<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div>Main St.? I would like to come but just want to make sure I am in the right place. I assume this is in downtown Champaign.</div><div><br></div><div>In Peace,</div><div>Joy</div><div><br>On Aug 29, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Stuart Levy <<a href="mailto:stuartnlevy@gmail.com">stuartnlevy@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<b>Demonstration: No War Against Syria!</b><br>
<b>5PM Friday, 8/30, Main and Neil, downtown Champaign</b><br>
<br>
Our government is on the verge of undertaking direct military action
against Syria - on pretexts as flimsy as the lies we were told to
get us into Iraq ten years ago. President Obama speaks of
"limited" use of the military - when have we heard that before?
Our intervention could easily transform Syria's destructive civil
war into a far more destructive regional war. It would
incidentally violate international law - and if done without
Congressional approval, it would also violate the War Powers Act,
and probably the Constitution.<br>
<br>
We can't just let this happen.<br>
<br>
There are several things we can do. Many groups around the country
are holding demonstrations this week. Let's have one here:<br>
<br>
Time: 5PM, Friday, August 30th<br>
Place: corner of Main and Neil, downtown Champaign<br>
<br>
We'll have some signs, or make your own.<br>
<br>
Some in Congress *are* speaking up against being steamrollered into
war. Robert Naiman of <a href="http://justforeignpolicy.org/">Just
Foreign Policy</a> reported yeaterday that there have been at
least 133 signers to two letters, one from Barbara Lee (D-CA) and
one from Scott Rigell (R-VA), both calling at least for no military
intervention without prior Congressional approval. <br>
<br>
We need to make sure Congress does not approve. Call your
Congresspeople -<br>
Rep. Rodney Davis, 217-403-4690 (Champaign)<br>
<br>
Sen. Richard Durbin, 202-224-2152 (DC), or
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
(217) 492-4062 (Springfield)<br>
Sen. Mark Kirk,
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
202-224-2854 (DC), or
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
217-492-5089 (Springfield)<br>
<br>
<br>
There are internet petitions, like this via Credo, calling for
humanitarian assistance and multilateral diplomacy, but no use of
military action in Syria:<br>
<a href="http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/no-u-s-military-intervention-in-syria">http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/no-u-s-military-intervention-in-syria</a><br>
<br>
or this via MoveOn, to give Congress a chance to prevent this highly
unpopular war:<br>
<a href="http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/president-obama-dont-18">http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/president-obama-dont-18</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Included below is an article on Syria from Phyllis Bennis, who spoke
Wednesday on <a href="http://democracynow.org/">Democracy Now!</a>.
[Bennis encourages redistribution of the article.]<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">
********************************* </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:large">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:18pt" lang="EN">CUI BONO – WHO BENEFITS?</span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:14pt" lang="EN">Moral Obscenities in Syria</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"><a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/175928/moral-obscenities-syria#axzz2dBddfvho"><font color="#0000ff">http://www.thenation.com/blog/175928/moral-obscenities-syria#axzz2dBddfvho</font></a>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">by Phyllis Bennis & David Wildman</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">27 August 2013</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">The threat of a reckless, dangerous, and illegal US
or US-led assault on Syria is looking closer than ever.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">The US government has been divided over the Syria
crisis since it began. Some, especially in the Pentagon and
some of the intelligence agencies, said direct military
intervention would be dangerous and would accomplish nothing.
