to our core values of inclusivity and respect. We will always recognize the rights of those on the campus to safely and freely express their perspectives and opinions. We will also be ready to condemn statements and actions that violate our shared values and seek to demean, intimidate or devalue others in our community.Bigotry, racism and hate will never be tolerated here at Illinois. It is our common responsibility to work together to see that this is a university where ALL can live, learn and thrive.Sincerely,Robert J. Jones Chancellor | | | | On ‎Monday‎, ‎September‎ ‎25‎, ‎2017‎ ‎04‎:‎55‎:‎49‎ ‎PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: According to my Facebook feed, this happened: "The Chancellor ... sent out a massmail implying that criticism of Israel was the same as antisemitism, and likening it to dressing as the KKK." Can someone forward me this email from the Chancellor? === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Sep 25 22:41:13 2017 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:41:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] can someone please forward me the Chancellor's "massmail" concerning criticism of Israel? In-Reply-To: <1886947530.9098360.1506377564349@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1886947530.9098360.1506377564349@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "...and anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric are all too common. Members of our Jewish ... community find themselves asking whether they are welcome and safe here." As far as we know the Chancellor's intent, is the Chancellor referring to specific events that occurred at UIUC? Are members of the UIUC Jewish community asking themselves if they are "welcome and safe" at UIUC because of "anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric" at UIUC? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:12 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > *Original letter from chancellor: * > > > > > Dear Students, Faculty and Staff: > All of us at the University of Illinois are concerned about the growing > national instances of intolerance, especially on college campuses. Painted > swastikas, chalked epithets on sidewalks, KKK costumes and anti-Semitic > attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric are all too common. > Members of our Jewish, African American, Latino/a and many other residents > of our diverse community find themselves asking whether they are welcome > and safe here. The answer to that – whether in Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, > or any place in this country – must be a clear and resounding: “Yes, you > are.” > Discrimination against an individual based on race, color, ethnicity, > sexual orientation, religion or other characteristics will always be in > absolute opposition to our core values of inclusivity and respect. We will > always recognize the rights of those on the campus to safely and freely > express their perspectives and opinions. We will also be ready to condemn > statements and actions that violate our shared values and seek to demean, > intimidate or devalue others in our community. > Bigotry, racism and hate will never be tolerated here at Illinois. It is > our common responsibility to work together to see that this is a university > where ALL can live, learn and thrive. > Sincerely, > Robert J. Jones > Chancellor > > > On ‎Monday‎, ‎September‎ ‎25‎, ‎2017‎ ‎04‎:‎55‎:‎49‎ ‎PM, Robert Naiman > via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > According to my Facebook feed, this happened: > > "The Chancellor ... sent out a massmail implying that criticism of Israel > was the same as antisemitism, and likening it to dressing as the KKK." > > Can someone forward me this email from the Chancellor? > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 25 23:03:29 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] can someone please forward me the Chancellor's "massmail" concerning criticism of Israel? In-Reply-To: References: <1886947530.9098360.1506377564349@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1099033230.3700112.1506380609283@mail.yahoo.com> I don't know. I do know that Steve Sherman of the local JVP chapter has asked for a letter to the Chancellor to be penned, and Bruce Rosenstock and Mark Steinberg are in the process of doing that, for submission to the JVP list. I will, predictably, probably submit a letter to the editor in a week or two which will address the obvious problems in this statement. DG On ‎Monday‎, ‎September‎ ‎25‎, ‎2017‎ ‎05‎:‎41‎:‎15‎ ‎PM, Robert Naiman wrote: "...and anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric are all too common.  Members of our Jewish ... community find themselves asking whether they are welcome and safe here." As far as we know the Chancellor's intent, is the Chancellor referring to specific events that occurred at UIUC? Are members of the UIUC Jewish community asking themselves if they are "welcome and safe" at UIUC because of "anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric" at UIUC? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:12 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: Original letter from chancellor:  |   | |   | | Dear Students, Faculty and Staff:All of us at the University of Illinois are concerned about the growing national instances of intolerance, especially on college campuses. Painted swastikas, chalked epithets on sidewalks, KKK costumes and anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric are all too common. Members of our Jewish, African American, Latino/a and many other residents of our diverse community find themselves asking whether they are welcome and safe here. The answer to that – whether in Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, or any place in this country – must be a clear and resounding: “Yes, you are.”Discrimination against an individual based on race, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or other characteristics will always be in absolute opposition to our core values of inclusivity and respect. We will always recognize the rights of those on the campus to safely and freely express their perspectives and opinions. We will also be ready to condemn statements and actions that violate our shared values and seek to demean, intimidate or devalue others in our community.Bigotry, racism and hate will never be tolerated here at Illinois. It is our common responsibility to work together to see that this is a university where ALL can live, learn and thrive.Sincerely,Robert J. Jones Chancellor | | | | On ‎Monday‎, ‎September‎ ‎25‎, ‎2017‎ ‎04‎:‎55‎:‎49‎ ‎PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: According to my Facebook feed, this happened: "The Chancellor ... sent out a massmail implying that criticism of Israel was the same as antisemitism, and likening it to dressing as the KKK." Can someone forward me this email from the Chancellor? === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine https://petitions.moveon.org/ sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war? r_by=1135580 ______________________________ _________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana. net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss ______________________________ _________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana. net https://lists.chambana.net/ mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Tue Sep 26 00:30:51 2017 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 19:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] can someone please forward me the Chancellor's "massmail" concerning criticism of Israel? In-Reply-To: References: <1886947530.9098360.1506377564349@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Wow. I guess that he is making it clear that American Indians and Palestinians are not welcome on campus. And other nationalities. Not to mention all the muslims, and smaller religions. On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > "...and anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist > rhetoric are all too common. Members of our Jewish ... community find > themselves asking whether they are welcome and safe here." > > As far as we know the Chancellor's intent, is the Chancellor referring to > specific events that occurred at UIUC? Are members of the UIUC Jewish > community asking themselves if they are "welcome and safe" at UIUC because > of "anti-Semitic attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric" > at UIUC? > > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> > > House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine > https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:12 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> *Original letter from chancellor: * >> >> >> >> >> Dear Students, Faculty and Staff: >> All of us at the University of Illinois are concerned about the growing >> national instances of intolerance, especially on college campuses. Painted >> swastikas, chalked epithets on sidewalks, KKK costumes and anti-Semitic >> attacks hidden under the guise of anti-Zionist rhetoric are all too common. >> Members of our Jewish, African American, Latino/a and many other residents >> of our diverse community find themselves asking whether they are welcome >> and safe here. The answer to that – whether in Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, >> or any place in this country – must be a clear and resounding: “Yes, you >> are.” >> Discrimination against an individual based on race, color, ethnicity, >> sexual orientation, religion or other characteristics will always be in >> absolute opposition to our core values of inclusivity and respect. We will >> always recognize the rights of those on the campus to safely and freely >> express their perspectives and opinions. We will also be ready to condemn >> statements and actions that violate our shared values and seek to demean, >> intimidate or devalue others in our community. >> Bigotry, racism and hate will never be tolerated here at Illinois. It is >> our common responsibility to work together to see that this is a university >> where ALL can live, learn and thrive. >> Sincerely, >> Robert J. Jones >> Chancellor >> >> >> On ‎Monday‎, ‎September‎ ‎25‎, ‎2017‎ ‎04‎:‎55‎:‎49‎ ‎PM, Robert Naiman >> via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> >> According to my Facebook feed, this happened: >> >> "The Chancellor ... sent out a massmail implying that criticism of Israel >> was the same as antisemitism, and likening it to dressing as the KKK." >> >> Can someone forward me this email from the Chancellor? >> >> === >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 <(202)%20448-2898> >> >> House: Use War Powers to Save A Million Yemeni Kids from Cholera & Famine >> https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/force-vote-on-saudi-war?r_by=1135580 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -- -- karen medina "The really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." - Mark Twain -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Sep 26 02:42:46 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 21:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obfuscating the Truths of Vietnam Message-ID: <00bb01d33671$22e8e8d0$68baba70$@comcast.net> September 25, 2017 Obfuscating the Truths of Vietnam by S. Brian Willson Facebook Twitter Google+ Reddit Email * Description: https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone /2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png I have hesitated to comment on the instructive discussion on VFP's Full Disclosure page about the Burns-Novick Vietnam PBS series because I am not watching it. I have enjoyed reading many of the comments, and have communicated with people who have seen advance screenings. In 2014, I heard Burns' publicly discuss his pending PBS Vietnam series. He responded to a question about Agent Orange with a "safe" position that damage to human beings from the chemical herbicide was scientifically inconclusive. This was not surprising given that Burns is a popular, established film maker of various aspects of history from jazz, to baseball, to the Civil War. However, any deep threat to the US American basic "good guy" self-image would likely curtail his continued popularity, not likely to lend itself to corporate funding on PBS, whether from Bank of America, the Rockefeller or Koch Brothers. Any treatment of the US War against the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians that does not establish the historic foundation of the US criminal invasion, occupation, and destruction of an innocent country, murdering and maiming millions - profound moral issues - flunks authentic history. And, equally, if the presentation ignores the US creation of a fictional puppet government in the South that was so unpopular that the US was forced to deploy 3 million troops and massive airpower to protect it from the Vietnamese people themselves, it will fail miserably to do justice to genuine history. Despite this history, Viet Nam is still commonly called a "Civil War" of relative "equivalencies", a preposterous representation suggesting an "enemy" of basically poor people 8-10,000 miles distant on their own ground who for some unknown reason might threaten the wealthy US with bombs or naval and ground invasions, or... ? And to represent that the war was "begun in good faith by decent people", ignores the revelations of the Pentagon Papers. Thus, Burns's and Novick's 18-hour "The Vietnam War" series severely obfuscates the most significant great truths of the US war - that "The Vietnam War" was and remains a Great Lie. Provoking national discussion about the war is important, but for it to be acceptable to a national PBS audience, the producers had to assure that in the framing the US remains basically the good guy against evil. The honest portrayal of a people who wanted authentic autonomy from a stream of colonial intervenors seems outside our capacity to embrace, and certainly we were not able to comprehend the deep Vietnamese commitment to do whatever they believed necessary to rid itself of its latest occupier. Instead, the US created and funded a fictitious government with a corresponding enemy to justify our intervention against the shadowy, deceitful, evil, though tenacious "communists". This US policy was intended to prevent a successful "Third World" post-WWII revolutionary movement that possessed the potential to spread to other restive peoples. Without establishing this fundamental immoral foundation to the history of the US intervention, this Burns-Novick documentary history safely avoids provoking the US American people into an overdue, painful self-examination of its cultural "DNA". Our geltanshauung was cast as a divinely guided "predestination" for goodness in 1630 when Puritan John Winthrop of the Massachusetts Bay Colony declared "that we shall be as a city upon a hill" and "the eyes of all people are upon us". We are reminded of such arrogance in "Founding Father" Thomas Jefferson's hypocritical words penned in the 1776 Declaration of Independence that claimed "all men are created equal", yet a few words later declared the King of England using the "merciless Indian savages" to attack with "known rule of warfare" the new settlors with "undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions". Let's see.. those words describe well our behavior in Viet Nam, genocidal behavior then, as in Viet Nam, off limits for US to consider. *The US destroyed more than 60 percent of Viet Nam's 21,000 inhabited, undefended villages, including use of unprecedented 8 million tons of bombs and 370,000 tons of napalm, murdering 4 to 5 million, leaving a decimated landscape with 26 million bomb craters and as many as 300,000 tons of unexploded ordnance that continue to kill and injure thousands every year; *USAF manuals instructed the intentional bombings of the "psycho-social structure" of Viet Nam such as pagodas and churches (950 of them), schools (over 3,000) and hospitals and maternity wards (1,850, many with large red crosses painted on their roofs); *US and South Vietnamese pilots were trained to "cut people down like little cloth dummies" during daytime raids; *US employed the most intensive use of chemical warfare in human history, spraying 21 million gallons of lethal poison leaving millions deformed, sick and dead, now with third generation birth deformities; *The US used torture in every southern province to extract confessions; *The US imposed free fire (genocide) zones over 75 percent of the South, mass murdering villagers on the ground, etc. In fact, our behavior was unspeakable, but similar to what our forebears did against our Indigenous inhabitants. Viet Nam was no aberration. Yes, the PBS series will present much important history for the viewers through its artful selection of dramatic war footage and wide-ranging interviews with Vietnamese and US Americans. It will indeed educate and raise questions..as long as the storyline essentially preserves the US as the better of two basically equivalent fighting forces. It admits making terrible mistakes, but not crimes, implying or expressing justification for our intervention against evil - here the convenient Cold War Pavlovian "communist" bogeyman. This PBS series is being aired as the US deepens its atrocious pattern of perpetual war around the globe since Viet Nam, the chess pieces continually moving from Viet Nam to almost everywhere else under a philosophy of "full spectrum dominance". This includes use of the ultimate wholesale terror from the sky using missile-laden drones. The nature of US behavior in Viet Nam, and in the little understood tragic Korean war more than a decade earlier, and in virtually all countries in which it intervenes, covertly or overtly, is virtually ungraspable to the majority of US Americans. In 1967, Martin Luther King, Jr delivered his anti-Vietnam War speech, declaring that "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government". Hmm! Without a willingness to honestly address our long pattern of immoral and criminal military and covert interventions to preserve essentially selfish, narcissistic values, utilizing deceit and grotesque barbaric techniques, when and how might the US people be awakened to discover a political consciousness of mutual respect? The Burns-Novick series will produce healthy debates about the US War in Southeast Asia, but it will tragically steer clear of revealing, while obscuring, the Grand Lie of the war itself, even as the documentary is touted by observers and viewers as monumental history. What a lost opportunity! So, as people are glued to this intriguing PBS series, they will nonetheless continue to shop, their government will continue to bomb, and the warmakers will continue to get richer. Nothing changes. S. Brian Willson, USAF Combat Security Police Officer, Viet Nam, 1969. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: S. Brian Willson S. Brian Willson, as a 1st lieutenant, served as commander of a US Air Force combat security police unit in Viet Nam's Mekong Delta in 1969. He is a trained lawyer who has been an anti-war, peace and justice activist for more than forty years. His psychohistorical memoir, " Blood On The Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson" was published in 2011 by PM Press. A long time member of Veterans For Peace, he currently resides in Portland, Oregon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 256 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 26 23:07:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 23:07:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Killer Drone Protesters Arrested In-Reply-To: <1919785230.389199.1506458704727.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-01.meltwater.com> References: <1919785230.389199.1506458704727.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-01.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:43 PM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Killer Drone Protesters Arrested [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=524c37dbc81bedcc64d1b76e07acf7b2335169cb&distributionId=550596&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Just Security just published the piece: "How Obama's Drones Rulebook Enabled Trump." Last week, the New York Times reported: "Trump Poised to Drop Some Limits on Drone Strikes and Commando Raids." Syracuse.com reports that: "Seven drone protesters were arrested Monday morning at the Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in DeWitt. "The Upstate Drone Action protesters blocked the entrance to the base with several large signs and banners, and refused to remove them. "'Officers from the base came out and told us to leave, and when we didn't, we were arrested,' Upstate Drone Action founding member Ed Kinane said. 'We're trying to make a statement about the war crimes being committed at the air base with drones that kill human beings.' ... "Those charged were: Ann Tiffany, of Syracuse; Dan Burgevin, of Trumansburg; Kinane, of Syracuse; Harry Murray, of Rochester; Julienne Oldfield, of Syracuse; Mark Scibilia-Carver, of Trumansburg; and Rae Kramer, of Syracuse. "The protesters said they placed a 'huge dollar sign dripping with blood in the main entrance way to the base. "'The six-foot high dollar signs dramatize what the group believes determines the many overseas wars the Pentagon/CIA engages in: Corporate greed,' Upstate Drone Action said in a news release announcing the arrests. "In 2010, the Hancock base became the site of the 174th Attack Wing of the National Guard's MQ-9 Reaper drone operations and the first to have an MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft squadron. The drones have missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere." ED KINANE, edkinane340 at gmail.com JUDY BELLO, judith at papillonweb.net, @elladabella13 See the news release from Upstate Drone Action. Julienne Oldfield said: “The Hancock Reaper terrorizes whole communities, generating desperate refugees.” Mark Scibilia-Carver adds that “U.S. taxpayers fund this terrorism keeping the pot boiling and creating enormous ill will toward the United States -- instead of funding health, education and infrastructure here." Video of protest is on YouTube. See by Norman Solomon from earlier this year: "Killer Drones in the Empire State." See pieces on Truthout by Kinane, including "Weaponized Drones And The Phony 'War On Terror.'" For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 421-6858, David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 September 26, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Sep 26 23:07:13 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 23:07:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Killer Drone Protesters Arrested In-Reply-To: <1919785230.389199.1506458704727.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-01.meltwater.com> References: <1919785230.389199.1506458704727.JavaMail.www-data@mw-press-ws-01.meltwater.com> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy . [mailto:accuracy at accuracy.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:43 PM To: francis.a.boyle at gmail.com Subject: Killer Drone Protesters Arrested [http://app.meltwaterpress.com/mpress/statistic.html?accessCode=524c37dbc81bedcc64d1b76e07acf7b2335169cb&distributionId=550596&contact=francis.a.boyle at gmail.com] Just Security just published the piece: "How Obama's Drones Rulebook Enabled Trump." Last week, the New York Times reported: "Trump Poised to Drop Some Limits on Drone Strikes and Commando Raids." Syracuse.com reports that: "Seven drone protesters were arrested Monday morning at the Hancock Field Air National Guard Base in DeWitt. "The Upstate Drone Action protesters blocked the entrance to the base with several large signs and banners, and refused to remove them. "'Officers from the base came out and told us to leave, and when we didn't, we were arrested,' Upstate Drone Action founding member Ed Kinane said. 'We're trying to make a statement about the war crimes being committed at the air base with drones that kill human beings.' ... "Those charged were: Ann Tiffany, of Syracuse; Dan Burgevin, of Trumansburg; Kinane, of Syracuse; Harry Murray, of Rochester; Julienne Oldfield, of Syracuse; Mark Scibilia-Carver, of Trumansburg; and Rae Kramer, of Syracuse. "The protesters said they placed a 'huge dollar sign dripping with blood in the main entrance way to the base. "'The six-foot high dollar signs dramatize what the group believes determines the many overseas wars the Pentagon/CIA engages in: Corporate greed,' Upstate Drone Action said in a news release announcing the arrests. "In 2010, the Hancock base became the site of the 174th Attack Wing of the National Guard's MQ-9 Reaper drone operations and the first to have an MQ-9 remotely piloted aircraft squadron. The drones have missions in Afghanistan and elsewhere." ED KINANE, edkinane340 at gmail.com JUDY BELLO, judith at papillonweb.net, @elladabella13 See the news release from Upstate Drone Action. Julienne Oldfield said: “The Hancock Reaper terrorizes whole communities, generating desperate refugees.” Mark Scibilia-Carver adds that “U.S. taxpayers fund this terrorism keeping the pot boiling and creating enormous ill will toward the United States -- instead of funding health, education and infrastructure here." Video of protest is on YouTube. See by Norman Solomon from earlier this year: "Killer Drones in the Empire State." See pieces on Truthout by Kinane, including "Weaponized Drones And The Phony 'War On Terror.'" For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 421-6858, David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 September 26, 2017 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Wed Sep 27 02:48:28 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (stuartnlevy) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2017 21:48:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] This bill will prevent Trump from launching a nuclear strike Message-ID: A bill from Barabara Lee of CA: No First Use of nuclear weapons without congrssional approval.  -- Stuart -------- Original message --------From: Michael Eisenscher Date: 9/26/17 18:52 (GMT-06:00) To: UFPJ Activist List , NPC Listserv Subject: [ufpj-activist] Fwd: This bill will prevent Trump from launching a nuclear strike From: Team Barbara Lee Date: Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:44 PM Subject: This bill will prevent Trump from launching a nuclear strike Congress must act immediately to vote on the "No First Use" bill, H.R. 669. Michael - Once again Donald Trump is making dangerous comments about North Korea, and once again he is putting the American people at risk. Trump threatened to "totally destroy" North Korea and said the country "won't be around much longer" – comments that North Korea's Foreign Minister has called a declaration of war. Congress must act immediately to vote on the “No First Use” bill, H.R. 669, to prevent Trump from unilaterally launching a nuclear strike. Barbara co-sponsored this legislation with Rep. Ted Lieu, and right now she needs you to join her. Add your name to call on Congress to vote on H.R. 669, legislation that would prohibit Trump from authorizing a nuclear strike against North Korea. Escalation is not the answer. Over the past week or so, Donald Trump and North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un have been calling each other names and exchanging a number of military threats. This behavior is as outrageous as it is dangerous. Enough is enough. Barbara knows that there is no military solution in North Korea. The U.S. must pursue diplomacy and reach a peaceful solution that does not put U.S. troops and families in danger. Direct talks are our best opportunity for resolving this conflict without the use of force. At this moment it is extremely important that Congress vote on H.R. 669, the "No First Use" bill that curbs Trump's ability to launch a nuclear strike. It’s the responsibility of Congress, not the White House, to debate and vote on military action. Join Barbara Lee today if you agree that Congress must vote on H.R. 669 to prevent Trump from pursuing military escalation in North Korea. We cannot allow tensions with North Korea to spiral out of control or run the risk of Trump making reckless military decisions. Thanks for joining Barbara today to call on Congress to act. Onward, Team Barbara Lee ADD YOUR NAME » PAID FOR BY BARBARA LEE FOR CONGRESS 333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 369 Oakland, CA 94621   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Sep 28 12:11:04 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:11:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] There Is No Rehabilitating the Vietnam War Message-ID: <003001d33852$dbfab230$93f01690$@comcast.net> The recent Ken Burns documentary about the Vietnam war is attempting to do just that. There Is No Rehabilitating the Vietnam War There is enormous pressure and a lot of money working to rehabilitate Vietnam, to put the guilt and the shame of it behind us. But it was precisely the guilt of the people, their shame at what was being done in their name, and their courage to denounce it that made it impossible for their government to carry out the savagery any longer. By Robert Freeman Global Research, September 27, 2017 Common Dreams 24 September 2017 Description: https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/vietnam_legacy_0-40 0x209.jpg Featured image: The Vietnam War, writes Freeman, "must be remembered and condemned for the debacle it actually was." (Image: vietnamfulldisclosure.org) Since the day it ended, in 1975, there have been efforts to rehabilitate the Vietnam War, to make it acceptable, even honorable. After all, there were so many sides to the story, weren't there? It was so complex, so nuancical. There was real heroism among the troops. Of course, all of this is true, but it's true of every war so it doesn't redeem any war. The Vietnam War is beyond redemption and must be remembered and condemned for the calamity that it was. The Vietnam War was "one of the greatest American foreign policy disasters of the twentieth century." Those are not the words of a leftist pundit or a scribbling anti-American. They are the words of H.R. McMaster, the sitting National Security Advisor to the President of the United States. Why must Vietnam be remembered and condemned for the debacle it actually was? First, the U.S. betrayed its own ideals in the War. In 1946, Vietnamese president Ho Chi Minh approached U.S. president Harry Truman asking for the U.S.'s help in evicting the French who had occupied Vietnam as a colony since the 1860s. Hadn't the U.S. itself once fought a war of independence to rid itself of European colonial domination? Indeed, the opening words to the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence were borrowed in sacramental reverence from the American Declaration. They echo to every patriotic American: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Description: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/French_indochina_1953_12 _1.png French soldiers fight off a Viet Minh ambush in 1952. (Source: Wikimedia Commons) But Ho was a communist. So, Truman turned him down and helped the French instead. That was the "original sin" that made it impossible for the U.S. to ever "win the hearts and minds" of the Vietnamese people. It is what ultimately doomed the War to failure. But that wasn't the only cardinal sin the U.S. committed against its own putative ideals. Eisenhower violated the 1954 Geneva accords that had settled the war with the French and set up a puppet regime in the south. Hence "South" Vietnam, which, not surprisingly, quickly disappeared once the Americans left. He crammed a wealthy Catholic mandarin from New Jersey-Ngo Diem-on the people who were overwhelmingly poor, Buddhist, and peasants. Diem, with Eisenhower's blessing, then boycotted the elections for national unification that had been agreed to in the accords. Eisenhower wrote later that the reason for the boycott was that "Our guys would have lost." When Diem could no longer suppress the swelling rebellion against his divisive, hyper-oppressive rule, Kennedy had him assassinated. Second, the U.S. carried out apocalyptic violence on Vietnam, vastly beyond any conceivable moral standard of proportionality. It dropped three times more tons of bombs on Vietnam than were used by all sides in all theaters in all of World War II combined. Vietnam is about the size of New Mexico and at the time had a population greater than New York and California put together. The U.S. lost 58,000 lives in the War. But more than four million southeast Asians-Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians-were killed, most of them civilians. That's 69 southeast Asians killed for every 1 American. That is not a war. That is a massacre, and on a scale approaching the Holocaust. The U.S. sprayed 21 million gallons of carcinogenic defoliants on Vietnam, including the notorious Agent Orange. More than half of the nation's forests were destroyed. Vietnam was the greatest intentionally man-made environmental catastrophe in the history of the world. Children are still being born with birth defects from the residual poisoning. On neighboring Laos, which, in 1965 had a population of 2.4 million, the U.S. dropped 270 million cluster bombs. That's 113 cluster bombs for every man, woman, and child in the country. More than 80 million of the bombs are still unexploded today. It's important to remember that neither Vietnam, nor Laos, nor Cambodia for that matter, ever attacked the United States. They never wanted to attack. They never tried to attack. They never had the capacity to attack. They had simply wanted their own way of life. Finally, the War was founded on and prosecuted with relentless lying. Your mother once taught you, as all good mothers do, that if you have to lie about something it's wrong. The "intelligence" agencies lied to us, unremittingly, about the threat from a nation of pre-Industrial Age farmers on the other side of the world who, after nearly a century of colonial domination, simply wanted to be left alone by western imperial powers. Five successive presidents lied to the American people about the need for the War and its likely winnability. None of them wanted to appear to be "soft on communism." None wanted to be "the first American president to lose a war." The Pentagon Papers revealed that the military was saturated with lies, from field level body counts to strategic reviews of progress. Truth tellers were drummed out of the service, ensuring that only lies got passed up the chain. The lies wouldn't be discovered until it was too late. In fact, it is precisely our lying about the Vietnam War, both then and now, and our knowledge of those lies, without ever having openly, unambiguously repudiated them, that continues to make the War seem dishonorable. The dishonor, of course, belongs not to the millions of soldiers who served there but rather to the War itself. It belongs to the institutions-both public and private-that profited from the War and lied to justify it, and to the people whose silence and knowing acquiescence made them complicit in the lies. It belongs to those who put our soldiers, our children, in the perverse situation not of doing honorable things honorably, but of having to try to do dishonorable things honorably. For, despite the loftiest motives we might invent for its beginnings, that is unquestionably what the War ultimately became. In March 1965, before the insertion of American ground troops that would make the War irreversible, before the vast majority of the bombings and killings would be perpetrated, a Pentagon briefing for Johnson stated that the true goals in the War were, ".70% to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat; 20% to keep South Vietnam (and adjacent territories) from Chinese hands; and 10% to permit the people of Vietnam a better, freer way of life." That is what the psychotic savagery of Vietnam was all about. It was not bumbling goodwill gone awry as the rehabilitationists would have us believe. It was not to bring democracy; not to defend against communism; not to help the Vietnamese people. It was "to avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat." Those are the official, though at the time secret, words of the U.S. government. Description: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/President_Kennedy_and_Se cretary_McNamara_1962.png Kennedy and McNamara (Source: Wikimedia Commons) We can summon an even greater authority than H.R. McMaster to confirm that the War was wrong. Robert McNamara was the U.S. Secretary of Defense in both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. He is the unquestioned architect and chief strategist of the War. In his memoirs McNamara wrote, "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why." There are no two more disparate authorities on the War than these two men. They represent the old and the new, Democrat and Republican, civilian and soldier, actor and critic, introspective and retrospective. Yet they reach the same, damning conclusion. There is enormous pressure and a lot of money working to rehabilitate Vietnam, to put the guilt and the shame of it behind us. But it was precisely the guilt of the people, their shame at what was being done in their name, and their courage to denounce it that made it impossible for their government to carry out the savagery any longer. Would that we had that kind of guilt, shame, and courage among us today. Remember: if we had to lie about it, it was wrong. That is as true today as it was then, is it not? And wrong does not get made right by the louder or repeated repetition of original lies. Or, by the artful contrivance of newer, slicker, more personable ones. Forgetting that lesson, or, worse, laundering it out of our memory so that we might go forward with cleansed consciences and fortified zeal for still more predation, would be a betrayal of itself that only the American people can resist. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27114 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 34930 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 31180 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Sep 28 15:11:39 2017 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:11:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AOTA Tuesday Message-ID: Carl Estabrook covers Trita Parsi, and the call for war between the US and Russia in Syria. https://youtu.be/Bvme763hx_w From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Sep 28 15:37:52 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:37:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution Message-ID: AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast and continuing war provocations against Russia and China. ~ The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; they had to agree, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948. ~ Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million people - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns, and drone assassinations, which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 28 16:14:01 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1737579192.10403586.1506615241869@mail.yahoo.com> I will hopefully be able to format this on a half page front and back. On ‎Thursday‎, ‎September‎ ‎28‎, ‎2017‎ ‎10‎:‎38‎:‎18‎ ‎AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKINGDEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates.In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast and continuing war provocations against Russia and China.