Others, especially in Congress and some in the State
Department, have demanded military attacks, even regime
change, against the Syrian leadership, even before anyone made
allegations of chemical weapons. The Obama administration has
been divided too, with President Obama seemingly opposed to
any US escalation. The American people are not divided—60% are
against intervening in Syria’s civil war even if chemical
weapons were involved.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">But the situation is changing rapidly, and the Obama
administration appears to be moving closer to direct military
intervention. That would make the dire situation in Syria
inestimably worse.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">The attack that killed so many civilians, including
many children, last Wednesday may well have been from a
chemical weapon. Doctors Without Borders, in touch with local
hospitals they support, said that while the symptoms “strongly
indicate” that thousands of patients were exposed to a
neurotoxic agent, they “can neither scientifically confirm the
cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for
the attack.” The United Nations chemical weapons inspection
team already in Syria to investigate earlier claims was
granted permission by the government to visit the new site
today; they have not yet reported any findings.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">No one knows yet what actually happened, other than
a horrific attack on civilians, many of whom died. No one has
yet made public any evidence of what killed them, or who may
responsible. All attacks on civilians are war
crimes—regardless of whether they are carried out by the
Syrian army, rebel militias, or US cruise missiles.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">And yet the calls, the demands, the assumptions of a
looming US attack on Syria are rising. NBC News reported that
the US had “very little doubt” that the Syrian government had
used chemical weapons.<i> The Wall Street Journal </i>quoted
an anonymous “senior defense official” who said the military
strikes being considered “would be conducted from ships in the
Eastern Mediterranean using long-range missiles, without using
manned aircraft. ‘You do not need basing. You do not need
over-flight. You don’t need to worry about defenses.”</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s claim that a
chemical attack was “undeniable,” we still don’t know for sure
that it was a chemical weapon, and we certainly don’t know who
did it. Kerry spoke this afternoon, calling the attack a
“moral obscenity.” If it was a chemical attack, as appears
likely, it certainly is just that. So far in this war, over
100,000 people have been killed and millions forced from their
homes—aren’t all of those moral obscenities? </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Even If</span></b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Kerry seems to believe that this moral obscenity
requires military action in response. Graham and McCain said
so earlier. But he’s wrong. It’s likely that it was a chemical
agent of some sort that led to mass sickness and many deaths
in the Damascus suburb. And maybe it <i>was</i> the Syrian
regime that was responsible for it. The questions that would
then need to be asked, the questions “even if,” have to start
with “so what should we do?”</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Does anyone really believe that a military strike on
an alleged chemical weapons factory would help the Syrian
people, would save any lives, would help bring an end to this
horrific civil war? What’s the best we could hope for, that a
cruise missile strike would actually succeed, would accurately
find its target, and explode a warehouse full of chemical
agents into airborne clouds of death?</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Illegal Even If</span></b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">The US government is creating a false dichotomy—it’s
either a military strike, or we let them get away with it. No
one is talking about any other kind of international
accountability, nothing like the International Criminal
Court. Last month, the White House “law group” noted that
arming the rebels might violate international law. Do they
think a cruise missile strike is okay? We heard President
Obama a couple of days ago refer to international law. He said
“if the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN
mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then
there are questions in terms of whether international law
supports it … and those are considerations that we have to
take into account.”</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">But what we’re hearing now is that the model under
consideration for a US military strike on Syria would be that
of Kosovo. Remember that one, back in 1999, at the end of the
Bosnia war? That time, knowing it was impossible to get
Security Council agreement for an air war against Serbia over
the disputed enclave of Kosovo, the US and its allies simply
announced that they would get their international permission
slip somewhere else. That would be the NATO high command. What
a surprise, the NATO generals agreed with their respective
presidents and prime ministers, and said sure, we think it’s a
great idea. The problem is, the UN Charter is very clear on
what constitutes a legal use of military force—and permission
from NATO isn’t on that very short list. If the Security
Council does not say yes, and there is no legal claim of
immediate self-defense (which even the US isn’t claiming
regarding Syria), any use or threat of use of military force
is illegal. Period. Full stop. Claiming that NATO or someone
else said it was okay isn’t part of international law—the air
war was illegal in Kosovo, and it would be illegal in Syria.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Cui Bono....</span></b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">But let’s go back a minute. Let’s remember that we <i>don’t</i> know
for sure that it was a chemical weapon. We <i>don’t </i>know
for sure that it was a weapon at all. Crucially, let’s
remember we <i>don’t</i> have any evidence of who might have
used such a weapon. So then what do we ask? Maybe we start
with the age old question, cui bono? Who benefits?</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">It’s easier to say who loses—the Syrian people, most
importantly the victims and their families. Whole communities
are being decimated. (We shouldn’t forget that Americans will
pay a price too—a new war will result in more military
spending. That will create pressure on Congress to cut
domestic spending even further, cutting vital social programs
even more.) </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">But who benefits is a little more complicated.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">It’s certainly not impossible that the Syrian
regime, known to have had a chemical weapons arsenal, used
such a weapon. If so, why? Despite remaining under pressure
from sanctions and facing increasing international isolation,
Damascus has been seeing some success on the battlefield. It’s
certainly possible a mid-level Syrian officer, worried about
some past defeat and desperately afraid of being held
accountable for it, might have chosen to use such a weapon to
gain a gruesome battlefield victory despite the increase in
the threat of direct military intervention. But it is very
unlikely the regime’s leadership would have made such a
choice. Not because they “wouldn’t kill their own people,”
they’ve been doing just that. But because they stood to lose
far more than any potential gain. It’s not impossible. But as
brutal as this regime is, it isn’t crazy. It’s unlikely.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Then there’s the other side, the diverse opposition
whose strongest fighters are those claiming allegiance to al
Qaeda and similar extremist organizations. Those who benefit
from this attack, are those eager for greater US and western
military intervention against the Assad regime in Damascus.