~The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; they had to agree, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948. ~ Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million people - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns, and drone assassinations, which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.  AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights;~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations;~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 28 16:14:01 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1737579192.10403586.1506615241869@mail.yahoo.com> I will hopefully be able to format this on a half page front and back. On ‎Thursday‎, ‎September‎ ‎28‎, ‎2017‎ ‎10‎:‎38‎:‎18‎ ‎AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKINGDEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates.In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast and continuing war provocations against Russia and China.~The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; they had to agree, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948. ~ Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million people - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns, and drone assassinations, which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.  AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights;~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations;~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~_______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Thu Sep 28 17:36:00 2017 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 12:36:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> It does seem strange to lead with Pres. Obama.   Trump is President now, and primarily responsible for the current continuation of bipartisan US war policy which Obama's administration pursued in his time. It would be good too, even in a brief flyer, to bring up US provocations against North Korea - at least to mention it in the subtitle along with Russia and China. On 09/28/2017 10:37 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > *AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING* > *DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME* > > *Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates.* > *In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the > Mideast * > *and continuing war provocations against Russia and China.* > *~* > The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African > countries - *Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and > Pakistan*. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, > although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the > 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in > three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include > kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. > > /President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office > he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. > President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in > foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy > warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself./ > > What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most > Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see > the killing as justified; they had to agree, in order to get elected. > > *But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars.* > > /U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars > around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in > an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since > then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had > the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George > Kennan wrote in 1948./ > > *~* > > Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t > profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the > world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our > lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and > intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans > are able to ignore it. > > /For many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control > over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil > from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s > economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them > gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other > countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. > In 2003 the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million > people - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout > the Mideast./ > > *The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in > fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing > campaigns, and drone assassinations, which have killed more than 5,000 > people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. * > > AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins > other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to > call upon President Trump to > > /~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international > law, and human rights;/ > /~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against > Russia (in Eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea), and > stop the drone assassinations;/ > /~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than > 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than > twelve); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; / > /~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and > Saudi Arabia; and/ > /~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament./ > > */ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at Urbana Illinois>/* > */~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ > Universal basic income ~/* > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Sep 28 18:39:20 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:39:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> References: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> Message-ID: I want to make the point that the problem is not Trump but US war policy, which remains the same in both administrations. N. Korea is clearly part of the US provocations vs. China and should be mentioned. I’ll try to work it in. Syria too. —CGE > On Sep 28, 2017, at 12:36 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > It does seem strange to lead with Pres. Obama. Trump is President now, and primarily responsible for the current continuation of bipartisan US war policy which Obama's administration pursued in his time. > > It would be good too, even in a brief flyer, to bring up US provocations against North Korea - at least to mention it in the subtitle along with Russia and China. > > On 09/28/2017 10:37 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING >> DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME >> >> Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. >> In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast >> and continuing war provocations against Russia and China. >> ~ >> The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. >> >> President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. >> >> What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; they had to agree, in order to get elected. >> >> But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. >> >> U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948. >> >> ~ >> >> Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. >> >> For many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million people - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. >> >> The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns, and drone assassinations, which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. >> >> AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to >> >> ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; >> ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; >> ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; >> ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and >> ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. >> >> ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at >> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Sep 28 18:46:17 2017 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 13:46:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war Teach In In-Reply-To: References: <15eb5e91520-c03-27f0@webjas-vaa082.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <007201d3388a$11d3c590$357b50b0$@comcast.net> Yes, Thank you Paula and Rich for coming to the conference as well as The World Labor Hour. Both of you were great during the radio interview as well as your conference presentations. David Johnson From: paula whowantstoknow [mailto:erpavo at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 8:58 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Whitney Rich; C G Estabrook; Boyle, Francis A; David Green; David Johnson; Stuart Levy Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war Teach In Thank you for your kind words, Midge. I am happy that you came. And I am happy that we came. It was a pleasant trip on the train, and I learned from the presentations. peace, paula On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >From Midge, our long time AWARE and Green member. She is an excellent writer whose skills we have used on occasion, and she did a heart felt letter of appreciation which sums up our thoughts as well. Begin forwarded message: From: Mildred O'brien via Peace-discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Anti-war Teach In Date: September 24, 2017 at 15:01:45 PDT To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Reply-To: Mildred O'brien To All Participants in yesterday's Teach-In: Congratulations and thank you to all the facilitators (especially Karen Aram, who invested so much effort toward its success), to the panelists for their excellent preparations as well as the two who were unable to deliver theirs due to the long day (fortunately they both had timely articles in the latest Public-i, except for David Johnson's presentation on Venezuela, which I was anxious to hear). Special thanks also for the excellent contributions of Rich Whitney and Paula Bradshaw who traveled the 200 miles from Carbondale . It was a long arduous day on a depressing topic but a worthwhile commitment. Harry Micklehide's as always creative entertainment helped lift the tedium of the dreary topic of endless war, and thanks also to those who provided refreshment, to Stuart Levy who recorded the speeches (it's worthy of viewing by wider audience, if it could be broadcast on You-Tube or possibly transcripts published in CounterPunch, or some such). I appreciate having the opportunity of learning so much from so many well qualified presenters, and all I had to do was travel a couple of miles from Savoy! Thanks again to all. Midge O'Brien _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 28 21:54:02 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 21:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> References: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> Message-ID: <432454225.147434.1506635642261@mail.yahoo.com> Pass along the final flyer to me, and I'll print some up tomorrow for Sat. On ‎Thursday‎, ‎September‎ ‎28‎, ‎2017‎ ‎12‎:‎36‎:‎27‎ ‎PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: It does seem strange to lead with Pres. Obama.   Trump is President now, and primarily responsible for the current continuation of bipartisan US war policy which Obama's administration pursued in his time. It would be good too, even in a brief flyer, to bring up US provocations against North Korea - at least to mention it in the subtitle along with Russia and China. On 09/28/2017 10:37 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast  and continuing war provocations against Russia and China. ~ The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; they had to agree, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948. ~ Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million people - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns, and drone assassinations, which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.  AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home;  ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 28 21:54:02 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 21:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> References: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> Message-ID: <432454225.147434.1506635642261@mail.yahoo.com> Pass along the final flyer to me, and I'll print some up tomorrow for Sat. On ‎Thursday‎, ‎September‎ ‎28‎, ‎2017‎ ‎12‎:‎36‎:‎27‎ ‎PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: It does seem strange to lead with Pres. Obama.   Trump is President now, and primarily responsible for the current continuation of bipartisan US war policy which Obama's administration pursued in his time. It would be good too, even in a brief flyer, to bring up US provocations against North Korea - at least to mention it in the subtitle along with Russia and China. On 09/28/2017 10:37 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast  and continuing war provocations against Russia and China. ~ The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that.  In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. What both men knew is that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in foreign wars and don’t see the killing as justified; they had to agree, in order to get elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948. ~ Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq - and killed perhaps a million people - and now has thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns, and drone assassinations, which have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children.  AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (neither Russia nor China has more than twelve); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home;  ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Sep 28 23:50:38 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:50:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: <432454225.147434.1506635642261@mail.yahoo.com> References: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> <432454225.147434.1506635642261@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D2FE565-A237-453D-856B-5C66C3DEF2D2@illinois.edu> I’m going to print this (front & back on one sheet) and cut it in half - maybe 100 sheets (so 200 flyers). [RECTO] ~ AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING ~ DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast & continuing war provocations vs. Russia (in Syria) and China (in Korea). ~ The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. Both men knew that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in war and don’t see the killing as justified; both had to seem to agree with that, in order to be elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars, to ‘contain’ Russia and China. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948, to protect the profits of the American 1% - at the expense of the US populace. ~ Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For example, for many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally and duplicitously invaded Iraq, which has some of the world’s largest oil reserves - and killed perhaps a million people; we now have thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns - and drone assassinations, which alone have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Syria and Eastern Europe) and China (in Korea and the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (Russia has twelve; China has one); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ————— [VERSO] Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For example, for many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally and duplicitously invaded Iraq, which has some of the world’s largest oil reserves - and killed perhaps a million people; we now have thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns - and drone assassinations, which alone have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Syria and Eastern Europe) and China (in Korea and the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (Russia has twelve; China has one); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ~ AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING ~ DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast & continuing war provocations vs. Russia (in Syria) and China (in Korea). ~ The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. Both men knew that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in war and don’t see the killing as justified; both had to seem to agree with that, in order to be elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars, to ‘contain’ Russia and China. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948, to protect the profits of the American 1% - at the expense of the US populace. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Sep 28 23:50:38 2017 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 18:50:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Draft flyer for AWARE distribution In-Reply-To: <432454225.147434.1506635642261@mail.yahoo.com> References: <66642669-a5a7-5e80-2b3d-f20d7bf269ff@gmail.com> <432454225.147434.1506635642261@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4D2FE565-A237-453D-856B-5C66C3DEF2D2@illinois.edu> I’m going to print this (front & back on one sheet) and cut it in half - maybe 100 sheets (so 200 flyers). [RECTO] ~ AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING ~ DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast & continuing war provocations vs. Russia (in Syria) and China (in Korea). ~ The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. Both men knew that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in war and don’t see the killing as justified; both had to seem to agree with that, in order to be elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars, to ‘contain’ Russia and China. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948, to protect the profits of the American 1% - at the expense of the US populace. ~ Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For example, for many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally and duplicitously invaded Iraq, which has some of the world’s largest oil reserves - and killed perhaps a million people; we now have thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns - and drone assassinations, which alone have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Syria and Eastern Europe) and China (in Korea and the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (Russia has twelve; China has one); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ————— [VERSO] Ordinary Americans have paid for these vicious wars, but they haven’t profited from them. Most Americans are not aware of how much of the world is appalled at what the U.S. government has done in our lifetimes. It is a triumph of the American system of propaganda and intellectual control - the most effective in history - that Americans are able to ignore it. For example, for many years the U.S. has attempted to exercise military control over the Mideast and its energy resources. The U.S. doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the U.S. a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries - a chokehold which benefits only the American one percent. In 2003 the U.S. illegally and duplicitously invaded Iraq, which has some of the world’s largest oil reserves - and killed perhaps a million people; we now have thousands of troops and mercenaries throughout the Mideast. The U.S. government says that we’re fighting terrorism, but we are in fact creating terrorists in response to our invasions, bombing campaigns - and drone assassinations, which alone have killed more than 5,000 people, including U.S. citizens and hundreds of children. AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, joins other anti-war groups in the United States and around the world to call upon President Trump to ~ (1) establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights; ~ (2) end U.S. wars in the Mideast and war provocations against Russia (in Syria and Eastern Europe) and China (in Korea and the South China Sea), and stop the drone assassinations; ~ (3) cut military spending by at least 50% and close the more than 700 foreign military bases (Russia has twelve; China has one); bring U.S. troops (and weapons) home; ~ (4) stop U.S. support for human rights abusers, notably Israel and Saudi Arabia; and ~ (5) lead on global nuclear disarmament. ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT - on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ~ AMERICANS ARE AGAINST U.S. WAR-MAKING ~ DEMAND AN END TO U.S. KILLING IN OUR NAME Obama and Trump were both elected as anti-war candidates. In office, both increased the killing by sending more troops to the Mideast & continuing war provocations vs. Russia (in Syria) and China (in Korea). ~ The U.S. military is today killing people in seven Mideast and African countries - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. Thousands of U.S. troops are fighting in these countries, although most Americans don’t know that. In addition, the 70,000-member U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ is active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. President Obama was elected as an anti-war candidate, but in office he sent thousands of additional U.S. troops into war in Afghanistan. President Trump, who promised caution and non-interventionism in foreign policy - and described Hillary Clinton as a “trigger happy warmonger” - has now done the same thing himself. Both men knew that, in spite of intense media propaganda, most Americans don’t want U.S. troops engaged in war and don’t see the killing as justified; both had to seem to agree with that, in order to be elected. But the ‘one percent’ - the U.S. economic elite - do want the wars, to ‘contain’ Russia and China. U.S. presidents have killed more than 20 million people in wars around the world since World War II. That war left the U.S. elite in an unprecedented position of world economic dominance. U.S. wars since then - in Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, and the Mideast - have had the purpose of “maintaining the disparity,” as U.S. diplomat George Kennan wrote in 1948, to protect the profits of the American 1% - at the expense of the US populace. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 29 04:02:52 2017 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:02:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer attached References: <1803133073.288320.1506657772040.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1803133073.288320.1506657772040@mail.yahoo.com> Formatted, half page, 2 sided -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AWARE Flyer 9.30.17.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16928 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Sep 29 13:48:53 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:48:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: FREE PUERTO RICO! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 8:20 AM To: Action Greens Subject: FREE PUERTO RICO! Free Puerto Rico! Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans Versus 115 Years of Yankee Imperialism and Colonialism and Belligerent Occupation By Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Puerto Rico September 19, 2013 (Revised) © 2014 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Introduction In order to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Columbus's invasion of the Americas, in early 1992 I was asked by the Organizers of the International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the U.S.A. to serve as Special Prosecutor of the United States of America for committing international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nationalities, including and especially against Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. The Tribunal was initiated by the American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) with the support of representatives of the Puerto Rican People, the New Afrikan People, the Mexicano People, and "progressive White North Americans." Of course, I do not consider myself to be a "White North American." I was born Green and Irish. During the past 850 years of resisting one of the most brutal and cruel colonial occupations in the history of humankind, we Irish know full-well what the denial of self-determination, genocide, and gross violations of our most fundamental human rights are all about in our beloved Ireland and abroad, which atrocities still continue as of today.[i] We Irish still fondly remember and greatly appreciate that Pedro Albizu Compos stood up for us at Anglophile Harvard University a century ago when no one else would defend our rights to self-determination and independence. In my capacity as Special Prosecutor of the United States Federal Government, I drew up an Indictment under international law and human rights law that was served upon the Attorney General of the United States and upon the United States Attorney in San Francisco prior to the convening of the Tribunal in that city just before so-called "Columbus Day" on October 2-4, 1992 with a summons that they appear to defend the United States government from the charges. I take it they saw no point in trying to defend the indefensible because no one showed up to defend the United States government, though they did publicly acknowledge receipt of our service of process. I will not go through all 37 charges of my Indictment here. But the proceedings of this pathbreaking International Tribunal have been recorded in a formal Verdict by the Tribunal; in a Video of the Tribunal; and in a Book on the Tribunal--all under the title U.S.A. On Trial: The International Tribunal on Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the United States. There is also a copy of this video available for free download on the internet.[ii] Six months after the conclusion of these San Francisco Tribunal proceedings, I was the Lawyer and Ambassador for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina arguing its case for genocide against Yugoslavia before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the World Court of the United Nations System. There I would single-handedly win two World Court Orders overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnians on 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993.[iii] This was the first time ever that any Government had won two such Orders in one case since the World Court was founded in 1921. In addition, on 5 August 1993 I also won a so-called Article 74(4) World Court Order for Bosnia against Yugoslavia over genocide to the same effect. According to I.C.J. Statute Article 74(4), when the full World Court is not in session in The Hague, the President of the Court exercises the full powers of the Court and can issue an Order to the parties in a lawsuit that is legally binding upon them. I treated the San Francisco Tribunal proceedings with as much care, attention, dignity, respect, and professionalism as I did the World Court proceedings for Bosnia. And the results were the same: massive, overwhelming, and crushing victories for my Clients against their adversaries at both the World Court and the San Francisco Tribunal! Eight Unanimous Guilty Verdicts For the purpose of this Lecture, I want to briefly discuss the eight charges that I filed against the United States government for committing international crimes against the People and State of Puerto Rico only. I believe that these eight charges succinctly state the fundamental principles of international law and human rights law concerning Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. Obviously, these eight charges of my Indictment cannot answer all the questions the Puerto Rican People might have with respect to international law and human rights law. But I do submit that these eight charges provide a solid foundation for providing guidance to the Puerto Rican People on your basic rights under international law and human rights law that can be used in the future in order to navigate problems and issues as they arise to confront you, including and especially the liberation of Puerto Rico as a free and independent state if that is your desire. The distinguished Judges composing this International Tribunal consisted of seven independent Experts on human rights drawn from all over the world. In their Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of 4 October 1992, the Indigenous Peoples' Tribunal did not accept all of the 37 charges that I filed in my Indictment against the United States government for perpetrating international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nations. But most strikingly, when it came to Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican People, the International Tribunal ratified all eight of my charges against the United States government, and by a unanimous vote at that on all of them. In its own words, the exact findings of the San Francisco Tribunal on the People and the State of Puerto Rico were as follows: Puerto Rican People With respect to the charges brought by the Puerto Rican People, the Defendant, the federal Government of the United States of America is, by unanimous vote, guilty as charged in: Since its illegal invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898, Defendant has perpetrated innumerable Crimes Against Peace, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes against the People and State of Puerto Rico as recognized by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles. The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Genocide against the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Genocide Convention. The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Apartheid against the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1973 Apartheid Convention. The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two aforementioned United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966. The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the 1965 Racism Convention against the Puerto Rican People. The Defendant has denied and violated the international legal right of the Puerto Rican People to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations Charter, the two United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966, customary international law, and jus cogens. The Defendant has illegally refused to apply the United Nations Decolonization Resolution of 1960 to Puerto Rico. Pursuant thereto, the Defendant has an absolute international legal obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico immediately and to transfer all powers it currently exercises there to the Puerto Rican People. The Defendant has illegally refused to accord full-scope protections as Prisoners-of-War to captured Puerto Rican independence fighters in violation of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. The Defendant's treatment of captured Puerto Rican independence fighters as "common criminals" and "terrorists" constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva Accords and thus a serious war crime. As Special Prosecutor for the San Francisco Tribunal, it came as no surprise to me that the Judges unanimously confirmed all eight of my charges against the United States government with respect to the People and the State of Puerto Rico. This is because the principles of international law and human rights law with respect to Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans are crystal clear and incontestable, and thus so glaringly obvious for the entire world to see. I most respectfully submit that the Puerto Rican People must use this analysis and the Tribunal's Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order in order to support, promote, and defend your basic rights under international law and human rights law, including and especially your rights to self-determination and pursuant thereto, to establish the independent state of Puerto Rico if that is your desire. The Gist of My Arguments in Support of the Eight Unanimous Convictions Against the United States for Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans 1. A Nuremberg Crime Against Peace Now obviously I do not have time here in this brief Lecture to go through all the arguments and all of the evidence that I used to win these eight unanimous guilty verdicts against the United States on behalf of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. But to begin with: In 1897 Spain had given away so much autonomy to Puerto Rico that effectively what you had here was a de facto, not yet de jure, but a de facto independent state.[iv] And the United States government came in here and robbed it from the Puerto Ricans. There is no other way to describe it. A clearcut act of aggression. What would later be called a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace when the United States government was prosecuting the Nazis after World War II for their heinous international crimes and atrocities. I will return to this Nazi analogy toward the end of my Lecture. 2. Genocide Second, the Defendant has perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Puerto Rican people as recognized by the 1948 Genocide Convention. You do not need six million dead Jews to constitute genocide. Indeed, in its final 2007 Judgment on the merits, the World Court ruled in the Bosnia case that even seven thousand murdered Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica were enough to constitute genocide.[v] So with all sincere and due respect for the Jewish people, yes they are the paradigmatic example of genocide, but they are not the only victims of genocide. The Puerto Ricans have been so victimized as well too by both the United States of America as well as by Spain before the Yankee invasion in 1898. 520 years of White Racist, Colonial Imperialist genocide against Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. If you look at the Genocide Convention, which I argued to the San Francisco Tribunal, you have several elements that would constitute genocide: in particular, killing members of the group; and inflicting severe mental and physical harm on members of the group, etc. I would submit that here in Puerto Rico for the last 115 years now of Yankee colonialism and imperialism and belligerent occupation you have been continually subjected to genocidal traumatic-stress-disorder. If you look around you, why are there serious social and psychological problems here in Puerto Rico? I have studied a lot about post-traumatic stress disorder (P.T.S.D.) arising from the Vietnam War. In addition, certainly from the work I did in Bosnia, where almost everyone there suffers from P.T.S.D., 115 years of continuous and ongoing Yankee-imposed genocidal traumatic-stress-disorder can explain most of what some Yankee law professors might say to be somewhat dysfunctional and self-destructive social behavior, crime, and mental disorders here in Puerto Rico today. 3. Apartheid Third charge: The Defendant has perpetrated the international crime of apartheid against the Puerto Rican people as recognized by 1973 Apartheid Convention. That was unanimous. You have an apartheid system here in Puerto Rico. Not only that, but as I argued to the San Francisco Tribunal, you have an apartheid system in North America against Puerto Ricans. I have not spent time in New York with the Puerto Rican community there, but I certainly grew up in Chicago, with a major Puerto Rican neighborhood there, and it is certainly apartheid practiced against Puerto Ricans in Chicago and, pari passu, elsewhere in the North American Puerto Rican Diaspora. And of course all across Puerto Rico today the Yankees have had 115 years to construct their apartheid system against Puerto Ricans. You can read the Apartheid Convention for yourself. I won't go through all the elements there that qualify. I don't have the time here like I did at the San Francisco Tribunal. But I will point out that the 1973 Apartheid Convention clearly states that apartheid is a crime against humanity. In terms of severity, a crime against humanity is just short of genocide. And in the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, which, of course, the United States is not a party to because they don't want to be prosecuted by it, it states quite clearly: Apartheid is a crime against humanity. And that's what we have here in Puerto Rico and I would also submit for Puerto Rican communities living in their North American Diaspora, and certainly in Chicago -- Crimes Against Humanity. 4. Human Rights Violations Next charge, fourth: The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the United States government is a party; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights that the United States government has signed and is thus under an obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of that Convention, though it does so every day here in Puerto Rico. Remember, I won these points unanimously. There was no dissent by the seven human rights Experts sitting on the San Francisco Tribunal. 5. Racism and Racial Discrimination Next, fifth charge: The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the 1965 Racism Convention against the Puerto Rican People. We all know everything about Yankee racism against the Puerto Ricans. You live here in Puerto Rico and suffer from it every day. I certainly see it up in the United States against Puerto Ricans living in their Diaspora there. You can read the Yankee press and watch the Yankee media, it's pretty clear what the Yankees think of Puerto Ricans. It fits the definition of racial discrimination as set forth in and prohibited by this Convention which, by the way the U.S. government is a party to. Though when the Yankees ratified this Racism Convention, they attached so many reservations and declarations and understandings to it so as to maliciously gut the significance of their ratification. Effectively to make it almost impossible for us lawyers to file claims in U.S. courts for victims of racial discrimination by the United States government, including and especially against Puerto Ricans, whether living in Puerto Rico or in the Puerto Rican Diaspora in the United States, under this Convention. Furthermore, in this regard, in its condemnation of the United States government for its numerous crimes against African Americans, the San Francisco Tribunal also unanimously found the U.S. government guilty as charged in that: "The Defendant is the paradigmatic example of an irremediably racist state in international relations today." Ditto for Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans, including both the Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico and those Puerto Ricans living in the Puerto Rican Diaspora in the United States. 6. Self-determination Next, sixth charge: The Defendant has denied and violated the international legal right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination as recognized by the U.N. Charter and these two U.N. Covenants of 1966. Nothing could be clearer. The Puerto Ricans are a people with a right of self-determination that is set forth in the U.N. Charter and as recognized by these two U.N. Covenants that state quite clearly: "All peoples have the right of self-determination." It doesn't say "all peoples but Puerto Ricans have the right of self-determination." That means you have a right to freely determine your own future and not have the Yankees decide it for you. As a result of this, and in the next charge, both of which I won unanimously, the United States has illegally refused to apply the U.N. Decolonization Resolution of 1960 to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is still on the agenda of the U.N. Decolonization Committee today. [vi] Thank heavens for that! It is still there because even the United Nations considers Puerto Rico to be a colony. Indeed, it is interesting that everyone down here in Puerto Rico agrees that Puerto Rico is a colony, if you follow the proceedings of the United Nations Decolonization Committee. The pro-Statehood party gets up there and says we're a colony; the enhanced Commonwealth people get up there and say yes, we're a colony; and the independentistas get up there and say we're a colony too. Everyone agrees Puerto Rico is a colony. Nothing could be clearer than that conclusion and that the United States government has an absolute obligation to apply that U.N. Decolonization Resolution immediately to Puerto Rico. 7. Decolonization So the seventh charge: The Defendant has an absolute international legal obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico immediately and to transfer all powers that it currently exercises there to the Puerto Rican people. That was unanimous. It's so clear, it's so obvious. A. Plebiscite Now, recently you had here what was called a "plebiscite," but of course we all know it was a joke and a fraud. It was simply more playing games by the Yankee imperialists and their compradors here in Puerto Rico designed to prevent the Puerto Rican people from freely exercising your right of self-determination. If there were to be a genuine plebiscite in Puerto Rico, what we would need is as follows: First, it would have to be supervised by the United Nations Organization in order to guarantee a free, fair, impartial, objective electoral process in accordance with historically recognized international standards and procedures. Well certainly we've never had this here in Puerto Rico. In 1951 you had a fake vote setting up this bogus Commonwealth that is designed to hide and cover up Puerto Rico's colonial status under the illegal Yankee belligerent occupation of Puerto Rico. Second, prior to the beginning of the plebiscite process, the United States government must withdraw its military forces, security agencies, intelligence services (F.B.I., C.I.A., D.E.A., D.I.A., N.S.A., B.A.T.F., D.H.S., etc.) to their military bases and offices where they would be confined for the duration of the electoral process here in Puerto Rico. So that they do not intimidate people by their mere presence, and their confinement should be supervised and ensured by the U.N. Organization while this process goes forward. For those of you who are interested, certainly one could look at the precedent and example of the role that the United Nations played in brokering and supervising the transition of Southwest Africa from the illegal, colonial apartheid occupation by the then criminal apartheid regime of South Africa to genuine full-fledged independence as Namibia. I think that's a pretty good and analogous model of what should be done here to oust the criminal apartheid regime of the United States from Puerto Rico. Third, after all United States military forces and security agents and intelligence services have been confined to their bases and offices, the Puerto Rican people would need a substantial period of time in which they could engage freely and without fear of Yankee threat and intimidation during the process of educating themselves and publicly debating among themselves the various options available, together with free and fair and meaningful access to the mainstream news media for this purpose, so there could transpire a genuine debate. Finally, it must be guaranteed before the process begins that the Will of the Puerto Rican People is determinative and will be honored and respected whatever the results of such a plebiscite might be, including independence. B. Options i. Statehood? Now, it's not for me here to tell the Puerto Ricans what to do about your right of self-determination. That is for you to decide, not me. But with all due respect and speaking as a friend, I doubt very seriously that I will ever see the United States of America making Puerto Rico the 51st state of the Union. Why? Because most Puerto Ricans are Brown and Black and the United States Yankee Elite are White Racist. Second, Puerto Ricans speak primarily Spanish and the United States is chauvinistically English-speaking first and foremost. Third, Puerto Ricans are nominally Catholic, whereas the United States Yankee Elite consider themselves to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) and are proud of it. So I personally do not see both Houses of the United States Congress ever agreeing to make Puerto Rico the 51st State of the Union. Indeed White racist colonial imperialist Yankee Elites in the United States are already today trying to figure out how to divest themselves of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans for all of the above reasons. Now that the Roosevelt Roads Naval Base has been shut down, the Yankees believe they no longer need Puerto Rico to control and dominate the Caribbean and their access to the Panama Canal, as well as to threaten and to intimidate Latin America. ii. Independence? Which leads to independence. Of course you fully deserve independence and I fully support a free Puerto Rico as an independent state in the world with full-fledged state membership in the United Nations Organization. The sooner the better! But this is for you to decide, not me. I am only here to help out if that is what you decide to do and you want my assistance with that independentista project. iii. Compact of Free Association? Independent statehood might be perceived to be a bridge too far for some Puerto Ricans at this time. So instead of Independence you could opt for a status like the three states of Micronesia (i.e. the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau) who have substantial independence from the United States of America by means of a Compact of Free Association including state membership in the United Nations Organization, which is critical.[vii] You have to obtain membership in the United Nations Organization in order to have your own Voice and your own Vote in the world directly and immediately by yourself. And certainly it is the case that no state which has ever obtained membership in the United Nations Organization has ever been destroyed. Very important, I found that out for Bosnia. Without Bosnia's membership in the United Nations Organization, Bosnia would have gone the same way the Jews did during World War II. Likewise now the work I have been doing with Palestinians since 1988 starting with the then Palestinian Declaration of Independence and their creation of the Palestinian state. As you know Palestine obtained recognition by the United Nations General Assembly on November 29, 2012 as a United Nations Observer State. Palestine today has all the votes for admission to the United Nations itself as a U.N. member state. I have already devised the means for Palestine to overcome any threatened veto of U.N. membership at the Security Council by President Obama, who likes to constantly bully and threaten and beat up upon the Palestinians whenever they try to express their independence from the will of the Yankees. But of course, it is for the Palestinians to decide when to push for that vote for full U.N. state membership itself. Today Palestine is also de jure recognized as an independent nation state by about 135 states bilaterally. All that has been accomplished since 1988, to give you a time frame, that's 25 years working with them. But what are 25 years in the life of a People, whether for the Palestinians or for the Puerto Ricans? It's just the bat of an eyelash. It's about a third of a lifetime. But in any Compact of Free Association with the United States, Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans must preserve your right to change your mind at any time pursuant to your right of self-determination and to vote for independence in the future and at a time of your own choosing and by means of a procedure of your own choice, and not subject to any veto or control by the Yankees. That's what "free" association is supposed to be all about. 8. Puerto Rican Freedom Fighters and Prisoners of War The eighth and final charge that I obtained a guilty verdict from the San Francisco Tribunal, unanimously was: The Defendant has illegally refused to accord full-scope protections as Prisoners-of-War to captured Puerto Rican independence fighters in violation of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. And: The Defendant's treatment of captured Puerto Rican independence fighters as "common criminals" and "terrorists" constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva Accords and thus a serious war crime. Back at the time of the San Francisco Tribunal we had a large number of Puerto Rican independentistas in Yankee prisons. I did some work on that F.A.L.N. case up in Chicago. Their attorney of record, Ms. Jan Sussler, whom you know, and a very distinguished graduate of our law school, after the F.A.L.N. were indicted, called me up and said: "Would you be willing to come up here into United States Federal Court, and argue that the F.A.L.N. are a national liberation movement under international law and therefore are entitled to being treated as prisoners-of-war under the Geneva Conventions and thus not subject to prosecution for these alleged crimes?" I immediately said "Yes. Of course. I would be willing to argue those points in the United States Federal Court in Chicago." As most of you know, the F.A.L.N. decided not to present any defense at all. They decided not to recognize the jurisdiction of the court to any extent, even including having me come in there to argue that the court had no jurisdiction to try them for their alleged crimes because they were freedom fighters and prisoners-of-war. That was their principled decision and I honor and respect them for it. Not surprisingly, the F.A.L.N. all got extensive prison sentences as you know. Years later, when President Clinton offered a pardon to these same F.A.L.N. Members, Ms. Jan Sussler again called me up, and said: "Can the F.A.L.N. accept the Clinton pardon without compromising their status as national liberation fighters for Puerto Rico?" I said that I would investigate the matter, which I did. I wrote Ms. Sussler an Opinion Letter to the effect that, of course they can: Even under United States Army Field Manual 27-10, The Laws of Land Warfare (1956), whereby the United States itself recognizes that prisoners-of-war can accept a parole out of confinement on conditions including not resuming hostilities. So I gave Ms. Sussler that Opinion Letter, and I also pointed out that, and by the way, if the I.R.A. can accept conditional paroles out of British concentration camps, then certainly the F.A.L.N. can accept conditional paroles out of Yankee prisons. A. Free Oscar Lopez! Today, we still have one Puerto Rican freedom fighter and prisoner-of-war from that time left over remaining in a Yankee prison, Oscar Lopez. It is up to all of us here today to do all that we can to bring Oscar Lopez home, back here to Puerto Rico, back to his family and to his friends. Free Oscar! B. F.A.L.N. as a National Liberation Movement For many years, I argued that the F.A.L.N. was a national liberation movement under international law, exactly along the lines of the I.R.A., the P.L.O., the A.N.C. in South Africa, S.W.A.P. O. in Namibia, and Z.A.P.U. and Z.A.N.U. in Zimbabwe. Indeed, I think I was probably the first and only United States law professor to have published an article in a Yankee law review arguing that the F.A.L.N. is a national liberation movement under international law along the lines of the P.L.O., the I.R.A., A.N.C., S.W.A.P. O. and Z.A.P.U./ Z.A.N.U., having just previously argued that point in public debate at Whittier Law School.[viii] The legal regime is exactly the same for all of these national liberation movements and their freedom fighters such as Oscar Lopez. To be sure, today the F.A.L.N. has decided to stand down and this is their decision that we must respect. This is what self-determination is all about. The Provisional Irish Republican Army has done the same. But several of the dissident Irish splinter groups have reconstituted themselves into a new Irish Republican Army. So long as Britain occupies Ireland, the Irish will resist. That is our right of self-determination too that must be respected as well. The U.S.A. Is a Nazi Government In the final section of its Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order etc., the San Francisco Tribunal also rendered the following unanimous decision that directly concerns the international legal rights of the People and State of Puerto Rico: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS In light of the foregoing findings, this Tribunal also, by unanimous vote, finds the Defendant guilty as charged in paragraph 37, which, as amended, reads: In light of the foregoing international crimes, the Defendant constitutes a Criminal Conspiracy and a Criminal Organization in accordance with the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles and the other sources of public international law specified above, and the Federal Government of the United States of America is similar to the Nazi government of World War II Germany. This powerful Finding speaks for itself and requires no explanation by me. In light thereof, and in reaction thereto, everyone should do what his or her conscience tells them to do. Cease-and-Desist Order The Tribunal concluded its Verdict etc. with the following Order to the United States government: "Now therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Defendant cease and desist from the commission of the crimes it has been found guilty of herein." Pursuant thereto, I then filed a copy of this San Francisco Verdict etc. with its Cease-and-Desist Order upon the Attorney General of the United States of America in Washington, D.C. In return, I later received a 5 February 1993 Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that acknowledged the receipt of the San Francisco Tribunal Verdict etc. and its Cease-and-Desist Order against the United States government. This U.S. D.O.J Letter then advised me: "If you, or the Tribunal, have any evidence of the violation of federal criminal law, we ask that you provide that information to your local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation." As I saw it at the time, and still see it as of today, historically this would be analogous to the Nazi Ministry of "Justice" advising a German lawyer representing the German Jews to file his Complaint of criminal law violations by the Nazi government against the Jews with the Gestapo. The F.B.I is and has always been the American Gestapo -- especially for all Indigenous Peoples and Peoples of Color living within its imperial domain, including and especially the Puerto Ricans, both living in their United States Diaspora and in Puerto Rico.[ix] The San Francisco Tribunal Precedent Nevertheless, the Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of this San Francisco Tribunal qualify as a "judicial decision" within the meaning of Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Pursuant thereto, this Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order constitute "subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law" for international law and practice. Furthermore, the Statute of the International Court of Justice is an "integral part" of the United Nations Charter under Article 92 thereof. Hence the San Francisco Tribunal's Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order can be relied upon by the International Court of Justice itself, by the International Criminal Court, by some other International Tribunal, or by any other domestic Court in the world today, as well as by any People or State of the World Community -- including and especially by Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. The Verdict etc. of the San Francisco Tribunal still serves as adequate notice to the appropriate officials in the United States Federal Government that they bear personal criminal responsibility under international law and the domestic legal systems of all Peoples and States in the World Community for designing and implementing these illegal, criminal and reprehensible policies and practices against Indigenous Peoples and Peoples of Color, and especially against Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. Conclusion Obviously, in my brief presentation here today, I do not have the time to go through each and every one of these eight unanimous convictions; to discuss all of the factual evidence that supported these eight charges; or to provide you with an analysis of the international legal bases for each one of these eight unanimous convictions. For that type of information, I refer you to the Video and the Book on the San Francisco Tribunal as well as to its Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order itself. But in the discussions that follow today, I will be happy to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you. Answers to Questions 1. There is the book available on the San Francisco Tribunal which you can get if you write the Puerto Rican Cultural Center in Chicago, they have copies of the Book there. There is also a Video available that you could use for educational purposes to show to college students, high school students, even 8th graders, what was decided and why and having some of the evidence that went before the Tribunal. So if you contact Mr. Alejandro Molina at the Puerto Rican Cultural Center in Chicago, they can send you the book, and he can give you information on obtaining the Video. It's a one-hour video. And there was a substantial Puerto Rican contribution in San Francisco. I know my client and my friend Rafael Cancel Miranda just walked in, and he was there to speak. 2. Let me say first: The distinguished attorney, Pedro Albizu Campos, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, my dis-alma mater, and being Irish American I remember that 100 years ago Harvard decided to have a debate on the right of the Irish to self-determination and an independent state of their own. Harvard always was, and still is today, being Anglophile, no one would represent the cause of us Irish and then stepped forward Pedro Albizu Campos, and he spoke for us Irish 100 years ago at Harvard. And so, we Irish and Puerto Ricans, have always been joined at the hip since then, thanks to Pedro Albizu Campos. Unincorporated Territory 3. Now as for Puerto Rico being an "unincorporated territory," you're right technically. The United States government in terms of U.S. constitutional law considers Puerto Rico nothing more than property of the United States. That's it. You're a piece of property that they own, and that's what that unincorporated territory means. And basically they consider Puerto Rico spoils of war that they stole from Spain in the 1898 war. Now, not to justify anything Spain did down here to you Puerto Ricans, but as I said, in 1897 they did give you so much autonomy that you were basically acting as a de facto independent state that the United States attempted to destroy by means of the Spanish-American War that was a war of aggression, and then extorting Puerto Rico as part of the war booty, along with Guam and the Philippines from Spain. And so Puerto Rico was considered by the United States spoils of war, a piece of property, and nothing has changed in your constitutional status today in the U.S.A. U.S.A. Is an Illegal Belligerent Occupant of Puerto Rico 4. Indeed, I think a very good argument could be made, and I have made it, that the United States since 1898, has been and is still today nothing more than the illegal belligerent occupant of Puerto Rico under the international laws of war and of belligerent occupation. In the case of belligerent occupation, sovereignty does not go into the hands of the belligerent occupant. The sovereignty remains in the hands of the occupied state and the occupied people. Certainly I would take, and have taken, that position with respect to Puerto Rico. So the United States is a colonial power, it is a belligerent occupant, but sovereignty still resides in Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican People, and it's been there at least since 1897 for sure.