Further, al Qaeda and its offshoots have always been eager to
get the US military—troops, warplanes, ships, bases,
whatever—into their territory. It makes it so much easier to
attack them there. Politically it remains what US
counter-intelligence agents long ago called a “recruitment
tool” for al Qaeda. They loved the Iraq war for that reason.
They would love the Syrian war all the more if US targets were
brought in. All the debate about “red lines,” the domestic and
international political pressure to “do something,” the
threats to the UN inspectors on the ground—who inside Syria do
we think is cheering that on?</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">(And as for the opposition’s capacity and/or
willingness to use such weapons…we should also remember that
the opposition includes some defectors. Who knows what skills
and weapons access they brought with them? And do we really
doubt that al Qaeda wanna-be extremists, many of them not even
Syrians, would hesitate to kill civilians in a suburb of
Damascus?)</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">UN Inspectors Pulled Out?</span></b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">The most dangerous signal of US intentions may be
the call for the United Nations weapons inspectors to
withdraw. To his credit, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
rejected the Obama administration’s call, and kept the
inspection team in place, to do its work. </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">On the eve of the war in Iraq, 48 hours before US
warplanes began their assault on Baghdad, George W. Bush
issued an even more direct demand for UN weapons inspectors
and humanitarian workers to be withdrawn. Then
Secretary-General Kofi Annan pulled his team out,
understandably afraid for their lives. But what if those
scores of UN staffers had been given the choice to stay? Might
the risk of killing dozens, scores of UN international staff,
have made the US pause for just a moment before beginning its
assault? Maybe those staffers would have changed history. This
time around, like before, diplomacy rather than military
action is the only way to enable the UN inspectors to continue
their work to find the truth.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">Let’s be clear. Any US military attack, cruise
missiles or anything else, will not be to protect civilians—it
will mean taking sides once again in a bloody, complicated
civil war. And al Qaeda would be very pleased.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">This time, maybe the Obama administration isn’t
about to launch cruise missiles against Syria. Maybe there’s
still time to prevent it. Right now, those risking their lives
on the ground to help the Syrian people are the UN inspectors.
If the US is really concerned about their safety, and
recognizes the legitimacy of UN inspectors, the Obama
administration should immediately engage with the UN
leadership and with the Syrian, Russian and other relevant
governments to insure their safety while they continue their
crucial efforts. Cruise missiles will make that work
impossible. What’s needed now is tough diplomacy, not
politically-motivated military strikes that will make a
horrific war even worse.</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN">SIGN THE PETITION TO PREVENT GREATER US
INTERVENTION IN SYRIA</span></b><span style="color:windowtext;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt" lang="EN"><br>
<a href="http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/no-u-s-military-intervention-in-syria" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(73,106,139);text-decoration:none">http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/no-u-s-military-intervention-in-syria</span></a></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:6pt"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman"> </font></span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt">
<font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">_________________________
</font></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman">Phyllis Bennis is a
Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. David Wildman is
the Executive Secretary for Human Rights and Racial Justice
of the Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church.</font></span></p>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Phyllis Bennis</div>
<div>Director, New Internationalism Project</div>
<div>Institute for Policy Studies</div>
<div>1112 16th Street NW #600</div>
<div>Washington DC 20036</div>
<div>tel: (202) 234-9382 ex 5206</div>
<div>fax: (202) 387-7915</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Follow me on <span style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><a href="https://mail.ips-dc.org/owa/redir.aspx?C=THoDsGCx2E2kdQ_lC7q8mdYfeMcq6s9IOT9tCo7lvgpyMgon1531kAsspVs4wPTLqScpIeP8FD4.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.facebook.com%2fPhyllisBennis" target="_blank"><font color="#800080">Facebook!</font></a></span></div>
<div><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"></span></div>
<div><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">
<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><font color="#0000ff"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:10pt">And
sign up for my </span><span style="color:blue;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:10pt"><a href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/357/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=5665" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">New
Internationalism Newsletter</font></a></span></font></span></p>
</span></div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Peace-discuss mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>