[x] 5. Thank you again. Yes, as I was saying under, my reading of historical record - now I do know we have Puerto Rican historians here, so I do defer to your judgment - but my reading of the record is that in 1897 Spain gave you all the powers of a de facto independent state, sort of like the British Commonwealth or something along those lines, where Commonwealth states pretty much had all the independence that they needed, and then the Americans came in here and stole Puerto Rico and destroyed your state and robbed you of it. The Commonwealth Is a Puppet Government 6. Now, as for the current government here in Puerto Rico, and please understand that I'm not here to offend any of the Puerto Ricans or even any of your officials or to question their good faith one way or the other. But under the laws of war, with the United States government being the belligerent occupant of Puerto Rico since 1898, what we have here is a puppet government that was set up under the laws of war and belligerent occupation to administer Puerto Rico. Under the laws of war there is nothing wrong with a belligerent occupant setting up a puppet government if they want to. But that does not alter the legal and political fact that it is still a puppet government. So I agree completely with what you are saying. 7. Now, as for the Treaty of Paris. First that war was clearly illegal, the United States government issued an ultimatum to the Queen of Spain, she accepted the ultimatum, and they went to war anyway and stole Puerto Rico. And as you correctly pointed out, the wishes of the Puerto Ricans were never consulted. The Treaty of Paris ceded Puerto Rico and others to Spain, as booty of war, which is why they treat Puerto Rico as property, as unincorporated territory, which basically means nothing more than property of the United States government to be disposed of as it wishes. And so that cession in 1898 was coerced to begin with, in violation even of contemporary standards of international law at that time, and was certainly null and void with respect to Puerto Rico and was against the right of the Puerto Ricans to self-determination and still is today. And third, and finally, the Yankees destroyed the de facto independent state that you Puerto Ricans had here in 1897. 8. I point out that belligerent occupation, which is what the US government has here today, together with its puppet Commonwealth government administering Puerto Rico, cannot change the fact that sovereignty still and has always remained in the hands of the Puerto Rican people together with your right to self-determination. Conclusion 9. Where we go from here, I guess we're having a session this afternoon to talk about it. But my objective this morning was simply to set out the legal framework for you Puerto Ricans to consider. Again, it's your right of self-determination, not mine, I'm just here to help, not tell you what to do. Before we conclude, I wonder if Rafael Cancel Miranda would grace us with a few words. Please, Rafael, come up here to the podium. [Instead he spoke from the audience in Spanish.] Appendix Statement by Professor Francis A. Boyle Before the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization on Behalf of the National Sovereign State of Borinken June 23, 2014 (Check against oral delivery.) In 1492, Columbus illegally invaded the indigenous Kingdoms of America and proceeded to exterminate the indigenous peoples living there including the Tainos in Puerto Rico starting in 1493. The story is told in graphic detail by Professor Howard Zinn in the first chapter of his classic book The People's History of the United States. So in the interest of time I am not going to recount here that sordid history of serial aggressions and genocides perpetrated by Columbus and the other Conquistadors upon the Indigenous Peoples and Kingdoms of America at the behest of and as agents for Spain and Portugal. Certainly Puerto Rico was not terra nullius -- the land of no people. The Tainos lived there in a political community organized into their own Kingdom. Therefore, the supposed European doctrine of "discovery" did not justify Spain's genocidal invasion, conquest, and occupation of Puerto Rico and the Tainos. Moreover, the Borgia Pope Alexander VI had no right to attempt to steal Puerto Rico from the Tainos and give it to Spain by means of his so-called Inter Caetera "Bull," which is nevertheless appropriately called "Bull" in English. The invasion, conquest, and occupation of Puerto Rico and the Tainos by Spain grossly violated the prevailing customary international law rule at that time known as the Just War Doctrine that was legally binding upon Spain. That is precisely why at that time His Holiness Bartolemé de Las Casas, the Bishop of Chiapas strenuously remonstrated against the Conquistadors with the Government of Spain because of their destructions of the numerous Kingdoms established by the Indigenous Peoples of America together with their extermination:[xi] In one of the rules in his Confesionario, Bartolemé trenchantly maintains that everything that has been done in the Indies "has been against all natural law and the Law of Nations, as well as against all divine law,...and consequently, null, void, and without any validity or legal effect" (O.E. 5:239b).... Consequently, His Holiness Bishop Las Casas informed the Government of Spain that the Indians of the Americas were entitled to the public international law right and remedy of restitutio in integrum -- restitution of their Kingdoms:[xii] ...For Bartolemé, the Spanish sovereigns themselves are obliged to restitution, since they have ultimate responsibility for events in the Indies. In response to Sepúlveda he even declares that "the illustrious doctor or anyone else seeking to justify or excuse [those unwilling to make restitution] sin most mortally and are obliged to the same restitution" (Aquí se contiene, 1552, O.E. 5:343b). The injury to be repaired has been in goods both material and moral. Restitution, therefore, must include the restoration of the destroyed monarchial societies of these lands, in which the Indians had led a civilized life in conformity with their customs. This will require the rehabilitation of their legitimate political authorities.... That is exactly what the National Sovereign State of Borinken has done. We have restored the Sovereignty of the Indigenous People of Puerto Rico pursuant to the international law right and remedy of restitution in integrum and the Sovereign Right of the Puerto Ricans to self-determination. In 1897 Spain devolved the powers of self-government upon Puerto Rico sufficient to constitute Puerto Rico a de facto independent state.[xiii] Nevertheless, under completely bogus pretexts, the United States of America illegally invaded and conquered the de facto independent state of Puerto Rico the very next year, and proceeded to set up a regime of genocidal military occupation over our Homeland. In the 1898 Treaty of Paris ending the so-called Spanish-American War, Spain never had sovereign title over Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans in order to hand them over arbitrarily to the United States in the first place. The Spanish Genocidal Thief never had valid title or sovereignty over Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans to convey to the Yankee Genocidal Thief! Since 1898 the United States of America has been nothing more than the illegal belligerent occupying power of Puerto Rico, subject to the international laws of war, including therein the international laws of belligerent occupation, which the United States has grievously violated and completely negated ever since 1898. Under the international laws of belligerent occupation, the illegal Yankee occupying power never obtained sovereignty over Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. Thereunder, to the contrary, Sovereignty over Puerto Rico has always remained in the hands of the Displaced Sovereign of 1897 and the Puerto Ricans. The National Sovereign State of Borinken has restored the Sovereignty of the Puerto Ricans over Puerto Rico pursuant to our right of self-determination. After 116 years of Yankee genocidal belligerent military occupation, it is now beyond time for the United States government to withdraw from and evacuate Puerto Rico immediately so that the National Sovereign State of Borinken can proceed to exercise the right of the Puerto Ricans to self-determination. In order to accomplish that sacred objective, we hereby respectfully request that the Special Committee on Decolonization officially accredit the National Sovereign State of Borinken so that we can proclaim our unique Voice and Vision to the entire world here. Finally, we demand that the Yankees immediately release Borinken's Freedom Fighter and Prisoner-of-War Oscar Lopez. Thank you. Endnotes Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ [i] See Boyle, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law (2012) [ii] See American Indian Movement, Verdict of the International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the USA (San Francisco, CA: Oct. 4, 1992); Puerto Rican Cultural Center, USA on Trial: The International Tribunal on Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the United States (Chicago, IL: 1996); Mission Creek Video, USA on Trial (Parts I & II): The International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the USA (San Francisco, CA 941141-1271), free download available at http://www.archive.org/details/ddtv_131_usa_on_trial. [iii] See Boyle, The Bosnian People Charge Genocide! (1996). [iv] See José Trías Monge, Puerto Rico 12-15 (1997). [v] See Boyle, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law, supra at 26-32. [vi] See the Appendix to this Lecture. [vii] See, e.g., Chimène I. Keitner, From Conquest to Consent: Puerto Rico and the Prospect of Genuine Free Association, University of California Hastings College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 111 (rev. Aug. 20, 2014); Chimène I. Keitner & W. Michael Reisman, Free Association: The United States Experience, 39 Tex. Int'l L.J. 1 (2003). But see generally W. Michael Reisman, Puerto Rico and the International Process (1975) (pro-Commonwealth). [viii] See Boyle, Preserving the Rule of Law in the War Against International Terrorism, 8 Whittier Law Review 735 (1986). [ix] See Swearingen, F.B.I. Secrets: An Agent's Exposé (1997). [x] For Spain's illegal invasion and belligerent, colonial occupation of Puerto Rico see the Appendix to this Lecture. [xi] See Gustavo, Gutiérrez, Las Casas 369 (Orbis Books: 1995) (citing Obras escogidas by Las Casas). [xii] Id. at 366 (emphasis added). [xiii] See José Trías Monge, Puerto Rico 12-15 (1997). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Sep 29 13:48:53 2017 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:48:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: FREE PUERTO RICO! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 8:20 AM To: Action Greens Subject: FREE PUERTO RICO! Free Puerto Rico! Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans Versus 115 Years of Yankee Imperialism and Colonialism and Belligerent Occupation By Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Puerto Rico September 19, 2013 (Revised) © 2014 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. Introduction In order to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Columbus's invasion of the Americas, in early 1992 I was asked by the Organizers of the International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the U.S.A. to serve as Special Prosecutor of the United States of America for committing international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nationalities, including and especially against Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. The Tribunal was initiated by the American Indian Movement (A.I.M.) with the support of representatives of the Puerto Rican People, the New Afrikan People, the Mexicano People, and "progressive White North Americans." Of course, I do not consider myself to be a "White North American." I was born Green and Irish. During the past 850 years of resisting one of the most brutal and cruel colonial occupations in the history of humankind, we Irish know full-well what the denial of self-determination, genocide, and gross violations of our most fundamental human rights are all about in our beloved Ireland and abroad, which atrocities still continue as of today.[i] We Irish still fondly remember and greatly appreciate that Pedro Albizu Compos stood up for us at Anglophile Harvard University a century ago when no one else would defend our rights to self-determination and independence. In my capacity as Special Prosecutor of the United States Federal Government, I drew up an Indictment under international law and human rights law that was served upon the Attorney General of the United States and upon the United States Attorney in San Francisco prior to the convening of the Tribunal in that city just before so-called "Columbus Day" on October 2-4, 1992 with a summons that they appear to defend the United States government from the charges. I take it they saw no point in trying to defend the indefensible because no one showed up to defend the United States government, though they did publicly acknowledge receipt of our service of process. I will not go through all 37 charges of my Indictment here. But the proceedings of this pathbreaking International Tribunal have been recorded in a formal Verdict by the Tribunal; in a Video of the Tribunal; and in a Book on the Tribunal--all under the title U.S.A. On Trial: The International Tribunal on Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the United States. There is also a copy of this video available for free download on the internet.[ii] Six months after the conclusion of these San Francisco Tribunal proceedings, I was the Lawyer and Ambassador for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina arguing its case for genocide against Yugoslavia before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the World Court of the United Nations System. There I would single-handedly win two World Court Orders overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnians on 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993.[iii] This was the first time ever that any Government had won two such Orders in one case since the World Court was founded in 1921. In addition, on 5 August 1993 I also won a so-called Article 74(4) World Court Order for Bosnia against Yugoslavia over genocide to the same effect. According to I.C.J. Statute Article 74(4), when the full World Court is not in session in The Hague, the President of the Court exercises the full powers of the Court and can issue an Order to the parties in a lawsuit that is legally binding upon them. I treated the San Francisco Tribunal proceedings with as much care, attention, dignity, respect, and professionalism as I did the World Court proceedings for Bosnia. And the results were the same: massive, overwhelming, and crushing victories for my Clients against their adversaries at both the World Court and the San Francisco Tribunal! Eight Unanimous Guilty Verdicts For the purpose of this Lecture, I want to briefly discuss the eight charges that I filed against the United States government for committing international crimes against the People and State of Puerto Rico only. I believe that these eight charges succinctly state the fundamental principles of international law and human rights law concerning Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. Obviously, these eight charges of my Indictment cannot answer all the questions the Puerto Rican People might have with respect to international law and human rights law. But I do submit that these eight charges provide a solid foundation for providing guidance to the Puerto Rican People on your basic rights under international law and human rights law that can be used in the future in order to navigate problems and issues as they arise to confront you, including and especially the liberation of Puerto Rico as a free and independent state if that is your desire. The distinguished Judges composing this International Tribunal consisted of seven independent Experts on human rights drawn from all over the world. In their Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of 4 October 1992, the Indigenous Peoples' Tribunal did not accept all of the 37 charges that I filed in my Indictment against the United States government for perpetrating international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nations. But most strikingly, when it came to Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican People, the International Tribunal ratified all eight of my charges against the United States government, and by a unanimous vote at that on all of them. In its own words, the exact findings of the San Francisco Tribunal on the People and the State of Puerto Rico were as follows: Puerto Rican People With respect to the charges brought by the Puerto Rican People, the Defendant, the federal Government of the United States of America is, by unanimous vote, guilty as charged in: Since its illegal invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898, Defendant has perpetrated innumerable Crimes Against Peace, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes against the People and State of Puerto Rico as recognized by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles. The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Genocide against the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Genocide Convention. The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Apartheid against the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1973 Apartheid Convention. The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two aforementioned United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966. The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the 1965 Racism Convention against the Puerto Rican People. The Defendant has denied and violated the international legal right of the Puerto Rican People to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations Charter, the two United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966, customary international law, and jus cogens. The Defendant has illegally refused to apply the United Nations Decolonization Resolution of 1960 to Puerto Rico. Pursuant thereto, the Defendant has an absolute international legal obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico immediately and to transfer all powers it currently exercises there to the Puerto Rican People. The Defendant has illegally refused to accord full-scope protections as Prisoners-of-War to captured Puerto Rican independence fighters in violation of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. The Defendant's treatment of captured Puerto Rican independence fighters as "common criminals" and "terrorists" constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva Accords and thus a serious war crime. As Special Prosecutor for the San Francisco Tribunal, it came as no surprise to me that the Judges unanimously confirmed all eight of my charges against the United States government with respect to the People and the State of Puerto Rico. This is because the principles of international law and human rights law with respect to Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans are crystal clear and incontestable, and thus so glaringly obvious for the entire world to see. I most respectfully submit that the Puerto Rican People must use this analysis and the Tribunal's Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order in order to support, promote, and defend your basic rights under international law and human rights law, including and especially your rights to self-determination and pursuant thereto, to establish the independent state of Puerto Rico if that is your desire. The Gist of My Arguments in Support of the Eight Unanimous Convictions Against the United States for Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans 1. A Nuremberg Crime Against Peace Now obviously I do not have time here in this brief Lecture to go through all the arguments and all of the evidence that I used to win these eight unanimous guilty verdicts against the United States on behalf of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. But to begin with: In 1897 Spain had given away so much autonomy to Puerto Rico that effectively what you had here was a de facto, not yet de jure, but a de facto independent state.[iv] And the United States government came in here and robbed it from the Puerto Ricans. There is no other way to describe it. A clearcut act of aggression. What would later be called a Nuremberg Crime Against Peace when the United States government was prosecuting the Nazis after World War II for their heinous international crimes and atrocities. I will return to this Nazi analogy toward the end of my Lecture. 2. Genocide Second, the Defendant has perpetrated the international crime of genocide against the Puerto Rican people as recognized by the 1948 Genocide Convention. You do not need six million dead Jews to constitute genocide. Indeed, in its final 2007 Judgment on the merits, the World Court ruled in the Bosnia case that even seven thousand murdered Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica were enough to constitute genocide.[v] So with all sincere and due respect for the Jewish people, yes they are the paradigmatic example of genocide, but they are not the only victims of genocide. The Puerto Ricans have been so victimized as well too by both the United States of America as well as by Spain before the Yankee invasion in 1898. 520 years of White Racist, Colonial Imperialist genocide against Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. If you look at the Genocide Convention, which I argued to the San Francisco Tribunal, you have several elements that would constitute genocide: in particular, killing members of the group; and inflicting severe mental and physical harm on members of the group, etc. I would submit that here in Puerto Rico for the last 115 years now of Yankee colonialism and imperialism and belligerent occupation you have been continually subjected to genocidal traumatic-stress-disorder. If you look around you, why are there serious social and psychological problems here in Puerto Rico? I have studied a lot about post-traumatic stress disorder (P.T.S.D.) arising from the Vietnam War. In addition, certainly from the work I did in Bosnia, where almost everyone there suffers from P.T.S.D., 115 years of continuous and ongoing Yankee-imposed genocidal traumatic-stress-disorder can explain most of what some Yankee law professors might say to be somewhat dysfunctional and self-destructive social behavior, crime, and mental disorders here in Puerto Rico today. 3. Apartheid Third charge: The Defendant has perpetrated the international crime of apartheid against the Puerto Rican people as recognized by 1973 Apartheid Convention. That was unanimous. You have an apartheid system here in Puerto Rico. Not only that, but as I argued to the San Francisco Tribunal, you have an apartheid system in North America against Puerto Ricans. I have not spent time in New York with the Puerto Rican community there, but I certainly grew up in Chicago, with a major Puerto Rican neighborhood there, and it is certainly apartheid practiced against Puerto Ricans in Chicago and, pari passu, elsewhere in the North American Puerto Rican Diaspora. And of course all across Puerto Rico today the Yankees have had 115 years to construct their apartheid system against Puerto Ricans. You can read the Apartheid Convention for yourself. I won't go through all the elements there that qualify. I don't have the time here like I did at the San Francisco Tribunal. But I will point out that the 1973 Apartheid Convention clearly states that apartheid is a crime against humanity. In terms of severity, a crime against humanity is just short of genocide. And in the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, which, of course, the United States is not a party to because they don't want to be prosecuted by it, it states quite clearly: Apartheid is a crime against humanity. And that's what we have here in Puerto Rico and I would also submit for Puerto Rican communities living in their North American Diaspora, and certainly in Chicago -- Crimes Against Humanity. 4. Human Rights Violations Next charge, fourth: The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the Puerto Rican People as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the United States government is a party; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights that the United States government has signed and is thus under an obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of that Convention, though it does so every day here in Puerto Rico. Remember, I won these points unanimously. There was no dissent by the seven human rights Experts sitting on the San Francisco Tribunal. 5. Racism and Racial Discrimination Next, fifth charge: The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the 1965 Racism Convention against the Puerto Rican People. We all know everything about Yankee racism against the Puerto Ricans. You live here in Puerto Rico and suffer from it every day. I certainly see it up in the United States against Puerto Ricans living in their Diaspora there. You can read the Yankee press and watch the Yankee media, it's pretty clear what the Yankees think of Puerto Ricans. It fits the definition of racial discrimination as set forth in and prohibited by this Convention which, by the way the U.S. government is a party to. Though when the Yankees ratified this Racism Convention, they attached so many reservations and declarations and understandings to it so as to maliciously gut the significance of their ratification. Effectively to make it almost impossible for us lawyers to file claims in U.S. courts for victims of racial discrimination by the United States government, including and especially against Puerto Ricans, whether living in Puerto Rico or in the Puerto Rican Diaspora in the United States, under this Convention. Furthermore, in this regard, in its condemnation of the United States government for its numerous crimes against African Americans, the San Francisco Tribunal also unanimously found the U.S. government guilty as charged in that: "The Defendant is the paradigmatic example of an irremediably racist state in international relations today." Ditto for Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans, including both the Puerto Ricans living in Puerto Rico and those Puerto Ricans living in the Puerto Rican Diaspora in the United States. 6. Self-determination Next, sixth charge: The Defendant has denied and violated the international legal right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination as recognized by the U.N. Charter and these two U.N. Covenants of 1966. Nothing could be clearer. The Puerto Ricans are a people with a right of self-determination that is set forth in the U.N. Charter and as recognized by these two U.N. Covenants that state quite clearly: "All peoples have the right of self-determination." It doesn't say "all peoples but Puerto Ricans have the right of self-determination." That means you have a right to freely determine your own future and not have the Yankees decide it for you. As a result of this, and in the next charge, both of which I won unanimously, the United States has illegally refused to apply the U.N. Decolonization Resolution of 1960 to Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is still on the agenda of the U.N. Decolonization Committee today. [vi] Thank heavens for that! It is still there because even the United Nations considers Puerto Rico to be a colony. Indeed, it is interesting that everyone down here in Puerto Rico agrees that Puerto Rico is a colony, if you follow the proceedings of the United Nations Decolonization Committee. The pro-Statehood party gets up there and says we're a colony; the enhanced Commonwealth people get up there and say yes, we're a colony; and the independentistas get up there and say we're a colony too. Everyone agrees Puerto Rico is a colony. Nothing could be clearer than that conclusion and that the United States government has an absolute obligation to apply that U.N. Decolonization Resolution immediately to Puerto Rico. 7. Decolonization So the seventh charge: The Defendant has an absolute international legal obligation to decolonize Puerto Rico immediately and to transfer all powers that it currently exercises there to the Puerto Rican people. That was unanimous. It's so clear, it's so obvious. A. Plebiscite Now, recently you had here what was called a "plebiscite," but of course we all know it was a joke and a fraud. It was simply more playing games by the Yankee imperialists and their compradors here in Puerto Rico designed to prevent the Puerto Rican people from freely exercising your right of self-determination. If there were to be a genuine plebiscite in Puerto Rico, what we would need is as follows: First, it would have to be supervised by the United Nations Organization in order to guarantee a free, fair, impartial, objective electoral process in accordance with historically recognized international standards and procedures. Well certainly we've never had this here in Puerto Rico. In 1951 you had a fake vote setting up this bogus Commonwealth that is designed to hide and cover up Puerto Rico's colonial status under the illegal Yankee belligerent occupation of Puerto Rico. Second, prior to the beginning of the plebiscite process, the United States government must withdraw its military forces, security agencies, intelligence services (F.B.I., C.I.A., D.E.A., D.I.A., N.S.A., B.A.T.F., D.H.S., etc.) to their military bases and offices where they would be confined for the duration of the electoral process here in Puerto Rico. So that they do not intimidate people by their mere presence, and their confinement should be supervised and ensured by the U.N. Organization while this process goes forward. For those of you who are interested, certainly one could look at the precedent and example of the role that the United Nations played in brokering and supervising the transition of Southwest Africa from the illegal, colonial apartheid occupation by the then criminal apartheid regime of South Africa to genuine full-fledged independence as Namibia. I think that's a pretty good and analogous model of what should be done here to oust the criminal apartheid regime of the United States from Puerto Rico. Third, after all United States military forces and security agents and intelligence services have been confined to their bases and offices, the Puerto Rican people would need a substantial period of time in which they could engage freely and without fear of Yankee threat and intimidation during the process of educating themselves and publicly debating among themselves the various options available, together with free and fair and meaningful access to the mainstream news media for this purpose, so there could transpire a genuine debate. Finally, it must be guaranteed before the process begins that the Will of the Puerto Rican People is determinative and will be honored and respected whatever the results of such a plebiscite might be, including independence. B. Options i. Statehood? Now, it's not for me here to tell the Puerto Ricans what to do about your right of self-determination. That is for you to decide, not me. But with all due respect and speaking as a friend, I doubt very seriously that I will ever see the United States of America making Puerto Rico the 51st state of the Union. Why? Because most Puerto Ricans are Brown and Black and the United States Yankee Elite are White Racist. Second, Puerto Ricans speak primarily Spanish and the United States is chauvinistically English-speaking first and foremost. Third, Puerto Ricans are nominally Catholic, whereas the United States Yankee Elite consider themselves to be White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) and are proud of it. So I personally do not see both Houses of the United States Congress ever agreeing to make Puerto Rico the 51st State of the Union. Indeed White racist colonial imperialist Yankee Elites in the United States are already today trying to figure out how to divest themselves of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans for all of the above reasons. Now that the Roosevelt Roads Naval Base has been shut down, the Yankees believe they no longer need Puerto Rico to control and dominate the Caribbean and their access to the Panama Canal, as well as to threaten and to intimidate Latin America. ii. Independence? Which leads to independence. Of course you fully deserve independence and I fully support a free Puerto Rico as an independent state in the world with full-fledged state membership in the United Nations Organization. The sooner the better! But this is for you to decide, not me. I am only here to help out if that is what you decide to do and you want my assistance with that independentista project. iii. Compact of Free Association? Independent statehood might be perceived to be a bridge too far for some Puerto Ricans at this time. So instead of Independence you could opt for a status like the three states of Micronesia (i.e. the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau) who have substantial independence from the United States of America by means of a Compact of Free Association including state membership in the United Nations Organization, which is critical.[vii] You have to obtain membership in the United Nations Organization in order to have your own Voice and your own Vote in the world directly and immediately by yourself. And certainly it is the case that no state which has ever obtained membership in the United Nations Organization has ever been destroyed. Very important, I found that out for Bosnia. Without Bosnia's membership in the United Nations Organization, Bosnia would have gone the same way the Jews did during World War II. Likewise now the work I have been doing with Palestinians since 1988 starting with the then Palestinian Declaration of Independence and their creation of the Palestinian state. As you know Palestine obtained recognition by the United Nations General Assembly on November 29, 2012 as a United Nations Observer State. Palestine today has all the votes for admission to the United Nations itself as a U.N. member state. I have already devised the means for Palestine to overcome any threatened veto of U.N. membership at the Security Council by President Obama, who likes to constantly bully and threaten and beat up upon the Palestinians whenever they try to express their independence from the will of the Yankees. But of course, it is for the Palestinians to decide when to push for that vote for full U.N. state membership itself. Today Palestine is also de jure recognized as an independent nation state by about 135 states bilaterally. All that has been accomplished since 1988, to give you a time frame, that's 25 years working with them. But what are 25 years in the life of a People, whether for the Palestinians or for the Puerto Ricans? It's just the bat of an eyelash. It's about a third of a lifetime. But in any Compact of Free Association with the United States, Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans must preserve your right to change your mind at any time pursuant to your right of self-determination and to vote for independence in the future and at a time of your own choosing and by means of a procedure of your own choice, and not subject to any veto or control by the Yankees. That's what "free" association is supposed to be all about. 8. Puerto Rican Freedom Fighters and Prisoners of War The eighth and final charge that I obtained a guilty verdict from the San Francisco Tribunal, unanimously was: The Defendant has illegally refused to accord full-scope protections as Prisoners-of-War to captured Puerto Rican independence fighters in violation of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. And: The Defendant's treatment of captured Puerto Rican independence fighters as "common criminals" and "terrorists" constitutes a "grave breach" of the Geneva Accords and thus a serious war crime. Back at the time of the San Francisco Tribunal we had a large number of Puerto Rican independentistas in Yankee prisons. I did some work on that F.A.L.N. case up in Chicago. Their attorney of record, Ms. Jan Sussler, whom you know, and a very distinguished graduate of our law school, after the F.A.L.N. were indicted, called me up and said: "Would you be willing to come up here into United States Federal Court, and argue that the F.A.L.N. are a national liberation movement under international law and therefore are entitled to being treated as prisoners-of-war under the Geneva Conventions and thus not subject to prosecution for these alleged crimes?" I immediately said "Yes. Of course. I would be willing to argue those points in the United States Federal Court in Chicago." As most of you know, the F.A.L.N. decided not to present any defense at all. They decided not to recognize the jurisdiction of the court to any extent, even including having me come in there to argue that the court had no jurisdiction to try them for their alleged crimes because they were freedom fighters and prisoners-of-war. That was their principled decision and I honor and respect them for it. Not surprisingly, the F.A.L.N. all got extensive prison sentences as you know. Years later, when President Clinton offered a pardon to these same F.A.L.N. Members, Ms. Jan Sussler again called me up, and said: "Can the F.A.L.N. accept the Clinton pardon without compromising their status as national liberation fighters for Puerto Rico?" I said that I would investigate the matter, which I did. I wrote Ms. Sussler an Opinion Letter to the effect that, of course they can: Even under United States Army Field Manual 27-10, The Laws of Land Warfare (1956), whereby the United States itself recognizes that prisoners-of-war can accept a parole out of confinement on conditions including not resuming hostilities. So I gave Ms. Sussler that Opinion Letter, and I also pointed out that, and by the way, if the I.R.A. can accept conditional paroles out of British concentration camps, then certainly the F.A.L.N. can accept conditional paroles out of Yankee prisons. A. Free Oscar Lopez! Today, we still have one Puerto Rican freedom fighter and prisoner-of-war from that time left over remaining in a Yankee prison, Oscar Lopez. It is up to all of us here today to do all that we can to bring Oscar Lopez home, back here to Puerto Rico, back to his family and to his friends. Free Oscar! B. F.A.L.N. as a National Liberation Movement For many years, I argued that the F.A.L.N. was a national liberation movement under international law, exactly along the lines of the I.R.A., the P.L.O., the A.N.C. in South Africa, S.W.A.P. O. in Namibia, and Z.A.P.U. and Z.A.N.U. in Zimbabwe. Indeed, I think I was probably the first and only United States law professor to have published an article in a Yankee law review arguing that the F.A.L.N. is a national liberation movement under international law along the lines of the P.L.O., the I.R.A., A.N.C., S.W.A.P. O. and Z.A.P.U./ Z.A.N.U., having just previously argued that point in public debate at Whittier Law School.[viii] The legal regime is exactly the same for all of these national liberation movements and their freedom fighters such as Oscar Lopez. To be sure, today the F.A.L.N. has decided to stand down and this is their decision that we must respect. This is what self-determination is all about. The Provisional Irish Republican Army has done the same. But several of the dissident Irish splinter groups have reconstituted themselves into a new Irish Republican Army. So long as Britain occupies Ireland, the Irish will resist. That is our right of self-determination too that must be respected as well. The U.S.A. Is a Nazi Government In the final section of its Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order etc., the San Francisco Tribunal also rendered the following unanimous decision that directly concerns the international legal rights of the People and State of Puerto Rico: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS In light of the foregoing findings, this Tribunal also, by unanimous vote, finds the Defendant guilty as charged in paragraph 37, which, as amended, reads: In light of the foregoing international crimes, the Defendant constitutes a Criminal Conspiracy and a Criminal Organization in accordance with the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles and the other sources of public international law specified above, and the Federal Government of the United States of America is similar to the Nazi government of World War II Germany. This powerful Finding speaks for itself and requires no explanation by me. In light thereof, and in reaction thereto, everyone should do what his or her conscience tells them to do. Cease-and-Desist Order The Tribunal concluded its Verdict etc. with the following Order to the United States government: "Now therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Defendant cease and desist from the commission of the crimes it has been found guilty of herein." Pursuant thereto, I then filed a copy of this San Francisco Verdict etc. with its Cease-and-Desist Order upon the Attorney General of the United States of America in Washington, D.C. In return, I later received a 5 February 1993 Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that acknowledged the receipt of the San Francisco Tribunal Verdict etc. and its Cease-and-Desist Order against the United States government. This U.S. D.O.J Letter then advised me: "If you, or the Tribunal, have any evidence of the violation of federal criminal law, we ask that you provide that information to your local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation." As I saw it at the time, and still see it as of today, historically this would be analogous to the Nazi Ministry of "Justice" advising a German lawyer representing the German Jews to file his Complaint of criminal law violations by the Nazi government against the Jews with the Gestapo. The F.B.I is and has always been the American Gestapo -- especially for all Indigenous Peoples and Peoples of Color living within its imperial domain, including and especially the Puerto Ricans, both living in their United States Diaspora and in Puerto Rico.[ix] The San Francisco Tribunal Precedent Nevertheless, the Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of this San Francisco Tribunal qualify as a "judicial decision" within the meaning of Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Pursuant thereto, this Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order constitute "subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law" for international law and practice. Furthermore, the Statute of the International Court of Justice is an "integral part" of the United Nations Charter under Article 92 thereof. Hence the San Francisco Tribunal's Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order can be relied upon by the International Court of Justice itself, by the International Criminal Court, by some other International Tribunal, or by any other domestic Court in the world today, as well as by any People or State of the World Community -- including and especially by Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. The Verdict etc. of the San Francisco Tribunal still serves as adequate notice to the appropriate officials in the United States Federal Government that they bear personal criminal responsibility under international law and the domestic legal systems of all Peoples and States in the World Community for designing and implementing these illegal, criminal and reprehensible policies and practices against Indigenous Peoples and Peoples of Color, and especially against Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. Conclusion Obviously, in my brief presentation here today, I do not have the time to go through each and every one of these eight unanimous convictions; to discuss all of the factual evidence that supported these eight charges; or to provide you with an analysis of the international legal bases for each one of these eight unanimous convictions. For that type of information, I refer you to the Video and the Book on the San Francisco Tribunal as well as to its Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order itself. But in the discussions that follow today, I will be happy to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you. Answers to Questions 1. There is the book available on the San Francisco Tribunal which you can get if you write the Puerto Rican Cultural Center in Chicago, they have copies of the Book there. There is also a Video available that you could use for educational purposes to show to college students, high school students, even 8th graders, what was decided and why and having some of the evidence that went before the Tribunal. So if you contact Mr. Alejandro Molina at the Puerto Rican Cultural Center in Chicago, they can send you the book, and he can give you information on obtaining the Video. It's a one-hour video. And there was a substantial Puerto Rican contribution in San Francisco. I know my client and my friend Rafael Cancel Miranda just walked in, and he was there to speak. 2. Let me say first: The distinguished attorney, Pedro Albizu Campos, who is a graduate of Harvard Law School, my dis-alma mater, and being Irish American I remember that 100 years ago Harvard decided to have a debate on the right of the Irish to self-determination and an independent state of their own. Harvard always was, and still is today, being Anglophile, no one would represent the cause of us Irish and then stepped forward Pedro Albizu Campos, and he spoke for us Irish 100 years ago at Harvard. And so, we Irish and Puerto Ricans, have always been joined at the hip since then, thanks to Pedro Albizu Campos. Unincorporated Territory 3. Now as for Puerto Rico being an "unincorporated territory," you're right technically. The United States government in terms of U.S. constitutional law considers Puerto Rico nothing more than property of the United States. That's it. You're a piece of property that they own, and that's what that unincorporated territory means. And basically they consider Puerto Rico spoils of war that they stole from Spain in the 1898 war. Now, not to justify anything Spain did down here to you Puerto Ricans, but as I said, in 1897 they did give you so much autonomy that you were basically acting as a de facto independent state that the United States attempted to destroy by means of the Spanish-American War that was a war of aggression, and then extorting Puerto Rico as part of the war booty, along with Guam and the Philippines from Spain. And so Puerto Rico was considered by the United States spoils of war, a piece of property, and nothing has changed in your constitutional status today in the U.S.A. U.S.A. Is an Illegal Belligerent Occupant of Puerto Rico 4. Indeed, I think a very good argument could be made, and I have made it, that the United States since 1898, has been and is still today nothing more than the illegal belligerent occupant of Puerto Rico under the international laws of war and of belligerent occupation. In the case of belligerent occupation, sovereignty does not go into the hands of the belligerent occupant. The sovereignty remains in the hands of the occupied state and the occupied people. Certainly I would take, and have taken, that position with respect to Puerto Rico. So the United States is a colonial power, it is a belligerent occupant, but sovereignty still resides in Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rican People, and it's been there at least since 1897 for sure.[x] 5. Thank you again. Yes, as I was saying under, my reading of historical record - now I do know we have Puerto Rican historians here, so I do defer to your judgment - but my reading of the record is that in 1897 Spain gave you all the powers of a de facto independent state, sort of like the British Commonwealth or something along those lines, where Commonwealth states pretty much had all the independence that they needed, and then the Americans came in here and stole Puerto Rico and destroyed your state and robbed you of it. The Commonwealth Is a Puppet Government 6. Now, as for the current government here in Puerto Rico, and please understand that I'm not here to offend any of the Puerto Ricans or even any of your officials or to question their good faith one way or the other. But under the laws of war, with the United States government being the belligerent occupant of Puerto Rico since 1898, what we have here is a puppet government that was set up under the laws of war and belligerent occupation to administer Puerto Rico. Under the laws of war there is nothing wrong with a belligerent occupant setting up a puppet government if they want to. But that does not alter the legal and political fact that it is still a puppet government. So I agree completely with what you are saying. 7. Now, as for the Treaty of Paris. First that war was clearly illegal, the United States government issued an ultimatum to the Queen of Spain, she accepted the ultimatum, and they went to war anyway and stole Puerto Rico. And as you correctly pointed out, the wishes of the Puerto Ricans were never consulted. The Treaty of Paris ceded Puerto Rico and others to Spain, as booty of war, which is why they treat Puerto Rico as property, as unincorporated territory, which basically means nothing more than property of the United States government to be disposed of as it wishes. And so that cession in 1898 was coerced to begin with, in violation even of contemporary standards of international law at that time, and was certainly null and void with respect to Puerto Rico and was against the right of the Puerto Ricans to self-determination and still is today. And third, and finally, the Yankees destroyed the de facto independent state that you Puerto Ricans had here in 1897. 8. I point out that belligerent occupation, which is what the US government has here today, together with its puppet Commonwealth government administering Puerto Rico, cannot change the fact that sovereignty still and has always remained in the hands of the Puerto Rican people together with your right to self-determination. Conclusion 9. Where we go from here, I guess we're having a session this afternoon to talk about it. But my objective this morning was simply to set out the legal framework for you Puerto Ricans to consider. Again, it's your right of self-determination, not mine, I'm just here to help, not tell you what to do. Before we conclude, I wonder if Rafael Cancel Miranda would grace us with a few words. Please, Rafael, come up here to the podium. [Instead he spoke from the audience in Spanish.] Appendix Statement by Professor Francis A. Boyle Before the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization on Behalf of the National Sovereign State of Borinken June 23, 2014 (Check against oral delivery.) In 1492, Columbus illegally invaded the indigenous Kingdoms of America and proceeded to exterminate the indigenous peoples living there including the Tainos in Puerto Rico starting in 1493. The story is told in graphic detail by Professor Howard Zinn in the first chapter of his classic book The People's History of the United States. So in the interest of time I am not going to recount here that sordid history of serial aggressions and genocides perpetrated by Columbus and the other Conquistadors upon the Indigenous Peoples and Kingdoms of America at the behest of and as agents for Spain and Portugal. Certainly Puerto Rico was not terra nullius -- the land of no people. The Tainos lived there in a political community organized into their own Kingdom. Therefore, the supposed European doctrine of "discovery" did not justify Spain's genocidal invasion, conquest, and occupation of Puerto Rico and the Tainos. Moreover, the Borgia Pope Alexander VI had no right to attempt to steal Puerto Rico from the Tainos and give it to Spain by means of his so-called Inter Caetera "Bull," which is nevertheless appropriately called "Bull" in English. The invasion, conquest, and occupation of Puerto Rico and the Tainos by Spain grossly violated the prevailing customary international law rule at that time known as the Just War Doctrine that was legally binding upon Spain. That is precisely why at that time His Holiness Bartolemé de Las Casas, the Bishop of Chiapas strenuously remonstrated against the Conquistadors with the Government of Spain because of their destructions of the numerous Kingdoms established by the Indigenous Peoples of America together with their extermination:[xi] In one of the rules in his Confesionario, Bartolemé trenchantly maintains that everything that has been done in the Indies "has been against all natural law and the Law of Nations, as well as against all divine law,...and consequently, null, void, and without any validity or legal effect" (O.E. 5:239b).... Consequently, His Holiness Bishop Las Casas informed the Government of Spain that the Indians of the Americas were entitled to the public international law right and remedy of restitutio in integrum -- restitution of their Kingdoms:[xii] ...For Bartolemé, the Spanish sovereigns themselves are obliged to restitution, since they have ultimate responsibility for events in the Indies. In response to Sepúlveda he even declares that "the illustrious doctor or anyone else seeking to justify or excuse [those unwilling to make restitution] sin most mortally and are obliged to the same restitution" (Aquí se contiene, 1552, O.E. 5:343b). The injury to be repaired has been in goods both material and moral. Restitution, therefore, must include the restoration of the destroyed monarchial societies of these lands, in which the Indians had led a civilized life in conformity with their customs. This will require the rehabilitation of their legitimate political authorities.... That is exactly what the National Sovereign State of Borinken has done. We have restored the Sovereignty of the Indigenous People of Puerto Rico pursuant to the international law right and remedy of restitution in integrum and the Sovereign Right of the Puerto Ricans to self-determination. In 1897 Spain devolved the powers of self-government upon Puerto Rico sufficient to constitute Puerto Rico a de facto independent state.[xiii] Nevertheless, under completely bogus pretexts, the United States of America illegally invaded and conquered the de facto independent state of Puerto Rico the very next year, and proceeded to set up a regime of genocidal military occupation over our Homeland. In the 1898 Treaty of Paris ending the so-called Spanish-American War, Spain never had sovereign title over Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans in order to hand them over arbitrarily to the United States in the first place. The Spanish Genocidal Thief never had valid title or sovereignty over Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans to convey to the Yankee Genocidal Thief! Since 1898 the United States of America has been nothing more than the illegal belligerent occupying power of Puerto Rico, subject to the international laws of war, including therein the international laws of belligerent occupation, which the United States has grievously violated and completely negated ever since 1898. Under the international laws of belligerent occupation, the illegal Yankee occupying power never obtained sovereignty over Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans. Thereunder, to the contrary, Sovereignty over Puerto Rico has always remained in the hands of the Displaced Sovereign of 1897 and the Puerto Ricans. The National Sovereign State of Borinken has restored the Sovereignty of the Puerto Ricans over Puerto Rico pursuant to our right of self-determination. After 116 years of Yankee genocidal belligerent military occupation, it is now beyond time for the United States government to withdraw from and evacuate Puerto Rico immediately so that the National Sovereign State of Borinken can proceed to exercise the right of the Puerto Ricans to self-determination. In order to accomplish that sacred objective, we hereby respectfully request that the Special Committee on Decolonization officially accredit the National Sovereign State of Borinken so that we can proclaim our unique Voice and Vision to the entire world here. Finally, we demand that the Yankees immediately release Borinken's Freedom Fighter and Prisoner-of-War Oscar Lopez. Thank you. Endnotes Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ ________________________________ [i] See Boyle, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law (2012) [ii] See American Indian Movement, Verdict of the International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the USA (San Francisco, CA: Oct. 4, 1992); Puerto Rican Cultural Center, USA on Trial: The International Tribunal on Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the United States (Chicago, IL: 1996); Mission Creek Video, USA on Trial (Parts I & II): The International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the USA (San Francisco, CA 941141-1271), free download available at http://www.archive.org/details/ddtv_131_usa_on_trial. [iii] See Boyle, The Bosnian People Charge Genocide! (1996). [iv] See José Trías Monge, Puerto Rico 12-15 (1997). [v] See Boyle, United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law, supra at 26-32. [vi] See the Appendix to this Lecture. [vii] See, e.g., Chimène I. Keitner, From Conquest to Consent: Puerto Rico and the Prospect of Genuine Free Association, University of California Hastings College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series No. 111 (rev. Aug. 20, 2014); Chimène I. Keitner & W. Michael Reisman, Free Association: The United States Experience, 39 Tex. Int'l L.J. 1 (2003). But see generally W. Michael Reisman, Puerto Rico and the International Process (1975) (pro-Commonwealth). [viii] See Boyle, Preserving the Rule of Law in the War Against International Terrorism, 8 Whittier Law Review 735 (1986). [ix] See Swearingen, F.B.I. Secrets: An Agent's Exposé (1997). [x] For Spain's illegal invasion and belligerent, colonial occupation of Puerto Rico see the Appendix to this Lecture. [xi] See Gustavo, Gutiérrez, Las Casas 369 (Orbis Books: 1995) (citing Obras escogidas by Las Casas). [xii] Id. at 366 (emphasis added). [xiii] See José Trías Monge, Puerto Rico 12-15 (1997). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: