From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Jul 2 10:17:41 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2016 05:17:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration today, Sat. 7/2... Message-ID: AWARE people,  Confirming that yes, our monthly first-Saturday demonstration is happening as usual: 7/2, 2-4pm, at the corner of Main and Neil in downtown Champaign.  Note too- we will be marching in the July 4th parade- come join us if you wish!   Our theme this year is Celebrating America's History of Protest.   The Prairie Green Party will be with us too. On the 4th, our parade slot is #95.   We gather around 10:30am Monday, at the Assembly Hall parking lot.  #95 is near the Oak St (west) side of the lot, near the middle.  I think there may be parking available on the north (Kirby) side of the lot. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Jul 2 13:53:05 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:53:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama's Drone Murder Report Message-ID: Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Jul 2 14:28:07 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:28:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Message-ID: Hillary Clinton signed off on drone assassinations, emails reveal {along with her Consigliere Harold Killer Koh} What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton {and her Consigliere Killer Koh} directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. And the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has already held out publicly that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh is an “expert” on international law and human rights. In other words, the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law is endorsing, ratifying, condoning, whitewashing, sanitizing, and approving all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton committed from 2009-2013, thus rendering the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law Accessories After The Fact to them all. MURDER INC at the College of Law. And the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law will become Accessories Before The Fact to all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Clinton/Koh will commit from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps 2025. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab By Patrick Martin 11 June 2016 In his online endorsement of Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, President Obama declared that she was more qualified than any previous candidate for the presidency. A report Friday in the Wall Street Journal indicates that these “qualifications” include personal participation in approving drone-missile assassinations. Clinton’s role in the chain of command leading to the incineration of thousands of people in Pakistan, most of them innocent civilians, is one of the secrets concealed in the long-running investigation of her use of a private email server while Secretary of State in the Obama administration. The Wall Street Journal article reports that in 2011 and 2012, after a series of internal disputes between the CIA and the State Department over how drone missile strikes in Pakistan were complicating US diplomatic relations with the government in Islamabad, the State Department was given the right to veto missile strikes if their timing was considered especially provocative to the Pakistani government. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, or another official at the embassy, would be informed of drone strikes in advance by the CIA, and would then consult with the State Department, going up the line all the way to Secretary of State Clinton, about whether to formally “concur” or “non-concur” in the action. According to the Journal, such communications would normally pass through the internal State Department communications system, with Clinton given oral briefing and responding in the same way. However, there were some instances, usually when officials were on vacation or during holiday periods, or when the high-security system was too cumbersome and an immediate reply was needed, when an aide would send Clinton an email about an impending strike, for her response. The Journal wrote: “The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the ‘CIA,’ ‘drones’ or details about the militant targets, officials said.” These emails are apparently among those now considered top-secret by the intelligence agencies, although they were not so classified by the State Department at the time. As the Journal noted, “The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.” Significantly, the Journal, whose editorial page is ferociously hostile to Clinton and treats her use of a private email server as a major criminal offense, reported that “Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.” It has been clear for more than a year that the email controversy is being driven by sections of the military-intelligence apparatus allied to the Republican Party and seeking an even harder line in US foreign policy than that pursued by the Obama-Clinton administration. A series of leaks has kept the issue before the public to undermine Clinton’s political standing and, potentially, sabotage her campaign entirely. What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. The Wall Street Journal account indicates that State Department opposition to specific drone missile strikes was related entirely to problems of timing—a mass incineration coming on the eve of sensitive US-Pakistani talks or the visit of a top US official to Islamabad—and did not represent any objection to the program itself. The newspaper reported, “Only once or twice during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at State did U.S. diplomats object to a planned CIA strike, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials familiar with the emails.” As for the CIA’s concerns about secrecy—now given voice by Republican officials, from congressional representatives on up to Donald Trump—the Journal account concedes that the drone missile program was widely publicized in Pakistan. “Despite being treated as top secret by the CIA, the drone program has long been in the public domain in Pakistan,” the newspaper noted. “Television stations there go live with reports of each strike, undermining U.S. efforts to foster goodwill and cooperation against militants through billions of dollars in American aid.” The language is priceless. According to this leading US newspaper, it was not the missile strikes themselves, spreading death and destruction, but the television reports about them, that were causing a political backlash in Pakistan. As for the insistence on secrecy, this had a clear political motive. The CIA and Pentagon wished to keep the missile assassination program secret, not from the Pakistani population, who could see the toll in men, women and children incinerated and maimed, but from the American people, who were not to be allowed to know what the government of the United States was doing, allegedly in their name. 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, July 02, 2016 8:53 AM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Obama's Drone Murder Report Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Jul 2 14:32:48 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:32:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The University of Illinois College of Consiglieres. 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:28 AM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Hillary Clinton signed off on drone assassinations, emails reveal {along with her Consigliere Harold Killer Koh} What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton {and her Consigliere Killer Koh} directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. And the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has already held out publicly that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh is an “expert” on international law and human rights. In other words, the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law is endorsing, ratifying, condoning, whitewashing, sanitizing, and approving all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton committed from 2009-2013, thus rendering the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law Accessories After The Fact to them all. MURDER INC at the College of Law. And the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law will become Accessories Before The Fact to all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Clinton/Koh will commit from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps 2025. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab By Patrick Martin 11 June 2016 In his online endorsement of Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, President Obama declared that she was more qualified than any previous candidate for the presidency. A report Friday in the Wall Street Journal indicates that these “qualifications” include personal participation in approving drone-missile assassinations. Clinton’s role in the chain of command leading to the incineration of thousands of people in Pakistan, most of them innocent civilians, is one of the secrets concealed in the long-running investigation of her use of a private email server while Secretary of State in the Obama administration. The Wall Street Journal article reports that in 2011 and 2012, after a series of internal disputes between the CIA and the State Department over how drone missile strikes in Pakistan were complicating US diplomatic relations with the government in Islamabad, the State Department was given the right to veto missile strikes if their timing was considered especially provocative to the Pakistani government. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, or another official at the embassy, would be informed of drone strikes in advance by the CIA, and would then consult with the State Department, going up the line all the way to Secretary of State Clinton, about whether to formally “concur” or “non-concur” in the action. According to the Journal, such communications would normally pass through the internal State Department communications system, with Clinton given oral briefing and responding in the same way. However, there were some instances, usually when officials were on vacation or during holiday periods, or when the high-security system was too cumbersome and an immediate reply was needed, when an aide would send Clinton an email about an impending strike, for her response. The Journal wrote: “The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the ‘CIA,’ ‘drones’ or details about the militant targets, officials said.” These emails are apparently among those now considered top-secret by the intelligence agencies, although they were not so classified by the State Department at the time. As the Journal noted, “The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.” Significantly, the Journal, whose editorial page is ferociously hostile to Clinton and treats her use of a private email server as a major criminal offense, reported that “Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.” It has been clear for more than a year that the email controversy is being driven by sections of the military-intelligence apparatus allied to the Republican Party and seeking an even harder line in US foreign policy than that pursued by the Obama-Clinton administration. A series of leaks has kept the issue before the public to undermine Clinton’s political standing and, potentially, sabotage her campaign entirely. What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. The Wall Street Journal account indicates that State Department opposition to specific drone missile strikes was related entirely to problems of timing—a mass incineration coming on the eve of sensitive US-Pakistani talks or the visit of a top US official to Islamabad—and did not represent any objection to the program itself. The newspaper reported, “Only once or twice during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at State did U.S. diplomats object to a planned CIA strike, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials familiar with the emails.” As for the CIA’s concerns about secrecy—now given voice by Republican officials, from congressional representatives on up to Donald Trump—the Journal account concedes that the drone missile program was widely publicized in Pakistan. “Despite being treated as top secret by the CIA, the drone program has long been in the public domain in Pakistan,” the newspaper noted. “Television stations there go live with reports of each strike, undermining U.S. efforts to foster goodwill and cooperation against militants through billions of dollars in American aid.” The language is priceless. According to this leading US newspaper, it was not the missile strikes themselves, spreading death and destruction, but the television reports about them, that were causing a political backlash in Pakistan. As for the insistence on secrecy, this had a clear political motive. The CIA and Pentagon wished to keep the missile assassination program secret, not from the Pakistani population, who could see the toll in men, women and children incinerated and maimed, but from the American people, who were not to be allowed to know what the government of the United States was doing, allegedly in their name. 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, July 02, 2016 8:53 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Obama's Drone Murder Report Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 2 14:38:22 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 14:38:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama's Drone Murder Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stopping Killer Koh from speaking is one thing. I prefer to stop him and Hillary from killing people. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:53:05 AM To: C. G. Estabrook; Peace Discuss; Karen Aram; C. G. Estabrook; David Green; David Johnson; Stuart Levy; Karen Medina; Szoke, Ron; Mildred O'brien; Peace Discuss; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com'; Readel, Karin; Estabrook, Carl G; 'Belden Fields'; 'jmachota at shout.net'; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List'; 'Bryan Savage'; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Obama's Drone Murder Report Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Jul 2 15:47:44 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 15:47:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Faculty Meeting for MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Message-ID: Mise en scene at the University of Illinois College of Consiglieres Faculty Meeting in the Faculty Lounge on the Second Floor of the Consigliere Building, 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue: Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 1: Hey, let’s teach our kids how to “make Them An Offer They can’t refuse”! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 2: Sure, let’s bring in Yale Law Mafia Harold Killer Koh, War Consigliere to His Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton--MR AND MRS. MURDER INC. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 3: Yeah, Killer Koh will teach these Illinois Law Students how they can “sleeps with the fishes.” Turn them all into War Consiglieres! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 4: How many fishes do they have in Boneyard Creek these days? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 5: I move that we invite Yale Law Mafia Mr. Murder Inc. Harold Killer Koh out here to Campaign for His Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Murder Inc Clinton to become President on October 28 just on time for the election on November 8. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 6: But what about that Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University resources for political purposes? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 7: What’s a “Statute” between Friends? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 8: Yeah, especially when we are all Consigliere Professors including Harold Killer Koh. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 9: For the record, Killer Koh is also a “Made Man” like his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 10: Yeah, Killer Koh and Boss Clinton both Broke Their Bones all over the world. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 11: I second the Motion. Call the question! Illinois Mafia Consigliere 12: Unanimous--except for Boyle, as usual. He’s always been a Minority of One around here ever since he came in 1978. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 13: Yeah, No wonder we declined from No. 15 when he joined the Faculty in 1978 to No. 47 last year with Boyle on the Faculty. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 14: Yeah. It’s been straight on downhill for us ever since Boyle came here! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 15: Correlation is Causation! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 16: Meeting adjourned. Now we can watch Game of Thrones on our Widescreen TV right here in the Faculty Lounge. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 17: I second that Motion! Roll ‘em! 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:33 AM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: RE: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! The University of Illinois College of Consiglieres. 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:28 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Hillary Clinton signed off on drone assassinations, emails reveal {along with her Consigliere Harold Killer Koh} What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton {and her Consigliere Killer Koh} directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. And the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has already held out publicly that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh is an “expert” on international law and human rights. In other words, the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law is endorsing, ratifying, condoning, whitewashing, sanitizing, and approving all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton committed from 2009-2013, thus rendering the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law Accessories After The Fact to them all. MURDER INC at the College of Law. And the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law will become Accessories Before The Fact to all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Clinton/Koh will commit from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps 2025. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab By Patrick Martin 11 June 2016 In his online endorsement of Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, President Obama declared that she was more qualified than any previous candidate for the presidency. A report Friday in the Wall Street Journal indicates that these “qualifications” include personal participation in approving drone-missile assassinations. Clinton’s role in the chain of command leading to the incineration of thousands of people in Pakistan, most of them innocent civilians, is one of the secrets concealed in the long-running investigation of her use of a private email server while Secretary of State in the Obama administration. The Wall Street Journal article reports that in 2011 and 2012, after a series of internal disputes between the CIA and the State Department over how drone missile strikes in Pakistan were complicating US diplomatic relations with the government in Islamabad, the State Department was given the right to veto missile strikes if their timing was considered especially provocative to the Pakistani government. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, or another official at the embassy, would be informed of drone strikes in advance by the CIA, and would then consult with the State Department, going up the line all the way to Secretary of State Clinton, about whether to formally “concur” or “non-concur” in the action. According to the Journal, such communications would normally pass through the internal State Department communications system, with Clinton given oral briefing and responding in the same way. However, there were some instances, usually when officials were on vacation or during holiday periods, or when the high-security system was too cumbersome and an immediate reply was needed, when an aide would send Clinton an email about an impending strike, for her response. The Journal wrote: “The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the ‘CIA,’ ‘drones’ or details about the militant targets, officials said.” These emails are apparently among those now considered top-secret by the intelligence agencies, although they were not so classified by the State Department at the time. As the Journal noted, “The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.” Significantly, the Journal, whose editorial page is ferociously hostile to Clinton and treats her use of a private email server as a major criminal offense, reported that “Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.” It has been clear for more than a year that the email controversy is being driven by sections of the military-intelligence apparatus allied to the Republican Party and seeking an even harder line in US foreign policy than that pursued by the Obama-Clinton administration. A series of leaks has kept the issue before the public to undermine Clinton’s political standing and, potentially, sabotage her campaign entirely. What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. The Wall Street Journal account indicates that State Department opposition to specific drone missile strikes was related entirely to problems of timing—a mass incineration coming on the eve of sensitive US-Pakistani talks or the visit of a top US official to Islamabad—and did not represent any objection to the program itself. The newspaper reported, “Only once or twice during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at State did U.S. diplomats object to a planned CIA strike, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials familiar with the emails.” As for the CIA’s concerns about secrecy—now given voice by Republican officials, from congressional representatives on up to Donald Trump—the Journal account concedes that the drone missile program was widely publicized in Pakistan. “Despite being treated as top secret by the CIA, the drone program has long been in the public domain in Pakistan,” the newspaper noted. “Television stations there go live with reports of each strike, undermining U.S. efforts to foster goodwill and cooperation against militants through billions of dollars in American aid.” The language is priceless. According to this leading US newspaper, it was not the missile strikes themselves, spreading death and destruction, but the television reports about them, that were causing a political backlash in Pakistan. As for the insistence on secrecy, this had a clear political motive. The CIA and Pentagon wished to keep the missile assassination program secret, not from the Pakistani population, who could see the toll in men, women and children incinerated and maimed, but from the American people, who were not to be allowed to know what the government of the United States was doing, allegedly in their name. 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, July 02, 2016 8:53 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Obama's Drone Murder Report Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Jul 2 21:12:06 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 21:12:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] University of Illinois College of Law Faculty Now Extend Their Invitation for Their 2017 Endowed Lecture! Message-ID: Mise En Scene at the Al Capone Headquarters, Lexington Hotel, South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, Right Near Lake Michigan Where Dey All Sleeps with De Fishes: Frank Nitti: Yo, Al! Youse have a call here from de Yale Law Mafia Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law down der in Champaign. Dey want youse to give an Endowed Lecture der on youse experience running de St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Der Faculty dinks Der law students will learn something from it and youse. Der even gonna have a reception for youse! Al Capone: Youse mean like dat Endowed Lecture dat Yale Law Mafia Dean and Professor Murder Inc. Harold Killer Koh gave down der last year about him and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Murder Inc Clinton? Why I’m flattered dat de Illinois Law Faculty would consider me to be in the Company of Their World Murder Inc. It sounds like it would be a good place for Our Mob to recruit War Consiglieri from their grads. Maybe I should go? How much are dey payin? Frank Nitti : 5Gs. But Sorry Al, we Chicago Mafia Boys don’t rub out no women and kids like Global Murder Inc Killer Koh and his Global Murder Inc Boss Clinton. We have a Code of Honor to uphold . Dats why we’re De Goodfellas! Al Capone: Yeah Frank we are Men of Honor. We don’t Hit Kids and Women. Der were no kids and women at the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Just Goodfellas like us. Frank Nitti: Dats why we’re de Goodfellas and Yale Law Mafia War Consigliere Killer Koh, his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton and Der Hyde Park Harvard Law Mafia Godfather Obama and de rest of his Harvard Law Mob are de Badfellas. Dey wipe out women and kids. Dey have no Honor! Al Capone: Well den tell dat Yale Law Mafia Dean in Champaign, Al Capone ain’t coming! I don’t want nuttin to do with a Gang of Thugs who have no Honor like his Faculty for Killer Koh Hitting women and kids. I have my Reputation to uphold! I have my Honor to uphold! Frank Nitti: And we don’t want der law grads neither. Der not fit to become War Consigliere for Al Capone and Frank Nitti and our Outfit! We don’t hit women and kids! We have our Honor to uphold! We have our Reputation to uphold! Dey don’t care about Honor and Reputation down der at Illinois Law. Der for rubbing out women and kids! Al Capone: Yeah, Illinois Law Faculty are just a Gang of Badfellas War Consiglieres with no Honor and no Reputation. Frank Nitti: Just a Gang of Thugs. Not Goodfellas like us. Al Capone: Ok, Frank, now dat dat’s settled, send up Luca Brazzi. I have little job for him to do. Luca is a Man of Honor. Fab 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:48 AM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Faculty Meeting for MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Importance: High Mise en scene at the University of Illinois College of Consiglieres Faculty Meeting in the Faculty Lounge on the Second Floor of the Consigliere Building, 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue: Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 1: Hey, let’s teach our kids how to “make Them An Offer They can’t refuse”! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 2: Sure, let’s bring in Yale Law Mafia Harold Killer Koh, War Consigliere to His Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton--MR AND MRS. MURDER INC. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 3: Yeah, Killer Koh will teach these Illinois Law Students how they can “sleeps with the fishes.” Turn them all into War Consiglieres! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 4: How many fishes do they have in Boneyard Creek these days? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 5: I move that we invite Yale Law Mafia Mr. Murder Inc. Harold Killer Koh out here to Campaign for His Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Murder Inc Clinton to become President on October 28 just on time for the election on November 8. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 6: But what about that Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University resources for political purposes? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 7: What’s a “Statute” between Friends? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 8: Yeah, especially when we are all Consigliere Professors including Harold Killer Koh. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 9: For the record, Killer Koh is also a “Made Man” like his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 10: Yeah, Killer Koh and Boss Clinton both Broke Their Bones all over the world. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 11: I second the Motion. Call the question! Illinois Mafia Consigliere 12: Unanimous--except for Boyle, as usual. He’s always been a Minority of One around here ever since he came in 1978. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 13: Yeah, No wonder we declined from No. 15 when he joined the Faculty in 1978 to No. 47 last year with Boyle on the Faculty. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 14: Yeah. It’s been straight on downhill for us ever since Boyle came here! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 15: Correlation is Causation! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 16: Meeting adjourned. Now we can watch Game of Thrones on our Widescreen TV right here in the Faculty Lounge. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 17: I second that Motion! Roll ‘em! 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:33 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! The University of Illinois College of Consiglieres. 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:28 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Hillary Clinton signed off on drone assassinations, emails reveal {along with her Consigliere Harold Killer Koh} What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton {and her Consigliere Killer Koh} directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. And the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has already held out publicly that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh is an “expert” on international law and human rights. In other words, the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law is endorsing, ratifying, condoning, whitewashing, sanitizing, and approving all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton committed from 2009-2013, thus rendering the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law Accessories After The Fact to them all. MURDER INC at the College of Law. And the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law will become Accessories Before The Fact to all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Clinton/Koh will commit from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps 2025. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab By Patrick Martin 11 June 2016 In his online endorsement of Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, President Obama declared that she was more qualified than any previous candidate for the presidency. A report Friday in the Wall Street Journal indicates that these “qualifications” include personal participation in approving drone-missile assassinations. Clinton’s role in the chain of command leading to the incineration of thousands of people in Pakistan, most of them innocent civilians, is one of the secrets concealed in the long-running investigation of her use of a private email server while Secretary of State in the Obama administration. The Wall Street Journal article reports that in 2011 and 2012, after a series of internal disputes between the CIA and the State Department over how drone missile strikes in Pakistan were complicating US diplomatic relations with the government in Islamabad, the State Department was given the right to veto missile strikes if their timing was considered especially provocative to the Pakistani government. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, or another official at the embassy, would be informed of drone strikes in advance by the CIA, and would then consult with the State Department, going up the line all the way to Secretary of State Clinton, about whether to formally “concur” or “non-concur” in the action. According to the Journal, such communications would normally pass through the internal State Department communications system, with Clinton given oral briefing and responding in the same way. However, there were some instances, usually when officials were on vacation or during holiday periods, or when the high-security system was too cumbersome and an immediate reply was needed, when an aide would send Clinton an email about an impending strike, for her response. The Journal wrote: “The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the ‘CIA,’ ‘drones’ or details about the militant targets, officials said.” These emails are apparently among those now considered top-secret by the intelligence agencies, although they were not so classified by the State Department at the time. As the Journal noted, “The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.” Significantly, the Journal, whose editorial page is ferociously hostile to Clinton and treats her use of a private email server as a major criminal offense, reported that “Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.” It has been clear for more than a year that the email controversy is being driven by sections of the military-intelligence apparatus allied to the Republican Party and seeking an even harder line in US foreign policy than that pursued by the Obama-Clinton administration. A series of leaks has kept the issue before the public to undermine Clinton’s political standing and, potentially, sabotage her campaign entirely. What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. The Wall Street Journal account indicates that State Department opposition to specific drone missile strikes was related entirely to problems of timing—a mass incineration coming on the eve of sensitive US-Pakistani talks or the visit of a top US official to Islamabad—and did not represent any objection to the program itself. The newspaper reported, “Only once or twice during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at State did U.S. diplomats object to a planned CIA strike, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials familiar with the emails.” As for the CIA’s concerns about secrecy—now given voice by Republican officials, from congressional representatives on up to Donald Trump—the Journal account concedes that the drone missile program was widely publicized in Pakistan. “Despite being treated as top secret by the CIA, the drone program has long been in the public domain in Pakistan,” the newspaper noted. “Television stations there go live with reports of each strike, undermining U.S. efforts to foster goodwill and cooperation against militants through billions of dollars in American aid.” The language is priceless. According to this leading US newspaper, it was not the missile strikes themselves, spreading death and destruction, but the television reports about them, that were causing a political backlash in Pakistan. As for the insistence on secrecy, this had a clear political motive. The CIA and Pentagon wished to keep the missile assassination program secret, not from the Pakistani population, who could see the toll in men, women and children incinerated and maimed, but from the American people, who were not to be allowed to know what the government of the United States was doing, allegedly in their name. 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, July 02, 2016 8:53 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Obama's Drone Murder Report Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat Jul 2 23:08:10 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 23:08:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] University of Illinois College of Law Faculty Now Extend Their Invitation for Their 2017 Endowed Lecture! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Nazis had their Lawyers and Law Professors too Seventy years after World War II The Nazis have won! 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 PM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: University of Illinois College of Law Faculty Now Extend Their Invitation for Their 2017 Endowed Lecture! Mise En Scene at the Al Capone Headquarters, Lexington Hotel, South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, Right Near Lake Michigan Where Dey All Sleeps with De Fishes: Frank Nitti: Yo, Al! Youse have a call here from de Yale Law Mafia Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law down der in Champaign. Dey want youse to give an Endowed Lecture der on youse experience running de St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Der Faculty dinks Der law students will learn something from it and youse. Der even gonna have a reception for youse! Al Capone: Youse mean like dat Endowed Lecture dat Yale Law Mafia Dean and Professor Murder Inc. Harold Killer Koh gave down der last year about him and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Murder Inc Clinton? Why I’m flattered dat de Illinois Law Faculty would consider me to be in the Company of Their World Murder Inc. It sounds like it would be a good place for Our Mob to recruit War Consiglieri from their grads. Maybe I should go? How much are dey payin? Frank Nitti : 5Gs. But Sorry Al, we Chicago Mafia Boys don’t rub out no women and kids like Global Murder Inc Killer Koh and his Global Murder Inc Boss Clinton. We have a Code of Honor to uphold . Dats why we’re De Goodfellas! Al Capone: Yeah Frank we are Men of Honor. We don’t Hit Kids and Women. Der were no kids and women at the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Just Goodfellas like us. Frank Nitti: Dats why we’re de Goodfellas and Yale Law Mafia War Consigliere Killer Koh, his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton and Der Hyde Park Harvard Law Mafia Godfather Obama and de rest of his Harvard Law Mob are de Badfellas. Dey wipe out women and kids. Dey have no Honor! Al Capone: Well den tell dat Yale Law Mafia Dean in Champaign, Al Capone ain’t coming! I don’t want nuttin to do with a Gang of Thugs who have no Honor like his Faculty for Killer Koh Hitting women and kids. I have my Reputation to uphold! I have my Honor to uphold! Frank Nitti: And we don’t want der law grads neither. Der not fit to become War Consigliere for Al Capone and Frank Nitti and our Outfit! We don’t hit women and kids! We have our Honor to uphold! We have our Reputation to uphold! Dey don’t care about Honor and Reputation down der at Illinois Law. Der for rubbing out women and kids! Al Capone: Yeah, Illinois Law Faculty are just a Gang of Badfellas War Consiglieres with no Honor and no Reputation. Frank Nitti: Just a Gang of Thugs. Not Goodfellas like us. Al Capone: Ok, Frank, now dat dat’s settled, send up Luca Brazzi. I have little job for him to do. Luca is a Man of Honor. Fab 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:48 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Faculty Meeting for MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Importance: High Mise en scene at the University of Illinois College of Consiglieres Faculty Meeting in the Faculty Lounge on the Second Floor of the Consigliere Building, 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue: Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 1: Hey, let’s teach our kids how to “make Them An Offer They can’t refuse”! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 2: Sure, let’s bring in Yale Law Mafia Harold Killer Koh, War Consigliere to His Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton--MR AND MRS. MURDER INC. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 3: Yeah, Killer Koh will teach these Illinois Law Students how they can “sleeps with the fishes.” Turn them all into War Consiglieres! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 4: How many fishes do they have in Boneyard Creek these days? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 5: I move that we invite Yale Law Mafia Mr. Murder Inc. Harold Killer Koh out here to Campaign for His Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Murder Inc Clinton to become President on October 28 just on time for the election on November 8. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 6: But what about that Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University resources for political purposes? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 7: What’s a “Statute” between Friends? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 8: Yeah, especially when we are all Consigliere Professors including Harold Killer Koh. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 9: For the record, Killer Koh is also a “Made Man” like his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 10: Yeah, Killer Koh and Boss Clinton both Broke Their Bones all over the world. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 11: I second the Motion. Call the question! Illinois Mafia Consigliere 12: Unanimous--except for Boyle, as usual. He’s always been a Minority of One around here ever since he came in 1978. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 13: Yeah, No wonder we declined from No. 15 when he joined the Faculty in 1978 to No. 47 last year with Boyle on the Faculty. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 14: Yeah. It’s been straight on downhill for us ever since Boyle came here! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 15: Correlation is Causation! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 16: Meeting adjourned. Now we can watch Game of Thrones on our Widescreen TV right here in the Faculty Lounge. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 17: I second that Motion! Roll ‘em! 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:33 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! The University of Illinois College of Consiglieres. 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:28 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Hillary Clinton signed off on drone assassinations, emails reveal {along with her Consigliere Harold Killer Koh} What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton {and her Consigliere Killer Koh} directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. And the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has already held out publicly that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh is an “expert” on international law and human rights. In other words, the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law is endorsing, ratifying, condoning, whitewashing, sanitizing, and approving all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton committed from 2009-2013, thus rendering the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law Accessories After The Fact to them all. MURDER INC at the College of Law. And the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law will become Accessories Before The Fact to all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Clinton/Koh will commit from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps 2025. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab By Patrick Martin 11 June 2016 In his online endorsement of Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, President Obama declared that she was more qualified than any previous candidate for the presidency. A report Friday in the Wall Street Journal indicates that these “qualifications” include personal participation in approving drone-missile assassinations. Clinton’s role in the chain of command leading to the incineration of thousands of people in Pakistan, most of them innocent civilians, is one of the secrets concealed in the long-running investigation of her use of a private email server while Secretary of State in the Obama administration. The Wall Street Journal article reports that in 2011 and 2012, after a series of internal disputes between the CIA and the State Department over how drone missile strikes in Pakistan were complicating US diplomatic relations with the government in Islamabad, the State Department was given the right to veto missile strikes if their timing was considered especially provocative to the Pakistani government. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, or another official at the embassy, would be informed of drone strikes in advance by the CIA, and would then consult with the State Department, going up the line all the way to Secretary of State Clinton, about whether to formally “concur” or “non-concur” in the action. According to the Journal, such communications would normally pass through the internal State Department communications system, with Clinton given oral briefing and responding in the same way. However, there were some instances, usually when officials were on vacation or during holiday periods, or when the high-security system was too cumbersome and an immediate reply was needed, when an aide would send Clinton an email about an impending strike, for her response. The Journal wrote: “The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the ‘CIA,’ ‘drones’ or details about the militant targets, officials said.” These emails are apparently among those now considered top-secret by the intelligence agencies, although they were not so classified by the State Department at the time. As the Journal noted, “The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.” Significantly, the Journal, whose editorial page is ferociously hostile to Clinton and treats her use of a private email server as a major criminal offense, reported that “Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.” It has been clear for more than a year that the email controversy is being driven by sections of the military-intelligence apparatus allied to the Republican Party and seeking an even harder line in US foreign policy than that pursued by the Obama-Clinton administration. A series of leaks has kept the issue before the public to undermine Clinton’s political standing and, potentially, sabotage her campaign entirely. What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. The Wall Street Journal account indicates that State Department opposition to specific drone missile strikes was related entirely to problems of timing—a mass incineration coming on the eve of sensitive US-Pakistani talks or the visit of a top US official to Islamabad—and did not represent any objection to the program itself. The newspaper reported, “Only once or twice during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at State did U.S. diplomats object to a planned CIA strike, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials familiar with the emails.” As for the CIA’s concerns about secrecy—now given voice by Republican officials, from congressional representatives on up to Donald Trump—the Journal account concedes that the drone missile program was widely publicized in Pakistan. “Despite being treated as top secret by the CIA, the drone program has long been in the public domain in Pakistan,” the newspaper noted. “Television stations there go live with reports of each strike, undermining U.S. efforts to foster goodwill and cooperation against militants through billions of dollars in American aid.” The language is priceless. According to this leading US newspaper, it was not the missile strikes themselves, spreading death and destruction, but the television reports about them, that were causing a political backlash in Pakistan. As for the insistence on secrecy, this had a clear political motive. The CIA and Pentagon wished to keep the missile assassination program secret, not from the Pakistani population, who could see the toll in men, women and children incinerated and maimed, but from the American people, who were not to be allowed to know what the government of the United States was doing, allegedly in their name. 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, July 02, 2016 8:53 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Obama's Drone Murder Report Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Jul 3 10:54:56 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 10:54:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] University of Illinois College of Law--The Nazis Have Won! Message-ID: The Nazis had their Law Schools too. Seventy years after World War II the Nazis have won. Fab 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 near 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 “Pacific” 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 and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III. By shamelessly exploiting the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, the Bush Jr. administration set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf and Africa under the bogus pretexts of (1) fighting a war against international terrorism; and/or (2) eliminating weapons of mass destruction; and/or (3) the promotion of democracy; and/or (4) self-styled “humanitarian intervention”/responsibility to protect. Only this time the geopolitical stakes are infinitely greater than they were a century ago: control and domination of two-thirds of the world’s hydrocarbon resources and thus the very fundament and energizer of the global economic system – oil and gas. The Bush Jr./ Obama administrations have already targeted the remaining hydrocarbon reserves of Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia for further conquest or domination, together with the strategic choke-points at sea and on land required for their transportation. In this regard, the Bush Jr. administration announced the establishment of the U.S. Pentagon’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) in order to better control, dominate, and exploit both the natural resources and the variegated peoples of the continent of Africa, the very cradle of our human species. Libya and the Libyans became the first victims to succumb to AFRICOM under the Obama administration. They will not be the last. This current bout of U.S. imperialism is what my teacher, mentor and friend Hans Morgenthau denominated “unlimited imperialism” in his seminal work Politics Among Nations (4th ed. 1968, at 52-53): “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… “ It is the Unlimited Imperialists along the lines of Alexander, Rome, Napoleon and Hitler who are now in charge of conducting American foreign policy. 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. 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, July 02, 2016 6:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: RE: University of Illinois College of Law Faculty Now Extend Their Invitation for Their 2017 Endowed Lecture! The Nazis had their Lawyers and Law Professors too Seventy years after World War II The Nazis have won! 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 4:12 PM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: University of Illinois College of Law Faculty Now Extend Their Invitation for Their 2017 Endowed Lecture! Mise En Scene at the Al Capone Headquarters, Lexington Hotel, South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, Right Near Lake Michigan Where Dey All Sleeps with De Fishes: Frank Nitti: Yo, Al! Youse have a call here from de Yale Law Mafia Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law down der in Champaign. Dey want youse to give an Endowed Lecture der on youse experience running de St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Der Faculty dinks Der law students will learn something from it and youse. Der even gonna have a reception for youse! Al Capone: Youse mean like dat Endowed Lecture dat Yale Law Mafia Dean and Professor Murder Inc. Harold Killer Koh gave down der last year about him and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Murder Inc Clinton? Why I’m flattered dat de Illinois Law Faculty would consider me to be in the Company of Their World Murder Inc. It sounds like it would be a good place for Our Mob to recruit War Consiglieri from their grads. Maybe I should go? How much are dey payin? Frank Nitti : 5Gs. But Sorry Al, we Chicago Mafia Boys don’t rub out no women and kids like Global Murder Inc Killer Koh and his Global Murder Inc Boss Clinton. We have a Code of Honor to uphold . Dats why we’re De Goodfellas! Al Capone: Yeah Frank we are Men of Honor. We don’t Hit Kids and Women. Der were no kids and women at the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Just Goodfellas like us. Frank Nitti: Dats why we’re de Goodfellas and Yale Law Mafia War Consigliere Killer Koh, his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton and Der Hyde Park Harvard Law Mafia Godfather Obama and de rest of his Harvard Law Mob are de Badfellas. Dey wipe out women and kids. Dey have no Honor! Al Capone: Well den tell dat Yale Law Mafia Dean in Champaign, Al Capone ain’t coming! I don’t want nuttin to do with a Gang of Thugs who have no Honor like his Faculty for Killer Koh Hitting women and kids. I have my Reputation to uphold! I have my Honor to uphold! Frank Nitti: And we don’t want der law grads neither. Der not fit to become War Consigliere for Al Capone and Frank Nitti and our Outfit! We don’t hit women and kids! We have our Honor to uphold! We have our Reputation to uphold! Dey don’t care about Honor and Reputation down der at Illinois Law. Der for rubbing out women and kids! Al Capone: Yeah, Illinois Law Faculty are just a Gang of Badfellas War Consiglieres with no Honor and no Reputation. Frank Nitti: Just a Gang of Thugs. Not Goodfellas like us. Al Capone: Ok, Frank, now dat dat’s settled, send up Luca Brazzi. I have little job for him to do. Luca is a Man of Honor. Fab 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 10:48 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Faculty Meeting for MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Importance: High Mise en scene at the University of Illinois College of Consiglieres Faculty Meeting in the Faculty Lounge on the Second Floor of the Consigliere Building, 504 E. Pennsylvania Avenue: Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 1: Hey, let’s teach our kids how to “make Them An Offer They can’t refuse”! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 2: Sure, let’s bring in Yale Law Mafia Harold Killer Koh, War Consigliere to His Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton--MR AND MRS. MURDER INC. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 3: Yeah, Killer Koh will teach these Illinois Law Students how they can “sleeps with the fishes.” Turn them all into War Consiglieres! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 4: How many fishes do they have in Boneyard Creek these days? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 5: I move that we invite Yale Law Mafia Mr. Murder Inc. Harold Killer Koh out here to Campaign for His Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Murder Inc Clinton to become President on October 28 just on time for the election on November 8. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 6: But what about that Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University resources for political purposes? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 7: What’s a “Statute” between Friends? Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 8: Yeah, especially when we are all Consigliere Professors including Harold Killer Koh. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 9: For the record, Killer Koh is also a “Made Man” like his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 10: Yeah, Killer Koh and Boss Clinton both Broke Their Bones all over the world. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 11: I second the Motion. Call the question! Illinois Mafia Consigliere 12: Unanimous--except for Boyle, as usual. He’s always been a Minority of One around here ever since he came in 1978. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 13: Yeah, No wonder we declined from No. 15 when he joined the Faculty in 1978 to No. 47 last year with Boyle on the Faculty. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 14: Yeah. It’s been straight on downhill for us ever since Boyle came here! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 15: Correlation is Causation! Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 16: Meeting adjourned. Now we can watch Game of Thrones on our Widescreen TV right here in the Faculty Lounge. Illinois Mafia Faculty Consigliere 17: I second that Motion! Roll ‘em! 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:33 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! The University of Illinois College of Consiglieres. 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: Saturday, July 02, 2016 9:28 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: MURDER INC Killer Koh Invited to Campaign for MURDER INC Clinton by MURDER INC College of Law On October 28, 2016! Hillary Clinton signed off on drone assassinations, emails reveal {along with her Consigliere Harold Killer Koh} What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton {and her Consigliere Killer Koh} directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. And the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has already held out publicly that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh is an “expert” on international law and human rights. In other words, the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law is endorsing, ratifying, condoning, whitewashing, sanitizing, and approving all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Consigliere Killer Koh and his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton committed from 2009-2013, thus rendering the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law Accessories After The Fact to them all. MURDER INC at the College of Law. And the Yale Law Mafia Faculty of the College of Law will become Accessories Before The Fact to all the international and domestic crimes that Yale Law Mafia Clinton/Koh will commit from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps 2025. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab By Patrick Martin 11 June 2016 In his online endorsement of Hillary Clinton to succeed him in the White House, President Obama declared that she was more qualified than any previous candidate for the presidency. A report Friday in the Wall Street Journal indicates that these “qualifications” include personal participation in approving drone-missile assassinations. Clinton’s role in the chain of command leading to the incineration of thousands of people in Pakistan, most of them innocent civilians, is one of the secrets concealed in the long-running investigation of her use of a private email server while Secretary of State in the Obama administration. The Wall Street Journal article reports that in 2011 and 2012, after a series of internal disputes between the CIA and the State Department over how drone missile strikes in Pakistan were complicating US diplomatic relations with the government in Islamabad, the State Department was given the right to veto missile strikes if their timing was considered especially provocative to the Pakistani government. The US Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, or another official at the embassy, would be informed of drone strikes in advance by the CIA, and would then consult with the State Department, going up the line all the way to Secretary of State Clinton, about whether to formally “concur” or “non-concur” in the action. According to the Journal, such communications would normally pass through the internal State Department communications system, with Clinton given oral briefing and responding in the same way. However, there were some instances, usually when officials were on vacation or during holiday periods, or when the high-security system was too cumbersome and an immediate reply was needed, when an aide would send Clinton an email about an impending strike, for her response. The Journal wrote: “The vaguely worded messages didn’t mention the ‘CIA,’ ‘drones’ or details about the militant targets, officials said.” These emails are apparently among those now considered top-secret by the intelligence agencies, although they were not so classified by the State Department at the time. As the Journal noted, “The CIA drone campaign, though widely reported in Pakistan, is treated as secret by the U.S. government. Under strict U.S. classification rules, U.S. officials have been barred from discussing strikes publicly and even privately outside of secure communications systems.” Significantly, the Journal, whose editorial page is ferociously hostile to Clinton and treats her use of a private email server as a major criminal offense, reported that “Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.” It has been clear for more than a year that the email controversy is being driven by sections of the military-intelligence apparatus allied to the Republican Party and seeking an even harder line in US foreign policy than that pursued by the Obama-Clinton administration. A series of leaks has kept the issue before the public to undermine Clinton’s political standing and, potentially, sabotage her campaign entirely. What is remarkable about the latest revelation is that it does link Clinton directly to criminal activity, only not in the sense long alleged by her right-wing political opponents. The criminal activity is her personal participation in the campaign of drone-missile assassination, conducted by the CIA and Pentagon at the direction of President Obama, in complete violation of international law. The Wall Street Journal account indicates that State Department opposition to specific drone missile strikes was related entirely to problems of timing—a mass incineration coming on the eve of sensitive US-Pakistani talks or the visit of a top US official to Islamabad—and did not represent any objection to the program itself. The newspaper reported, “Only once or twice during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at State did U.S. diplomats object to a planned CIA strike, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials familiar with the emails.” As for the CIA’s concerns about secrecy—now given voice by Republican officials, from congressional representatives on up to Donald Trump—the Journal account concedes that the drone missile program was widely publicized in Pakistan. “Despite being treated as top secret by the CIA, the drone program has long been in the public domain in Pakistan,” the newspaper noted. “Television stations there go live with reports of each strike, undermining U.S. efforts to foster goodwill and cooperation against militants through billions of dollars in American aid.” The language is priceless. According to this leading US newspaper, it was not the missile strikes themselves, spreading death and destruction, but the television reports about them, that were causing a political backlash in Pakistan. As for the insistence on secrecy, this had a clear political motive. The CIA and Pentagon wished to keep the missile assassination program secret, not from the Pakistani population, who could see the toll in men, women and children incinerated and maimed, but from the American people, who were not to be allowed to know what the government of the United States was doing, allegedly in their name. 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, July 02, 2016 8:53 AM To: C. G. Estabrook >; Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Obama's Drone Murder Report Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. Along with Clinton’s “lawyer” Harold Killer Koh. And now the Yale Law Mafia UI College of Law has invited out Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh to Campaign here on October 28 to get his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton elected President ten days later and continue this Drone Murder Campaign of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Verging on Genocide against Muslims, making the Faculty of the College of Law Accessories after the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2009 to 2013, and potential Accessories Before the Fact to Koh/Clinton Crimes from 2017 to 2021 and perhaps to 2025. MURDER INC at the College of Law. Unless we stop them! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Fab Obama’s drone order: Institutionalizing a state murder operation 2 July 2016 Over three-and-a-half months after promising “in the coming weeks” an “assessment” of the number of civilians slaughtered in illegal drone missile strikes carried out in countries “outside of areas of active hostilities,” the Obama administration on Friday released numbers that represent a fraction of those documented by various independent investigations. The report, drafted by the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), was accompanied by an executive order reaffirming that the US president has the unquestionable right to order the state murder of anyone in any part of the world, while claiming a commitment to “promote best practices that reduce the likelihood of civilian casualties.” The words “best practices,” drawn from the dry lexicon of corporate management, recur three times in the US president’s executive order, underscoring the way in which the methods of Murder Inc. have become routinized and institutionalized within the American capitalist state. It is to further this process that the White House released its phony numbers, along with the hypocritical order feigning commitment to reducing the number of civilians killed by the Hellfire missiles fired from thousands of miles away by CIA and Pentagon operatives viewing their victims over video screens. The new policy, according to a White House release, is designed to “develop a sustainable legal and policy architecture to guide our counterterrorism activities going forward,” and to “institutionalize and enhance best practices regarding US counterterrorism operations and other US operations involving the use of force...” In other words, with barely six months left in office, Barack Obama is determined to secure a core element of his loathsome political legacy—turning the White House Oval Office into headquarters for drawing up “kill lists” and organizing “targeted killings,” i.e., political assassinations of foreign nationals and US citizens alike. The Obama White House has set into motion a drone expansion program that will increase the military’s capacity to launch assassination strikes by 50 percent, while keeping the covert CIA drone program in place. All of those who appear in a position to succeed him have endorsed drone killings. In the case of the presumptive Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, she signed off on them as Obama’s secretary of state. As for the pretense of concern for the “collateral damage” inflicted by this campaign—men, women and children who are not deliberately targeted but nonetheless blown to pieces—it is intended merely to provide a pseudo-humanitarian cover for cold-blooded murder. Even the New York Times, which has in the past defended Obama’s drone assassinations, was compelled to note that the executive order and the casualty estimate from the DNI were released on the Friday afternoon of a long holiday weekend. This is a traditional time period for releases that the government hopes will escape close public scrutiny. In this case, it is for good reason. According to the estimate provided by the DNI, the number of civilians killed “outside areas of active hostilities,” i.e., excluding the wholesale slaughter in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, between Obama’s inauguration in January 2009 and the end of 2015, amounted to a grand total of between 64 and 116. This compared in the US intelligence estimate to between 2,372 and 2,581 “combatant” deaths. This admission represents an incremental change from when the architect of the drone murder program, now CIA director, John Brennan, claimed in 2011 that over the previous year there had not been “a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities” of the remote-control killing machine. At the time, Pakistan was counting its civilian victims in the hundreds, if not thousands, including 41 tribal leaders gathered in an open air, government-approved meeting in March of that year, who were ripped to pieces by four Hellfire missiles fired from multiple US drones. Nonetheless, the numbers now provided by the DNI are absurdly low. Among the most cited sources on the subject, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has provided a conservative estimate that as many as 1,138 civilians have been killed by American drones—that is, tens times as many as are admitted by Washington. Even this figure is a serious underestimation of the real human toll of Obama’s “targeted killing” program. A study done in 2014 by the human rights group Reprieve documented that in attempting to assassinate 41 individuals deemed by the White House to be “terrorists”—a category that includes anyone resisting American occupation or opposing US policy—drone strikes killed an estimated 1,147 people. Among those reacting to Thursday’s press release was Letta Tayler, a Human Rights Watch researcher who documented through interviews with witnesses, relatives and officials the deaths of at least 57 civilians in US drone strikes in Yemen between 2009 and 2013. “I find it difficult to believe that in examining just seven attacks I happened upon well over half of the civilian deaths that the US acknowledges,” Tayler told the Washington Post . One explanation for the immense discrepancy between the US government’s figures and those of virtually all other sources is that the Pentagon and the CIA have a policy of presumption of guilt for anyone killed by a drone missile. Males between the ages of 18 and 80 are automatically deemed “combatants,” and in many cases women and children are treated the same way. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper provided a simpler—and chilling—explanation Friday for the disparity in casualty estimates: the higher totals were the result of the “deliberate spread of misinformation by some actors, including terrorist organizations.” The meaning is clear. Those questioning a global assassination program carried out in the name of a “war on terror” are themselves suspect of acting in league with terrorists and, logically, potential targets. The drone murder program—the signature policy of the presidency of Barack Obama—sums up the criminality not only of the president himself, but also of those he serves, the parasitical financial oligarchy and the vast military-intelligence apparatus. In the defense of their interests, war abroad is inevitably joined with repression at home. The Obama administration’s move to sanctify this assassination program as a permanent institution of the American state must serve as a serious warning to the working class. Bill Van Auken 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, June 29, 2016 8:47 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 As I know from long and sad experience here at the College of Law, so-called University of Illinois “whistleblower protection” is a joke and a fraud when it comes to protecting me from retaliation. So I am asking for a Volunteer to file a Complaint with the Illinois Inspector General. 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: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 7:39 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Examples of allegations of violations by public employees that may be investigated by the OEIG include, but are not limited to: fraud, abuse of authority, corruption, theft of state property, improper use of state time, property, or other resources for prohibited political purposes Maggie Hickey, Executive Inspector General This website is intended to provide you with information and resources related to the functions of this office. The menu above provides immediate access to our publicly disclosed investigative reports, related decisions, newsletters and other information. You may file a secure, encrypted online complaint by simply clicking on the following: online complaint link. If you have questions, you may contact us by clicking the following: online information request. Actually, I have already caught the College of Law in a prima facie violation of the Illinois Statute prohibiting the use of University Resources for electoral campaign purposes by means of the following Official Notice using the University Logo and web-site to announce Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture here, ten days before the presidential election involving his Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton when he is a prominent member of her presidential election campaign and her lawyer. It took University Resources to prepare, post and host this Notice on a University web-site. We know for a fact that last year the Illinois Inspector General sanctioned a professor for only ONE email message on his University Account related to an electoral campaign. Beyond this Notice, has there also been even one iota of coordination between COL/KOH and His Clinton Presidential Campaign on this October 28 lecture date? Emails, phones, faxes, preparations, reservations, invitations, etc? Between COL/KOH and the National Democratic Party? Between COL/KOH and the Champaign Democratic Party? The Illinois Inspector General has the power and the obligation to get to the bottom of this. But she has no authority to act on her own. Someone must first file a Complaint. Is there a Volunteer in the House? Fab. [https://www.law.illinois.edu/resources/images/imark-50.png]ILLINOIS | LAW INTRANET · Admissions · Faculty · Academics · Careers Services · Library · Alumni Relations · Giving · Calendar o Upcoming Featured Events o Upcoming Lectures and Conferences o Academic Calendar o Schedule an Event Top of Form Harold Koh (Yale) to deliver the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law Friday, October 28, 2016 Max L. Rowe Auditorium, Law Building 12:00 PM–1:00 PM The University of Illinois College of Law presents the 2016 Vacketta-DLA Piper Lecture on the Role of Government and the Law, featuring Harold Koh. The event is free and open to the public. A reception will be held in the Peer and Sarah Pedersen Pavilion following the lecture. Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. Professor Koh is one of the country’s leading experts in public and private international law, national security law, and human rights. Bottom of Form College of Law 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, Illinois 61820 Phone (217) 333-0931 Fax (217) 244-1478 © 2016 University of Illinois Quick Links · About · ABA Required Disclosures · Administrative Directory · Calendar · For the Media · Illini Union Bookstore · Visiting the College · Webmail · Give Now Illinois Law Social Media · Twitter · Facebook · LinkedIn · YouTube · RSS · Sina Weibo 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, June 28, 2016 8:53 PM To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Peace Discuss >; Karen Aram >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: RE: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Ok. Thanks Carl.Thanks for having me on. Thanks for the support. And I hope everyone can mobilize to terminate the Killer Koh Lecture here at the College of Law on October 28. 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:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 8:48 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: AWARE on the Air, June 28 Francis— The members of AWARE appreciate your participation in tonight’s program (Episode #369). The program is archived and may be viewed at >. We’d be delighted to have you join us again whenever your schedule allows. Regards, Carl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Jul 3 17:17:26 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 12:17:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] July 4th parade - #95 - if you'd like to march with AWARE / Green Party ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1a0778c6-1df0-65b9-5e81-c91afc3226c0@gmail.com> If you'd like to march with the AWARE / Green Party contingent this July 4th, here what you need to know - supplement to Karen's earlier note... *Weather: *Mild (70s) and cloudy, but 50% chance of rain. Let's still try if it's raining a bit - so *bring an umbrella/raincoat.* *They'll cancel the parade *in case of heavy rain/thunderstorm. *Time:* We're supposed to gather at 10:30AM. Later's probably OK, but you should aim to be there by soon after 11am anyway. *Place: *Assembly Hall ("E-14") parking lot, on the west side of the hall. *Parking* in the *Kirby and Oak *corner of the lot*(northwest corner).* Likewise come by that corner if you're dropping someone off. Request: *Can someone park a car in this lot,* so that we can store un-carried signs in it? *Our entry number: # 95* (see map). *Near the Oak St (west) edge of the lot. * We're midway between Kirby and St. Mary's Road, and close to the checkin booth. *Signs:* We have *lots*, made by Don Stuart Carl and especially Karen, on the theme: *"Celebrating America's History of Protest".* And David Green will bring signs for the *Green Party principles.* Or bring your own if you like! *Neighbors:* We'll be behind some musicians - "Skip Thompson -- Candy Foster and Shades of Blue" - and ahead of Champaign County Bikes. *Destination: *The usual place, Lincoln and California, probably around 1pm or before. Karen's favorite sign: She made one which reads -- "Got Rights? Got Benefits? Thank a Protest Movement." Assembly Hall lot map, with *parking area *and our*#95 starting point* marked - Kirby at top, Oak St at left, St Mary's Rd at bottom, First St at right: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: StagingAreaMap.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 132700 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Jul 4 14:20:07 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:20:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Georgetown Law's Viet Dinh: Modern Day Benedict Arnold! Message-ID: Viet Dinh is a member of the Harvard Law School Mafia, along with Killer Koh and Obama. All 3 of them were behind me at HLS. And Killer Koh was the Teacher and Mentor of the Infamous John Yoo of the Bush Torture Memos at Yale Law Mafia School that currently runs the University of Illinois Mafia Law School that has invited Killer Koh to come out here and Campaign for his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton on October 28, ten days before the presidential election. 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, July 04, 2016 9:06 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Georgetown Law's Viet Dinh: Modern Day Benedict Arnold! In today's NYT they have a listing of "Great Immigrants Honorees, 2006-2016," by the Carnegie Foundation. On the list is "Viet Dinh, Vietnam." Now teaching at Georgetown "Law" School. This is a Sick Joke and a Demented Fraud. As we all know, Viet Dinh drafted the USA Patriot Act that robbed US AMERICANS of our Constitutional Rights and set up a Police State here in the United States of America. And Dinh is proud of it and brags about it! So here WE AMERICANS take in Dinh and his Family from Vietnam, give them Shelter from a Communist Dictatorship, and then Dinh STEALS OUR REPUBLIC FROM US! May Dinh always live in INFAMY in the History of this Republic! Viet Dinh is a Modern Day Benedict Arnold! Francis A. Boyle July 4, 2016 240th Year of Our Republic What's Left of It Thanks to Dinh! 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 Jul 4 14:58:34 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 14:58:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killing Kids at Yale & Illinois Law Schools Message-ID: Fast forward to today Ex-Yale Law Dean Harold Koh Rejoins the Faculty After serving a stint As Obama's Consigliere Justifying war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity Drones, murders, assassinations Violations of the Constitution Exterminating 50,000 Libyans With the bat of an eye Hey, Hey Harold say How many kids Did you kill today? Koh is a worthy successor To Gene Rostow Yale Law's Resident Deans War Criminals Hey, Hey Yale Law Say How many kids Did you kill today? Hey, Hey Illinois Law Say How Many Kids Did you kill today? 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) Feed: OpEdNews Posted on: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:40 AM Author: OpEdNews Subject: Killing Kids at Yale Law School Poetry by America's top fighter for international legal justice about corruption in the legal profession. View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Jul 4 16:03:58 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:03:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killing Kids at Yale & Illinois Law Schools Message-ID: So notice that the Yale Law Mafia who dominate this Mafia Law School are inviting in Yale Law Mafia Dean Harold Killer Koh, the Successor to and Bootlicker of Yale Law Mafia Dean Gene Rostow of the Infamous Rostow Brothers who gave us the Vietnam War. Historically this would be analogous to our College of Law Mafia inviting in Gene Rostow during the Vietnam War to give a lecture on “international law” and “human rights” and “government service” in order to Campaign for LBJ as President just before Election Day. 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, July 04, 2016 9:59 AM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Killing Kids at Yale & Illinois Law Schools Fast forward to today Ex-Yale Law Dean Harold Koh Rejoins the Faculty After serving a stint As Obama's Consigliere Justifying war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity Drones, murders, assassinations Violations of the Constitution Exterminating 50,000 Libyans With the bat of an eye Hey, Hey Harold say How many kids Did you kill today? Koh is a worthy successor To Gene Rostow Yale Law's Resident Deans War Criminals Hey, Hey Yale Law Say How many kids Did you kill today? Hey, Hey Illinois Law Say How Many Kids Did you kill today? 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) Feed: OpEdNews Posted on: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:40 AM Author: OpEdNews Subject: Killing Kids at Yale Law School Poetry by America's top fighter for international legal justice about corruption in the legal profession. View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Jul 4 20:28:12 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:28:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Harold Killer Koh: Lectures, Workshops, and Moot Court Judges In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Note, we have already locked in Harold Koh for the Vacketta-Piper lecture this coming year. {i.e., 2015-2016 Academic Year—fab} Just in case you have any doubts about what I am saying. This is one of the many messages I sent to the entire Law School Community last summer objecting to Harold Killer Koh lecturing here in no uncertain terms, as you can see from the recipients list below. Not one of them supported me. In addition, you will note they had Killer Koh “locked in” to speak during the 2015-2016 Academic Year. Instead of that, they are bringing him in during the 2016-2017 Academic Year, on October 28, 2016 so that he can Campaign for Clinton as President before the election on November 8, 2016. 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: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:58 PM To: Kar, Robin B Cc: Wasserman, Melissa F ; Law * Tenured/Track Faculty ; Law * Clinical Faculty ; Law * Legal Writing Faculty ; Law * Emeritus Faculty ; Law * Library Faculty ; Cook, Sally J ; Mazzone, Jason ; Robbennolt, Jennifer Kirkpatrick Subject: Harold Killer Koh: Lectures, Workshops, and Moot Court Judges -----Original Message----- From: Alan Gilbert Sent: May 7, 2015 1:36 PM To: "democratic-indv at du.edu" Subject: [Democratic-indv] Law School Profs whiff against student protest: Harold Koh and the immunization of war crimes Law School Profs whiff against student protest: Harold Koh and the immunization of war crimes Nonwhite students at NYU Law School, led by Amanda Bass and Aman Deep, protested the hiring of Harold Koh, a famous human rights lawyer who worked for the Obama administration, to teach human rights. Their petition below, signed by some 40 NYU law students (350 total signers), a high number given intimidation, makes a straightforward, technical case that the use of drones which randomly murder civilians (mostly in countries the US has not declared war against) is a crime. *** In addition, Koh contradicted his scholarship at Yale on the War Powers Act to try to affirm Obama's unilateral bombing of Libya (decent in so far as it prevented massacre at Ben Ghazi, terrible in the collapse it has led to). *** Torture is a recognized war crime internationally. Further, the US government fought for all the Conventions under which the Bush officials - Colin Powell probably excepted - need to be put on trial. By the Supremacy Clause, Article 6 section 2 of the Constitution and by the anti-torture law signed by President Reagan, it is American law as well. See here. *** Killing "suspects" and civilians by drone is not so recognized, at this point, except, it should be underlined since the point is so often avoided during pseudo-legal discussions, as the crime of murder during the commission of aggression. *** The trope of administration-insider/security Democrats that drones kill fewer people than invasion (more accurately, unprovoked aggression as in Iraq), misses the point. For the terror imposed on civilians and the wanton civilian casualties make ordinary people rightly hate, fear and mock the United States government around the world. *** Further, seeking to be the face of the drone policy within the administration, Koh chose to defend drone murder, directed from video screens far away, as entirely legal and morally justified. The Obama administration, along with the CIA, was glad to elevate him to this position. But then,Koh made himself plainly responsible, as a public agent or actor for the administration, for drone strikes. This is not a matter of freedom of speech as the Law Professors petition below (and the war criminal John Yoo) suggest. It is Koh's providing specious or pseudo-legal cover for government acts of murder which the students rightly object to. *** Even Phillip Alston, the international lawyer whose report is cited in the student petition and who himself is, with misgivings, prepared mostly to support Koh, underlines the problem on Just Security blog here: "In his insider account, Klaidman, who clearly had access to Harold’s version of events, observes that: Koh began lobbying Secretary Clinton and the White House to let him make a speech in defense of targeted killing. …[T]he White House saw an upside in making him the unlikely public face of the CIA’s drone program. … The military and the CIA, too, loved the idea. They called the State Department lawyer ‘Killer Koh’ behind his back. Some of the operators even talked about printing up T-shirts that said: ‘Drones: If they’re good enough for Harold Koh, they’re good enough for me.’” *** That the CIA and military labelled him Killer Koh is, sadly, apt. And the T-shirts: "if they're good enough for Harold Koh..." *** The students name Koh's specific role as a famous human rights lawyer in providing cover for targeting Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, though they do not include Abdulrahman, Al-Awlaki's 16 year old son, who was killed by targeted American drone while looking for his father...: "Mr. Koh’s 'stamp of approval' for Mr. al-Aulaqi’s killing was particularly useful to the Obama Administration, Mr. Scahill reports, because his prior reputation as 'a liberal, pro-human rights, pro-civil liberties lawyer' was 'a strong preemptive strike against the critics.'[17] In essence, Mr. Koh leveraged his human rights record to strengthen his otherwise specious arguments that the U.S. government was not violating either the human or constitutional rights of one of its own citizens. We find Mr. Koh’s conduct in this regard to be unethical and highly unprincipled." 
*** Now Koh has received a defense - last letter below - from some 215 professors of human rights law, among others, around the country. A separate one from Professor Ryan Goodman at NYU details more completely Koh's record in "civilizing" the use of drones. *** Unfortunately, this may be as empty a reply - depending for credence solely on the bubble of the signers' prestige - as any lawyer has ever written. The law students reject Koh's acts - why the CIA and military hail/mock him as "Killer Koh" - despite his longstanding contributions to human rights law which the students might, indeed, have recognized at greater length. *** In contrast, the Law Professors, huffily, insist on the latter and ignore Koh's deeds/crimes. *** In the face of evidence cited by the students, they assert (counting or precision is also not a strong point): "Any number of reports confirm that Professor Koh was a leading advocate for preservation of the rule of law, human rights and transparency within the Obama Administration, including on the drones issue." 
 *** A striking article from the Economist, a smart British conservative journal often worth reading on issues outside Britain, makes the straightforward point that "government service" by human rights lawyers like Koh often furthers criminality. This is especially true in the biggest empire in the world (as part of what I call a war complex, that is, a military-industrial-congressional-intelligence-media-think tank-academic, etc. complex), the US military has divided the world into 6 regions with some 1180 military bases abroad. This global domination is largely kept secret by commercial media and "bipartisan" Congressional agreement from the American people.... *** In addition, Koh's biggest defender turns out to be the war criminal John Yoo. Yoo and, less, Koh are praised also by the head of the Lawfare blog, Benjamin Wittes (a journalist turned pseudo- or "official" realist-drone-torture addict). *** Lawfare - the name signifies a proud and self-conscious perversion of the rule of law - was founded by Jack Goldsmith who, as Head of the Office of Legal Council under Bush, courageously withdrew Yoo's rationalization of torture - still kept secret... - at the cost of giving up his job. *** But Goldsmith also sanctified extraordinary renditions of captive prisoners to torturers, for instance, Maher Arar, the innocent Syrian-Canadian engineer who stopped briefly at LaGuardia, was detained and shipped to Syria to be tortured in a coffin-size cell for a year. *** The name "Lawfare" reflects Goldsmith's own personal need to twist the law to legitimize criminal government purposes. *** Papering over torture and murder as "realism" and "speech" because a "Berkeley lawyer" like John Yoo sanctifies it does nothing for the reputation of the US government or the loathing aroused by the now Obama-protected torturers like my student Condi Rice - see here - and Jose Rodriguez along with the entire foreign policy apparatus of the Bush administration aside from (on this issue) Colin Powell. *** Further, against Obama's obligations under the Convention against Torture, he has refused to create independent hearings for any of the torturers. This wretched avoidance of legal proceedings - he who prosecutes honorable whisteblowers more than any previous President... - makes Obama technically an accomplice in torture. *** Let us try some analogies, for instance Nazi death camps. They were supported at the time and never apologized for by possibly the the greatest European philosopher of the 20th century - Martin Heidegger - from whom, undoubtedly, anyone interested in philosophy (ancient or 20th century) could benefit from a class. But those facts reveal only that Heidegger was also an odious, criminal sociopath as has now become widely evident even to his (sometimes former) apologists. *** Now suppose a Nazi "Harold Koh" had devoted himself to improving the camps, making them more humane, for example, working slave laborers to death in 5 months instead of 3, reducing the overall rate of killing, offing some people with barbiturates rather than in gas chambers, and so forth. Would these lawyers praise the "government service" of such a "Koh"? Yet, that "Koh" would still clearly be a war criminal. *** Or take the American torturers Mitchell and Jesson, two psychologists who had designed the SERE program modeled on Chinese torture for American soldiers if they were captured and laid out the plans for the CIA (replacing the FBI whose agent Ali Soufan aptly protested against the uselessness and depravity of torture. They had never done an interrogation or elicited evidence from a prisoner. They created some walls that gave way when prisoners were slammed against them ("walling")... *** They were long protected by the leadership of the American Psychological Association in consultation with the CIA and against the insistence of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association that no health professional may participate in torture without herself becoming a criminal... *** But was not this responsibility for pretending to "not so severe" torture - one that leaves few body marks - nonetheless consistent with waterboarding Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 180 times in a month and the over 100 homicides of prisoners in American custody according to Pentagon statistics by the torturers? Did Mitchell and Jesson's "human rights approach" justify the nonlegal Bush administration/New York Times' euphemism: "very harsh interrogations"? *** Is their "government service," as the Law Professors, analogous in this case to the American Psychological Association before the revolt of its members, indiscriminately call it, admirable? *** The Economist below rightly insists: "Mr Koh could well have been the "strongest and most effective advocate" for "human rights principles relating to the use of drones" andnevertheless also have been a key legal architect of a programme that has done"structural damage to the cornerstones of international security and set precedents that undermine the protection of life across the globe in the longer term," as a UN report put it. As the NYU students pointed out in a follow-up letter: It has not escaped our attention that Mr. Koh is regarded as one of the most respected and powerful international lawyers of our time. This does not deter us from our commitment to holding accountable members of our community who, like Mr. Koh, seem to have traded fealty to international law for a “ringside seat” at the table, at the cost of thousands of lives." *** The Professors' brief statement (last below) insists without qualification: "The world needs more human rights professionals who are willing to commit themselves to government service on behalf of their nation." *** "Government service" in the American Empire can lead a "human rights professional," as under Bush-Cheney, to commit great crimes. That is, sadly, also true under Barack Obama who, by letting torturer/murderers skate, has consolidated a bipartisan regime of torture even if water boarding is - temporarily - probably gone. *** There is no service to humanity or decent government in figleafing murder by drone - exactly what "killer Koh" in the CIA's/military's derisory terminology did. *** There is no service to humanity in figleafing now for torture - against Koh's own words previously - as "free speech" or "government service" as the law professors' petition and more precisely, John Yoo below do. *** In addition, Obama has made it easy for the Republican thugs, keen to torture (I except John McCain and Rand Paul here, though both wobble) to restore it, and even Hillary might walk a thin line. *** At best, the 215 human rights lawyers whiff. They fail to provide a single principled argument on behalf of Koh's crimes because none exist. Instead, in a seemingly lawyerly move except that it draws so much attention and controversy to the apt petition by 40 NYU law students, they are silent about the crimes... *** Attempted suppression by ignoring the petition might be superior to attempted suppression by clamorous foolishness. *** The lawyer's petition offers the following piety: "While we strongly support the free exchange of ideas that is fundamental to civil society in general, and the academy in particular,..." *** Yet in their zeal to defend Koh, their "field" and perhaps some unease/guilt about "government service," these lawyers also ignore that the students have been threatened. For instance, one lost an internship at Human Rights First because of signing the petition against Koh's appointment. *** These famous professors thus combine sanctimony, weakness at argument (if their argument were any good, they could not be so easily taken out by a column in the Economist...) and miserable bullying. *** Goodman at NYU sent around a long defense of Koh's record to every student who signed the petition, urging each personally to withdraw her signature (imagine the vicious recommendation letters such a Professor might write about the students, perhaps like those of Martin Heidegger to other universities and the Gestapo on the untrustworthiness of students who had been to America and of course, Jews....). *** Several of his students hastily withdrew their names, though perhaps not what they thought... *** Wittes also points out that Koh attacked Bush criminals - Wittes asserts that they were "just doing their job" - with the same style as these law students go after him. If so, Koh did the right thing and provided a paradigm for assessing his own actions/crimes. *** Wittes waves airily at this - it is all just nonsense for "us" "serious national security" (one might use more accurate names: torturer, extraordinary rendition, drone-murderer, creating insecurity for ordinary Americans) types. *** But immunity for Koh means also immunity for all the other war criminals. The Obama administration, with the blessing of human rights expert Koh, mandates no independent hearings about the war crimes of the Bush administration. This protects Goldsmith at Lawfare and a wide range of others like Koh's defender John Yoo. *** Covering for torturers (as well as drones) - for war crimes as "speech" and "government service" - is also what the 215 human rights law professors sign onto with their statement. *** But there are still courts of law internationally and here. If there are ever legal proceedings - if any of the principals, now including Harold Koh, go abroad..., the case against Yoo, Koh and the others is clear from the public record alone. *** The US government hung the Tokyo war criminals for less, i.e. "command responsibility" for crimes committed by subordinates rather than direct ordering of/legally apologizing for them. *** I prefer Tutu and Truth and Reconciliation - see Desmond Tutu, No Future without Forgiveness - but there has to be some truth and an end to criminal policies. So far, the policies continue (or are easy to renew, there being no consequence for torture) and this crowd just doubles down. *** Andrew Sullivan, the first advocate of Obama in the Atlantic in mainstream American politics and a leading conservative who rightly despises torture (what makes him a conservative, not an authoritarian), was horrified that Obama's longterm approach was, in violation of the law, to immunize the torturers (he was less critical of drones, reflecting a lack of clear thinking about frequent murder of civilians abroad). *** This is the worst aspect of the Obama administration (though the turn towards working with Iran is heartening and something genuinely different from the last administration). And once again, the Law Professors's statement about the drone killings as "speech" and "government service" has added to this immunization. *** In the New York Times article four years ago on the Tuesday afternoon meetings to choose targets at the White House, the infamous John Brennan is described as saying that any male in the presence of a suspected terrorist, i.e. his 5 year old son bringing him or her a glass of water, is to be counted as a terrorist. See here. *** Being close to power just carried away Mr. Koh. He says of Brennan, the then NSA advisor to Obama about drones and former torturer for Bush in Iraq, that he is "priestly" and that Koh trusts him to be the last man in the room... "Harold H. Koh, for instance, as dean of Yale Law School was a leading liberal critic of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies. But since becoming the State Department’s top lawyer, Mr. Koh said, he has found in Mr. Brennan a principled ally. 
 'If John Brennan is the last guy in the room with the president, I’m comfortable, because Brennan is a person of genuine moral rectitude,' Mr. Koh said. 'It’s as though you had a priest with extremely strong moral values who was suddenly charged with leading a war.'” *** The students said what is true: that Koh (and sadly, Barack as well) should be put on trial for killing civilians by drone, and one might add, for making themselves accomplices to torture (under the UN Convention against Torture, signed by President Reagan, the next government of the state committing the torture must bring those against whom there is serious evidence to trial) and for over 100 murders, once again according to Pentagon statistics, committed in the course of torturing. See here. *** But the students had not even said that Koh could not teach at NYU Law School. The only thing they had said was that it is a farce to have Koh, however brilliantly, teach human rights law, given that he was a legal sanctifier in the government of murder, including of Americans (try the 16 year old Abdulrahman Awlaki and his American cousin, killed in Yemen at a rural food stand along with 8 Yemenis, by drone and see if you really want to be in the same room with an unrepentant Koh). *** Further, these "'human rights " bullies punch at, seek to intimidate or ban non-empowered students from the Law, to teach them that haughty non-answering of argument is the only way to the top and that speaking truth to power is inconsistent with the practice of "human rights" law. *** That was not why the students got interested in law, let alone human rights, and I will bet that quite a number stick to their perfectly reasonable argument (as the Economist underlines). *** These prize fighters do not take on semi-equals nor display the slightest consciousness that mobilizing overwhelmingly against 40 students to cover likely criminality looks hasty and in bad faith (Sartre). *** Now there is always the chance, a la late Scrooge, for some of the signers to apologize to the students and think and argue seriously about the issues the student petition raises. *** I wouldn't hold my breath, however. *** Still, the rest of us ought to look carefully at the question of whether if this is American human rights "law," it isn't also apology for the still leading rogue state...(Obama has done some things to pull back from this status - again, the treaty with Iran - but drones are among the worst things America has done, making it resemble the Company in "Avatar") *** In addition, some at NYU, following Wittes, can point to Berkeley and Yoo as a precedent. For the existence of law, let alone the rule of law in America, has to be fought for from below; otherwise, the powerful, as is seen in the long record of crimes of genocide and murder against many nonwhite peoples in the United States and abroad, will trample what they profess - "free speech," "the importance of argument in law schools," "human rights" - and not even notice their Imperial nakedness... *** Lastly, in the second article below (democratic resistance), the students tie in drone killings abroad with Ferguson and other murders of black people by the police at home (on Freddy Gray, seehere). This is the link that Martin Luther King, Jr. draws so strongly in "A Time to Break Silence," about Vietnam; he could not speak to teenagers in Watts about nonviolence without denouncing "my government, the most violent government in the world..." *** The Justice Department under Eric Holder (and Obama) have played a decent role in Ferguson (given that customary "law" gives police officers wide discretion to use guns to kill nonwhite people, and that the Justice Department went along with the taking out of Michael Brown because given this discretion, there was "insufficient evidence to prosecute"...). *** What the students underline, however, is what I call democratic internationalism. Schools of Law and other public disciplines which sanctify war criminals and justify drones and torture as well as their enactors, attack democracy, law and basic individual rights at the root. The same arguments - "dispense with them without trial," "secure confessions by torture" - apply equally at home in despotism and are what the Magna Carta in 1215 and habaes corpus (that the body must be delivered from jail to a trial without torture) are meant to prohibit. Their denunciation marks the difference between a society of law at all (never America for many nonwhite folks and certainly, not the America of torture or drones) and a tyranny... *** And for all the politician/press fanfare about American "exceptionalism," which even had some validity with the election of Obama, a black man, whom the Republicans now shun as "other" and say, unendingly crazy things about, this is why people in the world increasingly fear and mock the United States, and American power and reputation abroad, deservedly, are in steep decline. *** h/t Ray McGovern, Colleen Rowley, David Swanson, Todd Pierce and Francis Boyle *** Here is the straightforward statement of NYU law students (signed by 350 people): "More than 350 New York University Law students, students at other NYU schools, NYU faculty and alumni, non-profit and student organizations, intellectuals, experts, and other community members have signed the following Statement of No Confidence in Harold H. Koh. The statement condemns NYU Law’s hiring of Harold Koh to teach International Human Rights Law in light of his role as a key legal architect of the Obama Administration’s drone program, which has claimed thousands of civilian lives across the globe. You can read and sign the statement here. A full list of signatories can be viewed here. STATEMENT OF NO CONFIDENCE IN HAROLD H. KOH “A functionary, when he really is nothing more than a functionary, is really a very dangerous gentleman.” – Hannah Arendt, 1964. Dear Dean Trevor Morrison and President John Sexton, We, the undersigned students, organizations and concerned members of the NYU and global community, condemn NYU Law’s hiring of Harold H. Koh for the 2014-2015 academic year. NYU Law brands itself as “a private university in the public service”[1] and prides itself on its commitment to civil liberties, human rights and international law. Yet, its decision to honor Mr. Koh as a “distinguished scholar in residence”[2] calls these commitments into question given Mr. Koh’s role as a key legal architect of the Obama Administration’s extrajudicial killing program during his time as State Department Legal Adviser (2009-2013) [3]. From his position of authority within the Obama Administration, Mr. Koh has publicly argued[4] for the U.S. drone program’s legality and has stated[5] that “U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war.” This is despite compelling evidence to the contrary, including evidence produced by NYU Law scholars. In 2010, for example, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, issued a report[6] that outlined why the U.S. drone program violates applicable international humanitarian and human rights laws.[7] Moreover, in 2012, Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, in partnership with NYU Law’s Global Justice Clinic, co-authored a report[8] that documented the devastation and the profound human costs that the U.S. drone program has exacted on civilians living in Pakistan. Among the report’s findings were: evidence that U.S. drone strikes have killed and injured substantial numbers of civilians[9]; U.S. drone policies have inflicted profound physical and psychological harm on civilians[10]; the percentage of high-level targets killed by drone strikes are estimated at just 2% of those killed by drone strikes overall[11]; and, finally, the report found that “current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents.”[12] In addition to publicly defending the U.S. drone program’s legality, and thereby facilitating what Professor Alston has called[13] “a burgeoning program of international killing” that does not comply with international law, Mr. Koh also directly facilitated the extrajudicial, unconstitutional killing[14] of Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. Investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill documents Mr. Koh’s particular role in Mr. al-Aulaqi’s assassination in his book, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield. He reports that as legal adviser, “Harold Koh, wanted to lay out the case publicly before Aulaqi was killed,” in an effort to preempt critiques of the administration’s decision to target and kill a U.S. citizen in secret and without a trial.[15] According to Mr. Scahill: “In advance of his public speech, the CIA and military gave Koh access to their intel on Aulaqi. Koh settled in for a long day of reading in the Secured Classified Intelligence Facility. According to [Daniel] Klaidman, whose book [Kill or Capture] was based almost entirely on leaks from administration officials, Koh ‘had set his own legal standard to justify the targeted killing of a US citizen: evil, with iron-clad intelligence to prove it.’”[16] Mr. Koh’s “stamp of approval” for Mr. al-Aulaqi’s killing was particularly useful to the Obama Administration, Mr. Scahill reports, because his prior reputation as “a liberal, pro-human rights, pro-civil liberties lawyer” was “a strong preemptive strike against the critics.”[17] In essence, Mr. Koh leveraged his human rights record to strengthen his otherwise specious arguments that the U.S. government was not violating either the human or constitutional rights of one of its own citizens. We find Mr. Koh’s conduct in this regard to be unethical and highly unprincipled. While we believe that NYU Law should remain committed to academic freedom, we take issue not with Mr. Koh’s opinions but rather with his actions—that is, his direct facilitation of the U.S. government’s extrajudicial imposition of death sentences on U.S. citizens along with civilians of other nationalities. By hiring Mr. Koh to teach International Human Rights Law, NYU Law places its imprimatur not on what Mr. Koh thinks, but rather on what he did. Given Mr. Koh’s role in crafting and defending what objectively amounts to an illegal and inhumane program of extrajudicial assassinations and potential war crimes, we find his presence at NYU Law and, in particular, as a professor of International Human Rights Law, to be unacceptable. Sincerely, The Undersigned [1] N.Y.U. Law Public Interest Law Center, http://www.law.nyu.edu/publicinterestlawcenter [2] N.Y.U. Law, “Harold Koh will visit NYU Law in 2014-15 academic year,” http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/Harold-Koh-Distinguished-Scholar-in-Residence [3] Id. [4] Lawfare, “The Obama Administration and International Law, Speech by Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State,” Mar. 25, 2010,http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Speech-by-Harold-Hongju-Koh-State-Department-Legal-Adviser-at-the-Annual-Meeting-of-the-American-Society-of-International-Law-Mar-25-2010.pdf [5] Conor Friedersdorf, Harold Koh’s Slippery, Inadequate Criticism of the Drone War, The Atlantic, May 9, 2013,http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/harold-kohs-slippery-inadequate-criticism-of-the-drone-war/275692/ [6] Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, Human Rights Council, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add. 6 (May 28, 2010), available athttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf [7]For instance, the Special Rapporteur noted that the United States government’s failure to provide transparency and accountability concerning those it targets and kills is a violation of the United States’ obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, ¶ 87, Human Rights Council, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add. 6 (May 28, 2010) (“The refusal by States who conduct targeted killings to provide transparency about their policies violates the international legal framework that limits the unlawful use of lethal force against individuals.”). [8] International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford Law School and Global Justice Clinic at NYU School of Law, Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan (2010), available at http://www.livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Stanford-NYU-Living-Under-Drones.pdf [9] The report notes that The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) has reported that, “from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals.” Id. at vi. [10] Id. at vii. [11] Id. [12] Id. at viii. [13] Philip Alston, The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders, 2. Harv. Nat’l Sec. J. 283 (2011) (abstract available athttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm%3Fabstract_id=1928963). [14] Al-Aulaqi v. Obama Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (violation of constitutional rights and international law — targeted killing), available at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/alaulaqi_v_obama_complaint_0.pdf [15] Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield 371 (2013). [16] Id. [17] Id. *** democratic-resistance Law Students Protest Harold Koh As Human Rights Lecturer [Harold Koh by Chip Somodevilla for Getty Images] RESIST! DRONES, HUMAN, LIBYA, STUDENT ACTIVISM, WARS AND MILITARISM By Staff, www.rethinkkoh.wordpress.com
April 14th, 2015 Above: Harold Koh by Chip Somodevilla for Getty Images Harold Koh, former State Department official, supported drone attacks, war in Libya Public letters from NYU law students concerning their criticism of Harold Koh and intimidation against them by faculty On April 12, 2015, the student-organizers of the Statement of No Confidence in Harold Koh drafted the following letter in response to faculty intimidation: To Our Classmates and Members of the NYU Community: “We do not kill our cattle the way the US is killing humans in Waziristan with drones.” – Rafiq ur Reman In the fall of 2013, Rafiq ur Rehman traveled with his 13-year-old son, Zubair, and 9-year-old daughter, Nabila, from their small village in North Waziristan to Capitol Hill. Their purpose in making this long and painful trek was simple: to appeal to the hearts of U.S. lawmakers by sharing stories of the carnage wrought upon their community and upon their family by U.S. drone strikes. In 2012, a U.S. drone strike had killed Rafiq’s elderly mother and severely wounded two of his young children. Only five members of Congress showed up. The suffering of thousands of individuals like Rafiq, Zubair, and Nabila, moved a few of us to author a Statement of No Confidence in Harold H. Koh. The Statement is fairly simple. It argues that due to Mr. Koh’s role as a key legal architect of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program, a program that violates International Human Rights Law, the Law School should not have hired him to teach that particular body of law. The petition extensively documents the factual basis for our position—and echoes the concerns of other students, academics, and human rights activists. The gravity of targeted killings via drones and the factual basis upon which we built our petition warranted this expression of disaffection. Academic institutions, after all, are supposed to be places for honest and critical debates. At times, we have known NYU Law to be such a place—that is, a setting where compassionate and thoughtful people confront, rather than dismiss uncomfortable facts. While we welcomed disagreement with the petition, we never fathomed that some faculty and administrators would, intentionally or not, work hard to quash our expression of dissent and intimidate numerous students. Professor Ryan Goodman, for instance, emailed every individual signatory of the petition, including some of his own students and advisees, and urged them to withdraw their support for the Statement. Withdrawal, he stated, “will reflect well on us as a community” [Goodman Letter]. Due to the power imbalances between students and faculty, we find his request inappropriate. Stephen Bright, meanwhile, a Yale Law professor and known anti-death penalty lawyer, sent a disparaging email to his former intern, an organizer of the petition and an aspiring anti-death penalty lawyer, following repeated phone calls. He asked her whether she didn’t have better things to do with her time, and later claimed that the petition arose out of ignorance and inexperience. Concerning our corporate colleagues who signed the petition, Mr. Bright asked, “Does someone who is going to a firm to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year representing corporations [have] any position to express a lack of confidence in Harold Koh?” [Bright Letter] Finally, another student was told that s/he was not welcome at Human Rights First for an internship since the organization held Harold Koh in high regard and was aware of the student’s signature on the petition.[1] Rather than a trial of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program, and the distortion of Human Rights Law that it represents, what we have seen unfolding over the past few weeks is the trial of students, mostly women and students of color, who have been dismissed as “naïve” and maligned as “smearers.” There has been no acknowledgement of the concern for human life that prompted the petition, or any acknowledgement that the more than 260 supporters of the students’ Statement include lawyers, students, scholars and pacifists from all over the globe. Figuring prominently in this trial is Dean Trevor Morrison, who preemptively announced his verdict prior to meeting with the authors of the recent CoLR Statement: “[allegations of intimidation] are unfounded.” Ironically, the Dean himself, in his first-year constitutional law class, had described the petition as “smear,” “wholly inaccurate” and, once again, urged students to withhold support. Two of his students did, in fact, withdraw their signatures from the petition despite privately expressing agreement with its merits. Soon after, the Dean initiated a meeting with the organizers of the petition, ostensibly for the purpose of making our upcoming event “productive.” In the process, he called our public letters “vitriol unseen in the law school” and accused us of “inflicting wounds that will not heal.” His words, uttered to three students of color, two of whom are of South Asian descent, revealed a painful truth: the wounds inflicted upon the egos of the powerful are recognized and defended, while the wounds of Rafiq, Zubair, Nabila and thousands of unnamed others fail to register—not in our university discourse or in the government’s civilian casualty count. This, more than anything else, illustrates what this petition aims to counter and why it is so important. For all that has been said by some members of the faculty and administration, we have been saddened by the silences prevailing in their responses. None of the thousands of people assassinated by U.S. drones are mentioned—not once. There has been no questioning of the “Drone War’s” legitimacy or meaningful engagement with our concern that Mr. Koh did in fact provide the legal rationale and cover for this program. There has been no reflection upon the relationship between state-sponsored violence abroad and state-sponsored violence here at home, in places like Ferguson, North Charleston, and New York. And there has been little concern with human rights becoming a field that legitimizes U.S. global hegemony by masking its questionable interference in the social and political structures of other nations. Indeed, the silences do not stop there. Neither the facts nor the sources that we extensively cite and upon which we base our critique, were genuinely examined. Rather, they were largely dismissed. Meanwhile, we have been accused of leveling attacks that are not “evidence-based” and of launching nothing more than a “smear” campaign. We wonder: if we have gotten the facts wrong about Mr. Koh’s well-documented role in shaping and defending the U.S. government’s targeted killing program, why haven’t the true facts surfaced? Why are we asked to blindly take the word of his friends, who speak of past actions that have no bearing on his role in this particular violation? We have sought to understand the troubling responses that we have received from some faculty and administrators. It occurs to us that those in government who defend drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now the Philippines, or who justify wars whether in Iraq or Libya, expect to waltz comfortably through the revolving door from government back into the academy, while demanding silence concerning these crimes. We desire to break these silences in order to demand accountability and to express our outrage with the devaluation of human life that the U.S. extrajudicial killing program reflects. The Undersigned, Aman Singh Lisa Sangoi Amanda Bass Calisha Myers Dami Obaro Saif Ansari Jon Laks [1] For these reasons, the names of NYU Law student signatories have been made temporarily unavailable for public viewing. * * * On March 10, 2015, the student-organizers released the following statement: To The Members of The NYU Law Community: As the Statement of No Confidence in Harold Koh makes clear, U.S. drones have claimed thousands of lives across the globe. We reiterate the fundamental point that lies at the heart of our petition: the U.S. government’s extrajudicial killing program, for which Mr. Koh was a key legal architect and advocate, is immoral and violates the applicable international human rights and humanitarian laws governing the use of lethal force. In light of the profound human costs that the drone program has exacted, we find it regrettable that Professor Posner mischaracterizes our petition and dismisses the serious concerns raised therein. Nowhere in the petition do we argue that there are no circumstances under which drones can be lawfully deployed. Rather, we expressly state that our concern is with the U.S. drone program’s profound human costs and with its illegality under international human rights and humanitarian law. There is powerful objective evidence to which we cite in support of our critique, which Professor Posner entirely fails to address (See Posner Letter). We disagree with Professor Posner’s belief that “we need more Harold Koh’s in government, not fewer.” Rather, we believe that we need more principled people in government. We need people who will not advocate, as Mr. Koh has, the position that “[J]ustice for enemies ‘can be delivered [only] through trials. Drones can also deliver.’” We need people in government who won’t make paternalistic and Orientalist generalizations about Middle Easterners by calling the U.S. diplomatic withdrawal from the Middle East in 2001 “akin to removing adult supervision from a playground populated by warring switchblade gangs.” Koh, On American Exceptionalism, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1479, 1490-91 (2003). We need people in government who are principled enough to resign when the government it serves pursues an immoral and illegal path that jeopardizes innocent lives, rather than defend this pursuit. We need human rights lawyers in government who will refuse to sit behind a desk and make decisions based on questionable U.S. intelligence about who lives and who dies, and then compare such decisions to the law school admission process. It has not escaped our attention that Mr. Koh is regarded as one of the most respected and powerful international lawyers of our time. This does not deter us from our commitment to holding accountable members of our community who, like Mr. Koh, seem to have traded fealty to international law for a “ringside seat” at the table, at the cost of thousands of lives. The costs of remaining silent are simply too high. We live in a time when the state-sanctioned murder of black, brown and poor people within and outside of our borders is normalized. Unfortunately, even the most prominent and well-respected lawyers in the fields of international law and human rights have contributed to this normalization by shielding the architects of these policies from accountability and thereby defending the powerful against the powerless. We need to be courageous enough to say, “No more.” For these reasons, we urge students, faculty, staff, and community members to continue raising their voices to protest NYU Law’s hiring of Harold Koh as a professor of International Human Rights Law. The Undersigned, Jon Laks; Amith Gupta; Amanda Bass; Lisa Sangoi; Amandeep Singh; and Dami Obaro. * * * On April 3, 2015, the Coalition on Law and Representation (CoLR), an NYU Law student group whose mission is to push for faculty diversity within the law school, released a public letter which condemns the repression that NYU law students have been facing in connection with their support for the Statement of No Confidence in Harold Koh. Their statement is included below. Fellow Students, Greetings and Happy holidays. We write to address the recent suppression of student voices by members of the faculty. About a month ago, several of our peers wrote a statement criticizing the decision to bring Harold Koh into our NYU Law family. In the finest tradition of student engagement, our peers asked if other students would voice support, and some did. Professors quickly responded. One response was submitted publicly to the student body, and disagreed with the statement’s arguments on the merits. This response added to the public debate on hiring Harold Koh, and was exactly the kind of response that contributes to a more informed dialogue. However, this was not the only response. Dissenting students received other emails. A number of faculty members sent private email messages to every student who signed the letter of concern regarding Mr. Koh, asking them to withdraw her or his support. Some students received more than one email. Students have received emails from their current professors. Students have received emails from professors who manage programs in which those students are currently participating. Students have received emails from professors currently serving as their advisors or job references. Students have received emails from professors who head the students’ scholarship programs. Students have received emails from professors at other universities. All of these emails shared a theme: signatories, withdraw your support, and, students, you must not speak out. No voice. No loyalty. Just exit. We are troubled by the faculty’s tactics because they worked. We spoke with students who withdrew or withheld their support not because they disagreed with the statement, but because they were concerned with reprisal. At least one prominent faculty member has repeatedly denounced the petition to his class, leveraging his authority as a leader and a professor to silence the issue in exactly the environment in which it should be freely discussed. In offering this statement, we take no position on Harold Koh or his employment at NYU. We take no stand on our national security policy. We offer this statement in support of student voices. Student voices must be fostered, bolstered, and heard. We are, after all, training to be advocates. We cannot stand by while the faculty of this institution and others silence dissenting student voices. We find these actions inappropriate, and we find their chilling effect worrisome. We also think the presence of robust, structured engagement of diverse student opinion regarding potential faculty members or guests prior to their appointment would help to direct student and faculty differences through less personal channels. Fellow students, we encourage you to remain engaged, to continue sharing your affirmative or dissenting opinions. We encourage you to continue speaking. This is what our profession calls us to do. In solidarity, The CoLR Leadership Collective Recent Headlines Jimmy Chin, “Chaos Ensues After Legal Architect of Obama’s Drone Program Appointed To Teach Human Rights At NYU Law, NYU Local, 8 April 2015. Zoë Schlanger, “Controversy Swirls Around NYU Law Professor Involved in Obama’s Drone Program,” Newsweek, 7 April 2015. Mark Sologuren, “Students Protest Law School Response,” Washington Square News, 7 April 2015. Interview for Talk Nation Radio: NYU Students on Hiring a War Criminal to Teach Humanitarian Law. David Swanson, writer, activist, and radio host, interview Amanda Bass and Aman Singh. *** "The Economist Democracy in America American politics Drone strikes and international law Fallout reaches the ivory tower Apr 22nd 2015, 15:49 BY K.K. | WASHINGTON, DC ON HOT battlefields and in coolly targeted killings, America has regularly used armed drones in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and elsewhere for a decade and a half. In discussing drone strikes, it is easy to fall into abstraction. Take a speech by Harold Koh to the Oxford Union in 2013, after he'd left his position as the State Department's top lawyer: “Because drone technology is highly precise, if properly controlled, it could be more lawful and more consistent with human rights and humanitarian law than the alternatives.” High precision sounds nice—and drone strikes are indeed more precise than the bombing technologies they have displaced. But they can still miss their target. An attack near the village of Datta Khel in North Wazirstan in 2010, for example, accidentally killed 42 people. "Body parts were scattered for hundreds of yards, and had to be collected up in sacks," writes Chris Woods, a former BBC Panorama producer and investigative journalist, in his excellent new book, "Sudden Justice: America's Secret Drone Wars”. Mr Woods offers plenty of other examples of the innocent victims of drone attacks, and highlights the many ways drone pilots and sensor operators, who control Predator and Reaper drones from bases in the United States, struggle to do their jobs well and ethically. As the State Department’s legal advisor, Mr Koh was one of the principle government lawyers responsible for crafting legal theories that reconciled American policy with international law. He was reportedly responsible for reviewing the evidence implicating Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, in al-Qaeda plots, paving the way for an American drone strike that killed him and at least four other senior operatives in Yemen in 2011. Before joining Barack Obama's State Department in 2009, Mr Koh had been dean of Yale law school. He is now teaching a class on international human rights at New York University Law School. This has proven controversial. In March a group of NYU students and allied organisations wrote an open letter of no-confidence in his academic appointment, stating, “we take issue not with Mr Koh's opinions but rather with his actions—that is, his direct facilitation of the US government's extrajudicial imposition of death sentences.” The letter doesn't call for Mr Koh's sacking, but condemns his hiring (he is on a one-year appointment at NYU Law). In response, nearly a thousand of Mr Koh's supporters have written an open letter of their own praising his "unquestionable personal commitment to human rights." Yet Mr Koh's commitment to human rights can indeed be questioned. Any reasonable observer would conclude that Mr Koh's views evolved during his time at the State Department by the time he left in 2013. When he was nominated, his Yale colleague Bruce Ackerman wrote, “President Obama has selected one of the few lawyers who probed deeply into the constitutional implications of presidential unilateralism and how it might be controlled.” By 2011 Mr Ackerman characterised Mr Koh’s congressional testimony as an instance where: “top administration lawyers rubber-stamp power-grabs even when they are in blatant violation of fundamental laws.” Aside from his 2013 Oxford speech, Mr Koh has said little publicly about drone strikes since leaving the government. He didn't respond to a request for comment left early Monday, but told Newsweek, "I don't really think I should be in a position to make the case for myself when others have adequately done that." The pace of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen has fallen off substantially since its peak in Mr Obama's first term (122 strikes in Pakistan in 2010 and 47 in Yemen in 2012). There have been five strikes so far this year in Pakistan and seven in Yemen, with no verified civilian casualties in either country. Mr Koh's defenders claim he deservessubstantial credit for this drop-off. Michael Posner, an NYU business professor, who moved in parallel with Mr Koh from the State Department to the university, wrote in a letter to the "NYU law community": It is absurd and inaccurate to describe Harold as “a key legal architect of the Obama Administration’s extrajudicial killing program.” To the contrary, Harold was our government’s strongest and most effective advocate for policies rooted in the rule of law and human rights principles relating to the use of drones and other weapons of war. But Mr Posner sets up a false choice. Mr Koh could well have been the "strongest and most effective advocate" for "human rights principles relating to the use of drones" and nevertheless also have been a key legal architect of a programme that has done"structural damage to the cornerstones of international security and set precedents that undermine the protection of life across the globe in the longer term," as a UN report put it. As the NYU students pointed out in a follow-up letter: It has not escaped our attention that Mr. Koh is regarded as one of the most respected and powerful international lawyers of our time. This does not deter us from our commitment to holding accountable members of our community who, like Mr. Koh, seem to have traded fealty to international law for a “ringside seat” at the table, at the cost of thousands of lives. The students protesting Mr Koh are right to try to hold him to account for the government's actions during his time of government service. The revolving door between elite academia and the higher levels of government is defensible only insofar as the inside knowledge of former bureaucrats is used to better educate students. Mr Koh ought to be judged by more than the single issue of American drone strikes. However, that issue is an important one. A fuller public accounting of his own role would go a long way towards making the case that the compromises necessitated by government service left him not only more eminent, but also wiser. *** 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: Kar, Robin B Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 1:34 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Wasserman, Melissa F; Law * Tenured/Track Faculty; Law * Clinical Faculty; Law * Legal Writing Faculty; Law * Emeritus Faculty; Law * Library Faculty; Cook, Sally J; Mazzone, Jason; Robbennolt, Jennifer Kirkpatrick Subject: Re: Lectures, Workshops, and Moot Court Judges I don’t know everything that Francis does about Harold Koh. But I do know him personally, and worked closely under him as part of the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic. I remember him working tirelessly that year to help us get a waiver of deportation for a gay man who was being prevented from re-entry due to his HIV status—something i greatly appreciated at that time. I remember him going to sleep later than 3 am and up again by about 6 am. And he worked tirelessly on the Haitian Refugee case. He cares deeply about Muslim and Jewish lives, and about the development of international institutions sufficient to further human rights protections around the world. Those, anyway, are my strong impressions. Robin Bradley Kar Professor of Law and Philosophy University of Illinois Some Recent Scholarship Links: Contract as Empowerment The Challenge of Boilerplate The Psychological Foundations of Human Rights On May 19, 2015, at 1:05 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: Note, we have already locked in Harold Koh for the Vacketta-Piper lecture this coming year. Ode to Harold Killer Koh by Francis A. Boyle Harold Killer Koh Killing Babies Where He go Muslim life is cheap you see Jewish life too for the Nazi Carl Schmitt Professor of Law At the Yale Law School Boot-licking Gene Rostow Of the infamous Rostow Brothers Who gave us Vietnam Genociding them too Obama’s War Consigliere Gene and His “Kids” for LBJ Some things never change for the Dems And their Elite Law School Whores Today At Harvard Law too Where Killers Obama and Koh First dropped their doo With Killer “Judge” David Barron too Obama’s Droner in Chief Destined for a Cell in The Hague Right next to his student John Yoo A Chip off Harold’s Old Block Both Killers Too Harold Killer Koh teaching “human rights” at NYU Supported by his Gang of Dem Law Prof Bullies Beating up on the NYU Law students few With the courage, integrity and principles to say: Never again! Hey! Hey! LBJ! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! Obama say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! Rostow say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! Harold Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! Yale Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! Harvard Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! NYU Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! Dem Law Profs say! How many kids! Did you kill today! 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: Wasserman, Melissa F Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:46 PM To: Law * Tenured/Track Faculty; Law * Clinical Faculty; Law * Legal Writing Faculty; Law * Emeritus Faculty; Law * Library Faculty Cc: Wasserman, Melissa F; Cook, Sally J; Mazzone, Jason; Robbennolt, Jennifer Kirkpatrick Subject: Lectures, Workshops, and Moot Court Judges Dear Colleagues: This e-mail comes in my capacity as the chair of the Lectures Committee. We will soon be in the process of putting together the faculty workshops for the 2015-16 academic year. If you have any suggestions for speakers at our noon-time Thursday faculty workshop series, please pass them along by reply e-mail. It would be helpful to have a few sentences about the person and about why they might be a good person to invite (e.g., interesting current research project, working on topics or a field related to someone’s research here, a connection to Illinois, etc.). Please keep in mind, like previous years, we may be only able to invite a handful of the persons who are suggested. If you are organizing a speaker series yourself, please let me and Sally Cook know that so that we can keep track of and keep you all posted about the various series that are going on in the building. Although arrangements for your series should be made through your faculty assistant, it would be helpful if you could have that assistant let Sally know who is coming, when, and for what series. We will also be thinking about invitees for the endowed lectures for the 2016-17 academic year as well as moot court judges for the honorary moot court round that will take place in the spring of 2017. We welcome suggestions for these lectures and for moot court judges. To refresh everyone’s memory, the endowed lectures for which the committee finds speakers are: · David C. Baum Memorial Lecture on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights · Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr., Memorial Lecture on Litigation and the Legal Profession. Note, we have already locked in Harold Koh for the Vacketta-Piper lecture this coming year. More information about these endowed lectures along with a list of past speakers is available on the law school web site here:http://www.law.illinois.edu/academics/endowed-lectures. If you have ideas for either faculty workshop speakers, endowed lecturers, or moot court judges, please drop me an e-mail with your suggestions [mfwasser at illinois.edu] by next Wednesday, May 27. I will pass these suggestions along to the rest of the Lectures Committee (Jason Mazzone and Jen Robbennolt). You are welcome to copy them on your message. Best, Melissa Melissa F. Wasserman Associate Professor Richard and Anne Stockton Faculty Scholar Richard W. and Marie L. Corman Scholar University of Illinois College of Law Champaign, IL 61820 mfwasser at illinois.edu (217) 244-3960 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Jul 4 21:23:41 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 21:23:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Lectures, Workshops, and Moot Court Judges In-Reply-To: <207BD48F9061E144BB05DDC42D75036174A7FB6F@CHIMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <207BD48F9061E144BB05DDC42D75036174A7FB6F@CHIMBX5.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: Michael Moore and his wife fired-Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd have been stinking up this Law School and this entire campus for years advocating torture-as many of you know. Moore publicly admitted he works for the CIA and Mossad. Hurd was one of our 4 Deans censured and sanctioned by the American Bar Association for unethical behavior and got us fined $200,000. Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd was also up to her eyeballs in the Clout Scandal. 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: Moore, Michael Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 2:43 PM To: Wasserman, Melissa F ; Law * Tenured/Track Faculty ; Law * Clinical Faculty ; Law * Legal Writing Faculty ; Law * Emeritus Faculty ; Law * Library Faculty Cc: Cook, Sally J ; Mazzone, Jason ; Robbennolt, Jennifer Kirkpatrick Subject: RE: Lectures, Workshops, and Moot Court Judges Melissa, Jason, and Jen -- Great job so far in getting Harold Koh for the Vacketta-Piper Lecture next year. I hope you are as fortunate in filling the other lectures. Keep up the good work. Michael ________________________________ From: Wasserman, Melissa F Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 12:45 PM To: Law * Tenured/Track Faculty; Law * Clinical Faculty; Law * Legal Writing Faculty; Law * Emeritus Faculty; Law * Library Faculty Cc: Wasserman, Melissa F; Cook, Sally J; Mazzone, Jason; Robbennolt, Jennifer Kirkpatrick Subject: Lectures, Workshops, and Moot Court Judges Dear Colleagues: This e-mail comes in my capacity as the chair of the Lectures Committee. We will soon be in the process of putting together the faculty workshops for the 2015-16 academic year. If you have any suggestions for speakers at our noon-time Thursday faculty workshop series, please pass them along by reply e-mail. It would be helpful to have a few sentences about the person and about why they might be a good person to invite (e.g., interesting current research project, working on topics or a field related to someone's research here, a connection to Illinois, etc.). Please keep in mind, like previous years, we may be only able to invite a handful of the persons who are suggested. If you are organizing a speaker series yourself, please let me and Sally Cook know that so that we can keep track of and keep you all posted about the various series that are going on in the building. Although arrangements for your series should be made through your faculty assistant, it would be helpful if you could have that assistant let Sally know who is coming, when, and for what series. We will also be thinking about invitees for the endowed lectures for the 2016-17 academic year as well as moot court judges for the honorary moot court round that will take place in the spring of 2017. We welcome suggestions for these lectures and for moot court judges. To refresh everyone's memory, the endowed lectures for which the committee finds speakers are: * David C. Baum Memorial Lecture on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights * Paul M. Van Arsdell, Jr., Memorial Lecture on Litigation and the Legal Profession. Note, we have already locked in Harold Koh for the Vacketta-Piper lecture this coming year. More information about these endowed lectures along with a list of past speakers is available on the law school web site here: http://www.law.illinois.edu/academics/endowed-lectures. If you have ideas for either faculty workshop speakers, endowed lecturers, or moot court judges, please drop me an e-mail with your suggestions [mfwasser at illinois.edu] by next Wednesday, May 27. I will pass these suggestions along to the rest of the Lectures Committee (Jason Mazzone and Jen Robbennolt). You are welcome to copy them on your message. Best, Melissa Melissa F. Wasserman Associate Professor Richard and Anne Stockton Faculty Scholar Richard W. and Marie L. Corman Scholar University of Illinois College of Law Champaign, IL 61820 mfwasser at illinois.edu (217) 244-3960 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon Jul 4 22:23:16 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 22:23:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 16 Illinois Law Professors Defend Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd in University of Illinois Clout Scandal Message-ID: Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd was also the first of our Four Dean Deans in a Row who got us sanctioned by the American Bar Association for gross unethical behavior and fined $200,000--unprecedented in legal education. Upon her arrival here, she forced the entire Faculty and our Board of Visitors to sit through a 45 minute lecture by her husband Michael Moore advocating torture, then cut off any time for a response, including by me. Moore publicly admits he works for the CIA and Mossad. This Dynamic Duo have stunk up this law school and this entire campus for years advocating torture. Moore also strongly supports bringing in Harold Killer Koh to give a lecture on "human rights," "international law," and "government service." No surprise there. 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 17147970-Open-Letter-From-Some-Members-of-the-Illinois-Law-Faculty-July-2009.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 114457 bytes Desc: 17147970-Open-Letter-From-Some-Members-of-the-Illinois-Law-Faculty-July-2009.pdf URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Jul 5 16:39:05 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 16:39:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 16 Illinois Law Professors Defend Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd in University of Illinois Clout Scandal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Needless to say, Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd was condemned by the Abner Mikva Commission for the role she played in the Clout Scandal--admitting unqualified students to this College of Law as a political favor to politicians.Then came the Admissions Number Fixing Scandal where she and her 3 Dean Dean successors were condemned for gross unethical behavior by the American Bar Association and fined $200,000 just to make sure that they would wear that around their necks forever like an Albatross. Obviously they have no shame. For now the COL Faculty are inviting out Harold Killer Koh to campaign here for his Boss Clinton to become President ten days before the election. 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 5:23 PM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: 16 Illinois Law Professors Defend Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd in University of Illinois Clout Scandal Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd was also the first of our Four Dean Deans in a Row who got us sanctioned by the American Bar Association for gross unethical behavior and fined $200,000--unprecedented in legal education. Upon her arrival here, she forced the entire Faculty and our Board of Visitors to sit through a 45 minute lecture by her husband Michael Moore advocating torture, then cut off any time for a response, including by me. Moore publicly admits he works for the CIA and Mossad. This Dynamic Duo have stunk up this law school and this entire campus for years advocating torture. Moore also strongly supports bringing in Harold Killer Koh to give a lecture on "human rights," "international law," and "government service." No surprise there. 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Jul 5 20:45:47 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:45:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Correction Message-ID: The American Bar Associated censured and fined the University of Illinois College of Law $250,000. And now this Gang of Reprobates have invited into here Killer Koh to Campaign for his Boss Clinton ten days before the presidential election in violation of an Illinois Statute that expressly prohibits the use of University Resources for such partisan electoral campaign purposes. 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 160705153903_0001.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 301601 bytes Desc: 160705153903_0001.pdf URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 5 22:26:37 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:26:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: It's Official! Jill Stein and ILGP Candidates On Ballot in Illinois! In-Reply-To: <577c2e5df345f_3921aa2eb947292c@asgworker-qmb2-i-18e85de0.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> References: <577c2e5df345f_3921aa2eb947292c@asgworker-qmb2-i-18e85de0.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: <008401d1d70c$4e26a570$ea73f050$@comcast.net> At least in Illinois we will have an alternative to a Wall street bought and paid for neo-liberal war monger or a right-wing billionaire xenophobic racist. From: Jill2016 Illinois Ballot Access [mailto:nwade at greenpartychicago.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 5:02 PM To: David Johnson Subject: It's Official! Jill Stein and ILGP Candidates On Ballot in Illinois! Description: Image removed by sender. Illinois Green Party Description: Image removed by sender. jillsteinasdh7_360x_254.jpg Jill2016 On the Ballot In Illinois! David -- As of 5:00 pm CDT today it's official. You WILL be able to vote for the Greater Good in Illinois. On the ballot in Illinois for the November 8 election: Jill Stein, Green Party U.S. presidential candidate William P. Kreml, Illinois Green Party U.S. Vice-Presidential candidate Scott Summers, Illinois Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate Tim Curtin, Illinois Green Party candidate for Illinois Comptroller On June 27 we submitted more than 50,000 signatures of registered Illinois voters who want Green Democracy in Illinois. There were five business days, until 5:00 pm today, for challenges and there were none. Help us take this success and roll with it right into campaign 2016 in Illinois for Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President, and our Illinois candidates! We can't let the momentum slow down. Please donate to help us get the word out: there is another choice in Illinois! Description: Image removed by sender. donate_button.png Thank you for all you do! Nancy Wade Illinois Ballot Access Coordinator Jill2016 nwade at greenpartychicago.org 872-216-2938 http://www.ilgp.org/ Illinois Green Party · 213 S Wheaton Ave · Wheaton IL 60187 Facebook · Twitter This email was sent to davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net. To stop receiving emails, click here. Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders. Description: Image removed by sender. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2207 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 901 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 422 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jul 6 00:13:21 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 00:13:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Correction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you have a look at footnote 2 of the censure/sanction by the American Bar Association, you will see that 5 out of our last 6 Dean Deans were corrupt, and the 6th did damage control and damage limitation for the rest of them. And now this Gang of Reprobates is bringing in Killer Koh for a Day Long Campaign appearance for his Boss Clinton ten days before the presidential election with all expenses paid and a $5000 honorarium. If that is not a misuse of taxpapers' hard-earned money, I do not know what else is. But hey, this is par for the course by the Corrupt University of Illinois College of Law. Watching them in operation for all these years reminds me of growing up on the Southside of Chicago and watching the Dick Daley Machine in operation. They have all the "ethics" of alley cats. Fab ABA Member since 1977 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, July 05, 2016 3:46 PM To: C. G. Estabrook ; Peace Discuss ; Karen Aram ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Correction The American Bar Associated censured and fined the University of Illinois College of Law $250,000. And now this Gang of Reprobates have invited into here Killer Koh to Campaign for his Boss Clinton ten days before the presidential election in violation of an Illinois Statute that expressly prohibits the use of University Resources for such partisan electoral campaign purposes. 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 davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Jul 6 01:19:59 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 20:19:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] French Labor Law, Brexit, and Greek Austerity: Class War Against European Workers Message-ID: <011d01d1d724$84b73a10$8e25ae30$@comcast.net> June 29, 2016 French Labor Law, Brexit, and Greek Austerity: Class War Against European Workers Economist Richard Wolff says the old European elite believed it could fix their broken capitalism on the backs of the masses and that has proved to be a fatal mistake _____ biography Richard D. Wolff is a Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor of the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University in New York. He is the author of many books, including Democracy at Work: A Cure or Capitalism, and Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA. _____ transcript Description: French Labor Law, Brexit, and Greek Austerity: Class War Against European WorkersSHARMINI PERIES, TRNN: It's the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to you from Baltimore. Labor and student-led protests continue in Paris in opposition to labor conditions that are being rolled back in a bill that is forcing France to conform to EU demands. The bill is being voted on on Tuesday. There have been dozens of protests in France since March inciting discussions against neoliberal economics. Europeans are still [scorching] from the Brexit vote last week that throws the whole relevance of the European Union into question. Our next guest, Richard Wolff, argues that recent political realignment in Europe are the result of a working class disgruntled by the effects of capitalism. Richard Wolff is joining us now from New York, although he's just been to Europe, and France in particular. Richard is a professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and currently a visiting professor of the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University in New York. He's the author of many books, including Democracy at Work: A Cure or Capitalism, and the just-released book Capitalism's Crisis Deepens. Thank you so much for joining us, Richard. RICHARD WOLFF: Glad to be here. PERIES: I know you're preoccupied with the disgruntled working class in Europe at large, but let's discuss France first, the number of labor unions and student movements out there protesting this labor bill. Give us a sense of what's going on, and why this bill has been introduced. WOLFF: Well, it's full of ironies that are wonderful signs for what is going on, because they point so clearly. Here's the basic story. A government, voted in by the French working class, a socialist government--Mr. Hollande as the president is a socialist, and the socialists have a commanding majority in the parliament, et cetera--this socialist government, voted in on the promise of not allowing austerity in France the way it has been imposed on so many other countries, like Greece, and Spain, and so on, is now in a sense showing his true colors. He's turned completely around. Forgotten are the promises to undo austerity, and what's worse, he's pushed through a labor reform law which basically does everything that the employers in France could have dreamed for a president to do. It allows employers to fire workers more easily than they could before. It allows employers to command overtime. It allows less to be paid to workers. It is, in short, a bill that is so lopsided and so one-sided in its effects that first students and now the CGT, the most important trade union federation in France, have basically declared war on the government and on this law, and every day there are clashes in Paris, mostly now between the CGT, the unions, on the one hand, and the government. But the newspapers are filled with spectacles of helmeted police being sent by a socialist government to beat the very people that put that government into office. And if anything were more clearly a sign of the collapse of what the very word "socialism" meant, as well as the collapse of conventional politics, it's being acted out on the streets of Paris. PERIES: Now, Hollande initially initiated this bill by decree. Now, it's standing up for a vote today. What is that vote, and is it expected to pass? WOLFF: Well, it's become a very contentious issue. The reason it was originally done by Hollande as a decree was because it was quite clear that if it had been submitted to the parliament it would not have passed. Whether enough arms have been twisted, whether enough polarization has happened, whether enough under-the-table and above-the-table promises have been made to get it through, all the vote will mean is yet another maneuver, another step, in what is now a standoff between the labor movement and its supporters on the one hand, and this socialist so-called government on the other. And how that plays out now is nobody's clear call. Passing the bill, not passing the bill. This is a moment of enormous historic importance, in its way as important as the Brexit vote in Britain. PERIES: And of course, what happened just a year ago in Greece, where in spite of the referendum to not accept the terms of the bailout package, the Syriza government went ahead and did it anyway in spite of the vote and the popular vote that turned out and said, you know, we don't mind even leaving the European Union in order to maintain and stop the austerity measures on us. So this is definitely a trend that's going on across Europe. Give us a sense of the other developments that you see that contribute to this division in terms of the working classes, and the discontent and disgruntled working classes, as you say. WOLFF: Let me pick up from what you said, because it's a perfect starting point. In Greece you had a classic situation. A poor, small corner of the European economy, only freshly part of the unified Europe, is overwhelmed by the economic crisis of capitalism's dissolving itself in 2008. No one in their right mind could have blamed the Greek government or Greek policy for causing that crisis. However, in the years since 2008, the European rich countries, led by Germany, have beaten into submission the Greek people, making them pay through austerity programs, cut wages, cut government services, all of that, pay a heavy, heavy price for an economic crisis they didn't cause, and an economic crisis that had already hurt them in the private sector. But now they're going to be savaged by the Europeans in the followup as they tried to cope with this crisis. They got away with it, just as you said. Even when the Greek people clearly voted by a majority not to go down the road of austerity, it was forced on them by the French, the Germans, and by their complicity, the British, as well. That emboldened the old elites that run Europe to believe that they could do pretty much what they want. Fix their broken capitalism on the backs of the mass of people, with cut government services, cut government employment, all of the austerity programs properly, so-called, without worrying about the consequences. And that has proved to be a fatal mistake. You may have been able to run over the Greeks, but nobody missed the message. Not the Greeks, and not the French, and not the British. They could see what was being done, and they began, through their suffering since 2008 and watching this process unfold, they began to recognize that this was a capitalism in the West, at least, that was bringing them bad news. It wasn't delivering the goods. It was delivering lower wages, less secure jobs, fewer benefits, and less government help. And this is really what is going on. In the case of Britain, it's perfectly clear that the mass of people wanted to send a message to the old, established, austerity-committed government of David Cameron, that they don't want him, they don't want what he does, they don't believe in any of this. They believe that the leadership of the European Union, what is crushing Greece, et cetera, is not something they want to be part of. They feel victimized by all of that. And the Brexit vote gave them a chance to say no, we don't want it. Sure, there were racist elements and anti-immigration elements. That's part of the British political scene. Of course it's going to play its role, seeking its objectives as part of this. But the bigger story is what's happening to the working class as it begins to enter into a real historical fight. That's why the unions in France have been able to mobilize very strong popular support for their anti-government demand that workers' lives not be damaged more than they already have. And finally, here we are in the United States, where again the same scenario, in my judgment, is being played out. The old establishment that ran the Republican Party and then ran the Democratic Party for decades find itself surprised, amazed, just like Mr. Cameron in England, by what's unfolding. Mr. Trump, considered by the old establishment to be a clown, is now a presumptive leader. And on the other side, Mr. Sanders, who is expected to be a marginal 2-3 percenter, is turning out to be a massively popular leader despite calling himself a socialist. You're seeing everywhere that the traditional, old, capitalist-maintaining center-left, center-right, is dissolving. And the polarization is the new issue on the horizon. It is surprising the old elites, but that's really only a sign of how out of touch those governing elites have become as they become not only richer than everybody else, but have become basically spokespersons for those who've done real well in the last 70 years. But those are not more than 5-10 percent of the people, and everybody else is now looking in new directions for new solutions. PERIES: Richard Wolff, such a pleasure to have you on the Real News, and we look forward to ongoing analysis from you. WOLFF: My pleasure, I'd be glad to do it. PERIES: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 94006 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jul 6 02:22:13 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 02:22:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal Message-ID: [http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary_blackberry_0.jpg-2.jpg] There is Killer Koh right behind his Boss Clinton. He admitted that he gave her "legal advice" on her emails, but refuses to say what he advised her claiming "attorney-client confidences" which is a lie and he knows it. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no "attorney-client confidence" between government lawyers and government officials and that if the government official wants to establish an "attorney-client confidence" that government official needs to go out and hire his or her own lawyer. But hey, the TRUTH has never mattered to Killer Koh, Boss Clinton or the University of Illinois College of Law Faculty. That is precisely why the American Bar Association censured and fined the COL $250,000. The ABA believed that all 4 of our Dean Deans in a row were lying. So they stuck that fine on them to hang as an Albatross around their necks. These Reprobates have no shame! But maybe Killer Koh can explain it all away when he gets out here on October 28 to give his Endowed Lecture Campaign Appearance for His Boss Clinton 10 days before the election? Way to go College of Law Faculty! We'll get to hear all the Clinton/Koh lies on this and everything else straight from the Horse's Mouth! 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 45589 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jul 6 11:34:13 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:34:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As you know I have already suggested that at the October 28 Rally against Killer Koh here at the Corrupt College of Law in the north Courtyard that we have blown-up six foot high posters of some of the Women and Children that Killer Koh has Drone Murdered around the world. I would also like to suggest that we have blown up posters of this picture. It has become iconic and emblematic of the Clinton email scandal. And there is Killer Koh right behind His Boss Clinton on it to her right. Picture perfect. Just about everyone has seen this picture. And now thanks to the Corrupt UI COL Faculty, Killer Koh is coming to the C/COL just on time to elect Clinton President. Why if you want you could even run off a color copy for yourself and have Killer Koh autograph it for you in the COL Pavilion right after his Clinton Campaign Speech in the COL Auditorium where he will be introduced by our Yale Law Mafia Dean as an "expert" on "international law" and "human rights" and "government service." 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: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 9:22 PM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal [http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary_blackberry_0.jpg-2.jpg] There is Killer Koh right behind his Boss Clinton. He admitted that he gave her "legal advice" on her emails, but refuses to say what he advised her claiming "attorney-client confidences" which is a lie and he knows it. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no "attorney-client confidence" between government lawyers and government officials and that if the government official wants to establish an "attorney-client confidence" that government official needs to go out and hire his or her own lawyer. But hey, the TRUTH has never mattered to Killer Koh, Boss Clinton or the University of Illinois College of Law Faculty. That is precisely why the American Bar Association censured and fined the COL $250,000. The ABA believed that all 4 of our Dean Deans in a row were lying. So they stuck that fine on them to hang as an Albatross around their necks. These Reprobates have no shame! But maybe Killer Koh can explain it all away when he gets out here on October 28 to give his Endowed Lecture Campaign Appearance for His Boss Clinton 10 days before the election? Way to go College of Law Faculty! We'll get to hear all the Clinton/Koh lies on this and everything else straight from the Horse's Mouth! 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 45589 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jul 6 11:46:12 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:46:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Law--Give him an offer he can't refuse! Message-ID: The Northwestern Law Faculty are no longer fit to educate Lawyers, Members of the Bar, and Officers of the Court. I am certain that the Faculty Reprobates at the Corrupt COL will give Killer Koh standing ovations too. RIP: University of Illinois College of Law (Died: October 28, 2016). Fab The Northwestern Law: Give him an offer he can't refuse! | Print | Monday, 12 March 2012 11:54 [http://mwcnews.net/images/comprofiler/tn582_4bb792b2294ad.jpg] By Francis Boyle Comments [Reagan's Attorney General Edmund Meese]Illinois Law: Boyle, a specialist in international law, said Meese should be allowed to speak, but not as the university's guest to honor the Constitution. Back in early 1987 the ex-Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law (we later got canned-note that Dean Rodriguez) publicly announced that the Keynote Speaker at our Campus Celebration of the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution would be Reagan's Attorney General Edmund Meese in order "to honor" the Constitution. As I immediately told the news media at that time, this would be like asking Attila the Hun to speak "in honor" of Virginity. Meese repeatedly raped the Constitution for Reagan. So we immediately organized a Citizen's Protest right outside where Meese was speaking entitled "We The People." The University Administration threatened to shut us down. I drafted both Federal and State TROs to stop it, coordinated them with a US Federal Judge and a State Judge beforehand, and then informed the University General Counsel that we would seek immediate TROs to stop them from shutting us down. The University Police told us that if Meese's Secret Service (SS) entourage told them to shoot us, they would shoot us. We went on with our event anyway. The figure was a lot more than the 200 listed below-always an undercount by the MSM. The Street was overflowing with Protestors. And for speakers we brought in Representatives of all of the Poor, the Oppressed and the Downtrodden who had been persecuted by Reagan and Meese et al. And what did the Northwestern Law Faculty do when it was announced several days beforehand that Holder was going to desecrate, defile and debase the Constitution and use their Law School as a Prop to do so by justifying the murder of United States Citizens? Zip. Zero. Nothing. Nada. Diddly-squat. The gutless wonders of the Northwestern Law Faculty stood by and watched Holder rape the Constitution and Northwestern Law School in their presence. They have no Guts and no Principles. Northwestern Law School died that day. And what is the difference between Holder/Obama and Meese/Reagan? Even Meese/Reagan never claimed any bogus "right" to murder U.S. Citizens for any reason, and to the best of my knowledge they did not murder U.S. Citizens-though they murdered a lot of foreigners. Whereas Holder/Obama have now murdered at least 3 U.S. Citizens that we are aware of-and counting. From the perspective of the US Constitution, Holder/Obama are far worse and more dangerous than Meese/Reagan. The Northwestern Law Faculty are no longer fit to educate Lawyers, Members of the Bar, and Officers of the Court. RIP: Northwestern Law School (died 2012) ________________________________ View the discussion thread. blog comments powered by Disqus back to top Subscribe via RSS or Email: Top of Form Bottom of Form < Prev Next > [x] close 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, July 05, 2016 9:22 PM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal [http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary_blackberry_0.jpg-2.jpg] There is Killer Koh right behind his Boss Clinton. He admitted that he gave her "legal advice" on her emails, but refuses to say what he advised her claiming "attorney-client confidences" which is a lie and he knows it. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no "attorney-client confidence" between government lawyers and government officials and that if the government official wants to establish an "attorney-client confidence" that government official needs to go out and hire his or her own lawyer. But hey, the TRUTH has never mattered to Killer Koh, Boss Clinton or the University of Illinois College of Law Faculty. That is precisely why the American Bar Association censured and fined the COL $250,000. The ABA believed that all 4 of our Dean Deans in a row were lying. So they stuck that fine on them to hang as an Albatross around their necks. These Reprobates have no shame! But maybe Killer Koh can explain it all away when he gets out here on October 28 to give his Endowed Lecture Campaign Appearance for His Boss Clinton 10 days before the election? Way to go College of Law Faculty! We'll get to hear all the Clinton/Koh lies on this and everything else straight from the Horse's Mouth! 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 45589 bytes Desc: image006.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2502 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17115 bytes Desc: image005.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jul 6 12:39:53 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:39:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois Law--Give him an offer he can't refuse! Message-ID: As of now Killer Koh et al have drone murdered 5 US citizens, including 1 US Child. Mr Awlaki's 16 year old son. According to the Intercept articles, their CIA source said he was targeted on purpose. As an Obama press person said, he had the misfortune of choosing the wrong father. That's the type of cold-hearted, cold-blooded, stone cold killer and murderer the Corrupt College of Law Reprobate Faculty have invited in here on October 28. The COL Faculty are no longer fit to educate Lawyers, Members of the Bar and Officers of the Court. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Lawyer Member of the Bar Officer of the Court 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, July 06, 2016 6:46 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Illinois Law--Give him an offer he can't refuse! The Northwestern Law Faculty are no longer fit to educate Lawyers, Members of the Bar, and Officers of the Court. I am certain that the Faculty Reprobates at the Corrupt COL will give Killer Koh standing ovations too. RIP: University of Illinois College of Law (Died: October 28, 2016). Fab The Northwestern Law: Give him an offer he can't refuse! | Print | Monday, 12 March 2012 11:54 [http://mwcnews.net/images/comprofiler/tn582_4bb792b2294ad.jpg] By Francis Boyle Comments [Reagan's Attorney General Edmund Meese]Illinois Law: Boyle, a specialist in international law, said Meese should be allowed to speak, but not as the university's guest to honor the Constitution. Back in early 1987 the ex-Dean of the University of Illinois College of Law (we later got canned-note that Dean Rodriguez) publicly announced that the Keynote Speaker at our Campus Celebration of the 200th anniversary of the United States Constitution would be Reagan's Attorney General Edmund Meese in order "to honor" the Constitution. As I immediately told the news media at that time, this would be like asking Attila the Hun to speak "in honor" of Virginity. Meese repeatedly raped the Constitution for Reagan. So we immediately organized a Citizen's Protest right outside where Meese was speaking entitled "We The People." The University Administration threatened to shut us down. I drafted both Federal and State TROs to stop it, coordinated them with a US Federal Judge and a State Judge beforehand, and then informed the University General Counsel that we would seek immediate TROs to stop them from shutting us down. The University Police told us that if Meese's Secret Service (SS) entourage told them to shoot us, they would shoot us. We went on with our event anyway. The figure was a lot more than the 200 listed below-always an undercount by the MSM. The Street was overflowing with Protestors. And for speakers we brought in Representatives of all of the Poor, the Oppressed and the Downtrodden who had been persecuted by Reagan and Meese et al. And what did the Northwestern Law Faculty do when it was announced several days beforehand that Holder was going to desecrate, defile and debase the Constitution and use their Law School as a Prop to do so by justifying the murder of United States Citizens? Zip. Zero. Nothing. Nada. Diddly-squat. The gutless wonders of the Northwestern Law Faculty stood by and watched Holder rape the Constitution and Northwestern Law School in their presence. They have no Guts and no Principles. Northwestern Law School died that day. And what is the difference between Holder/Obama and Meese/Reagan? Even Meese/Reagan never claimed any bogus "right" to murder U.S. Citizens for any reason, and to the best of my knowledge they did not murder U.S. Citizens-though they murdered a lot of foreigners. Whereas Holder/Obama have now murdered at least 3 U.S. Citizens that we are aware of-and counting. From the perspective of the US Constitution, Holder/Obama are far worse and more dangerous than Meese/Reagan. The Northwestern Law Faculty are no longer fit to educate Lawyers, Members of the Bar, and Officers of the Court. RIP: Northwestern Law School (died 2012) ________________________________ View the discussion thread. blog comments powered by Disqus back to top Subscribe via RSS or Email: Top of Form Bottom of Form < Prev Next > [x] close 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, July 05, 2016 9:22 PM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'David Green' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Stuart Levy' >; 'Karen Medina' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' >; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal [http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary_blackberry_0.jpg-2.jpg] There is Killer Koh right behind his Boss Clinton. He admitted that he gave her "legal advice" on her emails, but refuses to say what he advised her claiming "attorney-client confidences" which is a lie and he knows it. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no "attorney-client confidence" between government lawyers and government officials and that if the government official wants to establish an "attorney-client confidence" that government official needs to go out and hire his or her own lawyer. But hey, the TRUTH has never mattered to Killer Koh, Boss Clinton or the University of Illinois College of Law Faculty. That is precisely why the American Bar Association censured and fined the COL $250,000. The ABA believed that all 4 of our Dean Deans in a row were lying. So they stuck that fine on them to hang as an Albatross around their necks. These Reprobates have no shame! But maybe Killer Koh can explain it all away when he gets out here on October 28 to give his Endowed Lecture Campaign Appearance for His Boss Clinton 10 days before the election? Way to go College of Law Faculty! We'll get to hear all the Clinton/Koh lies on this and everything else straight from the Horse's Mouth! 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2502 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17115 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 45589 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 6 13:45:13 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:45:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chilcot Report Message-ID: The British Chilcot report, seven years in the making, confirms what most of us already knew, that the Iraq war was based on a lie, it was predetermined and that regime change and wars in seven nations were also planned. Here we are how many years later? How many million lives lost, nations destroyed, and it continues......the refugees, the terrorism, the militarism, what we see today is a result of our wars. Even though the Chilcot report confirms, that which, some of us have been saying. Its too little, too late, and doesn't allow for prosecution of war criminal Tony Blair. Here in the US....... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 6 13:45:13 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:45:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chilcot Report Message-ID: The British Chilcot report, seven years in the making, confirms what most of us already knew, that the Iraq war was based on a lie, it was predetermined and that regime change and wars in seven nations were also planned. Here we are how many years later? How many million lives lost, nations destroyed, and it continues......the refugees, the terrorism, the militarism, what we see today is a result of our wars. Even though the Chilcot report confirms, that which, some of us have been saying. Its too little, too late, and doesn't allow for prosecution of war criminal Tony Blair. Here in the US....... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jul 6 14:30:32 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:30:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "AWARE On The Air - Episode #369" In-Reply-To: <001a11448a14fed1a305366932a8@google.com> References: <001a11448a14fed1a305366932a8@google.com> Message-ID: I would greatly appreciate it if you would all be so kind as to get our interview into circulation around CU. Thanks. 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: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:39 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "AWARE On The Air - Episode #369" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FdwkRLuRaNk/mqdefault.jpg] AWARE On The Air - Episode #369 by UPTV6 Help center • Report spam ©2016 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jul 6 14:40:46 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:40:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Francis Boyle sent you a video: "AWARE On The Air - Episode #369" References: <001a11448a14fed1a305366932a8@google.com> Message-ID: And if someone could make sure all the returning students get the interview, I would appreciate 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: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 9:31 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: FW: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "AWARE On The Air - Episode #369" I would greatly appreciate it if you would all be so kind as to get our interview into circulation around CU. Thanks. 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: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 6:39 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "AWARE On The Air - Episode #369" [http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FdwkRLuRaNk/mqdefault.jpg] AWARE On The Air - Episode #369 by UPTV6 Help center • Report spam ©2016 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rachelstrm at gmail.com Wed Jul 6 15:39:15 2016 From: rachelstrm at gmail.com (Rachel Storm) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:39:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: July Immigration Forum: C-U Friends Assisting Immigrants and Refugees (FAIR) In-Reply-To: <3E0384B903160A49988301D58A5B7566B7302B64@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <3E0384B903160A49988301D58A5B7566B7302B64@chimbx2.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Szoke, Claire O Date: Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM Subject: July Immigration Forum: C-U Friends Assisting Immigrants and Refugees (FAIR) To: "socialaction at uucuc.org" , "Pamela Van Wyk ( pcvw811 at gmail.com)" , "Jean Peters (jeangpeters at gmail.com)" *July Immigration Forum: C-U Friends Assisting Immigrants and Refugees (FAIR)* Tuesday, July 12 at 5:00pm Location: University YMCA (Board Room, upstairs on the 2nd floor) 1001 S. Wright Street, Champaign, IL In response to Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner's November 2015 announcement to refuse the resettlement of Syrian Refugees in Illinois, C-U FAIR formed with a strong commitment to continue making our community a welcoming place for existing and new refugees and other immigrants. C-U Friends Assisting Immigrants and Refugees is a local community group of comprised of representatives from multiple faith communities and non-profit agencies. At the July Forum, we will learn more about the work of C-U FAIR to support East Central Illinois Mutual Refugee Assistance Center (ECIRMAC) in the coordination of refugee resettlement services and in supporting immigrant families in Champaign County. Join us for a discussion at the end of the presentation on how CU Immigration Forum and C-U FAIR may collaborate in making Champaign County a more welcoming place for Immigrants. Some parking available in University Y parking lot after 5. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Social Action Committee" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to socialaction+unsubscribe at uucuc.org. To post to this group, send email to socialaction at uucuc.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/uucuc.org/group/socialaction/. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/uucuc.org/d/optout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Jul 6 16:03:09 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilcot Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <639226443.2690135.1467820989072.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> And of course Tony Blair and our own leaders damn well knew that they were lying their way to war. It's not as if we needed a smoking gun, so to speak.  On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 8:46 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: The British Chilcot report, seven years in the making, confirms what most of us already knew, that the Iraq war was based on a lie, it was predetermined and that regime change and wars in seven nations were also planned. Here we are how many years later? How many million lives lost, nations destroyed, and it continues......the refugees, the terrorism, the militarism, what we see today is a result of our wars. Even though the Chilcot report confirms, that which, some of us have been saying. Its too little, too late, and doesn't allow for prosecution of war criminal Tony Blair. Here in the US....... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 6 16:25:30 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 11:25:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWS_OPugC-o&index=4&list=UUmBGzD97keBfCjV80jShRQQ News from Neptune for 1 July 2016 - a TRUMPING BREXIT edition - a Chomskyan take on the news from Urbana (IL) Public TV {Introduction} Good evening, & welcome to News from Neptune for the 26th week of 2016. I’m Carl Estabrook. For a quarter century this program has been a weekly hour of spontaneous & unrehearsed discussion of the news of the week and its coverage by the media - first, on a so-called community radio station. But I was ‘no-platformed’ there. (‘no-platforming’ is a recent coinage in the university and media. It means depriving someone of a place to speak because of what they’re saying.) I appreciate the chance to come to you now via Urbana Public Television, and YouTube. Our program’s name, News from Neptune, comes from Noam Chomsky, who’s been writing sensible things about U.S. politics for MORE THAN half a century. Chomsky says that in the U.S. media, “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from neptune.” Tonight David Green, Ron Szoke and I will try to say some true things. =========================================================== It's July 1, in a week in which Britain voted to leave the EU - a Brexit (British exit). "...the vote to leave [was a] defeat of an attempt to rule 500 million people with what amounted to a capitalist dictatorship [of the EU troika - the European Commission (EC), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)], that was anti union and anti working class [as Greece demonstrated]. [The Brexit vote] was a victory for democracy and equality in Europe, and a rare blow, struck by ordinary people, without any very strong leadership, against the very powerful global forces of international supranational capitalism, against all the odds..." [Gregory Motton] The vote in Britain to Leave the EU is a matter of class politics, but since the position of the USG and media is that class politics don’t exist - the vote has to be turned into a matter of identity politics - a result of British racism vs. immigrants - the now standard move from class politics to identity politics - on the soi-disant Left as well as the Right - is affirmed. The neoliberal Labour party took the occasion of the Leave vote to stage a coup against its social democrat leader, Jeremy Corbyn (a coup similar in some ways to that against President Dilma Rousseff in Brazil). Once again we have an illustration of how ‘liberal’ and ‘left’ are not gradations of one another but actively opposed. Corbyn is on the left - as are the people who elected him - and what we would call liberals in the Labour party (‘Blairites’) are trying to bring him down, not as they say because he might loose the next UK election but because he might win it, giving the UK a socialist government for the first time since they defeated Winston Chruchill (a racist warmonger) after WWII. The Left should oppose the EU - and therefore support Brexit - for the same reason it opposes the trade pacts TPP and TTIP: they are anti-democratic, neoliberal institutions. The following is from Richard Tuck, in Dissent. ====================== "...the British left risks throwing away the one institution which it has, historically, been able to use effectively—the democratic state—in favor of a constitutional order tailor-made for the interests of global capitalism and managerial politics [the EU]… "The early members of the Labour Party in England (who were more Marxist than their successors cared to admit) understood this, and believed that a properly organized working class, using representation in the House of Commons as its vehicle, could institute radical economic and social change. And compared with the life of the working class in the nineteenth century, working-class life after the growth of Labour vindicated their confidence. Indeed, the greatest achievement of the Labour Party, the creation of the National Health Service, would have been impossible in a country with strong constitutional constraints on the legislature, since it required the large-scale expropriation of private property in the shape of the old endowed hospitals. That is a major reason why so few countries have adopted the NHS model: in most of them it would have been illegal, just as similar proposals would be illegal in the EU today. "In the 1980s, however, demoralized Labour politicians began to seek the shelter of continental-style constitutional structures. The most important of these was the EU, which functions as a set of constraints on the internal politics of its member states exactly as did the bourgeois constitutions of the mid-nineteenth century..." ====================================================== It’s important to see that that popular forces behind the Leave vote in the UK are quite similar to those behind the Sanders and Trump campaigns in the US. And the Neoliberal and Neocon political establishment, Republican and Democrat alike, is doing all it can, by foul means and fair, to stop that popular democratic uprising. In this situation, here’s the outline of the speech Bernie Sanders should give at the Democratic convention; there are three points: (1.) “Hillary Clinton represents the neoliberal and neoconservative policies that I [Bernie Sanders] have attacked throughout the campaign (and conversely): I cannot support those policies or her candidacy.” (2.) “I urge those who’ve supported me to oppose her nomination in this convention - and, in the event that she is nominated, to defeat her candidacy in the general election.” (3.) “To that end, I am seeking the most effective form of opposition - whether via a third party such as the Greens or by means of coming to agreement with the Trump campaign, which has declared its opposition to neoliberalism and neoconservatism - to the pro-war and pro-trade pact policies of the Clinton campaign.” Trump broke with the neocons by rejecting the Obama administration's wars in the Mideast and its provocations of Russia. (The neocons immediately deserted the Republican party and scurried to the pro-war Clinton campaign.) Trump is now breaking with the neoliberals, who are also abandoning the Republicans for the pro-Wall St., pro-trade pact Democrats. "The rift ... deepened Thursday when Trump called out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by name for the second straight day and pilloried the North American Free Trade Agreement and the ­Trans-Pacific Partnership, two landmark trade agreements broadly supported by the GOP." [WaPo] YOU’RE WATCHING NFN, A ‘TRUMPING BREXIT’ EDITION: https://archive.org/details/News_From_Neptune_-_Episode_306 ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 6 16:52:38 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 16:52:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Chilcot Report In-Reply-To: <639226443.2690135.1467820989072.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: , <639226443.2690135.1467820989072.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Exactly, but now after all the damage done, comes the report from the UK, confirming that they knew exactly what the outcome would be......this is why we have to keep on talking, whether on the program, at the market, at the demo's, on this list, FB etc. in hopes of preventing further carnage. In hopes that maybe someone will listen, in hopes that the American people will say "enough is enough". Where is the US Chilcot report? We're about to elect Hilary, an assistant to all the crimes, a perpetrator to some. Where is the justice? These people have no shame. ________________________________ From: David Green Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 11:03:09 AM To: Karen Aram; peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace] Chilcot Report And of course Tony Blair and our own leaders damn well knew that they were lying their way to war. It's not as if we needed a smoking gun, so to speak. On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 8:46 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: The British Chilcot report, seven years in the making, confirms what most of us already knew, that the Iraq war was based on a lie, it was predetermined and that regime change and wars in seven nations were also planned. Here we are how many years later? How many million lives lost, nations destroyed, and it continues......the refugees, the terrorism, the militarism, what we see today is a result of our wars. Even though the Chilcot report confirms, that which, some of us have been saying. Its too little, too late, and doesn't allow for prosecution of war criminal Tony Blair. Here in the US....... _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 6 18:12:32 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:12:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air for July 5 (#370) CORRECTION In-Reply-To: References: <33E96E7D-348A-4440-9986-269D6C990A8C@newsfromneptune.com> <32ACB17D-37F1-4628-8414-DF295C3BB542@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: AWARE on the Air for July 5 (#370): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAsjuWYePXY > On Jul 6, 2016, at 11:37 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdwkRLuRaNk > 'AWARE on the Air' is an unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. > > Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort” of Champaign-Urbana. > > Episode #370 was recorded at noon on Tuesday 5 July in the studios of Urbana Public Television for cablecast Tuesday at 10pm & on demand on YouTube. > > The panel included Karen Aram, Ron Szoke, & Ваш покорный слуга. > > ### > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 6 19:32:25 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:32:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin Message-ID: "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a "last resort". ... Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq's infrastructure and society. The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism - as the report makes clear - that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. Sunday's suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jul 6 19:32:25 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:32:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin Message-ID: "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a "last resort". ... Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq's infrastructure and society. The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism - as the report makes clear - that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. Sunday's suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Wed Jul 6 20:35:14 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:35:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was > the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British > government in modern times. > > It divided this House and set the government of the day against a > majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global > opinion. > > The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. > > ... > > Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false > pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal > by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. > > It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the > displacement of millions of refugees. > > It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. > > The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes > clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security > at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. > > Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, > the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in > the aftermath of the invasion. > > By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many > a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Jul 6 20:35:14 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 15:35:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was > the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British > government in modern times. > > It divided this House and set the government of the day against a > majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global > opinion. > > The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. > > ... > > Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false > pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal > by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. > > It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the > displacement of millions of refugees. > > It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. > > The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes > clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security > at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. > > Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, > the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in > the aftermath of the invasion. > > By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many > a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 7 01:25:23 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:25:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: KPFA | Community Powered Radio Message-ID: Ditto for Harold Killer Koh. He admitted that he advised His Boss Clinton on the handling of her emails. Way to go Corrupt Illinois College of Law Faculty! Let's have Killer Koh in here ten days before the presidential election to whitewash and sanitize His Boss Clinton's Criminality. Yale Law Mafia Dean and War Criminal Gene Rostow would be proud of you all! 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 8:20 PM To: Killeacle Subject: KPFA | Community Powered Radio https://kpfa.org/ Election ... The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays - July 6, 2016 | KPFA https://kpfa.org/episode/the-pacifica-evening-news-weekdays-july-6-2016/ KPFA 8 mins ago - Today on Flashpoints: Noted legal scholar, author and law professor, Francis Boyle, makes the case for the indictment of Hilary Clinton. From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 01:49:02 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:49:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. ________________________________ From: Stuart Levy Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss Cc: Stuart Levy Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a "last resort". ... Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq's infrastructure and society. The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism - as the report makes clear - that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. Sunday's suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 7 01:49:02 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 01:49:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. ________________________________ From: Stuart Levy Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss Cc: Stuart Levy Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a "last resort". ... Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq's infrastructure and society. The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism - as the report makes clear - that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. Sunday's suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 7 02:11:27 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 21:11:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. > On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? > Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. > > > From: Stuart Levy > > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM > To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss > Cc: Stuart Levy > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin > > Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. > > On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. >> It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. >> The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. >> ... >> Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. >> It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. >> It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. >> The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. >> Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. >> By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Jul 7 02:11:27 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 21:11:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. > On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? > Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. > > > From: Stuart Levy > > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM > To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss > Cc: Stuart Levy > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin > > Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. > > On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. >> It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. >> The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. >> ... >> Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. >> It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. >> It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. >> The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. >> Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. >> By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Jul 7 03:01:29 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:01:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> References: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> But so long as the issue can be seen as Trump’s 'fascism,’ Hillary’s bankers and bombers needn’t worry - or care that Trump criticizes them. > On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. > > Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. > > >> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? >> Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. >> >> >> From: Stuart Levy > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM >> To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss >> Cc: Stuart Levy >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin >> >> Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. >> >> On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. >>> It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. >>> The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. >>> ... >>> Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. >>> It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. >>> It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. >>> The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. >>> Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. >>> By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Thu Jul 7 03:01:29 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:01:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> References: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> But so long as the issue can be seen as Trump’s 'fascism,’ Hillary’s bankers and bombers needn’t worry - or care that Trump criticizes them. > On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. > > Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. > > >> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? >> Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. >> >> >> From: Stuart Levy > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM >> To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss >> Cc: Stuart Levy >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin >> >> Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. >> >> On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. >>> It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. >>> The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. >>> ... >>> Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. >>> It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. >>> It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. >>> The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. >>> Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. >>> By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 03:35:44 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 03:35:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> References: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu>, <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: What does Trump have to do with anything, other than to ensure Hillary is elected? His making statements that support some of what we have been saying, is the work of a very, smart political strategist, to discredit what the left has to say. The average American/neoliberal sees Trump as the greatest evil. His ensuring Hillary is elected is indeed evil, as she is a murderer he isn't. The Chilcot report should be a wake up call to Americans that at least the Brits, now have confirmation of what many knew that many years ago, while we, the US, continue to bomb and destroy. Hillary was a participant in all of this dating back to her support for the invasion of Iraq, and later as Secretary of State, the destruction of Libya, regime change in Honduras, etc., along with others in the Obama administration. The need is to concentrate on building a third party that doesn't support regime change, intervention, killing and destruction, the Green Party meets that criteria. That, along with speaking out about the impending wars, with US provocations in the S. China Sea, on the border of Nato, and almost everywhere else across Eurasia, by way of proxies. We do that all the time, is anyone listening? The average American only hears or sees the awful things that Trump says in respect to immigrants, people of color, women, etc. So if his supporters outnumber Hillary, he may get elected, but that is not progress, and as to his foreign policy, that stays the same as it always has under any regime, Democrat or Republican, so anyone can say anything and it means nothing, it's their owners, who have the power, . ________________________________ From: Carl G. Estabrook Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:01 PM To: C. G. ESTABROOK Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin But so long as the issue can be seen as Trump’s 'fascism,’ Hillary’s bankers and bombers needn’t worry - or care that Trump criticizes them. On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. ________________________________ From: Stuart Levy > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss Cc: Stuart Levy Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. ... Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 03:35:44 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 03:35:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> References: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu>, <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: What does Trump have to do with anything, other than to ensure Hillary is elected? His making statements that support some of what we have been saying, is the work of a very, smart political strategist, to discredit what the left has to say. The average American/neoliberal sees Trump as the greatest evil. His ensuring Hillary is elected is indeed evil, as she is a murderer he isn't. The Chilcot report should be a wake up call to Americans that at least the Brits, now have confirmation of what many knew that many years ago, while we, the US, continue to bomb and destroy. Hillary was a participant in all of this dating back to her support for the invasion of Iraq, and later as Secretary of State, the destruction of Libya, regime change in Honduras, etc., along with others in the Obama administration. The need is to concentrate on building a third party that doesn't support regime change, intervention, killing and destruction, the Green Party meets that criteria. That, along with speaking out about the impending wars, with US provocations in the S. China Sea, on the border of Nato, and almost everywhere else across Eurasia, by way of proxies. We do that all the time, is anyone listening? The average American only hears or sees the awful things that Trump says in respect to immigrants, people of color, women, etc. So if his supporters outnumber Hillary, he may get elected, but that is not progress, and as to his foreign policy, that stays the same as it always has under any regime, Democrat or Republican, so anyone can say anything and it means nothing, it's their owners, who have the power, . ________________________________ From: Carl G. Estabrook Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:01 PM To: C. G. ESTABROOK Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin But so long as the issue can be seen as Trump’s 'fascism,’ Hillary’s bankers and bombers needn’t worry - or care that Trump criticizes them. On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. ________________________________ From: Stuart Levy > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss Cc: Stuart Levy Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. ... Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. _______________________________________________ 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 galliher at illinois.edu Thu Jul 7 03:57:41 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <28EB5B40-F77F-4D86-90FC-4DABEC42CEE9@illinois.edu> The task is to expose what Clinton will do as president (just what Bush did and Obama is doing) and defeating it (and her). But the Democrats can avoid talking about what she will do by directing popular attention to Trump’s 'fascism.’ If Bernie’s usefulness as Hillary’s sheepdog is over, Donald can be groomed for the role. (If not the sheepdog, then the wolf - to scare the sheep back into the fold.) > On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > What does Trump have to do with anything, other than to ensure Hillary is elected? His making statements that support some of what we have been saying, is the work of a very, smart political strategist, to discredit what the left has to say. The average American/neoliberal sees Trump as the greatest evil. His ensuring Hillary is elected is indeed evil, as she is a murderer he isn't. > > The Chilcot report should be a wake up call to Americans that at least the Brits, now have confirmation of what many knew that many years ago, while we, the US, continue to bomb and destroy. Hillary was a participant in all of this dating back to her support for the invasion of Iraq, and later as Secretary of State, the destruction of Libya, regime change in Honduras, etc., along with others in the Obama administration. > > The need is to concentrate on building a third party that doesn't support regime change, intervention, killing and destruction, the Green Party meets that criteria. That, along with speaking out about the impending wars, with US provocations in the S. China Sea, on the border of Nato, and almost everywhere else across Eurasia, by way of proxies. We do that all the time, is anyone listening? > > The average American only hears or sees the awful things that Trump says in respect to immigrants, people of color, women, etc. So if his supporters outnumber Hillary, he may get elected, but that is not progress, and as to his foreign policy, that stays the same as it always has under any regime, Democrat or Republican, so anyone can say anything and it means nothing, it's their owners, who have the power, . > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:01 PM > To: C. G. ESTABROOK > Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin > > But so long as the issue can be seen as Trump’s 'fascism,’ Hillary’s bankers and bombers needn’t worry - or care that Trump criticizes them. > > >> On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. >> >> Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. >> >> >>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? >>> Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. >>> >>> >>> From: Stuart Levy > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM >>> To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss >>> Cc: Stuart Levy >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin >>> >>> Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. >>> >>> On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. >>>> It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. >>>> The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. >>>> ... >>>> Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. >>>> It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. >>>> It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. >>>> The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. >>>> Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. >>>> By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Thu Jul 7 03:57:41 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 22:57:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin In-Reply-To: References: <45CF037E-2C26-492C-A216-D8996851E198@illinois.edu> <932DF5D6-CCBA-4884-BD03-438C26101B8B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <28EB5B40-F77F-4D86-90FC-4DABEC42CEE9@illinois.edu> The task is to expose what Clinton will do as president (just what Bush did and Obama is doing) and defeating it (and her). But the Democrats can avoid talking about what she will do by directing popular attention to Trump’s 'fascism.’ If Bernie’s usefulness as Hillary’s sheepdog is over, Donald can be groomed for the role. (If not the sheepdog, then the wolf - to scare the sheep back into the fold.) > On Jul 6, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > What does Trump have to do with anything, other than to ensure Hillary is elected? His making statements that support some of what we have been saying, is the work of a very, smart political strategist, to discredit what the left has to say. The average American/neoliberal sees Trump as the greatest evil. His ensuring Hillary is elected is indeed evil, as she is a murderer he isn't. > > The Chilcot report should be a wake up call to Americans that at least the Brits, now have confirmation of what many knew that many years ago, while we, the US, continue to bomb and destroy. Hillary was a participant in all of this dating back to her support for the invasion of Iraq, and later as Secretary of State, the destruction of Libya, regime change in Honduras, etc., along with others in the Obama administration. > > The need is to concentrate on building a third party that doesn't support regime change, intervention, killing and destruction, the Green Party meets that criteria. That, along with speaking out about the impending wars, with US provocations in the S. China Sea, on the border of Nato, and almost everywhere else across Eurasia, by way of proxies. We do that all the time, is anyone listening? > > The average American only hears or sees the awful things that Trump says in respect to immigrants, people of color, women, etc. So if his supporters outnumber Hillary, he may get elected, but that is not progress, and as to his foreign policy, that stays the same as it always has under any regime, Democrat or Republican, so anyone can say anything and it means nothing, it's their owners, who have the power, . > > > From: Carl G. Estabrook > > Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 10:01 PM > To: C. G. ESTABROOK > Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin > > But so long as the issue can be seen as Trump’s 'fascism,’ Hillary’s bankers and bombers needn’t worry - or care that Trump criticizes them. > > >> On Jul 6, 2016, at 9:11 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> The question now is less what the Bushes pere et fils did, but what Obama and Clinton are doing and will do. >> >> Let the dead bury their dead … what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge. >> >> >>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:49 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Stuart. The question for Americans to ask, is when will we have our "Chilcot" report, flawed though it is, seven years that it took to complete, too little, too late? >>> Instead we are on the edge of allowing, by way of "democratic elections" many of those who should be prosecuted, to continue in power. >>> >>> >>> From: Stuart Levy > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 3:35 PM >>> To: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss >>> Cc: Stuart Levy >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Excellent critique of the Chilcot Report, by Jeremy Corbin >>> >>> Excellent - and terribly sad. But good for Corbyn for speaking out. And thanks, Karen, for forwarding this. >>> >>> On 7/6/16 2:32 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> "Mr Speaker, the decision to invade and occupy Iraq in March 2003 was the most significant foreign policy decision taken by a British government in modern times. >>>> It divided this House and set the government of the day against a majority of the British people as well as against the weight of global opinion. >>>> The war was not in any way as Sir John Chilcot says a “last resort”. >>>> ... >>>> Frankly, it was an act of military aggression launched on a false pretext as the inquiry accepts and has long been regarded as illegal by the overwhelming weight of international legal opinion. >>>> It led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions of refugees. >>>> It devastated Iraq’s infrastructure and society. >>>> The occupation fostered a lethal sectarianism – as the report makes clear – that turned into a civil war. Instead of protecting security at home or abroad, the war fuelled and spread terrorism across the region. >>>> Sunday’s suicide bomb attack in Baghdad which killed over 250 people, the deadliest so far, was carried out by a group whose origins lie in the aftermath of the invasion. >>>> By any measure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been for many a catastrophe." Jeremy Corbyn today, in the House of Commons. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Thu Jul 7 13:33:27 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 13:33:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] AoTA & NfN in NG References: <1027848289.3350797.1467898407763.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1027848289.3350797.1467898407763.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/2016-07-07/obama-continues-killings-us.html http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/2016-07-07/criticism-wars-unfair-veterans.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jul 7 14:51:45 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 09:51:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AoTA & NfN in NG In-Reply-To: <1027848289.3350797.1467898407763.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1027848289.3350797.1467898407763.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1027848289.3350797.1467898407763.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <798744B3-8C8B-41F4-A2B8-2A7334854F7A@newsfromneptune.com> > On Jul 7, 2016, at 8:33 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/2016-07-07/obama-continues-killings-us.html > > http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/letters-editor/2016-07-07/criticism-wars-unfair-veterans.html [Here are two regime-friendly accounts of the Obama administration's ongoing war in MENA (Mideast and North Africa), from the Council of Foreign Relations and Vox. Obama is the first president - ever - to carry on war throughout two terms. He was elected twice as the anti-war candidate (against McCain and Romney). We were the more deceived. His task - successfully completed - has been to mollify and distract Americans, who have a natural inclination not to kill people around the world. But war protects the worldwide hegemony of the US economic elite. Obama's been their good and faithful servant, and Clinton will be as good.] Obama Will Maintain Troops in Afghanistan Through End of Term U.S. President Barack Obama said he will maintain about 8,400 U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan through the end of his term, a break with earlier expectations that he would reduce troop levels to 5,500. Obama said that the security situation in Afghanistan remains "precarious" fifteen years after the U.S. invasion and that Afghan security forces were not as strong as they needed to be (NYT). In 2011 Obama had said that all U.S. troops would leave Afghanistan by his 2012 election (USA Today) and he declared an official end to the U.S. combat mission in the country in 2014. At the peak of the conflict the United States had 100,000 troops in the country. "Now, more than 8,000 troops will remain, and it will be up to Mr. Obama’s successor to order any further reductions. The president recently loosened the rules of engagement for American troops to give them the ability to fight the Taliban directly, and more flexibility to carry out airstrikes or wage ground combat. Mr. Obama cast his decision as a vote of confidence in Afghanistan’s government, led by President Ashraf Ghani, as well as in the support of NATO members and other partners, who have contributed 6,000 troops. But it also underscores the fact that American hopes of building an Afghan force capable of securing the entire country had fallen short," Mark Landler writes for the New York Times. "Instead of blaming Pakistan for all of the country's ills, even though Pakistan clearly continues to enable Taliban and Haqqani operations from Pakistan, Afghan politicians and power brokers need to take a hard look at their own behavior in recent years and realize they have much to do to clean their own house to avoid disastrous outcomes for Afghanistan. Not all corruption or nepotism can or will disappear. But unless outright rapacious, exclusionary, and deeply predatory governance is mitigated, the root causes of the insurgency will remain unaddressed and the state-building project will have disappeared into fiefdoms and lasting conflict," Vanda Felbab-Brown writes for Vox. "The effectiveness of the National Unity Government continues to be undermined by poor governance and internal friction between President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah, and their supporters. A significant worsening of the political and security situations in Afghanistan over the next twelve to eighteen months is therefore plausible. More specifically, there is a growing risk that the current National Unity Government in Kabul could collapse because of a defection by Abdullah, a severe economic crisis, the establishment of a parallel government, or a coup d’état. There is also a growing possibility that the Taliban could gain substantial territory in one or more cities. These contingencies would amount to a strategic reversal for the United States, since Washington was instrumental in helping create the National Unity Government in 2014," Seth G. Jones writes in this CFR Contingency Planning Memorandum... > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 15:34:44 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:34:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Jill Stein's Green New Deal Deserves to Be Heard by Widest Audience Possible In-Reply-To: <2905590929.2056422991@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <2905590929.2056422991@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ Subject: Jill Stein's Green New Deal Deserves to Be Heard by Widest Audience Possible [Truthdig] [Daily Headlines] Thursday, July 7, 2016 Featured Story [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/reportuploads/Jill_Stein_Green_Party_candidate_360_288_203.jpg/] Jill Stein's Green New Deal Deserves to Be Heard by Widest Audience Possible By Bill Boyarsky - The prospective Green Party presidential candidate is moving up in the polls with progressive ideas to reinvigorate the American economy, save the environment and give power to the people instead of corporations. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] Today's Headlines Bernie Sanders Booed by House Democrats in Closed Session Obama Delays U.S. Withdrawal From 'Precarious' Afghanistan (Video) It's Time for an Investigation Into George W. Bush and the Invasion of Iraq Chilcot Report on Iraq War Is 'Damning Verdict' for Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair (Video) Oscar Pistorius to Serve Six Years in Prison for Murdering His Girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp [Donate Today!] Reports [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/1024px-Internet1_360_169_119.jpg/] The Convenience of Customized Advertising May Come at a High Price By Thor Benson - Further erosions of privacy are likely as companies develop more and better methods for gathering information on internet users. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/4575519590_daf54713bc_b_copy_169_119.jpg/] Brexit and the Derivatives Time Bomb Brexit could trigger a $500 trillion derivatives meltdown by forcing the European Union to allow insolvent member governments and banks to write down debt. But there's an alternative. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/5602111029_159307c5c9_z_copy_169_119.jpg/] Leaker, Speaker, Soldier, Spy: The Charmed Life of David Petraeus It seems a robust Rolodex with the right global roster, a marquee name and a cultivated geopolitical brand covers a multitude of sins. And that's precisely the type of firepower that Petraeus brings to the table. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/3-more-emissions-800x400_copy_169_119.jpg/] Look at Climate's Past Shows Warming Could Be Much Greater Than Originally Thought Reconstruction of climate events long before the Ice Ages shows that failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could eventually lead to temperatures rising by up to 10 degrees. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/isisflag_360_169_119.jpg/] It Is Time to Notice That Horrible Mass Bombings Are Targeting Muslims It is necessary to call the brutal actions of mass murderers deviant behavior, not radical Islam. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/ClintonFartIn_360_169_119.jpg/] Hillary Clinton and Ed Snowden: Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others By Juan Cole - Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attacked Ed Snowden for being careless with government information. So it is ironic that she has been found guilty of being careless with government information. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] A/V Booth [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/ChilcotAVBlair_360_169_119.jpg/] Live at Truthdig: Does the U.S. Need Its Own Chilcot Report? Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer sat down with his team for a live discussion on the ramifications of Britain's Chilcot report. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] Cartoon [http://www.truthdig.com//images/made/images/cartoonuploads/and0624j_1_288_217.jpg] Constitutional Principles By Nick Anderson [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [Drilling Beneath the Headlines][Truthdig] [Donate Today!] [Follow Truthdig on Twitter] [Follow Truthdig on Facebook] This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com, by newsletter at truthdig.com Support Truthdig | Contact Us | Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Forward To A Friend -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 15:34:44 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:34:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Jill Stein's Green New Deal Deserves to Be Heard by Widest Audience Possible In-Reply-To: <2905590929.2056422991@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <2905590929.2056422991@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ Subject: Jill Stein's Green New Deal Deserves to Be Heard by Widest Audience Possible [Truthdig] [Daily Headlines] Thursday, July 7, 2016 Featured Story [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/reportuploads/Jill_Stein_Green_Party_candidate_360_288_203.jpg/] Jill Stein's Green New Deal Deserves to Be Heard by Widest Audience Possible By Bill Boyarsky - The prospective Green Party presidential candidate is moving up in the polls with progressive ideas to reinvigorate the American economy, save the environment and give power to the people instead of corporations. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] Today's Headlines Bernie Sanders Booed by House Democrats in Closed Session Obama Delays U.S. Withdrawal From 'Precarious' Afghanistan (Video) It's Time for an Investigation Into George W. Bush and the Invasion of Iraq Chilcot Report on Iraq War Is 'Damning Verdict' for Former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair (Video) Oscar Pistorius to Serve Six Years in Prison for Murdering His Girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp [Donate Today!] Reports [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/1024px-Internet1_360_169_119.jpg/] The Convenience of Customized Advertising May Come at a High Price By Thor Benson - Further erosions of privacy are likely as companies develop more and better methods for gathering information on internet users. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/4575519590_daf54713bc_b_copy_169_119.jpg/] Brexit and the Derivatives Time Bomb Brexit could trigger a $500 trillion derivatives meltdown by forcing the European Union to allow insolvent member governments and banks to write down debt. But there's an alternative. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/5602111029_159307c5c9_z_copy_169_119.jpg/] Leaker, Speaker, Soldier, Spy: The Charmed Life of David Petraeus It seems a robust Rolodex with the right global roster, a marquee name and a cultivated geopolitical brand covers a multitude of sins. And that's precisely the type of firepower that Petraeus brings to the table. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/3-more-emissions-800x400_copy_169_119.jpg/] Look at Climate's Past Shows Warming Could Be Much Greater Than Originally Thought Reconstruction of climate events long before the Ice Ages shows that failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could eventually lead to temperatures rising by up to 10 degrees. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/isisflag_360_169_119.jpg/] It Is Time to Notice That Horrible Mass Bombings Are Targeting Muslims It is necessary to call the brutal actions of mass murderers deviant behavior, not radical Islam. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/ClintonFartIn_360_169_119.jpg/] Hillary Clinton and Ed Snowden: Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others By Juan Cole - Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attacked Ed Snowden for being careless with government information. So it is ironic that she has been found guilty of being careless with government information. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] A/V Booth [http://www.truthdig.com/images/made/images/eartothegrounduploads/ChilcotAVBlair_360_169_119.jpg/] Live at Truthdig: Does the U.S. Need Its Own Chilcot Report? Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer sat down with his team for a live discussion on the ramifications of Britain's Chilcot report. [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] Cartoon [http://www.truthdig.com//images/made/images/cartoonuploads/and0624j_1_288_217.jpg] Constitutional Principles By Nick Anderson [Share on Facebook] [Share on Twitter] [Drilling Beneath the Headlines][Truthdig] [Donate Today!] [Follow Truthdig on Twitter] [Follow Truthdig on Facebook] This email was sent to karenaram at hotmail.com, by newsletter at truthdig.com Support Truthdig | Contact Us | Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Forward To A Friend -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Thu Jul 7 17:37:03 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 12:37:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] memorial for Gene Vanderport - Sunday, 4pm, with visitation 1-4pm In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91c27130-6434-abc9-71d1-af051b48f236@gmail.com> Memorial for Gene Vanderport is this Sunday. Visitation is 1-4pm, services at 4pm. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Belden Fields* > Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:30 PM Subject: services for Gene Vanderport To: publici at ucimc.org Hi All, This is just a reminder that the memorial for Gene Vanderport will take place Sunday at the Laborer's Union building on Anthony Drive in Urbana. Get there by going north on Cunningham, pass under the Interstate, and make a left at the auto dealer. After getting off Cunningham, take the first left, go around the auto lot, and at the end of that road will be the Laborer's Hall. Visitation is from 1-4, services at 4. Belden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lightport at sbcglobal.net Thu Jul 7 18:05:31 2016 From: lightport at sbcglobal.net (Gene Vanderport) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:05:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [OccupyCU] memorial for Gene Vanderport - Sunday, 4pm, with visitation 1-4pm In-Reply-To: <91c27130-6434-abc9-71d1-af051b48f236@gmail.com> References: <91c27130-6434-abc9-71d1-af051b48f236@gmail.com> Message-ID: <481909194.3411383.1467914731400.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white !important; } Laborers' Hall108 E Anthony DrUrbana Scattering of ashes following Celebration In the forest at Green Cocoon 7 miles south of DanvilleDirections will be provided Thanks, friends!Germaine Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Thursday, July 7, 2016, 12:37 PM, Stuart Levy via OccupyCU wrote: Memorial for Gene Vanderport is this Sunday.   Visitation is 1-4pm, services at 4pm. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Belden Fields Date: Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:30 PM Subject: services for Gene Vanderport To: publici at ucimc.org Hi All, This is just a reminder that the memorial for Gene Vanderport will take place Sunday at the Laborer's Union building on Anthony Drive in Urbana.  Get there by going north on Cunningham, pass under the Interstate, and make a left at the auto dealer. After getting off Cunningham, take the first left, go around the auto lot, and at the end of that road will be the Laborer's Hall.  Visitation is from 1-4, services at 4. Belden _______________________________________________ OccupyCU mailing list OccupyCU at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/occupycu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 18:24:56 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Antiwar Autumn In-Reply-To: <577e8cb73d449_f56c64eaf38211981be@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> References: <577e8cb73d449_f56c64eaf38211981be@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> Message-ID: ________________________________ Subject: Antiwar Autumn [http://www.worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WBW_emailheader.jpg] Did you know there are antiwar events happening all over the world all the time, inlcuding near you? We've got them all listed here: http://worldbeyondwar.org/eventsforwbw (Please send us any that are missing!) Did you know we have resources to help you create and promote an event? See: http://worldbeyondwar.org/event-resources Here's a small selection of upcoming events: July 7 - London: Stopping the European Arms Trade July 7 - London: Public Meeting: The People's Response to Chilcot July 8-10 - Warsaw, Poland: No to war - no to NATO. July 9 - Red Wing, Minnesota: Peacestock 2016. July 9 - New York City: Protest NATO Here's what we're building toward in the Antiwar Autumn: Sept 9-16 - Unity and Solidarity actions everywhere - add yours! Sept 18-25 - Campaign Nonviolence Week of Actions 2016 - add yours! Sept 21 - International Day of Peace. Sept 23-26 - No War 2016: events in Washington, D.C. with live screenings and related events in locations around the world - add yours! Sept 30 - Oct 3, Berlin, Germany, World Congress on Military and Social Spending Oct 1-8 - Keep Space for Peace Week Nov 14-20 - International Week of Action Against the Militarisation of Youth No War 2016 in Washington, D.C., will feature many powerful speakers including these three who recently spoke on Talk Nation Radio with World Beyond War director David Swanson. Take a listen: Peter Kuznick on Untold Nuclear History and No War 2016 Harvey Wasserman on Environmental and Antiwar Activism Mel Duncan on why unarmed civilian protection is better than war Sign the Declaration of Peace. Find events all over the world that you can take part in. Join us on Facebook and Twitter. Support World Beyond War's work by clicking here. [http://www.worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/wbwemailbottomblue.jpg] Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from World Beyond War, please click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 18:24:56 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:24:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Antiwar Autumn In-Reply-To: <577e8cb73d449_f56c64eaf38211981be@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> References: <577e8cb73d449_f56c64eaf38211981be@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> Message-ID: ________________________________ Subject: Antiwar Autumn [http://www.worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WBW_emailheader.jpg] Did you know there are antiwar events happening all over the world all the time, inlcuding near you? We've got them all listed here: http://worldbeyondwar.org/eventsforwbw (Please send us any that are missing!) Did you know we have resources to help you create and promote an event? See: http://worldbeyondwar.org/event-resources Here's a small selection of upcoming events: July 7 - London: Stopping the European Arms Trade July 7 - London: Public Meeting: The People's Response to Chilcot July 8-10 - Warsaw, Poland: No to war - no to NATO. July 9 - Red Wing, Minnesota: Peacestock 2016. July 9 - New York City: Protest NATO Here's what we're building toward in the Antiwar Autumn: Sept 9-16 - Unity and Solidarity actions everywhere - add yours! Sept 18-25 - Campaign Nonviolence Week of Actions 2016 - add yours! Sept 21 - International Day of Peace. Sept 23-26 - No War 2016: events in Washington, D.C. with live screenings and related events in locations around the world - add yours! Sept 30 - Oct 3, Berlin, Germany, World Congress on Military and Social Spending Oct 1-8 - Keep Space for Peace Week Nov 14-20 - International Week of Action Against the Militarisation of Youth No War 2016 in Washington, D.C., will feature many powerful speakers including these three who recently spoke on Talk Nation Radio with World Beyond War director David Swanson. Take a listen: Peter Kuznick on Untold Nuclear History and No War 2016 Harvey Wasserman on Environmental and Antiwar Activism Mel Duncan on why unarmed civilian protection is better than war Sign the Declaration of Peace. Find events all over the world that you can take part in. Join us on Facebook and Twitter. Support World Beyond War's work by clicking here. [http://www.worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/wbwemailbottomblue.jpg] Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from World Beyond War, please click here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 19:44:22 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: If You Like Obama, You'll Love Trump! John Pilger In-Reply-To: <1125224948015.1103935397483.1591589519.0.531354JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1125224948015.1103935397483.1591589519.0.531354JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ rom: CounterPunch News on behalf of CounterPunch News Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 12:56 PM To: karenaram at hotmail.com Subject: If You Like Obama, You'll Love Trump! [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_left.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_fb.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_twit.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_linked.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_divider.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_more.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_right.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_btn_like_sm.png] John Pilger on CounterPunch Radio! [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/fbca2d4d-96ea-4fd5-a5ff-c909634595c1.png] This week CounterPunch Radio host Eric Draitser sits down with John Pilger to discuss the specter haunting Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America: Hillary Clinton. Listen Today! counterpunch NEWS UPDATE 7-7-2016 [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/4b99c67b-ec64-4fae-b160-f297a4aebdb7.jpg] If You Like Obama You'll Love Trump! William Blum on the similarities between Trump and Obama (and Clinton). [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/14790640-234d-40db-ae8f-67ace7c3fbf8.png] Imagining a Different Europe Gary Leupp on Brexit and the future of NATO. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/c2bb2780-b7ee-4f42-8fb3-488a6055017d.jpg] Brexit Vote and Russia Sanctions Eric Draitser writes that the Brexit vote and Russia sanctions show weakness of US diplomacy. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/3f304455-593a-42ed-9354-71f0572b3bde.png] The Real Lesson of Iraq Patrick Cockburn says nothing was learned and no good was done. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/00da05ed-3c2c-4409-8d28-ed181f846bc2.jpg] Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn on who said what and when. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/5b8612b7-3be4-4e48-981b-cd2a5e757adc.jpg] Clinton's Web of Deceit Dave Lindorff says she lied and lied again. [bank_sign.jpg] The Banks' Big Squeeze Sam Pizzigati: you're overdrafted and they're overpaid. View All of CounterPunch's Recent Articles Exclusively in the New Print Issue of CounterPunch [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/3de2e436-f328-47c6-9dd0-ac36a148cedc.gif] How Goldman Sachs Bought the Clintons Jeffrey St. Clair chronicles the the 30-year long bond between the Clintons and Goldman Sachs; Military Contractor Philanthropy by Joan Roelofs; Tangled up in Trump by Chris Floyd; The Stigmatization of Black Youth by Lawrence Ware; ISIS, Iraq & Islamic Nationalism by Jennifer Loewenstein; HSBC & The Whistleblowers by Peter Lee; When Black Vote Their Fears by Yvette Carnell; Reconstructing the Middle East by Patrick Lawrence; The Fed's Prime Objective by Mike Whitney; EL Salvador to Amazonia by Garry Leech; Transatlantic Trade Plundership by Daniel Raventos and Julie Wark; The Films of Jacques Rivette by Ed Leer. Subscribe Today! [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/bc67c3c2-6fa6-4ec1-8620-3e5088ab44df.png] Media of the Day Peter Singer: "The Ethics of What We Eat" Quote of the Day Howard Zinn: "I've always resented the smug statements of politicians, media commentators, corporate executives who talked of how, in America, if you worked hard you would become rich. The meaning of that was if you were poor it was because you hadn't worked hard enough. I knew this was a lie, about my father and millions of others, men and women who worked harder than anyone, harder than financiers and politicians, harder than anybody if you accept that when you work at an unpleasant job that makes it very hard work indeed." SIGN UP for the email version of CounterPunch magazine and save 37% What is a subscription? The CounterPunch magazine has exclusive articles for subscribers only, plus special features you can't find on our website. As an email subscriber you get discounts on books and everything else in the CounterPunch store. [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/PM_GN_FooterTopShadow.png] www.counterpunch.org 1(800) 840-3683 P.O. Box 228 Petrolia, CA 95558 | 800.840-3683 [Follow us on Twitter] [Like us on Facebook] [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/PM_GN_FooterBottomShadow.png] CounterPunch, P.O. Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 SafeUnsubscribe(tm) karenaram at hotmail.com Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by counterpunch at counterpunch.org in collaboration with [Constant Contact] Try it free today -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 7 19:44:22 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2016 19:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: If You Like Obama, You'll Love Trump! John Pilger In-Reply-To: <1125224948015.1103935397483.1591589519.0.531354JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1125224948015.1103935397483.1591589519.0.531354JL.1002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ rom: CounterPunch News on behalf of CounterPunch News Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 12:56 PM To: karenaram at hotmail.com Subject: If You Like Obama, You'll Love Trump! [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_left.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_fb.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_twit.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_linked.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_divider.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_more.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_drw_right.png] [http://img.constantcontact.com/ui/images1/shr_btn_like_sm.png] John Pilger on CounterPunch Radio! [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/fbca2d4d-96ea-4fd5-a5ff-c909634595c1.png] This week CounterPunch Radio host Eric Draitser sits down with John Pilger to discuss the specter haunting Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America: Hillary Clinton. Listen Today! counterpunch NEWS UPDATE 7-7-2016 [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/4b99c67b-ec64-4fae-b160-f297a4aebdb7.jpg] If You Like Obama You'll Love Trump! William Blum on the similarities between Trump and Obama (and Clinton). [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/14790640-234d-40db-ae8f-67ace7c3fbf8.png] Imagining a Different Europe Gary Leupp on Brexit and the future of NATO. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/c2bb2780-b7ee-4f42-8fb3-488a6055017d.jpg] Brexit Vote and Russia Sanctions Eric Draitser writes that the Brexit vote and Russia sanctions show weakness of US diplomacy. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/3f304455-593a-42ed-9354-71f0572b3bde.png] The Real Lesson of Iraq Patrick Cockburn says nothing was learned and no good was done. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/00da05ed-3c2c-4409-8d28-ed181f846bc2.jpg] Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Jeffrey St. Clair and Alexander Cockburn on who said what and when. [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/5b8612b7-3be4-4e48-981b-cd2a5e757adc.jpg] Clinton's Web of Deceit Dave Lindorff says she lied and lied again. [bank_sign.jpg] The Banks' Big Squeeze Sam Pizzigati: you're overdrafted and they're overpaid. View All of CounterPunch's Recent Articles Exclusively in the New Print Issue of CounterPunch [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/3de2e436-f328-47c6-9dd0-ac36a148cedc.gif] How Goldman Sachs Bought the Clintons Jeffrey St. Clair chronicles the the 30-year long bond between the Clintons and Goldman Sachs; Military Contractor Philanthropy by Joan Roelofs; Tangled up in Trump by Chris Floyd; The Stigmatization of Black Youth by Lawrence Ware; ISIS, Iraq & Islamic Nationalism by Jennifer Loewenstein; HSBC & The Whistleblowers by Peter Lee; When Black Vote Their Fears by Yvette Carnell; Reconstructing the Middle East by Patrick Lawrence; The Fed's Prime Objective by Mike Whitney; EL Salvador to Amazonia by Garry Leech; Transatlantic Trade Plundership by Daniel Raventos and Julie Wark; The Films of Jacques Rivette by Ed Leer. Subscribe Today! [http://files.ctctcdn.com/b6e5da70101/bc67c3c2-6fa6-4ec1-8620-3e5088ab44df.png] Media of the Day Peter Singer: "The Ethics of What We Eat" Quote of the Day Howard Zinn: "I've always resented the smug statements of politicians, media commentators, corporate executives who talked of how, in America, if you worked hard you would become rich. The meaning of that was if you were poor it was because you hadn't worked hard enough. I knew this was a lie, about my father and millions of others, men and women who worked harder than anyone, harder than financiers and politicians, harder than anybody if you accept that when you work at an unpleasant job that makes it very hard work indeed." SIGN UP for the email version of CounterPunch magazine and save 37% What is a subscription? The CounterPunch magazine has exclusive articles for subscribers only, plus special features you can't find on our website. As an email subscriber you get discounts on books and everything else in the CounterPunch store. [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/PM_GN_FooterTopShadow.png] www.counterpunch.org 1(800) 840-3683 P.O. Box 228 Petrolia, CA 95558 | 800.840-3683 [Follow us on Twitter] [Like us on Facebook] [http://img.constantcontact.com/letters/images/1101116784221/PM_GN_FooterBottomShadow.png] CounterPunch, P.O. Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 SafeUnsubscribe(tm) karenaram at hotmail.com Forward this email | Update Profile | About our service provider Sent by counterpunch at counterpunch.org in collaboration with [Constant Contact] Try it free today -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 00:53:57 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 00:53:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Breaking News In-Reply-To: <756031869.36.1467937970315.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-172-148.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> References: <756031869.36.1467937970315.JavaMail.nobody@prd-10-60-172-148.nodes.56m.dmtio.net> Message-ID: Jeeze well, maybe they will go after Killer Koh, her State Lawyer. Did you see their iconic picture in today’s Newspeak Times with her Blackberry? It is priceless. We really need to blow this up into 6 foot high posters for our anti- Killer Koh Rally at his Campaign Lecture for His Boss Clinton at the October 28 Rally before the ethically corrupt and sanctioned UI College of Law. Along with poster pictures of the women and children Killer Koh has murdered, including Mr. Awlaki’s 16 year old son, a US citizen. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh say! How many kids! Did you kill today! Hey! Hey! Illinois Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! For Mossad and the CIA! NOTOKOH! 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: Thursday, July 07, 2016 7:33 PM To: no-reply at siteservices.cnn.com Subject: Breaking News The State Department is reopening its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state, agency spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. Earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey recommended that no charges be brought in the case, a finding that the Justice Department accepted on Wednesday. ---------------------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 00:59:45 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 00:59:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NOTOKOH!Obama's Drone Lies Message-ID: Hey! Hey! Illinois Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! For Mossad and the CIA! 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: CODEPINK [mailto:info at codepink.org] Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:42 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Obama's Drone Lies [CODEPINK] [DroneyDroneDrone.png] Friend — Late last week the Obama administration released shockingly underreported numbers claiming that the U.S. government has caused only 64 to 116 civilian deaths by drone strikes. These numbers simply don’t add up. Independent organizations estimate that the number of civilian deaths is closer to 8 times that amount! Take action: Call on the Obama administration to release the names of the civilian drone strike victims as well as its methodology for determining who is a civilian. At CODEPINK, we agree that the numbers are underestimates of the actual civilian death toll. It is impossible to verify the government’s numbers when the administration refuses to reveal their methodology or information on specific strikes. “You can’t grade your own homework,” as one political analyst noted. We know as a fact that the Obama administration is automatically categorizing every adult male over 18 killed by drones as an enemy combatant – and this is outrageous. Our Yemeni friend Faisal bin Ali Jabar wondered in a powerful article, “was my family counted?” The lack of transparency shows that the Obama administration is using civilian casualty numbers as a political tool to normalize drone strikes. In addition to underestimating civilian casualties, the government statistics fail to capture the tens of thousands of cases of lost limbs, partial or total paralysis and other psychological or significant permanent injury caused to civilians by drone strikes. The damage done to civilian survivors of drone strikes is often brutal, devastating and lifelong and is completely unaccounted for in the government statistics released last week. Join us in calling on the Obama administration to release the names of civilian drone strike victims and to be transparent on the methodology that lead to their numbers! In Solidarity, Alice, Alli, Aniqa, Ariel, Baheya, Chelsea, Janet, Jodie, Jules, Mariana, Medea, Nancy, Rebecca, Sam and Tighe [Donate Now] [CODEPINK] This email was sent to fboyle at law.uiuc.edu. To stop receiving emails, click here. Created with NationBuilder [http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394039/twitter.png?1431394039][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394022/facebook.png?1431394022][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394028/google.png?1431394028][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394019/youtube.png?1431394019][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394037/rss.png?1431394037][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394038/t.png?1431394038][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394034/pinterest.png?1431394034][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394024/flickr.png?1431394024][http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55513b489d29c93fbf000001/attachments/original/1431394021/email.png?1431394021] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 01:20:15 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:20:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Impeach and Prosecute Tony Blair References: Message-ID: <06AA8C3D-74E0-4A87-928C-4C7AF22E34AE@illinois.edu> FYI, David Swanson critique… Begin forwarded message: From: David Swanson > Subject: [ufpj-activist] Impeach and Prosecute Tony Blair Date: July 7, 2016 at 5:30:38 AM CDT To: David Swanson > Impeach and Prosecute Tony Blair By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/node/5208 [http://www.davidswanson.org/sites/davidswanson.org/files/blairWEB.png] The Chilcot report's "findings" have virtually all been part of the public record for a decade, and it avoids key pieces of evidence. Its recommendations are essentially to continue using war as a threat and a tool of foreign policy, but to please try not to lie so much, make sure to win over a bit more of the public, and don't promise any positive outcomes given the likelihood of catastrophe. The report is a confused jumble, given that it records evidence of the supreme crime but tries to excuse it. The closer you get to the beginning of the executive summary, the more the report reads as if written by the very criminals it's reporting on. Yet the report makes clear, as we always knew, that even in 2001-2003 there were honest people working in the British, as also in the U.S., government -- some of whom became whistleblowers, others of whom accurately identified the planned war as a crime that would endanger rather than protect, but stayed in their jobs when the war was launched. Chilcot makes clear that the attack on Iraq was illegal, against the British public, against the international community and the UN Charter, expected to increase terrorism, based on lies about terrorism and weapons, and -- like every other war ever launched -- not a last resort. Chilcot records, as reality-based reporting always has, that Iraq claimed honestly to have no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Chilcot fails to explain with any clarity that one cannot legally or morally attack another nation even when it does have such things. Chilcot does make clear the extent to which France was pushing back against war, along with Russia and Germany and Chile and China. The key supporter of U.S. war plans was the UK, and there is some possibility that a UK refusal to join in this crime might really have done some good. But Chilcot steers away from criminal responsibility, and from the damage done by the crime. It avoids the Downing Street Memo, the White House Memo, Hussein Kamel, the spying and threatening and bribing involved in the failed effort to win UN authorization, Aznar's account of Bush's admission that Saddam Hussein was willing to leave, etc. This is a report that aims for politeness and tranquility. Not to worry, Chilcot tells us, as nothing like this will happen again even if we just let the criminals walk. Chilcot claims bizarrely that every other war before and since has been defensive and in response to some attack, rather than an act of aggression like this one. Of course, no list of those other wars is provided. Even more bizarrely, Chilcot claims that Blair and gang literally never considered the possibility that Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction." How you make all kinds of assertions, contrary to your evidence, that Iraq has weapons without considering the question is beyond me. But Chilcot credits with great significance the supposedly excusing grace of groupthink and the passion with which people like Blair supposedly believed their own lies. Chilcot even feeds into the disgusting lie that Blair pushes to this day that Iraqis chose to destroy their own country while their occupiers nobly attempted "reconstruction." Despite itself, however, Chilcot may do some good. In the United States, when James Comey describes crimes by Hillary Clinton and assures us they should not be prosecuted, most people can be counted on to lie back and accept that blindly or even fervently. Yet our friends in Britain appear less than eager to accept the attitude with which Chilcot has reported on the supreme international crime. Tony Blair may now be impeached as he needs to be. Yes -- sigh -- one can and should impeach people no longer in office, as has been usefully done in both British and U.S. history. Removal from office is one penalty that sometimes follows a conviction at a trial following an impeachment; it is not itself the definition of impeachment. Blair should be tried and convicted by Parliament. He should also be put on trial by the International Criminal Court or, better, by a special tribunal established for Iraq as for World War II or Yugoslavia. The victors in World War II used the Kellogg-Briand Pact to prosecute the losers for the new crime of launching a war. Blair violated both the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the newer, yet never used, United Nations Charter, which also bans war. While Kellogg-Briand allows no exceptions, the exceptions in the UN Charter were famously not met in the case of the war on Iraq or, for that matter, any other recent western wars. You can sign a petition urging Blair's impeachment and prosecution here. Of course the goal must be to build momentum for holding the chief (U.S.) war criminals accountable, pursuing truth and reconciliation, and making massive reparations to the people of Iraq and their region. What the U.S. needs is action, not a 7-year "investigation." Our own Chilcot report, better in fact, was written long ago. The Chilcot report could, against its own wishes, move us in that direction. -- 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 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 01:40:27 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 01:40:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [HumanRights] Dehumanizing and delegitimizing References: Message-ID: <07EF694B-02B4-4188-BAF0-346548FBD960@illinois.edu> Worthy of reading, regarding Elie Weisel… Begin forwarded message: From: Mazin Qumsiyeh > Subject: [HumanRights] Dehumanizing and delegitimizing Date: July 7, 2016 at 1:17:48 PM CDT To: > Cc: Human Rights Newsletter > There is a growing movement of applying Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) on Israel just like we did to defeat apartheid in South Africa. Zionist apologists are understandably declaring war on this nonviolent and moral movement. In many countries including several states in the USA, there are attempts to delegetimize the movement and declare BDS illegal. Of course this is contrary to the principles of free speech and free association. People's right to boycott was recognized in key legal precedents but more legal challenges are needed to dispel the myth that engaging in BDS is somehow illegitimate. Israeli apologists around the world engage in all sorts of dirty tricks to keep the racist system going (a racket to keep the flow of cash if I may say so). Having faced Israeli apologists in public debates, many do not want to debate again because they lose badly as they attempt to delegitimize and dehumanize their victims. They have no facts and they are defending injustice. So they resort to personal attacks and strange racist mythologies (for example that we Palestinians sacrifice our children for publicity or that we "hate Jews"). This is expected from colonial power to dehumanize their victims. Elie Wiesel died recently. He spent most of his life defending Israel and dehumanizing Palestinians. He was challenged on many occasions to say something about the Palestinian victims and all he could muster was regurgitating Zionist lies about colonizers needing to “defend themselves”. Here is what a real prophetic Jew (Sara Roy who teaches at Harvard) wrote on September 9, 2014 Mr. Wiesel, I read your statement about Palestinians, which appeared in The New York Times on August 4th. I cannot help feeling that your attack against Hamas and stunning accusations of child sacrifice are really an attack, carefully veiled but unmistakable, against all Palestinians, their children included. As a child of Holocaust survivors—both my parents survived Auschwitz—I am appalled by your anti-Palestinian position, one I know you have long held. I have always wanted to ask you, why? What crime have Palestinians committed in your eyes? Exposing Israel as an occupier and themselves as its nearly defenseless victims? Resisting a near half century of oppression imposed by Jews and through such resistance forcing us as a people to confront our lost innocence (to which you so tenaciously cling)? Unlike you, Mr. Wiesel, I have spent a great deal of time in Gaza among Palestinians. In that time, I have seen many terrible things and I must confess I try not to remember them because of the agony they continue to inflict. I have seen Israeli soldiers shoot into crowds of young children who were doing nothing more than taunting them, some with stones, some with just words. I have witnessed too many horrors, more than I want to describe. But I must tell you that the worst things I have seen, those memories that continue to haunt me, insisting never to be forgotten, are not acts of violence but acts of dehumanization. There is a story I want to tell you, Mr. Wiesel, for I have carried it inside of me for many years and have only written about it once a very long time ago. I was in a refugee camp in Gaza when an Israeli army unit on foot patrol came upon a small baby perched in the sand sitting just outside the door to its home. Some soldiers approached the baby and surrounded it. Standing close together, the soldiers began shunting the child between them with their feet, mimicking a ball in a game of soccer. The baby began screaming hysterically and its mother rushed out shrieking, trying desperately to extricate her child from the soldiers’ legs and feet. After a few more seconds of “play,” the soldiers stopped and walked away, leaving the terrified child to its distraught mother. Now, I know what you must be thinking: this was the act of a few misguided men. But I do not agree because I have seen so many acts of dehumanization since, among which I must now include yours. Mr. Wiesel, how can you defend the slaughter of over 500 innocent children by arguing that Hamas uses them as human shields? Let us say for the sake of argument that Hamas does use children in this way; does this then justify or vindicate their murder in your eyes? How can any ethical human being make such a grotesque argument? In doing so, Mr. Wiesel, I see no difference between you and the Israeli soldiers who used the baby as a soccer ball. Your manner may differ from theirs—perhaps you could never bring yourself to treat a Palestinian child as an inanimate object—but the effect of your words is the same: to dehumanize and objectify Palestinians to the point where the death of Arab children, some murdered inside their own homes, no longer affects you. All that truly concerns you is that Jews not be blamed for the children’s savage destruction. Despite your eloquence, it is clear that you believe only Jews are capable of loving and protecting their children and possess a humanity that Palestinians do not. If this is so, Mr. Wiesel, how would you explain the very public satisfaction among many Israelis over the carnage in Gaza—some assembled as if at a party, within easy sight of the bombing, watching the destruction of innocents, entertained by the devastation? How are these Israelis different from those people who stood outside the walls of the Jewish ghettos in Poland watching the ghettos burn or listening indifferently to the gunshots and screams of other innocents within—among them members of my own family and perhaps yours—while they were being hunted and destroyed? You see us as you want us to be and not as many of us actually are. We are not all insensate to the suffering we inflict, acceding to cruelty with ease and calm. And because of you, Mr. Wiesel, because of your words—which deny Palestinians their humanity and deprive them of their victimhood—too many can embrace our lack of mercy as if it were something noble, which it is not. Rather, it is something monstrous. Sara Roy is a senior research scholar at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University. ------------------- Max Blumenthal similarly wrote a poignant reflection on the hateful tribalist opportunist Elie Wiesel http://www.alternet.org/print/grayzone-project/huge-part-elie-wiesels-legacy-being-whitewashed But our problem is not with Wiesel now, he is gone. Our problem is with those who are around trying to go more right wing hoping somehow that saves the silly notion of a "Jewish state". It is not less crazy than an Aryan white state or an Islamic state or a Christian state. All such concepts are destined for the dustbin of history. Isn't it also boring to try to create monolithic societies? Isn't it time people respect other religions and cultures and learn to share in equality this beautiful earth instead of spoiling it? From here in Palestine we cry out for justice and for simple human rights. The rights of refugees to return and the right to live in our lands peacefully regardless of our faiths/beliefs. First do no harm. Here are my reflections on our responsibility (the Savior in each of us) that I wrote six years ago and is still relevant today http://qumsiyeh.org/thesaviorineachofus/ Stay human and welcome to visit us in Palestine Mazin Qumsiyeh Professor and (volunteer) Director Palestine Museum of Natural History Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability Bethlehem University Occupied Palestine http://qumsiyeh.org http://palestinenature.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: _______________________________________________ HumanRights newsletter http://lists.qumsiyeh.org/listinfo/humanrights This message was sent to brussel at uiuc.edu. To unsubscribe, visit: http://lists.qumsiyeh.org/options/humanrights/brussel%40uiuc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 8 11:55:02 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 11:55:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Impeach and Prosecute Tony Blair In-Reply-To: <06AA8C3D-74E0-4A87-928C-4C7AF22E34AE@illinois.edu> References: , <06AA8C3D-74E0-4A87-928C-4C7AF22E34AE@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Mort Excellent ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 8:20:15 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Impeach and Prosecute Tony Blair FYI, David Swanson critique… Begin forwarded message: From: David Swanson > Subject: [ufpj-activist] Impeach and Prosecute Tony Blair Date: July 7, 2016 at 5:30:38 AM CDT To: David Swanson > Impeach and Prosecute Tony Blair By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/node/5208 [http://www.davidswanson.org/sites/davidswanson.org/files/blairWEB.png] The Chilcot report's "findings" have virtually all been part of the public record for a decade, and it avoids key pieces of evidence. Its recommendations are essentially to continue using war as a threat and a tool of foreign policy, but to please try not to lie so much, make sure to win over a bit more of the public, and don't promise any positive outcomes given the likelihood of catastrophe. The report is a confused jumble, given that it records evidence of the supreme crime but tries to excuse it. The closer you get to the beginning of the executive summary, the more the report reads as if written by the very criminals it's reporting on. Yet the report makes clear, as we always knew, that even in 2001-2003 there were honest people working in the British, as also in the U.S., government -- some of whom became whistleblowers, others of whom accurately identified the planned war as a crime that would endanger rather than protect, but stayed in their jobs when the war was launched. Chilcot makes clear that the attack on Iraq was illegal, against the British public, against the international community and the UN Charter, expected to increase terrorism, based on lies about terrorism and weapons, and -- like every other war ever launched -- not a last resort. Chilcot records, as reality-based reporting always has, that Iraq claimed honestly to have no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Chilcot fails to explain with any clarity that one cannot legally or morally attack another nation even when it does have such things. Chilcot does make clear the extent to which France was pushing back against war, along with Russia and Germany and Chile and China. The key supporter of U.S. war plans was the UK, and there is some possibility that a UK refusal to join in this crime might really have done some good. But Chilcot steers away from criminal responsibility, and from the damage done by the crime. It avoids the Downing Street Memo, the White House Memo, Hussein Kamel, the spying and threatening and bribing involved in the failed effort to win UN authorization, Aznar's account of Bush's admission that Saddam Hussein was willing to leave, etc. This is a report that aims for politeness and tranquility. Not to worry, Chilcot tells us, as nothing like this will happen again even if we just let the criminals walk. Chilcot claims bizarrely that every other war before and since has been defensive and in response to some attack, rather than an act of aggression like this one. Of course, no list of those other wars is provided. Even more bizarrely, Chilcot claims that Blair and gang literally never considered the possibility that Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction." How you make all kinds of assertions, contrary to your evidence, that Iraq has weapons without considering the question is beyond me. But Chilcot credits with great significance the supposedly excusing grace of groupthink and the passion with which people like Blair supposedly believed their own lies. Chilcot even feeds into the disgusting lie that Blair pushes to this day that Iraqis chose to destroy their own country while their occupiers nobly attempted "reconstruction." Despite itself, however, Chilcot may do some good. In the United States, when James Comey describes crimes by Hillary Clinton and assures us they should not be prosecuted, most people can be counted on to lie back and accept that blindly or even fervently. Yet our friends in Britain appear less than eager to accept the attitude with which Chilcot has reported on the supreme international crime. Tony Blair may now be impeached as he needs to be. Yes -- sigh -- one can and should impeach people no longer in office, as has been usefully done in both British and U.S. history. Removal from office is one penalty that sometimes follows a conviction at a trial following an impeachment; it is not itself the definition of impeachment. Blair should be tried and convicted by Parliament. He should also be put on trial by the International Criminal Court or, better, by a special tribunal established for Iraq as for World War II or Yugoslavia. The victors in World War II used the Kellogg-Briand Pact to prosecute the losers for the new crime of launching a war. Blair violated both the Kellogg-Briand Pact and the newer, yet never used, United Nations Charter, which also bans war. While Kellogg-Briand allows no exceptions, the exceptions in the UN Charter were famously not met in the case of the war on Iraq or, for that matter, any other recent western wars. You can sign a petition urging Blair's impeachment and prosecution here. Of course the goal must be to build momentum for holding the chief (U.S.) war criminals accountable, pursuing truth and reconciliation, and making massive reparations to the people of Iraq and their region. What the U.S. needs is action, not a 7-year "investigation." Our own Chilcot report, better in fact, was written long ago. The Chilcot report could, against its own wishes, move us in that direction. -- 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 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/mkb0029%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: mkb0029 at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 13:06:54 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:06:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NOTOKOH!: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site Message-ID: "Another major topic in her email exchanges, according to several reports, is the State Department role in drone-missile assassinations in Pakistan, which required Clinton's approval as well as that of Obama and the CIA, because of concerns over the diplomatic repercussions. There is no indication that Clinton ever blocked such a strike." And remember Killer Koh was Clinton's War Consigliere for four years. He must have signed off on these drone murders too with her. Hence his notorious Beltway nickname: Killer Koh. He is now being bright to you by the corrupt University of Illinois College of Law Faculty-- who have been enmired and enmeshed in a series of ethical scandals for well over a decade-- on October 28, just on time to Campaign for Clinton as President. 5 out of our last 6 Dean Deans were censured by the American Bar Association, and the 6th did damage control and damage limitation for them as did the rest of the Faculty over all these years. And now the UI "Law" Faculty sink to the Clinton/Koh level of criminality and depravity. How much lower can they get? Hey! Hey! Illinois Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! For Mossad and the CIA! 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: outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com [mailto:outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com] On Behalf Of Francis Boyle Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:50 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/08/fbi-j08.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 13:52:12 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 13:52:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NOTOKOH & Clinton On October 28 at Illinois "Law" Message-ID: Killer Koh admitted that he advised his Boss Clinton on how to handle her email scandal. That makes Killer Koh part of her Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Government as explained in my interview below. But of course in the eyes of the corrupt and depraved UICOL Faculty that fully qualifies Killer Koh to come in here on October 28 in order to give an Endowed Campaign Lecture to get his Boss Clinton elected President 10 days later. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) [Google] As-it-happens update ⋅ July 8, 2016 WEB Francis Boyle on the Case for Indicting Hilary Clinton and Greg Palast on Election Crimes KBOO Today on Flashpoints: Noted legal scholar, author and law professor, Francis Boyle, makes the case for the indictment of Hilary Clinton. Also our ... [Google Plus] [Facebook] [Twitter] Flag as irrelevant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 16:14:39 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:14:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NOTOKOH!: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And of course the Bigoted and Racist UI/COL Faculty fully approve of Killer Koh exterminating 5000+ Muslims/Arabs/Asians Men, Women and Children of Color, including 5 American Citizen Muslims of Color and one American Citizen Muslim Child of Color. The UI/COL Faculty consider Muslims of Color to be Untermensch. Do you think the UI/COL Faculty would have invited Killer Koh out here to lecture if he had exterminated 5000+ White Judeo-Christians? 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: Friday, July 08, 2016 8:07 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: NOTOKOH!: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site "Another major topic in her email exchanges, according to several reports, is the State Department role in drone-missile assassinations in Pakistan, which required Clinton's approval as well as that of Obama and the CIA, because of concerns over the diplomatic repercussions. There is no indication that Clinton ever blocked such a strike." And remember Killer Koh was Clinton's War Consigliere for four years. He must have signed off on these drone murders too with her. Hence his notorious Beltway nickname: Killer Koh. He is now being bright to you by the corrupt University of Illinois College of Law Faculty-- who have been enmired and enmeshed in a series of ethical scandals for well over a decade-- on October 28, just on time to Campaign for Clinton as President. 5 out of our last 6 Dean Deans were censured by the American Bar Association, and the 6th did damage control and damage limitation for them as did the rest of the Faculty over all these years. And now the UI "Law" Faculty sink to the Clinton/Koh level of criminality and depravity. How much lower can they get? Hey! Hey! Illinois Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! For Mossad and the CIA! 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: outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com [mailto:outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com] On Behalf Of Francis Boyle Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:50 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/08/fbi-j08.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Jul 8 17:46:17 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 17:46:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NOTOKOH!: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The UI/COL Faculty consider Muslims of Color to be Untermensch. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seventy years after World War II The Nazis have won At the University of Illinois College of Law 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: Friday, July 08, 2016 11:15 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: RE: NOTOKOH!: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site And of course the Bigoted and Racist UI/COL Faculty fully approve of Killer Koh exterminating 5000+ Muslims/Arabs/Asians Men, Women and Children of Color, including 5 American Citizen Muslims of Color and one American Citizen Muslim Child of Color. The UI/COL Faculty consider Muslims of Color to be Untermensch. Do you think the UI/COL Faculty would have invited Killer Koh out here to lecture if he had exterminated 5000+ White Judeo-Christians? 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: Friday, July 08, 2016 8:07 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'David Green' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Stuart Levy' >; 'Karen Medina' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' >; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: NOTOKOH!: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site "Another major topic in her email exchanges, according to several reports, is the State Department role in drone-missile assassinations in Pakistan, which required Clinton's approval as well as that of Obama and the CIA, because of concerns over the diplomatic repercussions. There is no indication that Clinton ever blocked such a strike." And remember Killer Koh was Clinton's War Consigliere for four years. He must have signed off on these drone murders too with her. Hence his notorious Beltway nickname: Killer Koh. He is now being bright to you by the corrupt University of Illinois College of Law Faculty-- who have been enmired and enmeshed in a series of ethical scandals for well over a decade-- on October 28, just on time to Campaign for Clinton as President. 5 out of our last 6 Dean Deans were censured by the American Bar Association, and the 6th did damage control and damage limitation for them as did the rest of the Faculty over all these years. And now the UI "Law" Faculty sink to the Clinton/Koh level of criminality and depravity. How much lower can they get? Hey! Hey! Illinois Law say! How many kids! Did you kill today! For Mossad and the CIA! 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: outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com [mailto:outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com] On Behalf Of Francis Boyle Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:50 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: FBI director defends decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton - World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/07/08/fbi-j08.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 9 13:24:56 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 08:24:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Text References: Message-ID: <4572D997-F12D-4B9A-A95B-EED95A549E72@newsfromneptune.com> > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > Puerto Ricans and > The Building Up of a > Civil Resistance Movement under International Law > > By > > > > Francis A. Boyle > > Professor of International Law > > > > Editorial Borikén (2016) > > > > The author served as the Attorney of Record for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina before the International Court of Justice during Yugoslavia’s war of extermination against the Bosnians. He won two World Court Orders overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention on April 8, 1993 and September 13, 1993. 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. He also won a so-called Article 74(4) World Court Order for Bosnia against Yugoslavia to the same effect. According to I.C.J. Statute Article 74(4), when the full 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. > > > > > > SPECIAL INTRODUCTION FOR THE PUERTO RICAN PEOPLE > > My Dear Puerto Rican Friends: > > I began writing this Special Introduction for you on Friday, July 1, 2016, when the Yankees imposed their genocidal PROMESA upon you in gross violation of international law, human rights law, the laws of war, and the sacred right of the Puerto Rican people to self-determination. This day shall go down into history as Puerto Rico’s Black Friday. This infamous date shall rank just below the genocidal Yankee Invasion of Puerto Rico on July 25, 1898 -- a Crime Against Peace. Only this time Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans will be invaded by genocidal Yankee Wall Street Banksters, genocidal Yankee Hedge Fund Vultures, genocidal Yankee Bloodsucking Bureaucrats, and their genocidal Yankee Lecherous Lawyers. > > Make no mistake about it: These genocidal Yankee Vampires imposed PROMESA precisely in order to suck as much blood out of the arteries and veins of the Puerto Ricans that they can get away with without killing you all off right away so that they can keep you barely alive and continue to suck your blood as you regenerate it for as long as possible until you all die from exhaustion because of the genocidal Yankees feeding off of you. By means of PROMESA the genocidal Yankees will turn the Puerto Ricans into Zombies. Their genocidal Yankee Night of the Puerto Ricans Living Dead! > > In order to resist this 2016 Yankee genocidal PROMESA onslaught and the genocidal Yankee colonial and military occupation of Puerto Rico going back to 1898, I have written this book for the purpose of explaining to you Puerto Ricans your right to engage in non-violent Civil Resistance against the genocidal Yankees under international law. Some have argued instead that you should engage in a campaign of so-called “civil disobedience” against the genocidal Yankees. Excuse me: How can the Puerto Ricans possibly “disobey” the genocidal Yankees? The advocacy of “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance is a pro-genocidal Yankee argument. > > Invoking the name of “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance implies that you the Puerto Ricans have somehow “disobeyed” the genocidal Yankees. How can you do that? Using the term “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance means that you Puerto Ricans have already incriminated yourselves under genocidal Yankee Laws for allegedly “disobeying” the genocidal Yankees. Why should you do that? Referring to “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance means that you Puerto Ricans should just turn yourselves into the genocidal Yankees as “disobedients” in order to be imprisoned in their genocidal Yankee jails. Why should you Puerto Ricans readily incarcerate yourselves for the sake of the genocidal Yankees? Claiming to be engaged in “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance means that you Puerto Ricans should just walk like sheep into the genocidal Yankee jails. How convenient for the genocidal Yankees! Saying you engage in “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance saves the genocidal Yankees from doing most of their genocidal dirty work against the Puerto Ricans by getting the Puerto Ricans to do their genocidal Yankees dirty work against yourselves. Whether they know it or not, those who advocate “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance by the Puerto Ricans against the genocidal Yankees are doing the genocidal Yankees dirty work against the Puerto Ricans. > > It is the genocidal Yankees who are the criminals under international law, the laws of war, and international human rights law. This book briefly outlines and succinctly explains the multitude of international crimes that the genocidal Yankees have inflicted upon Puerto Rico and the Puerto Ricans since 1898, including but not limited to genocide, apartheid, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. In reaction thereto, you Puerto Ricans have the perfect right under international law to resist these Yankee international crimes including and especially and now most recently by the Yankees genocidal PROMESA. This book explains why and how you can do that for yourselves by using the information, analyses, and arguments set forth here. > > To be sure, this book explains how Puerto Ricans can resist Yankee international crimes by using the genocidal Yankee laws themselves against the genocidal Yankees and in genocidal Yankee courts. Most regretfully, you Puerto Ricans live under genocidal Yankee laws that have been genocidally imposed upon you by the genocidal Yankees. Therefore, you will be prosecuted under genocidal Yankee laws and in genocidal Yankee courts and/or in their genocidal Puerto Rican puppet courts that basically apply genocidal Yankee laws under their thin Puerto Rican veneer. Therefore you must turn these genocidal Yankee laws against the genocidal Yankees themselves and perform this international legal jui-jitsu in these genocidal Yankee colonial courts! This book explains how to do that by using international law, the laws of war, and international human rights law against the genocidal Yankees in accordance with genocidal Yankee laws and in genocidal Yankee courts. > > Generally put, you Puerto Ricans have the basic right under international law to resist the international crimes being perpetrated upon you by the genocidal Yankees, including and especially this genocidal PROMESA. Therefore, even in accordance with genocidal Yankee laws, Puerto Ricans do not possess the “criminal intent” required by genocidal Yankee laws to commit genocidal Yankee crimes. Once again, it is the genocidal Yankees who are the criminals! You the Puerto Ricans are the victims of international crimes being inflicted upon you by the genocidal Yankees. You Puerto Ricans are protecting yourselves and your families and your People from these genocidal Yankee crimes when you engage in Civil Resistance against them as permitted by international law. That is what Civil Resistance instead of pro-genocidal Yankee “civil disobedience” is all about! > > You are the Sheriffs upholding and enforcing international law by engaging in peaceful non-violent Civil Resistance against the genocidal Yankees. It is the genocidal Yankees who are the criminals under international law. It is the genocidal Yankees who are “disobeying” international law, the laws of war, and international human rights law by exterminating you the Puerto Ricans. Those who advocate “civil disobedience” instead of Civil Resistance by the Puerto Ricans against the genocidal Yankees and their genocidal Puerto Rican surrogates have it all ass-backwards. Civil Resistance by the Puerto Ricans against the genocidal Yankees is the way to move forward! > > Article I of the 1948 Genocide Convention to which the genocidal Yankees are a contracting party clearly states: “The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” By launching a massive campaign of non-violent Civil Resistance against the Yankees you will be acting “to prevent” Yankee genocide against the Puerto Ricans as permitted and required by the 1948 Genocide Convention. It is the Yankees who are committing the “crime” of genocide against the Puerto Ricans. All Puerto Ricans have the basic international law and human right of Civil Resistance “to prevent” Yankee genocide against you! Good luck! > > F.A.B. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sat Jul 9 19:05:24 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 14:05:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Kathy Kelly *tonight*, 7pm Sat, Channing-Murray Message-ID: <0402904e-0559-ca04-53d9-370f03044f33@gmail.com> Reminder: Kathy Kelly, the great peace activist, is coming to speak Saturday evening - tonight! - 7pm, July 9th Channing-Murray Foundation 1209 W Oregon, Urbana (parking on street, street behind Davenport Hall) Hers is a radically compassionate and deeply informed voice. Hope you can be there. ==== Kathy Kelly, a two-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, humanitarian, and American peace activist, has spent a lifetime standing in solidarity with the victims of global violence and resisting the forces that perpetuate war and conflict around the world. As a co-founder and leader of Voices for Creative Non-Violence, Kathy is committed to the use of active non-violence as a means of speaking truth to power, both military and economic. From being on the ground in Bagdad during “shock and awe” to sending over 75 delegations to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as emergency contingents to Gaza and Bahrain, Voices for Creative Non-Violence has been present with some of the people most forgotten and most affected by war in the Middle East. Join us for an evening of story, music and inspiration from the front lines of global peacemaking. • Hear first hand accounts from one of the world’s most dedicated and courageous peacemakers. • Learn about the growing movement of Afghan youth peace volunteers working to build an international, multi-generational movement seeking GEN, a green, equal and non-violent world without war. • Be moved by the stories of young people who are uniting to reject hatred, revenge and killing and who believe that non-violent friendships can change Afghanistan and the world. MUSIC BY: Holly Curia FREE-WILL DONATION AT THE DOOR To support the work of Voices for Creative Non-Violence PARKING AVAILABLE At Channing Murray and Davenport Hall (across the street) after 5pm FOR MORE INFORMATION Call Lan at 773-556-3417 COSPONSORED BY Eco-Justice Collaborative • Channing Murray Foundation • AWARE of Champaign Urbana Illinois • Central Illinois Jobs with Justice • University YMCA - UIUC • Quaker Meeting of Urbana-Champaign • Social Action Committee of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Urbana-Champaign - UUCUC • McKinley Presbyterian Church and Foundation • The School for Designing a Society • Wesley United Methodist Church at the University of Illinois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Jul 10 11:45:37 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:45:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killer Koh & Obama: Harvard Law School Is A Neo-Con Cesspool Message-ID: Both Killer Koh & Obama were behind me at Harvard Law School. The Nazis had their law schools too 70 years after World War II The Nazis have won And Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color Have become their new Untermensch Ditto for Illinois Law 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) Harvard Law School Is a Neo-Con Cesspool After Deans Clark and Kagan I would not send my dog to I like my dog Nor my kids Nor others' kids I like them too To learn torture And become torturers To learn war crimes And become war criminals To learn kangaroo courts And become kangaroos To learn drones And become droners To learn murder And become murderers To learn assassinations And become assassins To trash the Constitution And International Law Human Rights too This is not the HLS I entered In 1971 A Pox upon their House 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) 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 Jul 10 12:26:50 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 12:26:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Illinois' & Harvard's Gitmo Kangaroo Law Schools Message-ID: Just to give you some background here. This is the Neo-Nazi Racist Harvard Law School that Obama and Killer Koh came from after me. And despite my best efforts over all these years, it is now here at Illinois Law as proven by Their Killer Koh Endowed Lecture on October 28 in order to elect Clinton as President ten days later: Illinois Law School Is a Neo-Con Cesspool After Deans Mengler, Hurd and Smith I would not send my dog too. I like my dog. 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) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:58 AM To: Killeacle Subject: Harvard's Gitmo Kangaroo Law School Copyright 2010 Newstex LLC All Rights Reserved Newstex Web Blogs Copyright 2010 Atlantic Free Press Atlantic Free Press April 2, 2010 Friday 12:27 AM EST LENGTH: 2153 words HEADLINE: Harvard's Gitmo Kangaroo Law School: The School for Torturers BYLINE: Francis A Boyle BODY:     Apr. 2, 2010 (Atlantic Free Press delivered by Newstex) -- by Francis A. Boyle Ph.D. Not surprisingly, the January 2007 issue of the American Journal of Imperial Law--otherwise known as the self-styled American Journal of International Law but originally founded a century ago and still operated by U. S. War and State Department legal apparatchiks and their law professorial fellow-travelers-- published an article by Harvard Law School's recently retired Bemis Professor of International Law Detlev Vagts (who only taught me the required course on Legal Accounting) arguing in favor of the Pentagon's Kangaroo Courts System on Guantanamo despite the fact that they have been soundly condemned by every human rights organization and every human rights official and leader in the entire world as well as by the United States Supreme Court itself in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).     I am not going to bother to recite here all the grievous deficiencies of the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts under International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law. But suffice it to say that the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts constitute war crimes under the Laws of War, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and even the U. S. Army's own Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956). Field Manual 27-10 was drafted for the Pentagon by my Laws of War teacher Richard R. Baxter, who was generally recognized as the world's leading expert on that subject. That is precisely why I voluntarily chose to study International Law with him and his long-time collaborator Louis B. Sohn, and not with the bean-counter Vagts. For the entire post-World War II generation of international law students at Harvard Law School, Louis Sohn shall always be our real Bemis Professor of International Law and never the False Pretender to that Throne known as Detlev Vagts. Since those student days I have personally appeared pro bono publico in five U.S. military courts-martial proceedings involving warfare that were organized in accordance with the Congress's Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.)--which still does not apply to the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts despite the ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in Hamdan that the U.C.M.J. should be applied in Guantanamo--on behalf of five U. S. military personnel who each acted as matters of courage, integrity, principle, conscience and at great risk to their own freedom: 1. U. S. Marine Corporal Jeff Paterson, the first U.S. military resister to President Bush Sr.'s genocidal war against Iraq; 2. Army Captain Doctor Yolanda Huet-Vaughn, the highest ranking U. S. commissioned officer to be court-martialed for refusing to participate in President Bush Sr.'s genocidal war against Iraq; 3. Captain Lawrence Rockwood, who was court-martialed by the U. S. Army for trying to stop torture in Haiti after the Clinton administration had illegally invaded that country in 1994; 4. Army Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, the first U. S. military resister to be court-martialed for refusing to participate in President Bush Jr.'s war of aggression against Iraq; and 5. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first U. S. commissioned officer to be court-martialed for his refusal to participate in President Bush Jr.'s war of aggression against Iraq. As I can attest from my direct personal involvement, each and every one of these five courts-martial under the U.C.M.J. were Stalinist show-trials produced and directed by the Pentagon that predictably and readily degenerated into travesties of justice. These five U.C.M.J. courts-martial involving U.S. warfare each proved correct the old adage attributed to Groucho Marx that military justice is to justice as military music is to music. By comparison, the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts will not even be run in accordance with the U.C.M.J. despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan that they should be. The Marx Brothers are running the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts. Whenever they are up and fully operating the Gitmo Courts will constitute Stalinist Show Trials as well as Kangaroo Courts, and their preliminary proceedings have already proven them to be Travesties of Justice. Even worse yet, fully-functioning Stalinist Gitmo Kangaroo Courts will quickly become conveyor-belts of death for alleged and already tortured terrorist suspects along the lines of the Texas execution chamber operated by George Bush Jr. when he was the "governor" of that state and tortured to death 152 victims by means of lethal injection. Gitmo and/or Gitmo-North in Illinois will become Americas first-ever Nazi-style death camp. But today under the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, executing persons detained as a result of armed conflict without a fair trial before a regularly constituted court constitutes a grave war crime. To be sure, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution Harvard Law Professor Vagts has the freedom to advocate war crimes so long as he does not participate in their commission, or incite them, or aid and abet them. But precisely where is that line to be drawn for law professors? In this regard, the Harvard Law School Faculty currently has at least five professors who have advocated torture and war crimes: 1. Vagts himself, who supported abusing the then recently captured President of Iraq Saddam Hussein despite his being publicly acknowledged to be a Prisoner of War by the Bush Jr. administration itself and thus absolutely protected by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Convention against Torture; 2. the infamous Alan Dershowitz, a self-incriminated war criminal in his own right. Dersh publicly acknowledged being a member of a Mossad Committee for approving the murder and assassination of Palestinians, which violates the Geneva Conventions and is thus a grave war crime; 3. the Neo-Con Con Law non-entity known as Richard Parker; 4. Another one of my teachers, Waco Phil Heymann. Previously, Waco Phil had been Deputy to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco. Reno ordered the Waco Massacre, while Heymann ordered its cover-up and thus earned his well-deserved sobriquet of Waco Phil as an Accessory After The Fact. All those incinerated women and children! 5. The war criminal Jack Goldsmith who while working as a lawyer for the Bush Jr. administration at both the Pentagon and later its Department of In-Justice did much of the legal spade-work designing, justifying and approving the hideous human rights atrocities that the Bush Jr. administration inflicted on everyone after 9/11. Goldsmith and his co-felon accomplice and co-conspirator from the Bush Jr. administration Professor John Yoo--now desecrating Berkeley's Law School where my friend and colleague the late, great Dean Frank Newman had taught Human Rights and International Law--are functionally analogous to Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt, who justified every hideous atrocity that Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on anyone, including the Jews. Despite my best efforts to prevent it, the Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans hired the war criminal Goldsmith right out of the Bush Jr. administration knowing full well that he was up to his eyeballs in the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts, torture, war crimes, enforced disappearances, murder, kidnapping, and crimes against humanity, at a minimum. And when Goldsmith's proverbial "smoking-gun" Department of In-Justice Memorandum was published by the Washington Post, then Harvard Law School's Dean Elena Kagan contemptuously boasted in response about how "proud" she was to have hired this notorious war criminal. Previously Kagan had also publicly bragged that the future of International Legal Studies at Harvard Law School would be in the "good hands" of their resident war criminal Goldsmith. How perversely and tragically true! The Neo-Conservative Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans deliberately hired this Neo-Nazi legal architect of the Bush Jr. administration's bogus and nefarious "war against terrorism" because they fully support it together with all its essential accouterments of torture, kangaroo courts, war crimes, murder, kidnapping, enforced disappearances, crimes against humanity, and Nuremburg crimes against peace. By contrast, after the terrorist bombing of the Murrah Federal Building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in alleged revenge for the Waco Massacre and Cover-up by Janet Reno and Waco Phil Heymann, to the best of my recollection I do not remember that the Neo-Conservative Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans advocated kangaroo courts, torture, war crimes, and racist profiling for America's population of White Judeo-Christian Males. Yet after 9/11 the fundamentally White Racist Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans have no problem with inflicting torture, kangaroo courts, war crimes, and racist profiling upon Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color, which is exactly why they hired the war criminal Goldsmith to teach such criminal practices to their own law students and thus someday turn them into racist U. S. governmental war criminals in their own right. This is because for the most part the Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans have always been viscerally bigoted and racist against Muslims/Arabs/Asians and other People of Color since at least when I first matriculated there in September of 1971. The Harvard Law School (H.L.S.) Faculty and Deans are no longer fit to educate Lawyers, Members of the Bar, and Officers of the Court. They are a sick joke and a demented fraud. Groucho Marx would have had a field day with them: Harvard is to Law School as Torture is to Law. The Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans torture the Law. Do not send your children or students to Harvard Law School where they will grow up to become racist war criminals! Harvard Law School is a Neo-Con cesspool. As for Harvard Laws Neo-Con Dean Kagan, Harvard Law Graduate President Barack Obama appointed her Solicitor General in his Department of Justice as the third highest ranking official in that department and thus as the proverbial oeTenth Justice for the 9-Justice U.S. Supreme Court. In this capacity Kagan has quarter-backed, supervised, and defended in all U.S. federal courts the Obama administrations continuation of the Bush Jr. administrations hideous atrocities perpetrated against human rights, international law, civil rights, civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, and Americas Bill of Rights. As payback for her yeoman Neo-Con efforts, Kagan is now reportedly at the top of a very short list for President Obama to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court upon the expected retirement of Mr. Justice Stevens, the reputed leader of the Courts oeliberal wing. Of course Stevens widespread denomination as a oeliberal just proves how far to the reactionary right the Supreme Court has moved since Stevens was recommended for the Supremes to President Gerald Ford by the arch-reactionary jurist Edward Hirsh Levi, then U.S. Attorney General and previously Dean of the arch-reactionary University of Chicago Law School where Antonin Scalia, Obama, Kagan, and her pet war criminal Goldsmith would all teach. As President of the entire arch-reactionary University of Chicago itself, Levi drove out about 30% of my undergraduate class that in 1968 had unwittingly entered this Birthplace and Warren for the Neo-Con Movement that was founded there by Chicago Professor Leo Strauss, a protégé of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt. Americas Neo-Cons are Neo-Nazis. In an interview she recently gave to National Public Radio, Obamas Neo-Con Solicitor General Kagan went out of her way to proclaim: oeI love the Federalist Society! (Emphasis in the original.) The Federalist Society is a gang of lawyers, law professors, and judges who for the most part are right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, elitist, war-mongering, and totalitarian. For example, almost all of the Bush Jr. administration lawyers responsible for its war criminal torture scandal were and still are members of the Federalist Society. Likewise, five Justices on the current U.S. Supreme Court were/are members of the Federalist Society: Harvard Law Graduate Roberts; Harvard Law Graduate Scalia; Harvard Law Graduate Kennedy; Yale Law Graduate Thomas; and Yale Law Graduate Alito. Thats what an oeelite legal education will do for you. In any event, H.L.S. President Obamas elevation of the H.L.S. Neo-Con Kagan to the Supremes would cement the Federalist Societys Neo-Con stranglehold over the U.S. Supreme Court for the next generation. As for another publicly touted Supremes candidate, the Neo-Con Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School and Harvard Law School, who is currently working at the White House as Obamas Disinformation and Infiltration Czar, would be just as lethal as Kagan to the American Constitution and Republic if sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Time for the Ordinary People of America to get organized against these Neo-Con legal elites! From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Jul 10 13:36:28 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 13:36:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT: ACLU v. Killer Koh & Illinois Law Message-ID: The director of the A.C.L.U.’s National Security Project, Hina Shamsi, said, “There is great damage to the rule of law and human rights law when the United States, of all countries, engages in killings based on secret interpretations of the law, or entirely new and unilateral legal frameworks outside the agreed-upon international framework that places important constraints on the use of lethal force and protects the right to life.” This is also true of the secret legal memos that justify the drone campaign. Harold Koh, who served as the legal adviser at the State Department from 2009 to 2013, said the lack of transparency has unnecessarily damaged perceptions of the drone program. So the Racist Neo-Nazi Illinois Law Faculty are bringing in Killer Koh to justify his Genocidal Drone Murder Campaign against 5000+ Muslims/Arabs/Asians Men, Women and Children of Color, including 5 US Citizens and one American Child on October 28 in order to get his Boss Clinton elected president ten days later. Muslims of Color have become their new Untermensch at Illinois Law! Illinois Law School is Neo-Nazi Cesspool, After Deans Mengler, Hurd and Smith, I would not send my dog too, I like my dog. 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) Feed: NYT > Editorials Posted on: Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:00 PM Author: By THE EDITORIAL BOARD Subject: The Secret Rules of the Drone War [http://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/10sun1/10sun1-thumbStandard.jpg]Without more detailed information, it is impossible to know whether the Obama administration is following its own rules. View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Jul 10 14:04:50 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 14:04:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Clinton Contamination at Illinois Law on October 28 Message-ID: So many lawyers in this column, so little law. Ditto for Killer Koh and the Illinois Law Faculty. Killer Koh admitted that he advised his Boss Clinton on the “handling” of her emails. Killer Koh thus became part of Clinton’s Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Government in violation of the Federal Criminal Code. And now the Racist and Lawless Neo-Nazi Illinois “ Law” Faculty are inviting Killer Koh to give an Endowed Lecture here on October 28 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later in gross violation of an Illinois Statute that expressly forbids the use of any University Resources for partisan electoral purposes. Even one such university email message is sanctionable by the Illinois Inspector General in Springfield. And I already have them all dead to rights on their web-page announcement of Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture that I have saved. Illinois Law School is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool, After Deans Mengler, Hurd, and Smith, I would not send my dog too, I like my dog. 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) Feed: Columnists Posted on: Saturday, July 09, 2016 2:30 PM Author: By MAUREEN DOWD Subject: The Clinton Contamination They were careless people, Bill and Hillary, they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness. View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Jul 10 15:10:33 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 15:10:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Clinton Contamination at Illinois Law on October 28 Message-ID: The Racist and Neo-Nazi Illinois Law Faculty are trying to ram Killers Koh/Clinton down the throats of everyone living in this Community ten days before the Presidential Election: Illinois Law School Illinois Law School Is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool After Deans Mengler, Hurd & Smith I would not send my dog to I like my dog Nor my kids Nor others’ kids I like them too To learn torture And become torturers To learn war crimes And become war criminals To learn kangaroo courts And become kangaroos To learn drones And become droners To learn murder And become murderers To learn assassinations And become assassins To trash the Constitution And International Law Human Rights too The Nazis had their law schools too 70 Years after World War II The Nazis have won at Illinois Law Where Muslims of Color are their Untermensch This is not the Illinois Law I came to in 1978 A Pox upon their House! 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, July 10, 2016 9:05 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: The Clinton Contamination at Illinois Law on October 28 So many lawyers in this column, so little law. Ditto for Killer Koh and the Illinois Law Faculty. Killer Koh admitted that he advised his Boss Clinton on the “handling” of her emails. Killer Koh thus became part of Clinton’s Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Government in violation of the Federal Criminal Code. And now the Racist and Lawless Neo-Nazi Illinois “ Law” Faculty are inviting Killer Koh to give an Endowed Lecture here on October 28 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later in gross violation of an Illinois Statute that expressly forbids the use of any University Resources for partisan electoral purposes. Even one such university email message is sanctionable by the Illinois Inspector General in Springfield. And I already have them all dead to rights on their web-page announcement of Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture that I have saved. Illinois Law School is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool, After Deans Mengler, Hurd, and Smith, I would not send my dog too, I like my dog. 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) Feed: Columnists Posted on: Saturday, July 09, 2016 2:30 PM Author: By MAUREEN DOWD Subject: The Clinton Contamination They were careless people, Bill and Hillary, they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness. View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Sun Jul 10 16:33:16 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 11:33:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sanders Bullshit Meter Goes Off the Charts in Portland, Maine Message-ID: <004e01d1dac8$c3572e40$4a058ac0$@comcast.net> July 7, 2015 Sanders Bullshit Meter Goes Off the Charts in Portland, Maine by Bruce K. Gagnon * I spent two hours yesterday holding a banner (joined by eight others with signs and a 2nd banner) outside the Bernie Sanders for President rally in Portland, Maine that reportedly drew about 9,000 people. It was an impressive crowd for someone who once claimed he was a 'socialist'. People began lining up before 5:00 pm for the 7:00 event and during those two hours I kept a steady stream of requests going to folks as they entered the Portland Civic Center. I suggested to eager Sanders supporters, "Please ask Bernie his position on the $400 billion F-35 fighter plane project. Ask him if it is true that he has lobbied to bring the plane to Vermont?" I suggested to the excited crowd, with many young people in line, that they might ask Sanders, "His position on NATO expansion up to Russia's border - can we really afford war with Russia?" "Informed citizens need to know the answers to Bernie's foreign policy - he's not talking about these issues," I said. Once the line had ended I folded up my banner and made a dash inside just as the rally was starting. All seats in the arena were taken and the entry onto the floor was blocked but I wedged my way down onto the hockey stadium floor within 25 feet of the stage that Sanders was speaking from. The candidate was getting huge applause as he took on Wall St, the Koch brothers, income inequality and the like. He touched on all the traditional progressive buttons just like I'd heard Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich do in the past. Women's issues, single-payer health care, student loans hitting young people, and more were addressed. Sanders called for free college tuition for all. He wants to create millions of new jobs. He talked about fixing our neglected and broken infrastructure. He hit hard on climate change calling for a sustainable society. It was when he mentioned climate change that I figured he had to talk about the military industrial complex, because after all that is the pot of gold that has to be tapped in order to pay for building the new vision of America that Bernie so eloquently laid out. But nothing was said about the metastasizing Pentagon budget nor a mumbling word was spoken about foreign policy. Nothing about Russia ( Sanders does support sanctions on Moscow), nothing about NATO expansion, nothing about Israel's brutal attacks on Gaza (Sanders has publicly supported Tel Aviv's attacks on Palestinians), nothing about negotiations with Iran, nothing about waste, fraud, abuse at the Pentagon, nothing about our endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, etc, and nothing about conversion of the military industrial complex to peaceful production. After making many social program promises the only thing Bernie mentioned as a way to pay for all of this was a tax on "Wall Street speculation" which of course got a big cheer. I really didn't disagree with anything in Bernie's speech last night. He is adept at pulling all the right strings and it is more than evident that the public is hungry for some real push back against the power of the corporate oligarchy (he even used the word oligarchy) that runs Washington. I left wondering how many people noticed that he never once mentioned military and foreign policy? It's rather hard to imagine making a speech to 9,000 people and asking them to vote for you to be president but avoiding the elephant in the middle of the room. The Pentagon now rakes in 55% of every discretionary tax dollar so you'd think that would be on the table as a campaign issue. But it is not which makes me more than alarmed. My bullshit meter went off the charts last night. I've seen this song and dance before. But it doesn't really matter what I think because those 9,000 mostly liberal democrats left the Civic Center last night thinking they have found another shining knight on a white horse to lead them to victory. But victory won't be within their grasp unless we can talk about the US imperial war project that is draining our nation, killing people all over the world, and helping to increase climate change as the Pentagon has the largest carbon bootprint on the planet. Sure taxes on Wall Street speculation will help some, but until we get our hands on the Pentagon's pot of gold nothing really changes around here...just saying. Join the debate on Facebook Bruce K. Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space based in Brunswick, Maine. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun Jul 10 23:36:59 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 23:36:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Clinton Contamination at Illinois Law on October 28 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So on October 28 the University of Illinois College of Law Faculty and Staff will be going all out to get Clinton elected President ten days later. Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! 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, July 10, 2016 10:11 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: RE: The Clinton Contamination at Illinois Law on October 28 The Racist and Neo-Nazi Illinois Law Faculty are trying to ram Killers Koh/Clinton down the throats of everyone living in this Community ten days before the Presidential Election: Illinois Law School Illinois Law School Is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool After Deans Mengler, Hurd & Smith I would not send my dog to I like my dog Nor my kids Nor others’ kids I like them too To learn torture And become torturers To learn war crimes And become war criminals To learn kangaroo courts And become kangaroos To learn drones And become droners To learn murder And become murderers To learn assassinations And become assassins To trash the Constitution And International Law Human Rights too The Nazis had their law schools too 70 Years after World War II The Nazis have won at Illinois Law Where Muslims of Color are their Untermensch This is not the Illinois Law I came to in 1978 A Pox upon their House! 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, July 10, 2016 9:05 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'David Green' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Stuart Levy' >; 'Karen Medina' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' >; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: The Clinton Contamination at Illinois Law on October 28 So many lawyers in this column, so little law. Ditto for Killer Koh and the Illinois Law Faculty. Killer Koh admitted that he advised his Boss Clinton on the “handling” of her emails. Killer Koh thus became part of Clinton’s Conspiracy to Defraud the United States Government in violation of the Federal Criminal Code. And now the Racist and Lawless Neo-Nazi Illinois “ Law” Faculty are inviting Killer Koh to give an Endowed Lecture here on October 28 in order to get Clinton elected President 10 days later in gross violation of an Illinois Statute that expressly forbids the use of any University Resources for partisan electoral purposes. Even one such university email message is sanctionable by the Illinois Inspector General in Springfield. And I already have them all dead to rights on their web-page announcement of Killer Koh’s October 28 Lecture that I have saved. Illinois Law School is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool, After Deans Mengler, Hurd, and Smith, I would not send my dog too, I like my dog. 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) Feed: Columnists Posted on: Saturday, July 09, 2016 2:30 PM Author: By MAUREEN DOWD Subject: The Clinton Contamination They were careless people, Bill and Hillary, they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness. View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jul 11 12:20:02 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 07:20:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Baton Rouge protests Message-ID: <007401d1db6e$8da52170$a8ef6450$@comcast.net> Peace all. We had about 35 protesters arrested last night and about 35 on Friday night on various charges in Baton Rouge: inciting a riot, parading without a permit, blocking a highway, failure to disperse, assault on an officer, and several charges related to unconstitutional searches. We anticipate more today. Within 12 hours, we've raised more than $50,000 in a bail fund we set up at https://www.crowdrise.com/baton-rouge-bail-fund . We have 20 local criminal defense attorneys volunteering. We trained more than 150 Legal Observers (nearly all African American) at Southern University yesterday. Here's a three-minute piece the local news did on it until we asked them to leave. Our Legal Hotline for Baton Rouge protests is 225-341-2287. We are in touch with the Black Movement Law Project, NAACP LDF, Vanita Gupta, and others and are, as always, working closely with the community organizers on the crowd. We are setting up a temporary law office in a hotel room in Baton Rouge. We are asking all videos, photos, and narratives of police misconduct to be sent to BatonRougeLegalNLG at gmail.com . Thanks for all your support from afar. In the struggle, Sister Alison McCrary President, Louisiana Chapter of National Lawyers Guild -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Jul 11 23:16:40 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 23:16:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Book & podcast of interest References: <1952427505.1370850.1468279000670.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1952427505.1370850.1468279000670.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> https://www.amazon.com/Policing-Planet-Crisis-Black-Matter/dp/1784783161/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468278582&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3AChristina+Heatherton https://shadowproof.com/2016/07/10/unauthorized-disclosure-policing-planet/ Shadowproof is my favorite podcast, and this is one of the reasons why. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue Jul 12 15:32:08 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:32:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 7 Anti-drone activists arrested at Beale AFB, June 28, 2016 v. Illinois Law for Droner Killer Koh October 28, 2016 Message-ID: While these most courageous Civil Resisters were getting physically abused and arrested because of their principled opposition to Drone Murders, the Neo-Nazi bigots, racists and warmongers against Muslims of Color on the University of Illinois College of Law Faculty are inviting in Droner in Chief Harold Killer Koh on October 28 to give an Endowed Campaign Lecture to get his Boss Killer Clinton elected President ten days later. Illinois Law School Is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool After Deans Mengler, Hurd and Smith I would not send my Dog too. I like my dog. Hey! Hey! Illinois Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! For Mossad and the CIA! 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: globenet at yahoogroups.com [mailto:globenet at yahoogroups.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 10:11 AM To: GN List Serve Subject: [globenet] 7 Anti-drone activists arrested at Beale AFB, June 28, 2016 From: Toby Blomé REPORT BACK: OCCUPY BEALE AFB 7 Anti-drone activists were arrested, cited and released, while protesting drone killing, and honoring the life of Muhammad Azam, a recent drone victim. Next Occupy Beale Action: July 25 & 26, Mark your calendar! [cid:image001.jpg at 01D1DC28.9EE5ADF0] REPORT BACK: OCCUPY BEALE AFB, June 27 & 28, 2016 by Toby Blomé On June 28 seven northern California peace activists crossed the military base boundary line, one after the other, in an extended interruption of "business as usual" at Beale Air Force Base near Marysville, Calif., to continue their monthly resistance to the illegal U.S. targeted killing policies. Just prior to the arrests, activists had hung a yellow Crime Scene tape across the roadway leading into the base. The Global Hawk surveillance drone is actively involved in the drone assassination program, used as a tool to identify and track potential targets. [cid:image002.jpg at 01D1DC28.9EE5ADF0] Arrestees with friends Beverly and Lorraine Arrestees include: Chris Nelson (Chico), Mauro Oliveira (Montgomery Creek), Shirley Osgood (Grass Valley), Chris Knudson (Paso Robles), Flora Rogers (Marysville), Michael Kerr (Bay Pt.) and Toby Blomé (El Cerrito). [cid:image003.jpg at 01D1DC28.9EE5ADF0] Chris Nelson: Remembering Muhammad Azam As each activist prepared to cross the line, they read aloud to the military nearby parts of the story of the poor taxi driver, Muhammad Azam, who, on May 21, was unknowingly transporting a high level U.S. drone target, Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor. U.S. officials had no qualms about sacrificing the life of this poor taxi driver for a target they were determined to murder. Sadly, both the Taliban leader and Mr. Azam, the taxi driver (sole supporter of his 4 young children, his wife and his disabled brother) were burned beyond recognition by a hellfire missile. As our sign reads: Who will feed his family? Azam's story was not covered by U.S. media. www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/29/family-of-driver-mohammad-azam-killed-in-us-strike-on-taliban-leader-mullah-mansoor-file-criminal-case Activists were handcuffed and loaded onto a military bus and taken to the "processing building" on base property. As activists were asked to step off the bus, Chris Nelson, one of the arrestees, overheard the military police mention that they were going to keep another arrestee, Toby Blomé, on the bus. Receiving no explanation as to why Toby was being isolated, Chris refused to cooperate, and went "limp" to protest the unequal treatment. One female MP grabbed Chris by the arm and tried to forcibly bring her to her feet, and in the process caused a small back injury which is slowly getting better. Later, a male MP, while holding a taser in his hand, threatened to use it on Chris if she didn't cooperate and get on her feet. Chris admonished him, emphasizing that elders should be treated with the greatest of respect (Chris turned 69 the day before), and reminding him of the risks imposed by taser use. Chris was persistent, and ultimately, after a "medical assessment" by a base nurse, we were informed that Toby could leave the bus before Chris. In a typical manipulative manner they did isolate Toby after she stepped off the bus, keeping her in a shaded area outside, without rhyme or reason. After some time she was reunited with the group in the processing room. Chris was ridiculously penalized with an additional charge of "assaulting, resisting, or impeding....an officer." No explanation was ever given as to why Toby was isolated, but we can only surmise that it might have to do with the vigil in the afternoon before, at the Doolittle Gate. Toby was harassed while trying to pass out fliers educating folks coming out of the base about the recent taxi driver drone victim. Daniel Dockter, the man in charge of the security personnel on the base, and with whom we have had many engagements with over the years, was ordering Toby to stand in the painted road divider ("gore") in the area closest to the highway and blocking the vision of the drivers trying to exit the base into fast moving traffic. Mr. Dockter claimed that this was the only area of the "gore" that is off base property, even though we have stood in many other areas of the gore over the last 6 years without harassment much of the time. We have also been given a varying explanations about where the unmarked base boundary line is over these years. This time, security was putting drivers on the highway, drivers exiting the base and Toby all in a very unsafe situation. This seemed to be a clear effort to intimidate us, impede our free speech rights and totally ignore all reasonable safety concerns, since standing in the gore is our only reasonable place to be to access the military for leafletting. This is also in total conflict of what military personnel have emphasized over the years: that they are looking out for our "safety," or that they just want us to be safe. Toby addressed her serious concerns with Mr. Dockter and told him that he ultimately would be responsible if anyone was harmed by his orders. Surprisingly, even with a preponderance of military police present in and near the gore that afternoon, Toby was able to distribute 7 or 8 fliers. Another activist, Michael Kerr, was briefly detained, handcuffed, and cited during the Monday incident at the Doolittle gate, while he was merely peacefully crossing back and forth at the intersection with with his "Muslim Lives Matter" sign. This was his effort to be a witness and support Toby during the harassment. In addition, at the Wheatland gate on Monday, activists had distributed fliers about the military Chaplain, Chris Antal, who recently resigned from the U.S. Army in opposition to the drone assassination program and the imperialistic policies of the U.S. In spite of high temperatures exceeding 100 degrees on Mon. afternoon, numerous others joined our 2 day protest and encampment, even though they could not participate in the civil resistance the next day. Their support is much appreciated as we continue to wage our persistent voices against the cruelty of drone killing and endless wars. Our 2 day "vigiling" and messaging of signs along the roadways entering the base play an important role in stimulating critical thinking and challenging blind obedience. Our absence from this work could otherwise mean complicity. This work does not come without risks. On Tuesday, before the arrests, Flora Rogers and Michael Kerr were holding a banner on the side of the road when a large Recology truck purposefully skirted right over the area they were standing, forcing them to quickly jump out of the way to avoid impact. This violent and intentional act was meant to intimidate us. As Flora and Michael were forced to jump out of the path of the huge vehicle, Flora sustained a foot injury that gave her swelling and pain, which, luckily, is getting better. This behavior will not stop us from returning, and it is not the first time. As Flora said: "It is our first amendment right and our's to protect. It is all the average citizens who speak out who protect the right to free speech! It it the artists and poets and songwriters! By ACTING we make free speech real and prove our existence and that our dissent is real!" Recently there has been some discussion and questioning of the value of the work we do while protesting at military bases. Those of us at Beale feel we have a huge ethical responsibility to be there. Besides, in doing so, we are "creating the change we want to see in the world." Every meaningful and respectful conversation had with a military personnel is bringing us one step closer to a more peaceful society. In last month's action a Beale airmen who comes from a long line of military family members said he would find and listen to a couple of Howard Zinn speeches on Youtube. This might be the beginning of an opportunity for his 2 year old son to have a different future than his own.....tearing down a culture of war one human at a time. In recent years Occupy Beale activists have been increasing the frequency of civil resistance actions, and the U.S. military and U.S. prosecutors responses have been to detain, cite, release, but ultimately cancel the arraignment, without pressing charges. It appears they want to keep the covert drone program out of the public's radar. The drone program is rapidly expanding around the world, in spite of regular protests at drone bases across the country. Imagine if this unchecked computerized murdering occurred without a single military base protest? Would the military personnel assume they had the consent of the American public? There is rarely, if at all, any meaningful opposition in mainstream media. It is so important that they see and hear from us on a regular basis. What we do know is that the U.S. Air Force is having trouble keeping military personnel in the drone program. This was revealed in recent years by high level officials in the military who reported that drone pilots are dropping out faster than they are able to replace them. This is a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. Our persistence surely must be playing a role. We welcome others to join us when you can, and not be a part of the silent majority that perpetuates the status quo. Check out: www.facebook.com/OccupyBealeAirForceBase __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "Global Network" > ________________________________ ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ [Yahoo! Groups] . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 51926 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 93669 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 61975 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jul 12 22:31:35 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:31:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air for July 12 (#371) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80C41A83-9EC3-44BA-9476-0BE1E902DF89@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEwz8NlVQpI 'AWARE on the Air' is an unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, the “Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort” of Champaign-Urbana. Episode #371 was recorded at noon on Tuesday 12 July in the studios of Urbana Public Television for cablecast Tuesday at 10pm & on demand on YouTube. The commentators were C. G. Estabrook and Ron Szoke. * * * Tariq Ali: "Bernie's endorsement of Clinton is disgusting, but not surprising. He had said he would do so right from the beginning. What will his supporters do? Thanks to Trump, a majority will follow him down this road, but the 30 percent who won't could become important in US politics … a start would be to vote for the Green Party candidate whose politics are to the left of Sanders and who has been very good on Israel/Palestine.” ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jul 13 18:36:34 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 13:36:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Rep=2E_Grayson=E2=80=99s_Statement_on_B?= =?utf-8?q?razilian_President=E2=80=99s_Impeachment?= Message-ID: *From:* "Dupuy, Tina" *Date:* July 13, 2016 at 2:06:43 PM EDT *Subject:* *Grayson press release* Congressman Alan Grayson Florida- 9th Congressional District *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* *Date: *July 13, 2016 *Contact: *Tina Dupuy, 202-225-9889 Grayson’s Statement on Brazilian President’s Impeachment *WASHINGTON D.C.* – Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-09), who serves on the Foreign Affairs Committee and its Western Hemisphere Subcommittee made a one-minute speech on the Floor of the House regarding President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil during her impeachment proceedings. Transcript: “I would like to express my concern about events that are happening now in Brazil. In Brazil, President Dilma Rousseff was reelected because a majority of Brazilians wanted to pursue her progressive policies further. But shortly after her reelection, some members of the right-wing opposition started to question the election results. Aided by the conservative media in Brazil, they accused her of manipulating the state budget in order to pay for social programs. But now they have taken it further than that, beyond their accusations, and they have forced her temporarily out of office by impeaching her, and putting her out of power while those proceedings take place. “The interim government is implementing the exact policies that were rejected by a majority of Brazilian voters: cutting social programs, cutting education, cutting housing, cutting health care. These are things the [Brazilian] People wanted. It’s what they voted for and yet the interim government is undermining democracy by denying these things to the people who voted for them. “My message is simple: Democracy matters. Votes matter. All around the world we are seeing right-wingers trying to deny the democratic forces their rightful power from winning elections. In Britain we have seen an effort to undermine the results of Brexit. In Portugal, the same thing happened when a left-wing majority won Parliament. And here in the United States there have been efforts to undermine the President. This must end. Democracy matters. “ Watch the video here . *Congressman Alan Grayson represents Florida’s 9th Congressional District, which includes Osceola County, as well as parts of Orange and Polk counties.* Grayson.House.Gov *###* *--* *Tina Dupuy* *(tee-na doo-pwee)* *Communications Director* *U.S. House of Representatives* *Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-9)* *303 Cannon HOB* *(202) 225-9889 <%28202%29%20225-9889>* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 35850 bytes Desc: not available URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Jul 13 21:49:50 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:49:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bernie Sanders Abandons the Revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013901d1dd50$7e449100$7acdb300$@comcast.net> Bernie Sanders Abandons the Revolution http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/13/bernie-sanders-abandons-the-revolutio n/ by KSHAMA SAWANT * * § Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 9.42.28 AM Bernie Sanders’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton has hugely disappointed millions of his supporters. Many of those inspired by his call for a political revolution had held out hope, even until now, that he would refuse to endorse Wall Street’s favored candidate. But those hopes have come crashing down. Not only did Sanders endorse his neoliberal opponent, he has begun to campaign for her, even before the Democratic National Convention, where he had previously committed to continue the fight. Appearing at her rally in New Hampshire, he signaled his intention to further accompany her on the campaign trail. Bernie’s forceful endorsement of Hillary was almost glowing, after months of campaigning against her close links to Wall Street and Corporate America. He said: “Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.” The heart of his speech was an issue-by-issue comparison of the two corporate candidates. He outlined the real dangers of Trump’s politics, saying for example that Trump’s approach to climate change, “would be a disaster for our country and our planet.” There can be no doubt about Bernie’s diagnosis of the threat represented by Trump’s right-wing populism, but he is entirely wrong about how to cure the disease. We will not succeed in decisively defeating the right by supporting establishment politicians like Hillary Clinton. It is the massive outrage at the brutal big business policies carried out by the political establishment, of which Hillary is correctly seen as a chief representative, that has created the basis for Trump’s ascendance. We saw this very clearly only a few years ago with the rise of the Tea Party, which was born out of the fury at the Wall Street bailouts, while the left was busy making excuses for Obama’s pro-corporate policies. The (un)Democratic Party will never be an effective tool to defeat the right wing, either during or after the election. Experience has shown repeatedly that it is, in fact, a longtime enabler of it. In order to defeat the right, we will need to build powerful, united mass movements and a new political party for the 99% – that will work alongside our movements, rather than against them. Hillary Clinton has the dubious distinction of being the second most unpopular major party nominee in the history of U.S. presidential polling, second only to Donald Trump. Fear of Trump is the main support propping up Clinton, while fear of Clinton is the main prop for Trump. The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly put it, “the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of.” Bernie’s campaign has shaken the foundations of U.S. politics with its bold challenge to the corrupt political establishment and the domination of Wall Street and the super rich over society. Tens of thousands of people became politically active for the first time, and a broader discussion about socialism has been put back on the agenda. But the issues Sanders ran on, like a national $15 minimum wage, opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and Medicare for all, will in no way be advanced by his capitulation to Clinton. Instead, Bernie’s endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment, including the corporate-owned leadership of the Democratic Party which has fought against him at every step, and which just booed him in the last week. Further, if Jill Stein were not running, or received little support, polls already show that the two right-wing candidates, Libertarian Gary Johnson, and Republican Donald Trump, would be the beneficiaries of the anti-establishment vote – helping to grow the base for right-wing populism. Sanders endorsement of Clinton is a fundamental failure of leadership. Sanders has the trust of millions of the most dedicated, committed workers and young people. They are looking to him. He has a responsibility to lead them in the way forward, not into a political dead end. While my organization, Socialist Alternative, and I actively supported Sanders’s campaign by launching Movement4Bernie, we always openly disagreed with his decision to run in the Democratic Party primary. But we also said that this mistake could be corrected as experience clarified the deeply hostile character of the Democratic Party to progressive politics. We urged Bernie if he was defeated within the (un)Democratic primary, as we expected, to continue running as an independent or Green, and launched a petition that has been signed now by nearly 125,000 people. The experience of the rigged primary utterly exposed the undemocratic, conservative, and pro-corporate character of the party. While Sanders won roughly 46% of the Democratic primary vote, he only received the endorsement of eight Democratic members of the House and only one Democratic Senator. The vast majority of the party establishment stood firmly against Sanders and the millions of workers and youth mobilizing behind his call for a political revolution against the billionaire class. The whole experience of the Sanders campaign and the massive gulf between the enormous grassroots upsurge of working people and youth behind Sanders, and the conservative, pro-capitalist character of the Democratic Party, graphically highlighted the potential to begin building a new political party, independent of corporate interests and billionaires. Even if Sanders was not prepared to take such a step, there was nothing that compelled him to endorse Hillary Clinton, a candidate of Wal-Mart, Wall Street, and warmongering. Sanders could have at least refused to endorse Clinton and reached out to his millions of supporters to mobilize them for mass protests against the racism and misogyny of Donald Trump, while urging them to vote for the left-wing, anti-corporate campaign of Jill Stein. Such a step would have been in tune with a big section of Sanders’s base. In recent polls, nearly half of his supporters were still rejecting calls to vote for Clinton, in spite of enormous pressures from the entire political and media establishment. But instead of correcting his initial mistake of running within the Democratic primary, Bernie is doubling down on it. His left wing credentials will now cynically be used in an attempt to corral Sandernistas back behind the very establishment that they are revolting against. Bernie’s case for endorsing Clinton was framed around the concessions in the Democratic Party platform passed in Orlando. To have any meaning, the platform would need to be binding on elected officials of the party. Politicians who vote against the Party platform would need to know they will lose future party backing. Of course that is not how the Democratic (or Republican) parties work at all. In reality, the history of DNC platforms has been a long, almost unblemished record of vague and broken promises. The platform normally goes out the window even before the ink is dry at the convention. Hillary Clinton will be free to pick and chose what policies she implements once in office regardless of what the platform says, and her decisions will be heavily guided by what is acceptable to her billionaire backers. While there were certain platform concessions made under pressure by the Democratic establishment, even those have been limited. Clear positions on major issues seen as hostile by corporate America – such as Medicare for all, opposition to the TPP, or a rejection of fracking – have been blocked. And while a $15 minimum wage was approved, does anyone seriously believe Clinton will fight for it? Just look at her donors: Wall Street banks, McDonalds, WalMart, Target, Big Pharma, HMOs and Big Oil. Will any of them tolerate a doubling of the national minimum wage? Bernie has stated, many times, that “The Democratic Party has to reach a fundamental conclusion: Are we on the side of working people or big-money interests?” Can Bernie say with a straight face that the Democratic Party (or Hillary Clinton herself) has now, in any way, reached that conclusion? We can’t afford to follow Bernie’s error. It is time for us to move on. Because, make no mistake, we do need to defeat the right. We will stop the growth of right populism the same way we will win the demands we fought for over these last months. By building the organized, fighting capacity of working people into powerful mass movements. Demobilizing our movement and handing over our fate to corporate politicians will only embolden the right. It was the strength of the powerful labor and socialist movements of the 30s and 40s that forced major concessions from Democrat Franklin Roosevelt, and it was the strength of the anti-establishment movements of the 60s and 70s that won major concessions from Republican Richard Nixon. Both times the leadership of these parties gave not one inch more than they were forced to by movements. The key reason broader social programs that were won in Europe and elsewhere (as Bernie so often refers to) were never established here is primarily because the U.S. working class has not yet succeeded in building its own political party and has instead remained tied to the pro-capitalist Democratic Party. Countries like Sweden, Britain and France did build mass socialist and labor parties which stood against the liberal and conservative capitalist parties in their countries. They fought alongside powerful movements and won important gains such as socialized medicine and free college education. The ruling elites in those countries conceded these public programs purely to stave off the threat of even greater upheavals by the working class, not out of goodwill. We have an historic opportunity now to begin building toward a new mass party of the 99%. We need a party based on genuine democracy, with an elected and recallable leadership, that accepts no corporate donations, that has a binding platform, and that is fully prepared to “welcome the contempt” of Wall Street and Corporate America, while fighting unapologetically for our interests. That is why I’m endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Jill Stein is fighting on essentially all the same issues as S an de rs. She’s calling for Medicare for all, a $15 minimum wage nationally, a rapid transition to renewable energy, and an end to mass incarceration. In some ways she has gone further than Bernie, in particular with her rejection of key aspects of US foreign policy and her call to cancel student debt. There can be no doubt that Jill’s campaign is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support from Sandernistas. The stronger the vote for Jill Stein the better positioned we will be to begin laying the basis for a new party of the 99% in the period following the 2016 election. While I don’t agree with Jill or the Green Party about everything, the Greens have an important role to play in helping to build independent politics. It’s time to be clear about what “Bernie or Bust” means. Now is not the time to throw in our cards and go “bust.” Bernie’s capitulation is a real setback. But we don’t have to accept it, we have real work to do and millions of people are looking for a way forward. Later this week, Movement4Bernie will be relaunching itself as Movement for the 99%, in reflection of its ongoing commitment to fight for the political revolution, before and after November. If you haven’t yet, I would invite you to attend a Beyond Bernie meeting in your area, hosted by Movement4Bernie and Socialist Alternative, to discuss the next steps for our movement and to get involved. I hope you will attend and consider joining Socialist Alternative. In just two weeks time, we will be at the Democratic National Convention. There will be major protests and rallies outside the DNC on the streets of Philadelphia. Inside, Bernie delegates will also be protesting against the Democratic leadership, and some are actively organizing a walkout. I hope you can be there with me to protest and to greet the delegates who take the bold step of walking out of the DNC. But it’s also time for an even bigger walkout – a mass walkout from the stranglehold of corporate politics and the (un)Democratic Party. It’s time to build our own party and a real revolution – one powerful enough to challenge corporate domination, institutional racism, poverty, and economic inequality – to win all the things our movement has been fighting for. Join the debate on Facebook Kshama Sawant is Seattle City Council Woman and member of Socialist Alternative. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jul 14 12:18:22 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:18:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Breaking News:: Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal Message-ID: But of course the Law Faculty will have Clinton's lawyer Killer Koh out here on October 28 to do damage control and damage limitation for Clinton on her email scandal, inter alia, so that she can become elected President 10 days later. What a Gang of Fraudsters! The College of Law Faculty are the most unethical and corrupt in the entire country as determined by the American Bar Association. Their $250,000 fine was unprecedented in legal education. As the ABA pointed out in their Censure, we were lucky they did not revoke our Accreditation, which would have punished our students for their Malefactions. So now the COL Faculty will be holding up Killer Koh as a Role Model for Lawyers in Government to our Law Students. I call that a lot worse than their Legal Malpractice. On October 28 The College of Law Faculty will become Accessories After the Fact to all the Killers Clinton/Koh Crimes. And I was originally hired here to teach Criminal Law. Fab. BREAKING NEWS Hillary Clinton has emerged from the email investigation a wounded candidate. She and Donald Trump are tied, our new poll has found. Thursday, July 14, 2016 7:01 AM EDT Hillary Clinton has emerged from the F.B.I. investigation into her email practices as secretary of state a wounded candidate with a large and growing majority of voters saying she cannot be trusted, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. As Mrs. Clinton prepares to accept the Democratic Party's nomination at the convention in Philadelphia this month, she will confront an electorate in which 67 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy. That number is up five percentage points from a CBS News poll conducted last month, before the F.B.I. released its findings. 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, July 06, 2016 6:34 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: RE: Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal As you know I have already suggested that at the October 28 Rally against Killer Koh here at the Corrupt College of Law in the north Courtyard that we have blown-up six foot high posters of some of the Women and Children that Killer Koh has Drone Murdered around the world. I would also like to suggest that we have blown up posters of this picture. It has become iconic and emblematic of the Clinton email scandal. And there is Killer Koh right behind His Boss Clinton on it to her right. Picture perfect. Just about everyone has seen this picture. And now thanks to the Corrupt UI COL Faculty, Killer Koh is coming to the C/COL just on time to elect Clinton President. Why if you want you could even run off a color copy for yourself and have Killer Koh autograph it for you in the COL Pavilion right after his Clinton Campaign Speech in the COL Auditorium where he will be introduced by our Yale Law Mafia Dean as an "expert" on "international law" and "human rights" and "government service." 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: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 9:22 PM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'Karen Aram' >; 'C. G. Estabrook' >; 'David Green' >; 'David Johnson' >; 'Stuart Levy' >; 'Karen Medina' >; Szoke, Ron >; 'Mildred O'brien' >; 'Peace Discuss' >; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' >; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' >; Readel, Karin >; Estabrook, Carl G >; 'Belden Fields' >; 'jmachota at shout.net' >; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' >; 'Bryan Savage' >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Killer Koh & Clinton's Email Scandal [http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/hillary_blackberry_0.jpg-2.jpg] There is Killer Koh right behind his Boss Clinton. He admitted that he gave her "legal advice" on her emails, but refuses to say what he advised her claiming "attorney-client confidences" which is a lie and he knows it. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that there is no "attorney-client confidence" between government lawyers and government officials and that if the government official wants to establish an "attorney-client confidence" that government official needs to go out and hire his or her own lawyer. But hey, the TRUTH has never mattered to Killer Koh, Boss Clinton or the University of Illinois College of Law Faculty. That is precisely why the American Bar Association censured and fined the COL $250,000. The ABA believed that all 4 of our Dean Deans in a row were lying. So they stuck that fine on them to hang as an Albatross around their necks. These Reprobates have no shame! But maybe Killer Koh can explain it all away when he gets out here on October 28 to give his Endowed Lecture Campaign Appearance for His Boss Clinton 10 days before the election? Way to go College of Law Faculty! We'll get to hear all the Clinton/Koh lies on this and everything else straight from the Horse's Mouth! 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 79395 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jul 14 12:35:19 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:35:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Bastille Day 1978 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) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:support at lists.aals.org] Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 6:42 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: [SECTNS.aals] - Bastille Day 1978 I am the Son Of Three Revolutions American (1776) French (1789) Irish (1916) Their Heritage Courses through my veins Their Ideas are always on my mind Their Ideals Inspire my being All men are created equal Women too Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite Up the rebels! It is hard to imagine the courage of them all And on this day To honor the heroism of those Who stormed the Bastille Bringing down centuries Of Tyranny, Violence and Oppression Opening a new chapter In the Rights of Man-and Women too Rousseau's General Will Not the Will of His Majesty I stand with one of America's Greatest Founding Fathers Tom Paine In support of the French Revolution Against its detractors The Rights of Man-and Women too Tom said about the British King In Common Sense After the Massacres at Lexington and Concord Who founded the British monarchy? It was that Norman Bastard and his Gang of Bandits William dubbed the Conquerer The same for the French King, Queen and Aristocrats Just a Gang of Bastards and Bandits Let them all eat the cake of history I proudly celebrate The Fourth of July Bastille Day Easter Monday So I chose Bastille Day 1978 To leave my students days in Boston Home of the American Revolution To return to the Land of my Birth The State of Illinois The Land of Lincoln Who freed the slaves to start my fight against Injustice, and Tyranny and Violence Against the Rich, and the Powerful and the Famous For the Poor, the Oppressed and the Downtrodden of the World Palestinians, Bosnians, Chechens, Irish, Lakota, Blackfoot, Tamils, Kanakamaoli, African Americans, Puerto Ricans, Nicaraguans,Libyans, Arabs, and Muslims The list goes on Against Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors Against their Nukes and their Chems and Their Bios The real terrorists of Weapons of Mass Destruction For GI resistors and against wars of all types For civil resistors and their causes Against States and Governments and Empires And educating lawyers to do the same A force multiplier 37 years And maybe 3700 lawyers or so Trained to do as I Boyle's Brigade Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite! Up the rebels! Francis A. Boyle French Irish American 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) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) ________________________________ Site Links: View post online View mailing list online Start new thread via email Unsubscribe from this mailing list Manage your subscription This list is a forum for the exchange of points of view. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the group associated with the list and do not necessarily represent the position of the Association of American Law Schools. Use of this email content is governed by the terms of service at: https://connect.aals.org/p/cm/ld/fid=280 ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jul 14 15:54:27 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 15:54:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killer Koh at Law School October 28 to get Killer Clinton Elected President:U.S. Drone Program Proves Counterproductive on Own Terms Message-ID: On October 28, the grossly unethical University of Illinois College of Law Faculty will become Accessories After The Fact to all of the Crimes Committed by Killers Koh and Clinton and hold out Killer Koh as a Role Model for Lawyers in Government to our law students. In fact, Killer Koh should be in Jail. 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) U.S. Drone Program Proves Counterproductive on Own Terms By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/node/5218 If there's any debate right now in the major U.S. media regarding blowing people up with missiles from drones, it's about "transparency" (official reporting on who's killed) or death counts of those people somehow identified as civilians. But unless drones are just a means of vicariously venting rage, or of profiting drone manufacturers, they are -- like the wider wars they are part of -- supposed to serve some purpose. Although terrorism keeps increasing during the Overseas Contingency Operations Formerly Known as the Global War on Terrorism, in theory the war making is supposed to (1) not be terrorism itself, and (2) reduce terrorism or end it. While I think a strong case can be made that neither of those conditions has been or ever could be met, and that even as mass therapy or economic catalyst the whole thing is doomed to failure, the drones are the piece of it that have begun to be recognized as counterproductive. In a master's thesis from a student at Georgetown University, summarized in a recent article, Emily Manna took data on terrorism in Pakistan between 2006 and 2012 from the Global Terrorism Database and data on drone strikes where it was corroborated by both the New America Foundation and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Manna found that after the United States begins attacking a province with drones, terrorism increases there. Three years ago, a young man from Yemen whose village had been attacked by a U.S. drone the week before, testified before Congress. Farea Al-muslimi said that, as with many known drone strikes, the supposed target was a well-known man who could very easily have been arrested. Al-muslimi said that when his neighbors think of America, they think of "the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time. What violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant. There is now an intense anger against America." President Barack Obama used to hold up Yemen as the example of a successful drone war. That was before the drone strikes contributed to creating a wider war, and before the wider war waged by Saudi Arabia and the United States further strengthened al Qaeda in Yemen. The Chicot report recently highlighted the fact that Prime Minister Tony Blair was warned before the attack on Iraq that it would increase terrorism and could result, as it did, in something like ISIS. The U.S. government had the same understanding as well, and also had the same expectation of likely chaos for Syria if its government were overthrown, before beginning to work for that overthrow. Later Obama asked the CIA for a report on whether arming proxies had ever worked. The closest the CIA could come to a successful case was 1980s Afghanistan. Need I spell out what that created? (Yes, Obama proceeded to arm proxies in Syria anyway.) A CIA report warns that drone strikes can increase terrorism: "The potential negative effects . . . include increasing the level of insurgent support […], strengthening an armed group's bonds with the population, radicalizing an insurgent group's remaining leaders, creating a vacuum into which more radical groups can enter." Former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Paterson's cables published by WikiLeaks stated that drone strikes "risk destabilizing the Pakistani state, alienating both the civilian government and military leadership, and provoking a broader governance crisis in Pakistan without finally achieving the goal." According to Mark Mazzetti, "The CIA station chief in Islamabad thought the drone strikes in 2005 and 2006 — which, while infrequent at that time, were often based on bad intelligence and had resulted in many civilian casualties — had done little except fuel hatred for the United States inside Pakistan and put Pakistani officials in the uncomfortable position of having to lie about the strikes." Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said that while "drone attacks did help reduce the Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, they also increased hatred of America." Another Obama advisor, Michael Boyle, said drone strikes have "adverse strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the U.S. program in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries." Yet another, Gen. James E. Cartwright, the former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, according to the New York Times, that "America's aggressive campaign of drone strikes could be undermining long-term efforts to battle extremism. 'We're seeing that blowback. If you're trying to kill your way to a solution, no matter how precise you are, you're going to upset people even if they're not targeted.'" Micah Zenko at the Council on Foreign Relations has found that "There appears to be a strong correlation in Yemen between increased targeted killings since December 2009 and heightened anger toward the United States and sympathy with or allegiance to AQAP ... One former senior military official closely involved in U.S. targeted killings argued that 'drone strikes are just a signal of arrogance that will boomerang against America ... A world characterized by the proliferation of armed drones ... would undermine core U.S. interests, such as preventing armed conflict, promoting human rights, and strengthening international legal regimes.' Because of drones' inherent advantages over other weapons platforms, states and nonstate actors would be much more likely to use lethal force against the United States and its allies." Robert Grenier, who was Director of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center from 2004 to 2006, has asked: "How many Yemenis may be moved in future to violent extremism in reaction to carelessly targeted missile strikes, and how many Yemeni militants with strictly local agendas will become dedicated enemies of the West in response to U.S. military actions against them?" Here's an answer. Former U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Yemen, Nabeel Khoury, has warned that "the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies for every AQAP operative killed by drones." You wouldn't know this from most New York Times reports, but a New York Times editorial blurts it out as obvious: "Of course, we already know that torture and drone strikes pose a profound threat to America's national security and the safety of its citizens abroad." But if it's so "of course" that drones endanger us rather than protect us, and they cost a fortune, and they damage the environment, and they kill thousands of people, and they erode basic civil liberties, and they make small wars that develop into large wars so much easier to start, and their proliferation to numerous other nations is going to be a disaster, then why do it? Of course, more research will be done, most of it likely funded by the drone profiteers. But did we actually need any? Just imagine for a moment that the bomb the police used to blow a man up in Dallas, Texas, this month was a matter of routine, that these bombs were going off in all U.S. cities, that they were targeting people who looked suspicious or who had the cell phone of someone who had looked suspicious, that they were targeting those who rushed to the assistance of victims of an earlier strike, that the drones to deliver the bombs were buzzing constantly overhead as an ever-present threat so that parents were refusing to allow their kids out the door to go to school. Imagine that, and ask yourself if anyone would get angry. We need to ban weaponized drones: http://banweaponizeddrones.org -- 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 and 2016 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook. __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: David Swanson > ________________________________ ________________________________ [https://s.yimg.com/ru/static/images/yg/img/megaphone/1464031581_phpFA8bON] Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jul 14 21:38:59 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:38:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Killer Koh at Law School October 28 to Elect Killer Clinton:Armed Drones: President Obama's Favorite Weapon Message-ID: To put this into further perspective , even President Bush Jr did not arrogate to himself some alleged right to murder United States Citizens-unlike Killers Koh/Clinton/Obama who have. And Bush Jr never went to law school, whereas Killers Koh/Clinton/Obama did. And now Killer Koh is coming to Illinois Law School on October 28 to get Killer Clinton elected President ten days later and as an Exemplar and Role Model for Lawyers working in the government. The Nazis had their Lawyers too. Some of them were prosecuted in the Justice Case at Nuremberg. Illinois Law School, Is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool, After Deans Mengler, Hurd & Smith, I would not send my dog to, I like my dog. Fab From: outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com [mailto:outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com] On Behalf Of Francis Boyle Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:22 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Armed Drones: President Obama's Favorite Weapon http://mwcnews.net/focus/interactive/59858-armed-drones.html?utm_source=feedburner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jul 14 21:40:10 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 21:40:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Nuremberg Killer Koh at Law School October 28 to Elect Killer Clinton:Armed Drones: President Obama's Favorite Weapon Message-ID: Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings, Case #3, The Justice Case * Related Articles * Comments * How to cite this article [The view from the visitors' gallery during the Justice Case.] The view from the visitors' gallery during the Justice Case. - National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Md. * View Photographs [View Photographs] * View Historical Film Footage [View Historical Film Footage] United States v. Josef Altstoetter, et al. On February 13, 1947, the US Military Government for Germany created Military Tribunal III to try the Justice Case, the third of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings. Of the sixteen defendants indicted on January 4, nine were officials in the Reich Ministry of Justice, while the others were members of the People's and Special Courts. The defendants were arraigned on February 17, all pleading not guilty to the charges against them. The indictment listed four counts, with all the defendants charged with the first three: conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity; war crimes against civilians of territories occupied by Germany and against soldiers of countries at war with Germany; and crimes against humanity, against German civilians and nationals of occupied territories. The fourth count of the indictment charged seven of the defendants with membership in the SS, SD, or the leadership corps of the Nazi Party, all of which had been declared criminal organizations a year before by the International Military Tribunal. The prosecutors charged the defendants with "judicial murder and other atrocities, which they committed by destroying law and justice in Germany, and then utilizing the emptied forms of legal process for the persecution, enslavement and extermination on a large scale". The trial opened on March 5 and the final statements of the defendants were heard on October 18. Military Tribunal III returned its judgment on December 3 and 4, finding ten of the defendants guilty and acquitting four. Two defendants were not included in the judgment as one died before the trial began and the case of the other was declared a mistrial because he had been too sick to attend much of the trial. The court announced its sentences on December 4, sending four of the guilty defendants to prison for life and six to prison for terms ranging between five and ten years. Related Articles * Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings Copyright (c) United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC Encyclopedia Last Updated: July 2, 2016 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) 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: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:39 PM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: Killer Koh at Law School October 28 to Elect Killer Clinton:Armed Drones: President Obama's Favorite Weapon To put this into further perspective , even President Bush Jr did not arrogate to himself some alleged right to murder United States Citizens-unlike Killers Koh/Clinton/Obama who have. And Bush Jr never went to law school, whereas Killers Koh/Clinton/Obama did. And now Killer Koh is coming to Illinois Law School on October 28 to get Killer Clinton elected President ten days later and as an Exemplar and Role Model for Lawyers working in the government. The Nazis had their Lawyers too. Some of them were prosecuted in the Justice Case at Nuremberg. Illinois Law School, Is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool, After Deans Mengler, Hurd & Smith, I would not send my dog to, I like my dog. Fab From: outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com [mailto:outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com] On Behalf Of Francis Boyle Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2016 4:22 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Armed Drones: President Obama's Favorite Weapon http://mwcnews.net/focus/interactive/59858-armed-drones.html?utm_source=feedburner -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image007.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 58425 bytes Desc: image007.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20208 bytes Desc: image008.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12467 bytes Desc: image009.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 16 12:17:08 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:17:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US releases Saudi documents: 9/11 coverup exposed Message-ID: US releases Saudi documents: 9/11 coverup exposed 16 July 2016 The public release Friday afternoon of a section of the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks, which had been kept secret for 13 years, has provided fresh evidence of a deliberate coverup of the role played, not only by the Saudi government, but US intelligence agencies themselves, in facilitating the attacks and then covering up their real roots. The 28-page segment from the report issued by the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” provides abundant and damning evidence of extensive Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers—15 out of 19 of whom were Saudi nationals—in the period leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. The Obama White House, the CIA, the Saudi monarchy and the corporate media have all tried to portray the documents—released on a Friday afternoon to assure minimal exposure—as somehow exonerating the Saudi regime of any culpability in the 9/11 attacks. “This information does not change the assessment of the US government that there’s no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary said Friday, boasting that the main significance of their release was its proof of the Obama administration’s commitment to “transparency.” In reality, the 28 pages have been kept under lock and key since 2002, with only members of Congress allowed to read them, in a Capitol Hill basement vault, while prohibited from taking notes, bringing members of their staff or breathing a word of their content. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world’s biggest buyer of American arms. Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject criminality of the US government’s role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism conducted in the name of a “war on terror.” Media reports on the 28 pages invariably refer to the absence of a “smoking gun,” which presumably would be tantamount to an order signed by the Saudi king to attack New York and Washington. The evidence is described as “inconclusive.” One can only imagine what would have been the response if, in place of the word “Saudi,” the documents referred to Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian actions. The same evidence would have been proclaimed an airtight case for war. Among those who were involved in preparing the report, John Lehman, the former secretary of the navy, directly contradicted the official response to the release of the previously censored section. “There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,” he said. “Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.” Similarly, former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who chaired the committee that carried out the investigation, suggested that the information released Friday was only the beginning. “I think of this almost as the 28 pages are sort of the cork in the wine bottle. And once it’s out, hopefully the rest of the wine itself will start to pour out,” he said. What clearly emerges from the newly-released document, which is titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters,” is that there were multiple indications of funding and support for the 9/11 hijackers and Al Qaeda in general, but that investigations were either shut down or never initiated because of the close ties between Washington and the Saudi monarchy, and between US and Saudi intelligence. “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government,” the document begins. It cites FBI sources as indicating that some of these individuals were “Saudi intelligence officers.” It goes on to indicate that FBI and CIA investigations of these links were initiated solely in response to the Congressional inquiry itself. “[I]t was only after September 11 that the US government began to aggressively investigate this issue,” the report states. “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative sources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’” The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, “provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000.” The inquiry report deals with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar only from after they arrived in California, and says nothing about the circumstances under which they were allowed to enter the country in the first place. Both were under CIA surveillance while attending an Al Qaeda planning meeting in 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and placed on a “watch list” for FBI monitoring if they came to the United States. Nonetheless, the two men were allowed to enter the United States on January 15, 2000, landing at Los Angeles International Airport, eventually going to San Diego. From then on, they were permitted to operate freely, attending flight training school in preparation for their role as pilots of hijacked planes on September 11, 2001. Al-Bayoumi, the report establishes, “received support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense,” drawing a paycheck for a no-show job. The report states that the company also had ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was “in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense Ministry responsible for air traffic control.” Phone records showed him calling Saudi government agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000. FBI documents also established that the $465 in “allowances” that al-Bayoumi received through the Saudi military contractor, jumped to over $3,700 shortly after the arrival of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. During this period, al-Bayoumi initially allowed the two future hijackers to stay in his apartment before finding them their own place—with an informant of the San Diego FBI—cosigning their lease and advancing them a deposit and the first month’s rent. The report states that FBI investigations following 9/11 indicated that al-Bayoumi had “some ties to terrorist elements.” His wife, meanwhile, was receiving a $1,200 a month stipend from Princess Haifa Bint Sultan, the wife of Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to the US and later head of Saudi intelligence. Also named in the document as a likely Saudi intelligence agent is one Osama Bassnan, who lived across the street from the two hijackers in San Diego and was in telephone contact with al-Bayoumi several times a day during this period. He apparently placed the two in contact with a Saudi commercial airline pilot for discussions on “learning to fly Boeing jet aircraft,” according to an FBI report. Bassnan’s wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador’s wife, to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was “an extremist and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin,” who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader “as if he were god.” Appearing before the Congressional inquiry in October 2002, FBI Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Pasquale D’Amuro reacted with undisguised cynicism and contempt when asked about the payments from the Saudi ambassador’s wife to the wives of the two reputed intelligence agents involved with the 9/11 hijackers. “She gives money to a lot of different groups and people from around the world,” he said. “We’ve been able to uncover a number of these... but maybe if we can discover that she gives to 20 different radical groups, well, gee, maybe there’s a pattern here.” Spoken like a man who believes he is above the law in defense of a figure that he clearly sees as untouchable. Among other material in the report was the recounting of an FBI interrogation of Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi interior ministry official, who stayed in the same Virginia hotel as three of the hijackers the night before the 9/11 attacks. While he claimed not to know the hijackers, the FBI agents “believed he was being deceptive.” According to the report, al-Hussayen “feigned a seizure” and was released to a hospital, which he left several days later, catching a flight back to Saudi Arabia without any further questioning. During the same period, nearly 1,200 people, with no links to the attacks, were being rounded up and held incommunicado on little more evidence than that they were Arab or Muslim. Also in the report was the fact that a phone book belonging to Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operative who is still held at Guantanamo after extensive torture at the hands of the CIA, was found to contain the unlisted numbers of companies that managed and provide security for Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar’s residence in Colorado, as well as that of a bodyguard at the Saudi embassy who, the report states “some have alleged may be a [words redacted].” Redactions of this sort recur throughout the document in relation to individual Saudis, suggesting their membership in some sort of secret service whose name must remain unmentioned. This is only part of what the secret material still conceals. Members of the inquiry’s staff reportedly protested angrily over the failure to clearly present the evidence of Saudi involvement, leading to the firing of at least one staffer. If the government is determined to continue to shield such Saudi connections, it is undoubtedly because they would expose the involvement of the US intelligence agencies themselves in the events of 9/11. If such whitewashes are required, it is because elements within the US government were aware that Al Qaeda was preparing an operation on US soil, turned a blind eye to it and even facilitated it because they knew it could be used as a pretext to carry out longstanding plans for aggressive war in the Middle East. The release of even the limited material on the Saudi-US-9/11 connection is a devastating exposure of the criminals in the US government, from George W. Bush on down, and the lies they employed to engineer wars that have devastated the lives of millions. These new facts demand a thorough, impartial and international investigation, as well as the indictment and arrest of top level officials, both American and Saudi. Only a powerful intervention of the international working class, on the basis of a socialist program, will see these war criminals brought to justice. Bill Van Auken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jul 16 12:17:08 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:17:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] US releases Saudi documents: 9/11 coverup exposed Message-ID: US releases Saudi documents: 9/11 coverup exposed 16 July 2016 The public release Friday afternoon of a section of the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks, which had been kept secret for 13 years, has provided fresh evidence of a deliberate coverup of the role played, not only by the Saudi government, but US intelligence agencies themselves, in facilitating the attacks and then covering up their real roots. The 28-page segment from the report issued by the “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” provides abundant and damning evidence of extensive Saudi support for the 9/11 hijackers—15 out of 19 of whom were Saudi nationals—in the period leading up to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that claimed nearly 3,000 lives. The Obama White House, the CIA, the Saudi monarchy and the corporate media have all tried to portray the documents—released on a Friday afternoon to assure minimal exposure—as somehow exonerating the Saudi regime of any culpability in the 9/11 attacks. “This information does not change the assessment of the US government that there’s no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals funded al-Qaeda,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary said Friday, boasting that the main significance of their release was its proof of the Obama administration’s commitment to “transparency.” In reality, the 28 pages have been kept under lock and key since 2002, with only members of Congress allowed to read them, in a Capitol Hill basement vault, while prohibited from taking notes, bringing members of their staff or breathing a word of their content. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington’s closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world’s biggest buyer of American arms. Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject criminality of the US government’s role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism conducted in the name of a “war on terror.” Media reports on the 28 pages invariably refer to the absence of a “smoking gun,” which presumably would be tantamount to an order signed by the Saudi king to attack New York and Washington. The evidence is described as “inconclusive.” One can only imagine what would have been the response if, in place of the word “Saudi,” the documents referred to Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian actions. The same evidence would have been proclaimed an airtight case for war. Among those who were involved in preparing the report, John Lehman, the former secretary of the navy, directly contradicted the official response to the release of the previously censored section. “There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,” he said. “Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.” Similarly, former Florida Senator Bob Graham, who chaired the committee that carried out the investigation, suggested that the information released Friday was only the beginning. “I think of this almost as the 28 pages are sort of the cork in the wine bottle. And once it’s out, hopefully the rest of the wine itself will start to pour out,” he said. What clearly emerges from the newly-released document, which is titled “Finding, Discussion and Narrative Regarding Certain Sensitive National Security Matters,” is that there were multiple indications of funding and support for the 9/11 hijackers and Al Qaeda in general, but that investigations were either shut down or never initiated because of the close ties between Washington and the Saudi monarchy, and between US and Saudi intelligence. “While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support or assistance from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi government,” the document begins. It cites FBI sources as indicating that some of these individuals were “Saudi intelligence officers.” It goes on to indicate that FBI and CIA investigations of these links were initiated solely in response to the Congressional inquiry itself. “[I]t was only after September 11 that the US government began to aggressively investigate this issue,” the report states. “Prior to September 11th, the FBI apparently did not focus investigative sources on [redacted] Saudi nationals in the United States due to Saudi Arabia’s status as an American ‘ally.’” The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, “provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000.” The inquiry report deals with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar only from after they arrived in California, and says nothing about the circumstances under which they were allowed to enter the country in the first place. Both were under CIA surveillance while attending an Al Qaeda planning meeting in 2000 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and placed on a “watch list” for FBI monitoring if they came to the United States. Nonetheless, the two men were allowed to enter the United States on January 15, 2000, landing at Los Angeles International Airport, eventually going to San Diego. From then on, they were permitted to operate freely, attending flight training school in preparation for their role as pilots of hijacked planes on September 11, 2001. Al-Bayoumi, the report establishes, “received support from a Saudi company affiliated with the Saudi Ministry of Defense,” drawing a paycheck for a no-show job. The report states that the company also had ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was “in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense Ministry responsible for air traffic control.” Phone records showed him calling Saudi government agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000. FBI documents also established that the $465 in “allowances” that al-Bayoumi received through the Saudi military contractor, jumped to over $3,700 shortly after the arrival of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. During this period, al-Bayoumi initially allowed the two future hijackers to stay in his apartment before finding them their own place—with an informant of the San Diego FBI—cosigning their lease and advancing them a deposit and the first month’s rent. The report states that FBI investigations following 9/11 indicated that al-Bayoumi had “some ties to terrorist elements.” His wife, meanwhile, was receiving a $1,200 a month stipend from Princess Haifa Bint Sultan, the wife of Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to the US and later head of Saudi intelligence. Also named in the document as a likely Saudi intelligence agent is one Osama Bassnan, who lived across the street from the two hijackers in San Diego and was in telephone contact with al-Bayoumi several times a day during this period. He apparently placed the two in contact with a Saudi commercial airline pilot for discussions on “learning to fly Boeing jet aircraft,” according to an FBI report. Bassnan’s wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador’s wife, to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was “an extremist and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin,” who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader “as if he were god.” Appearing before the Congressional inquiry in October 2002, FBI Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Pasquale D’Amuro reacted with undisguised cynicism and contempt when asked about the payments from the Saudi ambassador’s wife to the wives of the two reputed intelligence agents involved with the 9/11 hijackers. “She gives money to a lot of different groups and people from around the world,” he said. “We’ve been able to uncover a number of these... but maybe if we can discover that she gives to 20 different radical groups, well, gee, maybe there’s a pattern here.” Spoken like a man who believes he is above the law in defense of a figure that he clearly sees as untouchable. Among other material in the report was the recounting of an FBI interrogation of Saleh al-Hussayen, a prominent Saudi interior ministry official, who stayed in the same Virginia hotel as three of the hijackers the night before the 9/11 attacks. While he claimed not to know the hijackers, the FBI agents “believed he was being deceptive.” According to the report, al-Hussayen “feigned a seizure” and was released to a hospital, which he left several days later, catching a flight back to Saudi Arabia without any further questioning. During the same period, nearly 1,200 people, with no links to the attacks, were being rounded up and held incommunicado on little more evidence than that they were Arab or Muslim. Also in the report was the fact that a phone book belonging to Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operative who is still held at Guantanamo after extensive torture at the hands of the CIA, was found to contain the unlisted numbers of companies that managed and provide security for Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar’s residence in Colorado, as well as that of a bodyguard at the Saudi embassy who, the report states “some have alleged may be a [words redacted].” Redactions of this sort recur throughout the document in relation to individual Saudis, suggesting their membership in some sort of secret service whose name must remain unmentioned. This is only part of what the secret material still conceals. Members of the inquiry’s staff reportedly protested angrily over the failure to clearly present the evidence of Saudi involvement, leading to the firing of at least one staffer. If the government is determined to continue to shield such Saudi connections, it is undoubtedly because they would expose the involvement of the US intelligence agencies themselves in the events of 9/11. If such whitewashes are required, it is because elements within the US government were aware that Al Qaeda was preparing an operation on US soil, turned a blind eye to it and even facilitated it because they knew it could be used as a pretext to carry out longstanding plans for aggressive war in the Middle East. The release of even the limited material on the Saudi-US-9/11 connection is a devastating exposure of the criminals in the US government, from George W. Bush on down, and the lies they employed to engineer wars that have devastated the lives of millions. These new facts demand a thorough, impartial and international investigation, as well as the indictment and arrest of top level officials, both American and Saudi. Only a powerful intervention of the international working class, on the basis of a socialist program, will see these war criminals brought to justice. Bill Van Auken -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jul 16 21:39:32 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 16:39:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Clinton's a neocon; Trump isn't: vote Stein, even if it "helps Trump" Message-ID: <4CDD5E52-8F53-41B4-8794-E479DC0B137F@newsfromneptune.com> “...At least for a moment, Donald Trump seriously considered picking retired General Michael Flynn, fired as DIA chief for correctly predicting that Obama’s covert Syrian intervention would generate a jihadist monster such as ISIS. Hillary Clinton meanwhile is reportedly pondering the selection of retired Admiral James G. Stavridis, a former Rumsfeld lickspittle who helped destroy Libya and thinks it would be a fine idea to hook up with Al Qaeda in Syria…” http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/15/admiral-fabuloso-hillary-syria-and-the-destructive-career-of-james-g-stavridis/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sat Jul 16 23:04:04 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 18:04:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Clinton's a neocon; Trump isn't: vote Stein, even if it "helps Trump" In-Reply-To: <4CDD5E52-8F53-41B4-8794-E479DC0B137F@newsfromneptune.com> References: <4CDD5E52-8F53-41B4-8794-E479DC0B137F@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: What about Gary Johnson? Is he chopped liver? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 4:39 PM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > “...At least for a moment, Donald Trump seriously considered picking > retired General Michael Flynn, fired as DIA chief for correctly predicting > that Obama’s covert Syrian intervention would generate a jihadist monster > such as ISIS. Hillary Clinton meanwhile is reportedly pondering the > selection of retired Admiral James G. Stavridis, a former Rumsfeld > lickspittle who helped destroy Libya and thinks it would be a fine idea to > hook up with Al Qaeda in Syria…” > > > http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/15/admiral-fabuloso-hillary-syria-and-the-destructive-career-of-james-g-stavridis/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jul 17 17:39:45 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 12:39:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The News-Gazette: Letter to the Editor Submission References: <20160717164316.334E926933@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> Message-ID: <9145B7AF-1D4B-43F4-A65B-745A26EFBD11@newsfromneptune.com> > This is a copy of your letter to the editor. > Submitted on Sunday, July 17, 2016 - 11:43am > > President Obama was elected with the support of those who thought he would end the wars started by the Bush administration. Instead he attacked eight countries. (George Bush attacked six.) Obama’s drone attacks - which have killed thousands (not just the hundreds he admits to) - have been rightly called ‘the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.’ > > Hillary Clinton, responsible for horrors in Honduras, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, would only continue and intensify the warmongering of recent administrations, the blowback from which is now producing terrorist attacks in Europe and America. > > Whatever you may think of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, his comments on foreign policy have broken with this horrible record. He has for example proposed diplomacy (‘deals’) with Russian president Putin (whom Clinton has on the contrary called ‘the new Hitler’), instead of the insane provocations of Russia by the Obama administration. > > I’ll be voting for Jill Stein, the Green party candidate for president, whose positions on these and other matters are substantially better than those of the major party candidates. And I won’t be dissuaded by the argument that a vote for a third party candidate is ‘helping Trump.’ He’s clearly better than Clinton on America’s murderous foreign policy. > > ### > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jul 17 17:59:31 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 17:59:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Fwd: The News-Gazette: Letter to the Editor Submission In-Reply-To: <9145B7AF-1D4B-43F4-A65B-745A26EFBD11@newsfromneptune.com> References: <20160717164316.334E926933@web-1.prod.news-gazette.com> <9145B7AF-1D4B-43F4-A65B-745A26EFBD11@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <3493793D-80F3-4A1A-BC03-58256812043B@illinois.edu> Very good. I made similar comments to a discussion on ZNet led by Michael Albert, who with other commenters, totally ignored the foreign policy elements in their ratiocinations. I’m unsure if they published my remarks. Albert, although saying he’s totally disgusted with Clinton, says that one must vote for her despite all, since Trump would be a greater disaster (domestically). In fact, we don’t have good evidence of what Trump would do on the foreign front—Ukraine, israe-Palestine, Syria, China, militarism, etc. we only know what to expect from Clinton. —mkb On Jul 17, 2016, at 12:39 PM, 'C. G. Estabrook' carl at newsfromneptune.com [sf-core] > wrote: This is a copy of your letter to the editor. Submitted on Sunday, July 17, 2016 - 11:43am President Obama was elected with the support of those who thought he would end the wars started by the Bush administration. Instead he attacked eight countries. (George Bush attacked six.) Obama’s drone attacks - which have killed thousands (not just the hundreds he admits to) - have been rightly called ‘the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.’ Hillary Clinton, responsible for horrors in Honduras, Libya, Syria and elsewhere, would only continue and intensify the warmongering of recent administrations, the blowback from which is now producing terrorist attacks in Europe and America. Whatever you may think of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate, his comments on foreign policy have broken with this horrible record. He has for example proposed diplomacy (‘deals’) with Russian president Putin (whom Clinton has on the contrary called ‘the new Hitler’), instead of the insane provocations of Russia by the Obama administration. I’ll be voting for Jill Stein, the Green party candidate for president, whose positions on these and other matters are substantially better than those of the major party candidates. And I won’t be dissuaded by the argument that a vote for a third party candidate is ‘helping Trump.’ He’s clearly better than Clinton on America’s murderous foreign policy. ### __._,_.___ ________________________________ Posted by: "C. G. Estabrook" > ________________________________ Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (2) ________________________________ Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. ________________________________ VISIT YOUR GROUP [Yahoo! Groups] • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jul 18 20:04:28 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:04:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?_Two_classes_can=E2=80=99t_share_one_pa?= =?utf-8?q?rty?= Message-ID: <009001d1e12f$99b19680$cd14c380$@comcast.net> Some really good points people in the U.S. need to think seriously about, in regards to our political situation currently. Roger Silverman and John Reimann posted in Socialist Network . Roger Silverman July 18 at 1:46pm Suddenly, after decades of political stagnation, Britain is plunged into turmoil. It has become, for the moment, the most unstable country in Europe. Within a few weeks, it has witnessed the murder of a Labour MP by a Nazi assassin, an ugly upsurge of xenophobia and bigotry, the shock outcome of the referendum to break apart from the EU, the unexpected resignation of a prime minister and the successive downfall of his two most prominent presumed successors… And, most crucial of all, the long-overdue split in the Labour Party. At first sight Sanders might appear more radical than Corbyn, with his talk of "revolution" against the "billionaires' dictatorship". But Corbyn, an honest and principled traditional left reformist, stands implacably for resistance to austerity, nuclear disarmament, and renationalisation of the railways, and these are solid commitments. The difference is in the historical context. The election of Corbyn means a reclamation by the working class of the party it created over a hundred years ago from the clutches of conscious agents of the class enemy. It was the result of a completely unexpected tidal wave: an anticipation of revolution. The violent class tensions that had been tightly compressed for two decades within the Labour Party, the traditional party of the working class created by the trade unions, could no longer be reconciled. Under the shock of the financial crash and the subsequent years of savage welfare cuts, nothing could prevent it bursting asunder. These Labour MPs are not just a new generation of the old-style reformists of yesteryear – tainted individuals perhaps, cowardly, treacherous, bribed or intimidated, but with roots firmly implanted in the labour movement. During the 1990s, an openly pro-capitalist clique assumed the leadership of the Labour Party. One of them, Mandelson, openly boasted: “I am supremely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, so long as they pay their taxes”. They tried to eradicate Labour’s socialist and trade-union traditions and proclaimed a new identity, calling themselves “New Labour”. New Labour served a very specific historical purpose. It was the product of a conscious conspiracy by the ruling class: to carry onward the Thatcherite counter-revolution wrapped in new packaging, once the Tories had become too discredited to do it themselves under their own banner. It was only after the financial crisis in 2008 that New Labour was deemed to have outlived its usefulness; once having served its purpose in government, it was unceremoniously ditched, and the reins of power firmly grasped by Britain’s traditional masters. The Blairite MPs have no links or allegiance to the labour movement, let alone any aspirations to a new society. They are plain careerists who at a certain time found it opportune to jump on the New Labour bandwagon. Most of them are relics of that Blairite influx: an alien force of lawyers, lobbyists and "special advisers" hostile to the workers’ interests. One trade union leader rightly called them a "virus". Two classes can’t share one party. It was always inevitable that, sooner or later, the working class must either reclaim the Labour Party or replace it. It is still in the balance which variant of this law will ultimately prevail. The exact mechanism by which the crisis has erupted is a consequence of the arrogance of the Blairites, who still delude themselves that they enjoy mass support. They had blamed the election of their previous leader, the pathetically ineffectual Ed Miliband, on the trade union block vote, and imagined that by throwing open the franchise to all and sundry, allowing anyone to register as a supporter, they could secure victory for their own preferred candidate. They then compounded this mistake by lending Jeremy Corbyn enough nominations to cross the threshold to stand as a candidate, hoping thereby to crush and humiliate the left. Actually it is a questionable exercise of "democracy" to allow the party leadership to be determined by selling votes to all and sundry, irrespective of their commitment to the party. However, such was popular outrage at New Labour's despicable record of treachery, and anger at the election by default last year of yet another even more right-wing Tory government, that hundreds of thousands of people registered as supporters, exercised their voting rights as affiliated trade unionists, or joined the Party outright. Jeremy Corbyn won outright in all three sectors, with 60% of the vote and a popular mandate of 250,000 people. If Corbyn's victory was not to mean a reclamation by the working class of its traditional party, then it would have been meaningless. What had to follow was a clean break between the mass of trade-union rank-and-file Labour activists and the parasitic clique of New Labour crypto-Tory MPs infesting the parliamentary party. Under the impact of the current shocks, this simmering crisis has now come to a showdown. Predictably, it was the MPs who precipitated it. By a four-to-one majority, they passed a vote of no confidence in Corbyn's leadership and are now scrambling around trying to find a candidate to challenge him. Having failed in a brazen plot to keep Corbyn off the ballot paper, in an act of pure spite they then disenfranchised over 100,000 Labour members by imposing an arbitrary cut-off membership date, and raised the affiliation fee for supporters from £3 to £25, while giving them just two days to register! It's not the risk of defeat in a coming general election that the Blairite MPs are afraid of; what terrifies them is the prospect of victory under a socialist leadership. Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party with the biggest mandate of any political leader in British history - a quarter of a million votes. Hundreds of thousands of people were inspired to join the Labour Party to support him. Since his election, Labour has begun to recover from years of decline under Blair, Brown and Milliband. Who are the Labour right to complain of declining support? It is eleven years since they last won an election. Since the 1997 election, under Blair and Brown, Labour lost four million votes; not to mention losing every seat but one in Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists. In contrast, under Corbyn's leadership, Labour gained the biggest share of the vote in local council elections around the country; won all four successive by-elections with increased shares of the vote; and won the London mayoral election with the highest ever vote for any individual candidate: 1.1 million votes. The imminent split in the Labour Party is long overdue. The mass of trade-union rank-and-file Labour activists and the parasitic clique of New Labour crypto-Tory MPs who have made their nests in the parliamentary party could not preserve for long their uneasy cohabitation. These MPs are not debating academic ideas; they are fighting for their careers, their livelihoods, their place in society. This is a fight to the finish. Hundreds of thousands of Labour activists are ready and waiting to defeat this coup by a clique of embittered failed careerists, and restore to Labour its socialist traditions. Everywhere throughout Britain, every day, local branches of Momentum, the grassroots mass movement that has sprung up in support of Corbyn, are meeting, planning, recruiting, discussing, and campaigning: working-class women, ethnic minorities, youth, disabled people, older men… a real parliament of the people! Battle is joined! Like Comment Description: Image removed by sender. Facebook Roger Silverman and John Reimann posted in Socialist Network. Description: Image removed by sender. Roger Silverman July 18 at 1:46pm Suddenly, after decades of political stagnation, Britain is plunged into turmoil. It has become, for the moment, the most unstable country in Europe. Within a few weeks, it has witnessed the murder of a Labour MP by a Nazi assassin, an ugly upsurge of xenophobia and bigotry, the shock outcome of the referendum to break apart from the EU, the unexpected resignation of a prime minister and the successive downfall of his two most prominent presumed successors… And, most crucial of all, the long-overdue split in the Labour Party. At first sight Sanders might appear more radical than Corbyn, with his talk of "revolution" against the "billionaires' dictatorship". But Corbyn, an honest and principled traditional left reformist, stands implacably for resistance to austerity, nuclear disarmament, and renationalisation of the railways, and these are solid commitments. The difference is in the historical context. The election of Corbyn means a reclamation by the working class of the party it created over a hundred years ago from the clutches of conscious agents of the class enemy. It was the result of a completely unexpected tidal wave: an anticipation of revolution. The violent class tensions that had been tightly compressed for two decades within the Labour Party, the traditional party of the working class created by the trade unions, could no longer be reconciled. Under the shock of the financial crash and the subsequent years of savage welfare cuts, nothing could prevent it bursting asunder. These Labour MPs are not just a new generation of the old-style reformists of yesteryear – tainted individuals perhaps, cowardly, treacherous, bribed or intimidated, but with roots firmly implanted in the labour movement. During the 1990s, an openly pro-capitalist clique assumed the leadership of the Labour Party. One of them, Mandelson, openly boasted: “I am supremely relaxed about people getting filthy rich, so long as they pay their taxes”. They tried to eradicate Labour’s socialist and trade-union traditions and proclaimed a new identity, calling themselves “New Labour”. New Labour served a very specific historical purpose. It was the product of a conscious conspiracy by the ruling class: to carry onward the Thatcherite counter-revolution wrapped in new packaging, once the Tories had become too discredited to do it themselves under their own banner. It was only after the financial crisis in 2008 that New Labour was deemed to have outlived its usefulness; once having served its purpose in government, it was unceremoniously ditched, and the reins of power firmly grasped by Britain’s traditional masters. The Blairite MPs have no links or allegiance to the labour movement, let alone any aspirations to a new society. They are plain careerists who at a certain time found it opportune to jump on the New Labour bandwagon. Most of them are relics of that Blairite influx: an alien force of lawyers, lobbyists and "special advisers" hostile to the workers’ interests. One trade union leader rightly called them a "virus". Two classes can’t share one party. It was always inevitable that, sooner or later, the working class must either reclaim the Labour Party or replace it. It is still in the balance which variant of this law will ultimately prevail. The exact mechanism by which the crisis has erupted is a consequence of the arrogance of the Blairites, who still delude themselves that they enjoy mass support. They had blamed the election of their previous leader, the pathetically ineffectual Ed Miliband, on the trade union block vote, and imagined that by throwing open the franchise to all and sundry, allowing anyone to register as a supporter, they could secure victory for their own preferred candidate. They then compounded this mistake by lending Jeremy Corbyn enough nominations to cross the threshold to stand as a candidate, hoping thereby to crush and humiliate the left. Actually it is a questionable exercise of "democracy" to allow the party leadership to be determined by selling votes to all and sundry, irrespective of their commitment to the party. However, such was popular outrage at New Labour's despicable record of treachery, and anger at the election by default last year of yet another even more right-wing Tory government, that hundreds of thousands of people registered as supporters, exercised their voting rights as affiliated trade unionists, or joined the Party outright. Jeremy Corbyn won outright in all three sectors, with 60% of the vote and a popular mandate of 250,000 people. If Corbyn's victory was not to mean a reclamation by the working class of its traditional party, then it would have been meaningless. What had to follow was a clean break between the mass of trade-union rank-and-file Labour activists and the parasitic clique of New Labour crypto-Tory MPs infesting the parliamentary party. Under the impact of the current shocks, this simmering crisis has now come to a showdown. Predictably, it was the MPs who precipitated it. By a four-to-one majority, they passed a vote of no confidence in Corbyn's leadership and are now scrambling around trying to find a candidate to challenge him. Having failed in a brazen plot to keep Corbyn off the ballot paper, in an act of pure spite they then disenfranchised over 100,000 Labour members by imposing an arbitrary cut-off membership date, and raised the affiliation fee for supporters from £3 to £25, while giving them just two days to register! It's not the risk of defeat in a coming general election that the Blairite MPs are afraid of; what terrifies them is the prospect of victory under a socialist leadership. Jeremy Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party with the biggest mandate of any political leader in British history - a quarter of a million votes. Hundreds of thousands of people were inspired to join the Labour Party to support him. Since his election, Labour has begun to recover from years of decline under Blair, Brown and Milliband. Who are the Labour right to complain of declining support? It is eleven years since they last won an election. Since the 1997 election, under Blair and Brown, Labour lost four million votes; not to mention losing every seat but one in Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists. In contrast, under Corbyn's leadership, Labour gained the biggest share of the vote in local council elections around the country; won all four successive by-elections with increased shares of the vote; and won the London mayoral election with the highest ever vote for any individual candidate: 1.1 million votes. The imminent split in the Labour Party is long overdue. The mass of trade-union rank-and-file Labour activists and the parasitic clique of New Labour crypto-Tory MPs who have made their nests in the parliamentary party could not preserve for long their uneasy cohabitation. These MPs are not debating academic ideas; they are fighting for their careers, their livelihoods, their place in society. This is a fight to the finish. Hundreds of thousands of Labour activists are ready and waiting to defeat this coup by a clique of embittered failed careerists, and restore to Labour its socialist traditions. Everywhere throughout Britain, every day, local branches of Momentum, the grassroots mass movement that has sprung up in support of Corbyn, are meeting, planning, recruiting, discussing, and campaigning: working-class women, ethnic minorities, youth, disabled people, older men… a real parliament of the people! Battle is joined! Description: Image removed by sender. Like Description: Image removed by sender. Comment View on Facebook Edit Email Settings Reply to this email to comment on this post. This message was sent to davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net. If you don't want to receive these emails from Facebook in the future, please unsubscribe. Facebook, Inc., Attention: Community Support, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Description: Image removed by sender. -------------- 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: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 344 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 368 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 335 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jul 21 02:27:50 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 02:27:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Showing of Racial Taboo in Urbana - July 22 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ________________________________ From: RT in C-U on behalf of RT in C-U Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 5:46 PM To: Karen Subject: Showing of Racial Taboo in Urbana - July 22 Next community showing of the documentary about race: Racial Taboo Friday, July 22 6:30 pm - please arrive 7:00 pm - film begins Stone Creek Church 2502 S Race St, Urbana, IL 61801 Everyone is welcome. 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jul 21 15:52:34 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:52:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trojan Horse Droner Killer Koh at Illinois Law on October 28: "American Nuremberg" Rebecca Gordon, How Extrajudicial Executions Became "War" Policy in Washington | TomDispatch Message-ID: Illinois Law School Is a Neo-Nazi Cesspool After Deans Mengler, Hurd & Smith I would not send my dog to I like my dog Fab [https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51UymodFxsL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg] 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: outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com [mailto:outlook_1ac00f3818fbe52d at outlook.com] On Behalf Of Francis Boyle Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 7:32 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Tomgram: Rebecca Gordon, How Extrajudicial Executions Became "War" Policy in Washington | TomDispatch http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176166/tomgram:_rebecca_gordon,_how_extrajudicial_executions_became_"war"_policy_in_washington -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 67610 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 24 13:22:10 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 13:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [New post] The importance of strategy and tactics In-Reply-To: <61854989.1399.0@wordpress.com> References: <61854989.1399.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Food for thought.......a comparison of Turkey and Thailand. ________________________________ uglytruththailand posted: "Giles ji Ungpakorn The mass uprising against the attempted military coup in Turkey has opened up a debate about the tactics of defeating military coups and military dictatorships in Thailand. Chaturon Chaisang, one of the most principled Pua Thai po" New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] The importance of strategy and tactics by uglytruththailand Giles ji Ungpakorn The mass uprising against the attempted military coup in Turkey has opened up a debate about the tactics of defeating military coups and military dictatorships in Thailand. Chaturon Chaisang, one of the most principled Pua Thai politicians, has praised what he calls the “Turkish Model”. He and I share the belief that mass movements are needed to prevent or topple military dictatorships. Of course, in my opinion, the mass opposition to the Turkish coup was to be celebrated. But the way that the Erdogan government has used this as an excuse to restrict democracy and human rights is expected and needs to be opposed. But this does not detract from the importance of the anti-coup mass movement. The fact of the matter is that the mass movement swung the balance of forces against the military coup in Turkey. It offers a possibility of using this force to expand the democratic space. Yet there are those who decry this and condemn the “mob”. The logic of this is to say that the mass movement was always under the control of Erdogan and it would have been better if the military coup had been successful. Those progressives who remember the legacy of military rule in Turkey would quite rightly disagree. [490-254] [turkey-military-ta_3298590b] There is a clear parallel with the situation in Thailand. There were those who decried the Red Shirt movement as being “merely” pawns of Taksin Shinawat, rather than celebrating the existence of a mass pro-democracy movement. Many among the Thai middle classes thought that a military dictatorship was better than a democratically elected Taksin government. The Taksin government was similar to the Erdogan government in Turkey because it was a pro big-business government which offered a better life for working people and the poor. Both governments abused human rights, but the alternative of military rule was worse. Both governments were opposed by entrenched conservative elites among the military, judiciary and civil service. The Turkish elites were anti-religious “Kemalists” while the Thai elites were royalists. Both used their ideologies to oppress those who disagreed. When the need to find ways of rebuilding pro-democracy mass movements is raised in Thailand, especially after the events in Turkey, there have been three negative responses. Firstly, there are those who say that the events in Turkey are different from Thailand because in Thailand the king is the power behind the military and the king is so powerful that he cannot be opposed. This is a big lie and a big excuse for doing nothing. The view that the king is all powerful is a wonderful excuse used by people who want to chatter and gossip about the royals but do nothing. In actual fact the king has always been a weakling, dependent on the military. Today he is totally incapacitated by old age. The real anti-democratic power lies with the military, not unlike in Turkey. Secondly, there are those who claim that it is not possible to oppose the military in Thailand because they shoot down pro-democracy activists. Yes, they do, and so did the Turkish coup plotters. So did the Thai military in 1973, 1976, 1992 and 2010. Yet the mass movement beat the Turkish military in 2016 and the Thai military in 1973 and 1992. The real question is how to build an affective mass movement and how it relates to the power of working people. The other side are always prepared to use violence. But violence can be overcome by mass movements. Thirdly, there are those who want to silence debate about strategy and tactics. Some claim that this is necessary in order to build “unity”. Unity built on stifling debate is a false unity which disrespects debate and wants to close its eyes to all discussions about seeking the best way of overthrowing dictatorships. Others are offended by criticisms of “holy sacrifices” made by sincere but misguided young students in the NDM who turn their backs on building mass movements. They are offended by criticism of symbolic and elitist gestures by a handful of people. These actions are elitist because ordinary people cannot afford to go to jail repeatedly to make a point. But Thais have shown repeatedly, that if conditions are right, and there is good organisation, they are prepared to join huge mass movements for democracy and face down the military. [14oct4] The red shirts were the biggest pro-democracy mass movement in Thailand’s history. The tragedy was that they were demobilised by the UDD leadership along with Taksin. The answer is not to celebrate powerless symbolic gestures by a few dedicated people who rely on the internet, but to rebuild a mass movement with independent leadership based among grass roots activists in the working class and poorer sections of society. A further discussion about this is sorely needed. uglytruththailand | July 24, 2016 at 7:09 am | Tags: Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Military junta, New Democracy Movement, Red Shirts, social movements, Thai politics, Turkey | Categories: Thai politics | URL: http://wp.me/p4bxj7-mz Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/the-importance-of-strategy-and-tactics/ 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 Sun Jul 24 13:22:10 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 13:22:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [New post] The importance of strategy and tactics In-Reply-To: <61854989.1399.0@wordpress.com> References: <61854989.1399.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Food for thought.......a comparison of Turkey and Thailand. ________________________________ uglytruththailand posted: "Giles ji Ungpakorn The mass uprising against the attempted military coup in Turkey has opened up a debate about the tactics of defeating military coups and military dictatorships in Thailand. Chaturon Chaisang, one of the most principled Pua Thai po" New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] The importance of strategy and tactics by uglytruththailand Giles ji Ungpakorn The mass uprising against the attempted military coup in Turkey has opened up a debate about the tactics of defeating military coups and military dictatorships in Thailand. Chaturon Chaisang, one of the most principled Pua Thai politicians, has praised what he calls the “Turkish Model”. He and I share the belief that mass movements are needed to prevent or topple military dictatorships. Of course, in my opinion, the mass opposition to the Turkish coup was to be celebrated. But the way that the Erdogan government has used this as an excuse to restrict democracy and human rights is expected and needs to be opposed. But this does not detract from the importance of the anti-coup mass movement. The fact of the matter is that the mass movement swung the balance of forces against the military coup in Turkey. It offers a possibility of using this force to expand the democratic space. Yet there are those who decry this and condemn the “mob”. The logic of this is to say that the mass movement was always under the control of Erdogan and it would have been better if the military coup had been successful. Those progressives who remember the legacy of military rule in Turkey would quite rightly disagree. [490-254] [turkey-military-ta_3298590b] There is a clear parallel with the situation in Thailand. There were those who decried the Red Shirt movement as being “merely” pawns of Taksin Shinawat, rather than celebrating the existence of a mass pro-democracy movement. Many among the Thai middle classes thought that a military dictatorship was better than a democratically elected Taksin government. The Taksin government was similar to the Erdogan government in Turkey because it was a pro big-business government which offered a better life for working people and the poor. Both governments abused human rights, but the alternative of military rule was worse. Both governments were opposed by entrenched conservative elites among the military, judiciary and civil service. The Turkish elites were anti-religious “Kemalists” while the Thai elites were royalists. Both used their ideologies to oppress those who disagreed. When the need to find ways of rebuilding pro-democracy mass movements is raised in Thailand, especially after the events in Turkey, there have been three negative responses. Firstly, there are those who say that the events in Turkey are different from Thailand because in Thailand the king is the power behind the military and the king is so powerful that he cannot be opposed. This is a big lie and a big excuse for doing nothing. The view that the king is all powerful is a wonderful excuse used by people who want to chatter and gossip about the royals but do nothing. In actual fact the king has always been a weakling, dependent on the military. Today he is totally incapacitated by old age. The real anti-democratic power lies with the military, not unlike in Turkey. Secondly, there are those who claim that it is not possible to oppose the military in Thailand because they shoot down pro-democracy activists. Yes, they do, and so did the Turkish coup plotters. So did the Thai military in 1973, 1976, 1992 and 2010. Yet the mass movement beat the Turkish military in 2016 and the Thai military in 1973 and 1992. The real question is how to build an affective mass movement and how it relates to the power of working people. The other side are always prepared to use violence. But violence can be overcome by mass movements. Thirdly, there are those who want to silence debate about strategy and tactics. Some claim that this is necessary in order to build “unity”. Unity built on stifling debate is a false unity which disrespects debate and wants to close its eyes to all discussions about seeking the best way of overthrowing dictatorships. Others are offended by criticisms of “holy sacrifices” made by sincere but misguided young students in the NDM who turn their backs on building mass movements. They are offended by criticism of symbolic and elitist gestures by a handful of people. These actions are elitist because ordinary people cannot afford to go to jail repeatedly to make a point. But Thais have shown repeatedly, that if conditions are right, and there is good organisation, they are prepared to join huge mass movements for democracy and face down the military. [14oct4] The red shirts were the biggest pro-democracy mass movement in Thailand’s history. The tragedy was that they were demobilised by the UDD leadership along with Taksin. The answer is not to celebrate powerless symbolic gestures by a few dedicated people who rely on the internet, but to rebuild a mass movement with independent leadership based among grass roots activists in the working class and poorer sections of society. A further discussion about this is sorely needed. uglytruththailand | July 24, 2016 at 7:09 am | Tags: Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Military junta, New Democracy Movement, Red Shirts, social movements, Thai politics, Turkey | Categories: Thai politics | URL: http://wp.me/p4bxj7-mz Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2016/07/24/the-importance-of-strategy-and-tactics/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jul 24 14:18:18 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 09:18:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <271AB890-4C42-4D35-BBC6-C847191C6DDA@newsfromneptune.com> Produced and directed by Yousef Kash for Urbana Public Television: July 22: a "Who’s Neo?” edition (#309): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gVkb3HBls&feature=em-subs_digest July 15: a "Worse Than You Thought” edition (#308): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCYnbkRRdo July 8: a "Who's a Warmonger?" edition (#307): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnZtH9AGi54 It’s the first US presidential election in more than 40 years in which a major party candidate doesn’t profess allegiance to neoliberal and neocon principles. As a result, hysterical neocons are already talking of a coup against President Trump! (INMTU: “If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.” - James Kirchick LA Times 21 July.) The eminently neoliberal/neocon New York Times can’t believe what it’s hearing from Trump (nor, it seems, can it report it straight); and neocon Max Boot tweets, “Trump is reading straight from talking points of anti-American dictators.” Noam Chomsky (for whom News from Neptune is named) is said to predict (1) that we will have a Trump presidency and (2) "the left" will play a small but significant role in making it happen. "So this is really the class war. And it’s the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he’s for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he’s for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he’s telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.” [Michael Hudson] —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sun Jul 24 16:07:52 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 16:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Brian Jefferson on This is Hell References: <1373211472.4587470.1469376472171.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1373211472.4587470.1469376472171.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Interview with Brian and Alex Vitale begins a little after 3 hour 4 minute mark. Brian is a professor in the Geography Dept. at UIUC. They discuss their contribution to the book "Policing the Planet." Episode 910: Crash the State | | | | | | | | | | | Episode 910: Crash the State Long-form interviews with writers, thinkers and workers from around the world and across the spectrum of experie... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Jul 24 17:35:20 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 12:35:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] To discuss at AWARE: "This Changes Everything" 9/14 film co-sponsorship with Sierra Club Message-ID: Hello peaceable people, In September (9/14), Sierra Club is showing the Naomi Klein film "This Changes Everything", which talks about climate change, capitalism, and citizen action, with discussion afterward. Pam and Lan Richart of the Eco-Justice Collaborative will speak about environmental justice work, too. Nancy Dietrich invites AWARE to be a co-sponsor of the film showing - we'd let people know about it, and if possible contribute some money. (The film showing costs $300, so if we can cover a small part of that they'd appreciate it.) Hoping we can talk about this at today's AWARE meeting. I've seen the film and like it. They're planning to get copies of Klein's book by the same title, which Nancy and others say makes an even clearer case for action than the film does. Here's the invitation: > The Prairie Group of the Illinois Chapter of Sierra Club will be > sponsoring a screening of the Naomi Klein film, This Changes > Everything, based on her book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. > the Climate. /This Changes Everything/ is an epic attempt to > re-imagine the vast challenge of climate change. A short trailer and > more information about the film can be seen here: > http://thefilm.thischangeseverything.org/about/ > > It will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 14^th at 6:30pm, at > Channing-Murray Foundation on the corner of Mathews & Oregon on > campus, followed by discussion. > > We are looking for co-sponsors who can help spread the word. > Co-sponsors will be listed on any promotional material (emails, > flyers, etc) that will be put out about the film. Also, if you are > able to make a small donation of $30 (or any amount) to help offset > the cost of showing the film that would be wonderful, *but not > required*. The main thing is we want to get the word out about the > screening. > > Please let me know if you would like to co-sponsor this important > film, or if you have any questions. > > Thanks for your time and interest, > > Nancy Dietrich > > On behalf of the Prairie Group of the Illinois Chapter of Sierra Club -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 24 21:27:57 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump In-Reply-To: <7DE61D33011E429CA29BC6B36BB41217@BrucePC> References: <011701d1e55b$48ddb8d0$da992a70$@comcast.net> <7A904838-CAF3-4837-9457-042BE19ABE8B@aol.com> <002201d1e5a5$91d22d10$b5768730$@comcast.net> <8B6BBE9A-B262-4B34-828B-69F028403895@illinois.edu> , <7DE61D33011E429CA29BC6B36BB41217@BrucePC> Message-ID: Please see Kevin Zeese's message of peace and hope, its very important: ________________________________ From: Global Network Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 4:23 PM To: Kevin Zeese; Karen Aram Cc: Ray Markey; ufpj-activist; Michael Eisenscher; Richard Ochs; DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com; CCDS Members Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump Sadly the minds of far too many ‘progressives’ have been colonized by the corporate oligarchy that controls all the levers of power We are indeed in bad shape when ‘peaceniks’ are defending a classic warmonger like Clinton and Tim Kaine Bruce Gagnon From: Kevin Zeese Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 5:01 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Ray Markey ; ufpj-activist ; Michael Eisenscher ; Richard Ochs ; DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com ; CCDS Members Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump I did something I rarely do since I am in a hotel with a cold in Philadelphia, I watched corporate media. On CNN there was a discussion among four conservatives, all but one was saying how Trump was going to lose (saying 'we all know that') and the issue is how they avoid him destroying the Republican Party. Yet, on a peace list where Trump's competition is about the most hawkish Democrat that could be nominated, some are so nervous about Trump that they are in a frenzy to push a Democratic militarist who seems to seek wars. Yes, Trump is terrible but the fear is not based in political reality. It really shows how well lesser evilism can work that peace advocates will push people to vote for a war candidate -- someone who seems to be seeking war with Russia, and she and her VP nominee pushing the use of nuclear weapons. Please -- those of you in fear of Trump -- look at the electoral college map. Go through the process of seeing how many blue states Clinton is assured of winning. It totals 247 electoral college votes. All she needs is Florida (where every poll shows her winning) and she is president. There are 40 more delegates in states leaning Democrat. Folks -- that is going to be an electoral college landslide for Clinton. Don't fall for the 'Trump can win' propaganda -- it is not real. So, the real task of the peace movement is how do we curtail the worst of Clinton? How do we use the election to weaken Clinton's very likely push to war? There will not be a lot of swing states by October, my guess is only two or three states will actually be in contention. So, people will be able to vote against Clinton and against Trump without fear. Every percentage vote that Jill Stein gets helps the movement for peace as well as those working for economic, racial and environmental justice. It forces her to not take the left for granted. Then, after the election, people should be planning #NoHoneymoon for Clinton protests, starting at the beginning of 2017, going through the inauguration and continuing. She needs to feel pressure from the people throughout her presidency. It needs to be a presidency of protest. If we do that, we will be forcing Clinton to do things she does not want to do -- things that the movement wants. People power can grow if activists do not vote in fear but vote for what they want; and plan campaigns against Clinton throughout 2017. If you are going to vote in fear, don't spread the disempowering fear virus. We have seen where lesser evil voting leads to -- it leads to everything we don't want, wars, more oil and gas, Wall Street bailouts, wealth divide, not confronting racial injustice or climate etc. -- and it leads to two terrible candidates. We need to break out of this downward spiral and we will only do so by not voting in fear. KZ @KBZeese Build power and resistance Popular Resistance (www.PopularResistance.org) Shift Wealth: Economic Democracy Its Our Economy (www.ItsOurEconomy.US) Democratize the Media Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) Radio (http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org) On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Something left out of the description related to Hillary, is the fact that she is a "mass murderer". Her record as Secretary of State in reference to Libya, and Honduras are just two examples of the death and destruction she has brought to thousands. She has supported every one of Obama's wars, Bushes wars, and Clinton's wars. So far Trump, though he maybe despicable, he is not a murderer. A socialist never supports war or war mongers. It's time to build a third party that doesn't support war and aggression, the proliferation of weapons, and poverty for the working classes, as Mort just said, "support Jill Stein" of the Green Party. ________________________________ From: ufpj-activist > on behalf of Brussel, Morton K > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:05:40 PM To: David McReynolds Cc: Ray Markey; Richard Ochs; ufpj-activist; Michael Eisenscher; DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com; CCDS Members Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump Are you (both) saying “Vote for Clinton”? The evaluation given here to Trump seems over the top and needs a more solid evidence and objectivity. For example, although a wild card, Trump is less belligerent than Clinton, he even says that he wants to make deals with Putin! Both are dangerous to humanity’s welfare. Vote Jill Stein. Vote your conscience and your values; that cannot be either Trump or Clinton! —mkb On Jul 24, 2016, at 1:43 PM, David McReynolds > wrote: I swore I was going to stay off email today and attend to other matters (such as paying bills) but Michael puts the case so clearly that I want to say I agree, and am sending this to a wider list of socialists to consider. David McReynolds On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Eisenscher > wrote: For purposes of discussion only, let's assume there are no fundamental differences between Trump and Clinton (an assumption in my view at odds with the facts). Ask yourself whether there are any important differences between those forces that each candidate brings with them. The Trump campaign has opened the door to the most racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, reactionary and fascistic elements of our society. He has welcomed their support and legitimized their participation. Trump's election would unleash these forces and give them a green light that would immediately heighten the daily risk and terror experienced by people of color (African Americans foremost among them), immigrants, Muslims, women, LGBTQ people, the poor, youth and the political left. This would be a kind of ugliness we have not seen since George Wallace ran. Imagine if Wallace had won and then multiply that many times over. It would deepen social divisions and make organizing for a progressive alternative immeasurably more arduous (and dangerous). Hillary Clinton is an odious politician, a neoliberal with a bellicose propensity, a reliable servant of Wall St. But she is not a neo-fascist. She is many things but she is no Donald Trump. We know pretty well what to expect and what kind of forces will have influence if she is president. They are familiar because we are struggling with them now. If you agree with that assessment of what will happen in the wake of a Trump victory and still see no difference between Clinton and Trump, I doubt further debate is likely to change your perspective. Only those who believe "the worse the better" could be indifferent to that prospect. Impugning someone's motives, questioning their commitment to the left and demonizing those with whom you have a political or ideological difference is intellectually lazy. What it suggests is that you don't have the political integrity and intellectual capacity to set for a convincing argument or insightful analysis in support of your preferred position. It also makes this list and others where it occurs an uninviting place for people who are honestly wrestling with these issues and who are trying to clarify for themselves what do to or how to understand what is happening. One of the hallmarks of the American left is the extent to which sectarianism, dogmatism and ego-tripping have fractured, splintered and kept it divided - and thus incapable of building a broad base of popular support. If we can't debate our differences in a comradely and constructive manner, we simply perpetuate that failure and guarantee our marginalization. Michael _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/brussel%40illinois.edu You are subscribed as: brussel at illinois.edu _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/kbzeese%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: kbzeese at gmail.com ________________________________ _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/globalnet%40mindspring.com You are subscribed as: globalnet at mindspring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jul 24 21:27:57 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 21:27:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump In-Reply-To: <7DE61D33011E429CA29BC6B36BB41217@BrucePC> References: <011701d1e55b$48ddb8d0$da992a70$@comcast.net> <7A904838-CAF3-4837-9457-042BE19ABE8B@aol.com> <002201d1e5a5$91d22d10$b5768730$@comcast.net> <8B6BBE9A-B262-4B34-828B-69F028403895@illinois.edu> , <7DE61D33011E429CA29BC6B36BB41217@BrucePC> Message-ID: Please see Kevin Zeese's message of peace and hope, its very important: ________________________________ From: Global Network Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 4:23 PM To: Kevin Zeese; Karen Aram Cc: Ray Markey; ufpj-activist; Michael Eisenscher; Richard Ochs; DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com; CCDS Members Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump Sadly the minds of far too many ‘progressives’ have been colonized by the corporate oligarchy that controls all the levers of power We are indeed in bad shape when ‘peaceniks’ are defending a classic warmonger like Clinton and Tim Kaine Bruce Gagnon From: Kevin Zeese Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 5:01 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Ray Markey ; ufpj-activist ; Michael Eisenscher ; Richard Ochs ; DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com ; CCDS Members Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump I did something I rarely do since I am in a hotel with a cold in Philadelphia, I watched corporate media. On CNN there was a discussion among four conservatives, all but one was saying how Trump was going to lose (saying 'we all know that') and the issue is how they avoid him destroying the Republican Party. Yet, on a peace list where Trump's competition is about the most hawkish Democrat that could be nominated, some are so nervous about Trump that they are in a frenzy to push a Democratic militarist who seems to seek wars. Yes, Trump is terrible but the fear is not based in political reality. It really shows how well lesser evilism can work that peace advocates will push people to vote for a war candidate -- someone who seems to be seeking war with Russia, and she and her VP nominee pushing the use of nuclear weapons. Please -- those of you in fear of Trump -- look at the electoral college map. Go through the process of seeing how many blue states Clinton is assured of winning. It totals 247 electoral college votes. All she needs is Florida (where every poll shows her winning) and she is president. There are 40 more delegates in states leaning Democrat. Folks -- that is going to be an electoral college landslide for Clinton. Don't fall for the 'Trump can win' propaganda -- it is not real. So, the real task of the peace movement is how do we curtail the worst of Clinton? How do we use the election to weaken Clinton's very likely push to war? There will not be a lot of swing states by October, my guess is only two or three states will actually be in contention. So, people will be able to vote against Clinton and against Trump without fear. Every percentage vote that Jill Stein gets helps the movement for peace as well as those working for economic, racial and environmental justice. It forces her to not take the left for granted. Then, after the election, people should be planning #NoHoneymoon for Clinton protests, starting at the beginning of 2017, going through the inauguration and continuing. She needs to feel pressure from the people throughout her presidency. It needs to be a presidency of protest. If we do that, we will be forcing Clinton to do things she does not want to do -- things that the movement wants. People power can grow if activists do not vote in fear but vote for what they want; and plan campaigns against Clinton throughout 2017. If you are going to vote in fear, don't spread the disempowering fear virus. We have seen where lesser evil voting leads to -- it leads to everything we don't want, wars, more oil and gas, Wall Street bailouts, wealth divide, not confronting racial injustice or climate etc. -- and it leads to two terrible candidates. We need to break out of this downward spiral and we will only do so by not voting in fear. KZ @KBZeese Build power and resistance Popular Resistance (www.PopularResistance.org) Shift Wealth: Economic Democracy Its Our Economy (www.ItsOurEconomy.US) Democratize the Media Clearing the FOG (Forces of Greed) Radio (http://www.ClearingTheFOGRadio.org) On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Something left out of the description related to Hillary, is the fact that she is a "mass murderer". Her record as Secretary of State in reference to Libya, and Honduras are just two examples of the death and destruction she has brought to thousands. She has supported every one of Obama's wars, Bushes wars, and Clinton's wars. So far Trump, though he maybe despicable, he is not a murderer. A socialist never supports war or war mongers. It's time to build a third party that doesn't support war and aggression, the proliferation of weapons, and poverty for the working classes, as Mort just said, "support Jill Stein" of the Green Party. ________________________________ From: ufpj-activist > on behalf of Brussel, Morton K > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 2:05:40 PM To: David McReynolds Cc: Ray Markey; Richard Ochs; ufpj-activist; Michael Eisenscher; DemocraticLeft at yahoogroups.com; CCDS Members Subject: Re: [ufpj-activist] [CCDS Members] Hillary and Trump Are you (both) saying “Vote for Clinton”? The evaluation given here to Trump seems over the top and needs a more solid evidence and objectivity. For example, although a wild card, Trump is less belligerent than Clinton, he even says that he wants to make deals with Putin! Both are dangerous to humanity’s welfare. Vote Jill Stein. Vote your conscience and your values; that cannot be either Trump or Clinton! —mkb On Jul 24, 2016, at 1:43 PM, David McReynolds > wrote: I swore I was going to stay off email today and attend to other matters (such as paying bills) but Michael puts the case so clearly that I want to say I agree, and am sending this to a wider list of socialists to consider. David McReynolds On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Eisenscher > wrote: For purposes of discussion only, let's assume there are no fundamental differences between Trump and Clinton (an assumption in my view at odds with the facts). Ask yourself whether there are any important differences between those forces that each candidate brings with them. The Trump campaign has opened the door to the most racist, xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, reactionary and fascistic elements of our society. He has welcomed their support and legitimized their participation. Trump's election would unleash these forces and give them a green light that would immediately heighten the daily risk and terror experienced by people of color (African Americans foremost among them), immigrants, Muslims, women, LGBTQ people, the poor, youth and the political left. This would be a kind of ugliness we have not seen since George Wallace ran. Imagine if Wallace had won and then multiply that many times over. It would deepen social divisions and make organizing for a progressive alternative immeasurably more arduous (and dangerous). Hillary Clinton is an odious politician, a neoliberal with a bellicose propensity, a reliable servant of Wall St. But she is not a neo-fascist. She is many things but she is no Donald Trump. We know pretty well what to expect and what kind of forces will have influence if she is president. They are familiar because we are struggling with them now. If you agree with that assessment of what will happen in the wake of a Trump victory and still see no difference between Clinton and Trump, I doubt further debate is likely to change your perspective. Only those who believe "the worse the better" could be indifferent to that prospect. Impugning someone's motives, questioning their commitment to the left and demonizing those with whom you have a political or ideological difference is intellectually lazy. What it suggests is that you don't have the political integrity and intellectual capacity to set for a convincing argument or insightful analysis in support of your preferred position. It also makes this list and others where it occurs an uninviting place for people who are honestly wrestling with these issues and who are trying to clarify for themselves what do to or how to understand what is happening. One of the hallmarks of the American left is the extent to which sectarianism, dogmatism and ego-tripping have fractured, splintered and kept it divided - and thus incapable of building a broad base of popular support. If we can't debate our differences in a comradely and constructive manner, we simply perpetuate that failure and guarantee our marginalization. Michael _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/brussel%40illinois.edu You are subscribed as: brussel at illinois.edu _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/kbzeese%40gmail.com You are subscribed as: kbzeese at gmail.com ________________________________ _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/globalnet%40mindspring.com You are subscribed as: globalnet at mindspring.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jul 25 13:47:18 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Forward: J staffer downed J DNC head playing J card against J presidential candidate Message-ID: Gems you might miss by not reading the *Forward*: “It’s highly ironic that the most senior Jewish party member was done in by another Jewish staffer playing the Jew-card against the first potential Jewish presidential nominee,” a DNC source told the Forward on Sunday, hours after Wasserman Schultz resigned. The source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, noted that Wasserman Schultz’s leadership role was a source of pride to the Jewish community. He said that reading the emails “was really disappointing” for many at the DNC, who “though we were better than that.” http://forward.com/news/345894/did-barack-obama-wait-too-long-to-oust-debbie-wasserman-schultz-as-dnc-chie/ === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dwilson2 at illinois.edu Tue Jul 26 00:31:06 2016 From: dwilson2 at illinois.edu (Wilson, David) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:31:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 In-Reply-To: <271AB890-4C42-4D35-BBC6-C847191C6DDA@newsfromneptune.com> References: , <271AB890-4C42-4D35-BBC6-C847191C6DDA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Hello Carl and Friends, Some very helpful and interesting posts on the presidential campaign in recent days, thanks. As we work our way through the Clinton versus Trump binary (I won't vote for either), I think it important to note that neoliberalism (as an ethos, sensibility and set of policies) also has a domestic dimension that needs to be considered. Trump is absolutely committed to placing neoliberal principles at the center of his domestic agenda. He has promised a ruthless "law and order," class based policing campaign that will deepen the affliction on poor neighborhoods (particular those of color). At the same time, purported "social engineeering" initiatives will be shut down (e.g., affordable housing initiatives, Section 8 housing provision, school lunch programs) while the neocon. spin on the second amendment will be ferociously defended. Trump here unapologetically embraces a recipe of hyper privatization, evisceration of the welfare state, the killing of political dissent, a ramping up of the New Federalism, and the annihilation of what he terms "bad culture and bad individual choices." His notion of helping the inner city poor becomes a cruel hoax. On this neoliberal front, Trump far surpasses Clinton. David Wilson ________________________________ From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:18 AM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; Peace Cc: Occupy CU; sf-core Subject: News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 Produced and directed by Yousef Kash for Urbana Public Television: July 22: a "Who’s Neo?” edition (#309): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gVkb3HBls&feature=em-subs_digest July 15: a "Worse Than You Thought” edition (#308): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCYnbkRRdo July 8: a "Who's a Warmonger?" edition (#307): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnZtH9AGi54 It’s the first US presidential election in more than 40 years in which a major party candidate doesn’t profess allegiance to neoliberal and neocon principles. As a result, hysterical neocons are already talking of a coup against President Trump! (INMTU: “If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.” - James Kirchick LA Times 21 July.) The eminently neoliberal/neocon New York Times can’t believe what it’s hearing from Trump (nor, it seems, can it report it straight); and neocon Max Boot tweets, “Trump is reading straight from talking points of anti-American dictators.” Noam Chomsky (for whom News from Neptune is named) is said to predict (1) that we will have a Trump presidency and (2) "the left" will play a small but significant role in making it happen. "So this is really the class war. And it’s the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he’s for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he’s for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he’s telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.” [Michael Hudson] —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jul 26 01:28:56 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:28:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 In-Reply-To: References: <271AB890-4C42-4D35-BBC6-C847191C6DDA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the comments, David. I agree that Trump’s comments on 'lawnorder’ are frequently disturbing, but I don’t think they can easily be described as neoliberal. I think neoliberalism applied consistently refers to the conscious, calculated policies of the US business class over the last 40 years, a counter-attack on the social democratic trend from the 'New Deal' through the 'Great Society' (1930s-70s): deunionization, financialization, globalization, removal of social supports - in support of elite profits. (See now David Harvey in the current Jacobin, “Neoliberalism is a Political Project.”) A culmination of neoliberalism is the trade pacts (NAFTA, TPP, TTIP) that Trump attacks - and the Democrats defend. And identity politics of Clinton’s sort are bound up with neoliberalism: see inter alia Walter Benn Michaels, "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality,” 2006. (Cf. Benn Michaels’ “Let Them Eat Diversity,” in Jacobin.) The remarkable thing about Trump is that under the bluster he is asserting an (anti-neoliberal) class politics, over against Clinton’s identity politics. See the remarks by the editor of CounterPunch on Trump’s acceptance speech: , e.g., "Trump completely ignored the traditional cultural issues that have freighted the GOP for 30 years and went right for the working class anxieties that the Democrats have failed to quell since the advent of neoliberalism. You can see why the smarter Democrats are running a little scared." I think the Clinton people are quite worried about Trump’s class politics (as they were about Sanders’), know they can’t answer it, and are working strenuously to deflect the question, as acute critics like Glen Ford in BAR have seen: "Hillary Wants a Crusade to Defeat Trump’s 'Bigotry' – and Leave Her Bankers Alone” . No one doubts that Clinton is a neoliberal (in Harvey’s sense); the remarkable thing is that Trump isn’t. Regards, CGE PS - BTW I think you know I’m voting for Jill Stein, who’s better than both. > On Jul 25, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Wilson, David via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hello Carl and Friends, > > Some very helpful and interesting posts on the presidential campaign in recent days, thanks. > > As we work our way through the Clinton versus Trump binary (I won't vote for either), I think it important to note that neoliberalism (as an ethos, sensibility and set of policies) also has a domestic dimension that needs to be considered. > > Trump is absolutely committed to placing neoliberal principles at the center of his domestic agenda. He has promised a ruthless "law and order," class based policing campaign that will deepen the affliction on poor neighborhoods (particular those of color). At the same time, purported "social engineeering" initiatives will be shut down (e.g., affordable housing initiatives, Section 8 housing provision, school lunch programs) while the neocon. spin on the second amendment will be ferociously defended. Trump here unapologetically embraces a recipe of hyper privatization, evisceration of the welfare state, the killing of political dissent, a ramping up of the New Federalism, and the annihilation of what he terms "bad culture and bad individual choices." > > His notion of helping the inner city poor becomes a cruel hoax. > > On this neoliberal front, Trump far surpasses Clinton. > > David Wilson > > From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:18 AM > To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; Peace > Cc: Occupy CU; sf-core > Subject: News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 > > Produced and directed by Yousef Kash for Urbana Public Television: > > July 22: a "Who’s Neo?” edition (#309): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gVkb3HBls&feature=em-subs_digest > > July 15: a "Worse Than You Thought” edition (#308): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCYnbkRRdo > > July 8: a "Who's a Warmonger?" edition (#307): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnZtH9AGi54 > > It’s the first US presidential election in more than 40 years in which a major party candidate doesn’t profess allegiance to neoliberal and neocon principles. As a result, hysterical neocons are already talking of a coup against President Trump! (INMTU: “If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.” - James Kirchick LA Times 21 July.) The eminently neoliberal/neocon New York Times can’t believe what it’s hearing from Trump (nor, it seems, can it report it straight); and neocon Max Boot tweets, “Trump is reading straight from talking points of anti-American dictators.” > > Noam Chomsky (for whom News from Neptune is named) is said to predict (1) that we will have a Trump presidency and (2) "the left" will play a small but significant role in making it happen. > > "So this is really the class war. And it’s the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he’s for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he’s for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he’s telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.” [Michael Hudson] > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 26 20:46:19 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't Cry For Me, DNC: Notes From the Democratic Convention Message-ID: <042901d1e77e$c6046f50$520d4df0$@comcast.net> July 26, 2016 Don't Cry For Me, DNC: Notes From the Democratic Convention by Jeffrey St. Clair * Debbie Wasserman Schultz was awful at everything she did except ensure HRC's nomination. This was not lost on her own delegation in Florida, who shouted her down this morning. Two hours later she had been removed from her position as chair of the DNC, banned from the stage at the convention and rewarded with an obscure position with the Clinton campaign. After Debbie loses her primary contest to Tim Canova, she'll land some kind of position with the Clinton administration. So. Don't cry for me, DNC! I've still got my jewelry and part of an oil refinery. Hillary's going make me an Ambassador and not to some shithole like El Salvador. I'm thinking Luxembourg or Monaco Where I'll be driven around in a pink El Dorado. Failing that, there's always the Ambassador to Nordstrom's. +According to MS-DNC, the whole story of the DNC email dump exposing how Party elites tried to rig the primary elections for HRC is about how Putin and his hackers are trying to fix the fall election for Trump. How bad do Democrats hate Wikileaks and Julian Assange? Well, here's Democratic fixer Bob Beckel on Assange: "The guy ought to be and I'm not for the death penalty, so if I'm not for the death penalty, there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." + Remarkable, Bernie Sanders is getting shouted down by his own delegates this morning for pushing Hillary & Kaine down their throats! If the double blows of the DNC email dump and the Kaine pick didn't push Bernie over the brink, nothing will. He made his Faustian pact and now he is just another Clinton surrogate. + Misogyny, Liberal-style: I think it's unfair that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is taking all the heat for the DNC email scandal. After all, Obama is the real leader of the DNC. Debbie is Obama's hand-picked surrogate. Obama should follow Debbie's lead and cancel his speech tomorrow night. It's only just. + According to a report in the New York Times, the "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!" chant has spread to Philly: "The reaction from Mr. Sanders's supporters was consistent with the anti-Clinton message delivered by demonstrators earlier in the day. Some pro-Sanders protesters took a harder turn on Monday, chanting 'Lock her up' in an echo of the message of the Republican National Convention a week earlier, fueled by the resignation of the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee." + After a supposedly disastrous, widely ridiculed convention, Trump is now up 5%. He might well be up 10 after the Democrats finish theirs.They continue to ignore working class issues and the rising animus toward interventionist wars at their peril. The fact that it all seems inexplicable to them will help seal their fate. + According to CNN, "Trump's new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump's convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein." Note that MS-DNC is reporting only a 3% Trump lead, because they stubbornly ignore the presence of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. But both of the third party candidates are drawing more votes from Clinton than from Trump. + Nancy Pelosi was booed as she addressed her own California delegation. Who wants to be the next Democratic power broker to step up to the microphone? Chuck Schumer, stop hiding behind the curtains, you've never been shy before! Michael Yates sent me this note: "Pelosi is a real slimeball. No doubt Sanders will have good things to say about her." + Benediction booed. Barney Frank booed. Marcia Fudge booed. Next? Could this convention be fun, after all! + After waiting three days to apologize to Sanders and the Sandernistas for rigging the democratic process against his campaign, Democratic leaders now urging Sandernistas to be "respectful" of the "democratic process!" + Sanders in Full Clinton Mode, just texted his delegates to sit back and take it in silence: "I ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind of protest on the floor." Imagine what the scene on the floor would be like had Sanders not endorsed. What a monumental failure of nerve on his part. + Will the Sandernistas have to stop calling themselves Sandernistas? + Sanders: "Friends, settle down! Settle down! When I said 'revolution' I didn't mean a cap-R 'Revolution. It was a METAPHOR!'" + How badly did the Clintons misread the mood of their own rapidly-dwindling base when they picked the pro-TPP Kaine, after knowing that the DNC's emails had been released. There's stupidity. And there's hubris. She's got massive quantities of BOTH. The TPP bait-and-switch is crucial here because it exposes Hillary lied about her own position and thus confirms everyone's belief in her mendacity. + Hillary seems to have spent more time courting Michael Bloomberg than the Steelworkers. + The DNC, with the help of the hired Sanders flacks, just pushed through the platform on a voice vote, steamrolling effort by the Sandernistas and Labor to get a floor vote on the TPP. + Hillary delegates are holding up signs reading "Love Trumps Hate." Now can't that be read two entirely different ways? + The Democratic Convention is highlighting the drug war. Not eliminating it, mind you, but extending it to the so-called "opioid epidemic." Will they call for ending the Afghan War which has accelerated the poppy trade? Will they go after prescription-pushing Big Pharma, which has been coddled so tenderly by Tim Kaine? Dream on, Dems. Where's Tipper Gore? Rules of Engagement for HRC's Drug War: If you take your opioids in pill form (i.e., white people) you go to therapy, if you use a needle (blacks and Hispanics) you go to prison. Shoot them only if you see them shooting up. + Fascinating interview with Julian Assange on NBC about the DNC email dump. Assange said the Russian hack of the DNC computers occurred before many of the emails in this document dump were even written. He said that the DNC's email system was almost transparent. The system had very little security and that the emails were there for the taking. He said the RNC system is equally vulnerable. (Look out Reince Pribus.) What a triumph for Assange and Wikileaks. The fact that the CIA hasn't been able to eliminate Wikileaks is a real & tangible sign of hope. You can bet they'll be near the top of Hillary's hit list, if she's elected. + Does Sen. Kristen Gillibrand not know that after college Hillary DID in fact go to work for "a fancy law firm," called Rose Law, where she toiled, not on behalf of "the children", but for some of the South's most vicious corporations and did a good enough job that she was invited to join the board of Wal-Mart? + Listening to Clinton's campaign guru Robbie Mook mewl about possible Russian meddling in US elections is like listening to Trump whine about income tax rates, when he apparently pays nothing. Shall we recall HRC's direct intervention in the Russian elections? Her financing of the opposition in the Venezuelan elections? Her role in the Honduran coup? That's essentially the job description of the Sec. of State, isn't it? What goes around comes around, Hillary. (If that is, in fact, the case.) + It's 9 PM in Philly and all is quiet on the eastern front. Has the steam gone out of the Sandernistas? After a raucous morning, I hope they didn't spend the afternoon sharing bong hits of DNC Trainwreck or Burlington Kush. Did they all mellow out? Popping a few Bernie Bennies would have been a better choice.. + Sarah "Sandernista" Silverman just slammed Sandernistas as being "ridiculous." Make her a diplomat in the Clinton State Dept. We'll be going to war with Grenada again before you know it.. + Enough with dreary Paul "Way Back Machine" Simon. Bring back, Demi "I Have a Mental Illness" Lovato. + Cory Booker has none of the oratorical gifts of Obama. He's more of a second rate blues shouter than a true master of political soul. + Did Booker flub the line about Hillary has been "paying it forward" her entire life? Surely he meant she's been "getting paid" forward her entire life? * Booker: "Hillary doesn't believe in scapegoating people over their religion." Did Mrs. Clinton come to this position after or before she fired Debbie Wasserman Schultz for plotting to scapegoat Sanders over his religion? + Look, there's Bill Clinton lustily applauding Michelle Obama. Recall when he slandered her husband's campaign for race-baiting. "I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign, that they planned to do it all along." And, unforgettably, telling Joe Biden: "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.". + Michele's got the gift. She understands, as McLuhan said decades ago, that TV is a cool medium. She's the coolest thing they've got going. Too bad she's squandering it on someone who led her husband into the Libyan debacle. + Once again, Michele invokes HRC's book "It Takes a Village." But as Secretary of State, Hillary's playbook was "To Drone a Village." My friend Carl Estabrook (il miglior fabbro) amended this to: "To Take Out a Village." * Michele's going to take shit tomorrow for saying she "wakes up every morning in a house built by slaves." + Pretty low-wattage speech from Warren. Probably a bad move to put her after Michele. The Bernie or Bust block has thrown off her rhythm a few times with the Sandernistas screaming: "We trusted you!" Her heart doesn't seem to be in her blurbs for HRC and Kaine. + Biggest applause line for Warren came when she quoted Trump's line about the "system being rigged." But the crowd seemed placid and unimpressed. Warren's encomiums for Hillary on economic justice and trade fell flat, with the crowd chanting "Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs." + Sandernistas crying as Bernie takes the stage. Too bad it's not the Clintons crying. If only Picasso were around to paint Bernie's weeping women.What a strange magnetism he has, especially the appeal to younger women, who were the backbone of his campaign. Is it a longing for the lost grandfather? The appeal is almost mystical. Patrick Flatherity suggested that it was: "a longing for a sincere, strong, open-hearted male, which is all too rare in popular culture." But look where he led them. Right into the arms of the Wicked Stepmother. + The boos began the moment Bernie began his refrain: "Hillary understands." + Bernie's vouching for Hillary, the Secretary of Fracking, on climate change rang pretty hollow, especially when she doubled-down w/ Tim "Offshore Drilling" Kaine. What's worse? Someone dismisses the science and supports the oil, gas and coal industry or someone, like Clinton and Kaine, who understand the science and still support the fossil fuel industry? + Sanders is no Jesse Jackson in the rhetoric dept. Although with both of them you end up in the same place. Back where you started. He sounded like a political prisoner reciting lines written by James Carville. A willing prisoner. + Bernie kept repeating the withered platitude that; "We're stronger when we stand together." But together with whom? For what? Perhaps all the crying was at the ragged spectacle of Sanders humiliating himself for 50 straight minutes on behalf of a ticket which has only contempt for him and his followers. + Read it and Weep. Here's the text of Sanders speech to the Convention (Minus booing, crying and shouts of "You've got to be fucking kidding me, Bernie!") + The New York Times headline on Sanders's political role at the Convention pretty much it: " Leader of a Revolt Now Must Put One Down." Poor Bernie: he started out as Danton and ends up as Edmund Burke. + Mike Whitney sends me note from the backwoods of northwest Washington State: "As has happened so often before, the Democratic Party has become the graveyard of a movement of social protest, with Sanders serving as the undertaker." + This was a fun but exhausting experiment in trying to annotate an entire day at the Democratic convention. I have a new respect for obsessive Tweeters like Doug Henwood. It reminded me of how different things are now from 2000, when I was the "color commentator" for BBC Radio on the final night of the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles and the BBC announcer kept trying to get me to say that Al Gore had suddenly found a new spark of energy. I replied to his displeasure, "Yes, like the Mummy after his reanimation." That was the night Al tongue raped Tipper Gore in front of an international TV audience. I doubt Hillary will tongue rape Bill on Thursday night. But we can always hope. To paraphrase Alexander Cockburn on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, if anyone ever deserved to be raped on live TV it's Bill Clinton. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jul 26 20:54:30 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 15:54:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Don't Cry For Me, DNC: Notes From the Democratic Convention In-Reply-To: <042901d1e77e$c6046f50$520d4df0$@comcast.net> References: <042901d1e77e$c6046f50$520d4df0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <046001d1e77f$e8857be0$b99073a0$@comcast.net> Hey Carl, you are actually named in this article by Jeffrey St. Claire. July 26, 2016 Don 't Cry For Me, DNC: Notes From the Democratic Convention by Jeffrey St. Clair * Debbie Wasserman Schultz was awful at everything she did except ensure HRC's nomination. This was not lost on her own delegation in Florida, who shouted her down this morning. Two hours later she had been removed from her position as chair of the DNC, banned from the stage at the convention and rewarded with an obscure position with the Clinton campaign. After Debbie loses her primary contest to Tim Canova, she'll land some kind of position with the Clinton administration. So. Don't cry for me, DNC! I've still got my jewelry and part of an oil refinery. Hillary's going make me an Ambassador and not to some shithole like El Salvador. I'm thinking Luxembourg or Monaco Where I'll be driven around in a pink El Dorado. Failing that, there's always the Ambassador to Nordstrom's. +According to MS-DNC, the whole story of the DNC email dump exposing how Party elites tried to rig the primary elections for HRC is about how Putin and his hackers are trying to fix the fall election for Trump. How bad do Democrats hate Wikileaks and Julian Assange? Well, here's Democratic fixer Bob Beckel on Assange: "The guy ought to be and I'm not for the death penalty, so if I'm not for the death penalty, there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch." + Remarkable, Bernie Sanders is getting shouted down by his own delegates this morning for pushing Hillary & Kaine down their throats! If the double blows of the DNC email dump and the Kaine pick didn't push Bernie over the brink, nothing will. He made his Faustian pact and now he is just another Clinton surrogate. + Misogyny, Liberal-style: I think it's unfair that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is taking all the heat for the DNC email scandal. After all, Obama is the real leader of the DNC. Debbie is Obama's hand-picked surrogate. Obama should follow Debbie's lead and cancel his speech tomorrow night. It's only just. + According to a report in the New York Times, the "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!" chant has spread to Philly: "The reaction from Mr. Sanders's supporters was consistent with the anti-Clinton message delivered by demonstrators earlier in the day. Some pro-Sanders protesters took a harder turn on Monday, chanting 'Lock her up' in an echo of the message of the Republican National Convention a week earlier, fueled by the resignation of the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee." + After a supposedly disastrous, widely ridiculed convention, Trump is now up 5%. He might well be up 10 after the Democrats finish theirs.They continue to ignore working class issues and the rising animus toward interventionist wars at their peril. The fact that it all seems inexplicable to them will help seal their fate. + According to CNN, "Trump's new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump's convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein." Note that MS-DNC is reporting only a 3% Trump lead, because they stubbornly ignore the presence of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. But both of the third party candidates are drawing more votes from Clinton than from Trump. + Nancy Pelosi was booed as she addressed her own California delegation. Who wants to be the next Democratic power broker to step up to the microphone? Chuck Schumer, stop hiding behind the curtains, you've never been shy before! Michael Yates sent me this note: "Pelosi is a real slimeball. No doubt Sanders will have good things to say about her." + Benediction booed. Barney Frank booed. Marcia Fudge booed. Next? Could this convention be fun, after all! + After waiting three days to apologize to Sanders and the Sandernistas for rigging the democratic process against his campaign, Democratic leaders now urging Sandernistas to be "respectful" of the "democratic process!" + Sanders in Full Clinton Mode, just texted his delegates to sit back and take it in silence: "I ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind of protest on the floor." Imagine what the scene on the floor would be like had Sanders not endorsed. What a monumental failure of nerve on his part. + Will the Sandernistas have to stop calling themselves Sandernistas? + Sanders: "Friends, settle down! Settle down! When I said 'revolution' I didn't mean a cap-R 'Revolution. It was a METAPHOR!'" + How badly did the Clintons misread the mood of their own rapidly-dwindling base when they picked the pro-TPP Kaine, after knowing that the DNC's emails had been released. There's stupidity. And there's hubris. She's got massive quantities of BOTH. The TPP bait-and-switch is crucial here because it exposes Hillary lied about her own position and thus confirms everyone's belief in her mendacity. + Hillary seems to have spent more time courting Michael Bloomberg than the Steelworkers. + The DNC, with the help of the hired Sanders flacks, just pushed through the platform on a voice vote, steamrolling effort by the Sandernistas and Labor to get a floor vote on the TPP. + Hillary delegates are holding up signs reading "Love Trumps Hate." Now can't that be read two entirely different ways? + The Democratic Convention is highlighting the drug war. Not eliminating it, mind you, but extending it to the so-called "opioid epidemic." Will they call for ending the Afghan War which has accelerated the poppy trade? Will they go after prescription-pushing Big Pharma, which has been coddled so tenderly by Tim Kaine? Dream on, Dems. Where's Tipper Gore? Rules of Engagement for HRC's Drug War: If you take your opioids in pill form (i.e., white people) you go to therapy, if you use a needle (blacks and Hispanics) you go to prison. Shoot them only if you see them shooting up. + Fascinating interview with Julian Assange on NBC about the DNC email dump. Assange said the Russian hack of the DNC computers occurred before many of the emails in this document dump were even written. He said that the DNC's email system was almost transparent. The system had very little security and that the emails were there for the taking. He said the RNC system is equally vulnerable. (Look out Reince Pribus.) What a triumph for Assange and Wikileaks. The fact that the CIA hasn't been able to eliminate Wikileaks is a real & tangible sign of hope. You can bet they'll be near the top of Hillary's hit list, if she's elected. + Does Sen. Kristen Gillibrand not know that after college Hillary DID in fact go to work for "a fancy law firm," called Rose Law, where she toiled, not on behalf of "the children", but for some of the South's most vicious corporations and did a good enough job that she was invited to join the board of Wal-Mart? + Listening to Clinton's campaign guru Robbie Mook mewl about possible Russian meddling in US elections is like listening to Trump whine about income tax rates, when he apparently pays nothing. Shall we recall HRC's direct intervention in the Russian elections? Her financing of the opposition in the Venezuelan elections? Her role in the Honduran coup? That's essentially the job description of the Sec. of State, isn't it? What goes around comes around, Hillary. (If that is, in fact, the case.) + It's 9 PM in Philly and all is quiet on the eastern front. Has the steam gone out of the Sandernistas? After a raucous morning, I hope they didn't spend the afternoon sharing bong hits of DNC Trainwreck or Burlington Kush. Did they all mellow out? Popping a few Bernie Bennies would have been a better choice.. + Sarah "Sandernista" Silverman just slammed Sandernistas as being "ridiculous." Make her a diplomat in the Clinton State Dept. We'll be going to war with Grenada again before you know it.. + Enough with dreary Paul "Way Back Machine" Simon. Bring back, Demi "I Have a Mental Illness" Lovato. + Cory Booker has none of the oratorical gifts of Obama. He's more of a second rate blues shouter than a true master of political soul. + Did Booker flub the line about Hillary has been "paying it forward" her entire life? Surely he meant she's been "getting paid" forward her entire life? * Booker: "Hillary doesn't believe in scapegoating people over their religion." Did Mrs. Clinton come to this position after or before she fired Debbie Wasserman Schultz for plotting to scapegoat Sanders over his religion? + Look, there's Bill Clinton lustily applauding Michelle Obama. Recall when he slandered her husband's campaign for race-baiting. "I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign, that they planned to do it all along." And, unforgettably, telling Joe Biden: "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.". + Michele's got the gift. She understands, as McLuhan said decades ago, that TV is a cool medium. She's the coolest thing they've got going. Too bad she's squandering it on someone who led her husband into the Libyan debacle. + Once again, Michele invokes HRC's book "It Takes a Village." But as Secretary of State, Hillary's playbook was "To Drone a Village." My friend Carl Estabrook (il miglior fabbro) amended this to: "To Take Out a Village." * Michele's going to take shit tomorrow for saying she "wakes up every morning in a house built by slaves." + Pretty low-wattage speech from Warren. Probably a bad move to put her after Michele. The Bernie or Bust block has thrown off her rhythm a few times with the Sandernistas screaming: "We trusted you!" Her heart doesn't seem to be in her blurbs for HRC and Kaine. + Biggest applause line for Warren came when she quoted Trump's line about the "system being rigged." But the crowd seemed placid and unimpressed. Warren's encomiums for Hillary on economic justice and trade fell flat, with the crowd chanting "Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs." + Sandernistas crying as Bernie takes the stage. Too bad it's not the Clintons crying. If only Picasso were around to paint Bernie 's weeping women.What a strange magnetism he has, especially the appeal to younger women, who were the backbone of his campaign. Is it a longing for the lost grandfather? The appeal is almost mystical. Patrick Flatherity suggested that it was: "a longing for a sincere, strong, open-hearted male, which is all too rare in popular culture." But look where he led them. Right into the arms of the Wicked Stepmother. + The boos began the moment Bernie began his refrain: "Hillary understands." + Bernie's vouching for Hillary, the Secretary of Fracking, on climate change rang pretty hollow, especially when she doubled-down w/ Tim "Offshore Drilling" Kaine. What's worse? Someone dismisses the science and supports the oil, gas and coal industry or someone, like Clinton and Kaine, who understand the science and still support the fossil fuel industry? + Sanders is no Jesse Jackson in the rhetoric dept. Although with both of them you end up in the same place. Back where you started. He sounded like a political prisoner reciting lines written by James Carville. A willing prisoner. + Bernie kept repeating the withered platitude that; "We're stronger when we stand together." But together with whom? For what? Perhaps all the crying was at the ragged spectacle of Sanders humiliating himself for 50 straight minutes on behalf of a ticket which has only contempt for him and his followers. + Read it and Weep. Here's the text of Sanders speech to the Convention (Minus booing, crying and shouts of "You've got to be fucking kidding me, Bernie!") + The New York Times headline on Sanders's political role at the Convention pretty much it: "Leader of a Revolt Now Must Put One Down." Poor Bernie: he started out as Danton and ends up as Edmund Burke. + Mike Whitney sends me note from the backwoods of northwest Washington State: "As has happened so often before, the Democratic Party has become the graveyard of a movement of social protest, with Sanders serving as the undertaker." + This was a fun but exhausting experiment in trying to annotate an entire day at the Democratic convention. I have a new respect for obsessive Tweeters like Doug Henwood . It reminded me of how different things are now from 2000, when I was the "color commentator" for BBC Radio on the final night of the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles and the BBC announcer kept trying to get me to say that Al Gore had suddenly found a new spark of energy. I replied to his displeasure, "Yes, like the Mummy after his reanimation." That was the night Al tongue raped Tipper Gore in front of an international TV audience. I doubt Hillary will tongue rape Bill on Thursday night. But we can always hope. To paraphrase Alexander Cockburn on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, if anyone ever deserved to be raped on live TV it's Bill Clinton. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jul 26 21:34:59 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Don't Cry For Me, DNC: Notes From the Democratic Convention In-Reply-To: <046001d1e77f$e8857be0$b99073a0$@comcast.net> References: <042901d1e77e$c6046f50$520d4df0$@comcast.net> <046001d1e77f$e8857be0$b99073a0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <1375C646-95CF-4EFE-A470-C38AE1664E64@newsfromneptune.com> Yes, Jeffrey & I share an unfashionable taste for Ezra Pound. (That’s whom the Italian phrase refers to.) His live-tweeting of the convention is some of the best comment around - as are a lot of the other articles on CounterPunch (online & the magazine). Don’t miss his parody of Samuel Beckett (and guess who) in the current magazine - “Bernie’s Last Tape.” Having once played the lead (& all the parts) in a production of Beckett's “Krapp’s Last Tape,” I may read Jeffrey’s version on the air. Before people forget who Sanders is/was. > On Jul 26, 2016, at 3:54 PM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hey Carl, you are actually named in this article by Jeffrey St. Clair. > > > July 26, 2016 > Don’t Cry For Me, DNC: Notes From the Democratic Convention > by Jeffrey St. Clair > • > Debbie Wasserman Schultz was awful at everything she did except ensure HRC’s nomination. This was not lost on her own delegation in Florida, who shouted her down this morning. Two hours later she had been removed from her position as chair of the DNC, banned from the stage at the convention and rewarded with an obscure position with the Clinton campaign. After Debbie loses her primary contest to Tim Canova, she’ll land some kind of position with the Clinton administration. So… > Don’t cry for me, DNC! > I’ve still got my jewelry > and part of an oil refinery… > Hillary’s going make me an Ambassador > and not to some shithole like El Salvador. > I’m thinking Luxembourg or Monaco > Where I’ll be driven around in a pink El Dorado… > Failing that, there’s always the Ambassador to Nordstrom’s. > +According to MS-DNC, the whole story of the DNC email dump exposing how Party elites tried to rig the primary elections for HRC is about how Putin and his hackers are trying to fix the fall election for Trump. How bad do Democrats hate Wikileaks and Julian Assange? Well, here’s Democratic fixer Bob Beckel on Assange: “The guy ought to be and I’m not for the death penalty, so if I’m not for the death penalty, there’s only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” > + Remarkable, Bernie Sanders is getting shouted down by his own delegates this morning for pushing Hillary & Kaine down their throats! > If the double blows of the DNC email dump and the Kaine pick didn’t push Bernie over the brink, nothing will. He made his Faustian pact and now he is just another Clinton surrogate. > + Misogyny, Liberal-style: I think it’s unfair that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is taking all the heat for the DNC email scandal. After all, Obama is the real leader of the DNC. Debbie is Obama’s hand-picked surrogate. Obama should follow Debbie’s lead and cancel his speech tomorrow night. It’s only just. > + According to a report in the New York Times, the “LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!!” chant has spread to Philly: “The reaction from Mr. Sanders’s supporters was consistent with the anti-Clinton message delivered by demonstrators earlier in the day. Some pro-Sanders protesters took a harder turn on Monday, chanting ‘Lock her up’ in an echo of the message of the Republican National Convention a week earlier, fueled by the resignation of the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.” > + After a supposedly disastrous, widely ridiculed convention, Trump is now up 5%. He might well be up 10 after the Democrats finish theirs…They continue to ignore working class issues and the rising animus toward interventionist wars at their peril. The fact that it all seems inexplicable to them will help seal their fate. > + According to CNN, > “Trump’s new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump’s convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein.” > Note that MS-DNC is reporting only a 3% Trump lead, because they stubbornly ignore the presence of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. But both of the third party candidates are drawing more votes from Clinton than from Trump. > + Nancy Pelosi was booed as she addressed her own California delegation. Who wants to be the next Democratic power broker to step up to the microphone? Chuck Schumer, stop hiding behind the curtains, you’ve never been shy before! > Michael Yates sent me this note: “Pelosi is a real slimeball. No doubt Sanders will have good things to say about her.” > + Benediction booed. Barney Frank booed. Marcia Fudge booed. Next? Could this convention be fun, after all! > + After waiting three days to apologize to Sanders and the Sandernistas for rigging the democratic process against his campaign, Democratic leaders now urging Sandernistas to be “respectful” of the “democratic process!” > + Sanders in Full Clinton Mode, just texted his delegates to sit back and take it in silence: “I ask you as a personal courtesy to me to not engage in any kind of protest on the floor.” > Imagine what the scene on the floor would be like had Sanders not endorsed. What a monumental failure of nerve on his part. > + Will the Sandernistas have to stop calling themselves Sandernistas? > + Sanders: “Friends, settle down! Settle down! When I said ‘revolution’ I didn’t mean a cap-R ‘Revolution. It was a METAPHOR!'” > + How badly did the Clintons misread the mood of their own rapidly-dwindling base when they picked the pro-TPP Kaine, after knowing that the DNC’s emails had been released. There’s stupidity. And there’s hubris. She’s got massive quantities of BOTH. > The TPP bait-and-switch is crucial here because it exposes Hillary lied about her own position and thus confirms everyone’s belief in her mendacity. > + Hillary seems to have spent more time courting Michael Bloomberg than the Steelworkers. > + The DNC, with the help of the hired Sanders flacks, just pushed through the platform on a voice vote, steamrolling effort by the Sandernistas and Labor to get a floor vote on the TPP. > + Hillary delegates are holding up signs reading “Love Trumps Hate.” Now can’t that be read two entirely different ways? > + The Democratic Convention is highlighting the drug war. Not eliminating it, mind you, but extending it to the so-called “opioid epidemic.” Will they call for ending the Afghan War which has accelerated the poppy trade? Will they go after prescription-pushing Big Pharma, which has been coddled so tenderly by Tim Kaine? Dream on, Dems. Where’s Tipper Gore? > Rules of Engagement for HRC’s Drug War: If you take your opioids in pill form (i.e., white people) you go to therapy, if you use a needle (blacks and Hispanics) you go to prison. Shoot them only if you see them shooting up. > + Fascinating interview with Julian Assange on NBC about the DNC email dump. Assange said the Russian hack of the DNC computers occurred before many of the emails in this document dump were even written. He said that the DNC’s email system was almost transparent. The system had very little security and that the emails were there for the taking. He said the RNC system is equally vulnerable. (Look out Reince Pribus.) > What a triumph for Assange and Wikileaks. The fact that the CIA hasn’t been able to eliminate Wikileaks is a real & tangible sign of hope. You can bet they’ll be near the top of Hillary’s hit list, if she’s elected. > + Does Sen. Kristen Gillibrand not know that after college Hillary DID in fact go to work for “a fancy law firm,” called Rose Law, where she toiled, not on behalf of “the children”, but for some of the South’s most vicious corporations and did a good enough job that she was invited to join the board of Wal-Mart? > + Listening to Clinton’s campaign guru Robbie Mook mewl about possible Russian meddling in US elections is like listening to Trump whine about income tax rates, when he apparently pays nothing. Shall we recall HRC’s direct intervention in the Russian elections? Her financing of the opposition in the Venezuelan elections? Her role in the Honduran coup? That’s essentially the job description of the Sec. of State, isn’t it? What goes around comes around, Hillary. (If that is, in fact, the case.) > + It’s 9 PM in Philly and all is quiet on the eastern front. Has the steam gone out of the Sandernistas? After a raucous morning, I hope they didn’t spend the afternoon sharing bong hits of DNC Trainwreck or Burlington Kush. Did they all mellow out? Popping a few Bernie Bennies would have been a better choice…. > + Sarah “Sandernista” Silverman just slammed Sandernistas as being “ridiculous.” Make her a diplomat in the Clinton State Dept. We’ll be going to war with Grenada again before you know it…. > + Enough with dreary Paul “Way Back Machine” Simon. Bring back, Demi “I Have a Mental Illness” Lovato. > + Cory Booker has none of the oratorical gifts of Obama. He’s more of a second rate blues shouter than a true master of political soul. > + Did Booker flub the line about Hillary has been “paying it forward” her entire life? Surely he meant she’s been “getting paid” forward her entire life? > * Booker: “Hillary doesn’t believe in scapegoating people over their religion.” Did Mrs. Clinton come to this position after or before she fired Debbie Wasserman Schultz for plotting to scapegoat Sanders over his religion? > + Look, there’s Bill Clinton lustily applauding Michelle Obama. Recall when he slandered her husband’s campaign for race-baiting. “I think that they played the race card on me. We now know, from memos from the campaign, that they planned to do it all along.” And, unforgettably, telling Joe Biden: “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”. > + Michele’s got the gift. She understands, as McLuhan said decades ago, that TV is a cool medium. She’s the coolest thing they’ve got going. Too bad she’s squandering it on someone who led her husband into the Libyan debacle. > + Once again, Michele invokes HRC’s book “It Takes a Village.” But as Secretary of State, Hillary’s playbook was “To Drone a Village.” My friend Carl Estabrook (il miglior fabbro) amended this to: “To Take Out a Village.” > * Michele’s going to take shit tomorrow for saying she “wakes up every morning in a house built by slaves.” > + Pretty low-wattage speech from Warren. Probably a bad move to put her after Michele. The Bernie or Bust block has thrown off her rhythm a few times with the Sandernistas screaming: “We trusted you!” Her heart doesn’t seem to be in her blurbs for HRC and Kaine. > + Biggest applause line for Warren came when she quoted Trump’s line about the “system being rigged.” But the crowd seemed placid and unimpressed. Warren’s encomiums for Hillary on economic justice and trade fell flat, with the crowd chanting “Goldman Sachs, Goldman Sachs.” > + Sandernistas crying as Bernie takes the stage. Too bad it’s not the Clintons crying. If only Picasso were around to paint Bernie’s weeping women…What a strange magnetism he has, especially the appeal to younger women, who were the backbone of his campaign. Is it a longing for the lost grandfather? The appeal is almost mystical. Patrick Flatherity suggested that it was: “a longing for a sincere, strong, open-hearted male, which is all too rare in popular culture.” But look where he led them. Right into the arms of the Wicked Stepmother. > + The boos began the moment Bernie began his refrain: “Hillary understands…” > + Bernie’s vouching for Hillary, the Secretary of Fracking, on climate change rang pretty hollow, especially when she doubled-down w/ Tim “Offshore Drilling” Kaine. What’s worse? Someone dismisses the science and supports the oil, gas and coal industry or someone, like Clinton and Kaine, who understand the science and still support the fossil fuel industry? > + Sanders is no Jesse Jackson in the rhetoric dept. Although with both of them you end up in the same place. Back where you started. He sounded like a political prisoner reciting lines written by James Carville. A willing prisoner. > + Bernie kept repeating the withered platitude that; “We’re stronger when we stand together.” But together with whom? For what? Perhaps all the crying was at the ragged spectacle of Sanders humiliating himself for 50 straight minutes on behalf of a ticket which has only contempt for him and his followers. > + Read it and Weep. Here’s the text of Sanders speech to the Convention (Minus booing, crying and shouts of “You’ve got to be fucking kidding me, Bernie!”) > + The New York Times headline on Sanders’s political role at the Convention pretty much it: “Leader of a Revolt Now Must Put One Down.” Poor Bernie: he started out as Danton and ends up as Edmund Burke. > + Mike Whitney sends me note from the backwoods of northwest Washington State: “As has happened so often before, the Democratic Party has become the graveyard of a movement of social protest, with Sanders serving as the undertaker.” > + This was a fun but exhausting experiment in trying to annotate an entire day at the Democratic convention. I have a new respect for obsessive Tweeters like Doug Henwood. It reminded me of how different things are now from 2000, when I was the “color commentator” for BBC Radio on the final night of the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles and the BBC announcer kept trying to get me to say that Al Gore had suddenly found a new spark of energy. I replied to his displeasure, “Yes, like the Mummy after his reanimation.” That was the night Al tongue raped Tipper Gore in front of an international TV audience. I doubt Hillary will tongue rape Bill on Thursday night. But we can always hope. To paraphrase Alexander Cockburn on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, if anyone ever deserved to be raped on live TV it’s Bill Clinton… > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From dwilson2 at illinois.edu Tue Jul 26 23:55:55 2016 From: dwilson2 at illinois.edu (Wilson, David) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 23:55:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 In-Reply-To: References: <271AB890-4C42-4D35-BBC6-C847191C6DDA@newsfromneptune.com> , Message-ID: Interesting and important points, and thanks for the response back, Carl. I would make two final points. First neoliberalism is of course a slippery and multi-interpretable term. In one dominant take in the present (and one that I like), it references a set of economic and political principles that pivot around the drive to simultaneously re-entrepreneurialize places and feather the profit nests of capital (increasingly today real-estate capital). Indeed, David Harvey (you mentioned him) now widely invokes the term in this way when he speaks of "neoliberal governances" (see the Postmodern Condition and espeially his discussion of Baltimore). So to does Neal Smith when he discusses revanchist New York and the neoliberal Rudy Guliani (see Neoliberal Urbanization, 2002). A great exposition on this usage of neoliberalism is by Jamie Peck, Nik Theodore and Neal Brenner and Nik Theodore (Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations, 2009). In this vein, I do not view Trump's domestic ideas as anti-neoliberal but rather as a crazy hybrid that integrates especially crude populism with domestic neoliberalism. His commitment to the core package of neoliberal principles I previously identified is rock solid. To me, Trump has ingeniously (but unwittingly) engineered a face of complexity here that still needs to be be intricately excavated. David David Wilson Associate Head and Director of Graduate Studies Professor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dept of Geography Department of Urban Planning Department of African American Studies ________________________________________ From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 8:28 PM To: Wilson, David Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; Peace; sf-core; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 Thanks for the comments, David. I agree that Trump’s comments on 'lawnorder’ are frequently disturbing, but I don’t think they can easily be described as neoliberal. I think neoliberalism applied consistently refers to the conscious, calculated policies of the US business class over the last 40 years, a counter-attack on the social democratic trend from the 'New Deal' through the 'Great Society' (1930s-70s): deunionization, financialization, globalization, removal of social supports - in support of elite profits. (See now David Harvey in the current Jacobin, “Neoliberalism is a Political Project.”) A culmination of neoliberalism is the trade pacts (NAFTA, TPP, TTIP) that Trump attacks - and the Democrats defend. And identity politics of Clinton’s sort are bound up with neoliberalism: see inter alia Walter Benn Michaels, "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality,” 2006. (Cf. Benn Michaels’ “Let Them Eat Diversity,” in Jacobin.) The remarkable thing about Trump is that under the bluster he is asserting an (anti-neoliberal) class politics, over against Clinton’s identity politics. See the remarks by the editor of CounterPunch on Trump’s acceptance speech: , e.g., "Trump completely ignored the traditional cultural issues that have freighted the GOP for 30 years and went right for the working class anxieties that the Democrats have failed to quell since the advent of neoliberalism. You can see why the smarter Democrats are running a little scared." I think the Clinton people are quite worried about Trump’s class politics (as they were about Sanders’), know they can’t answer it, and are working strenuously to deflect the question, as acute critics like Glen Ford in BAR have seen: "Hillary Wants a Crusade to Defeat Trump’s 'Bigotry' – and Leave Her Bankers Alone” . No one doubts that Clinton is a neoliberal (in Harvey’s sense); the remarkable thing is that Trump isn’t. Regards, CGE PS - BTW I think you know I’m voting for Jill Stein, who’s better than both. > On Jul 25, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Wilson, David via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hello Carl and Friends, > > Some very helpful and interesting posts on the presidential campaign in recent days, thanks. > > As we work our way through the Clinton versus Trump binary (I won't vote for either), I think it important to note that neoliberalism (as an ethos, sensibility and set of policies) also has a domestic dimension that needs to be considered. > > Trump is absolutely committed to placing neoliberal principles at the center of his domestic agenda. He has promised a ruthless "law and order," class based policing campaign that will deepen the affliction on poor neighborhoods (particular those of color). At the same time, purported "social engineeering" initiatives will be shut down (e.g., affordable housing initiatives, Section 8 housing provision, school lunch programs) while the neocon. spin on the second amendment will be ferociously defended. Trump here unapologetically embraces a recipe of hyper privatization, evisceration of the welfare state, the killing of political dissent, a ramping up of the New Federalism, and the annihilation of what he terms "bad culture and bad individual choices." > > His notion of helping the inner city poor becomes a cruel hoax. > > On this neoliberal front, Trump far surpasses Clinton. > > David Wilson > > From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:18 AM > To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; Peace > Cc: Occupy CU; sf-core > Subject: News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 > > Produced and directed by Yousef Kash for Urbana Public Television: > > July 22: a "Who’s Neo?” edition (#309): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gVkb3HBls&feature=em-subs_digest > > July 15: a "Worse Than You Thought” edition (#308): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCYnbkRRdo > > July 8: a "Who's a Warmonger?" edition (#307): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnZtH9AGi54 > > It’s the first US presidential election in more than 40 years in which a major party candidate doesn’t profess allegiance to neoliberal and neocon principles. As a result, hysterical neocons are already talking of a coup against President Trump! (INMTU: “If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.” - James Kirchick LA Times 21 July.) The eminently neoliberal/neocon New York Times can’t believe what it’s hearing from Trump (nor, it seems, can it report it straight); and neocon Max Boot tweets, “Trump is reading straight from talking points of anti-American dictators.” > > Noam Chomsky (for whom News from Neptune is named) is said to predict (1) that we will have a Trump presidency and (2) "the left" will play a small but significant role in making it happen. > > "So this is really the class war. And it’s the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he’s for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he’s for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he’s telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.” [Michael Hudson] > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 27 00:08:20 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 19:08:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 In-Reply-To: References: <271AB890-4C42-4D35-BBC6-C847191C6DDA@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: There’s surely some vagueness in use of tthe term, but Harvey makes it clear that it’s consistent business class policy. Trade pacts are the ne plus ultra of neoliberal policies. The Democrats scheme to get them through (Clinton & NAFTA, Obama & TPP). Trump attacks them. > On Jul 26, 2016, at 6:55 PM, Wilson, David wrote: > > Interesting and important points, and thanks for the response back, Carl. > > I would make two final points. First neoliberalism is of course a slippery and multi-interpretable term. In one dominant take in the present (and one that I like), it references a set of economic and political principles that pivot around the drive to simultaneously re-entrepreneurialize places and feather the profit nests of capital (increasingly today real-estate capital). Indeed, David Harvey (you mentioned him) now widely invokes the term in this way when he speaks of "neoliberal governances" (see the Postmodern Condition and espeially his discussion of Baltimore). So to does Neal Smith when he discusses revanchist New York and the neoliberal Rudy Guliani (see Neoliberal Urbanization, 2002). A great exposition on this usage of neoliberalism is by Jamie Peck, Nik Theodore and Neal Brenner and Nik Theodore (Neoliberal Urbanism: Models, Moments, Mutations, 2009). > > In this vein, I do not view Trump's domestic ideas as anti-neoliberal but rather as a crazy hybrid that integrates especially crude populism with domestic neoliberalism. His commitment to the core package of neoliberal principles I previously identified is rock solid. To me, Trump has ingeniously (but unwittingly) engineered a face of complexity here that still needs to be be intricately excavated. David > > David Wilson > Associate Head and Director of Graduate Studies > Professor > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > Dept of Geography > Department of Urban Planning > Department of African American Studies > > ________________________________________ > From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] > Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 8:28 PM > To: Wilson, David > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; Peace; sf-core; Occupy CU > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 > > Thanks for the comments, David. > > I agree that Trump’s comments on 'lawnorder’ are frequently disturbing, but I don’t think they can easily be described as neoliberal. > > I think neoliberalism applied consistently refers to the conscious, calculated policies of the US business class over the last 40 years, a counter-attack on the social democratic trend from the 'New Deal' through the 'Great Society' (1930s-70s): deunionization, financialization, globalization, removal of social supports - in support of elite profits. (See now David Harvey in the current Jacobin, “Neoliberalism is a Political Project.”) A culmination of neoliberalism is the trade pacts (NAFTA, TPP, TTIP) that Trump attacks - and the Democrats defend. > > And identity politics of Clinton’s sort are bound up with neoliberalism: see inter alia Walter Benn Michaels, "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality,” 2006. (Cf. Benn Michaels’ “Let Them Eat Diversity,” in Jacobin.) > > The remarkable thing about Trump is that under the bluster he is asserting an (anti-neoliberal) class politics, over against Clinton’s identity politics. > > See the remarks by the editor of CounterPunch on Trump’s acceptance speech: , e.g., "Trump completely ignored the traditional cultural issues that have freighted the GOP for 30 years and went right for the working class anxieties that the Democrats have failed to quell since the advent of neoliberalism. You can see why the smarter Democrats are running a little scared." > > I think the Clinton people are quite worried about Trump’s class politics (as they were about Sanders’), know they can’t answer it, and are working strenuously to deflect the question, as acute critics like Glen Ford in BAR have seen: "Hillary Wants a Crusade to Defeat Trump’s 'Bigotry' – and Leave Her Bankers Alone” . > > No one doubts that Clinton is a neoliberal (in Harvey’s sense); the remarkable thing is that Trump isn’t. > > Regards, CGE > > PS - BTW I think you know I’m voting for Jill Stein, who’s better than both. > > >> On Jul 25, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Wilson, David via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Hello Carl and Friends, >> >> Some very helpful and interesting posts on the presidential campaign in recent days, thanks. >> >> As we work our way through the Clinton versus Trump binary (I won't vote for either), I think it important to note that neoliberalism (as an ethos, sensibility and set of policies) also has a domestic dimension that needs to be considered. >> >> Trump is absolutely committed to placing neoliberal principles at the center of his domestic agenda. He has promised a ruthless "law and order," class based policing campaign that will deepen the affliction on poor neighborhoods (particular those of color). At the same time, purported "social engineeering" initiatives will be shut down (e.g., affordable housing initiatives, Section 8 housing provision, school lunch programs) while the neocon. spin on the second amendment will be ferociously defended. Trump here unapologetically embraces a recipe of hyper privatization, evisceration of the welfare state, the killing of political dissent, a ramping up of the New Federalism, and the annihilation of what he terms "bad culture and bad individual choices." >> >> His notion of helping the inner city poor becomes a cruel hoax. >> >> On this neoliberal front, Trump far surpasses Clinton. >> >> David Wilson >> >> From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] >> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:18 AM >> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net; Peace >> Cc: Occupy CU; sf-core >> Subject: News from Neptune for July 8, July 15, and July 22 >> >> Produced and directed by Yousef Kash for Urbana Public Television: >> >> July 22: a "Who’s Neo?” edition (#309): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00gVkb3HBls&feature=em-subs_digest >> >> July 15: a "Worse Than You Thought” edition (#308): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaCYnbkRRdo >> >> July 8: a "Who's a Warmonger?" edition (#307): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnZtH9AGi54 >> >> It’s the first US presidential election in more than 40 years in which a major party candidate doesn’t profess allegiance to neoliberal and neocon principles. As a result, hysterical neocons are already talking of a coup against President Trump! (INMTU: “If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.” - James Kirchick LA Times 21 July.) The eminently neoliberal/neocon New York Times can’t believe what it’s hearing from Trump (nor, it seems, can it report it straight); and neocon Max Boot tweets, “Trump is reading straight from talking points of anti-American dictators.” >> >> Noam Chomsky (for whom News from Neptune is named) is said to predict (1) that we will have a Trump presidency and (2) "the left" will play a small but significant role in making it happen. >> >> "So this is really the class war. And it’s the class war of Wall Street and the corporate sector of the Democratic side against Trump on the populist side. And who knows whether he really means what he says when he says he’s for the workers and he wants to rebuild the cities, put labor back to work. And when he says he’s for the blacks and Hispanics have to get jobs just like white people, maybe he’s telling the truth, because that certainly is the way that the country can be rebuilt in a positive way.” [Michael Hudson] >> >> —CGE >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed Jul 27 15:53:28 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:53:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Peter Beinart: Bill Clinton's lapse into Trumpism Message-ID: PETER BEINART 12:48 AM ET http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/bill-clintons-lapse-into-trumpism/493175/ Bill Clinton's Lapse Into Trumpism In his convention speech, he suggested that Muslims need to earn the rights that all other Americans enjoy. I love Bill Clinton. But I didn’t love his speech Tuesday night in Philadelphia. Given the job of humanizing his wife, he came across as genuinely smitten. But he failed to do what he’s done in every convention speech he’s delivered since 1992: tell a story about where America is today and what can be done to move it forward. He called his wife a great “change maker” but didn’t define the change America needs right now. But the worst moment of the speech came near its end, when Clinton began to riff about the different kinds of people who should join Hillary’s effort. “If you love this country, you’re working hard, you’re paying taxes, you’re obeying the law and you’d like to become a citizen, you should choose immigration reform over someone that wants to send you back,” he said. Fair enough. Under any conceivable immigration overhaul, only those undocumented immigrants who have obeyed the law once in the United States—which includes paying taxes—will qualify for citizenship. Two sentences later, Clinton said that, “If you’re a young African American disillusioned and afraid … help us build a future where no one’s afraid to walk outside, including the people that wear blue to protect our future.” No problem there. Of course African Americans should be safe from abusive police, and of course, police should be safe from the murderers who threaten them. But in between, Clinton said something dreadful: “If you’re a Muslim and you love America and freedom and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together, we want you.” The problem is in the assumption. American Muslims should be viewed exactly the same way other Americans are. If they commit crimes, then they should be prosecuted, just like other Americans. But they should not have to prove that they “love America and freedom” and “hate terror” to “stay here.” Their value as Americans is inherent, not instrumental. Their role as Americans is not to “help us win” the “war on terror.” Whether Clinton meant to or not, he lapsed into Trumpism: the implication that Muslims are a class apart, deserving of special scrutiny and surveillance, guilty of terrorist sympathies until proven innocent. I think I understand where the formulation came from. In the 1990s, one of Clinton’s key New Democratic innovations was his insistence that with rights, come responsibilities: To receive government assistance, welfare recipients must work. If people commit crimes, the government will punish them harshly. The problem with transferring that formulation to Muslims today is that Muslims aren’t asking for benefits from the welfare state. They’re simply asking not to be discriminated against. Clinton’s formulation was like saying, in 1964, that as long as African Americans eschew violence and love America, they deserve the right to vote. The entire tone of the Democratic convention’s first two nights suggests a defensiveness about Trump’s anti-Muslim attacks. Barely anyone has defended Barack Obama’s proposal to admit more Syrian refugees. And so, in keeping with that spirit, Clinton hedged his opposition to Trump’s Muslim ban by suggesting that America should welcome good Muslims, the ones who don’t secretly hate America. There are, to be sure, times for the ideological triangulation that Clinton made famous in the 1990s. But a major-party nominee calling for a religious litmus test for entry into the United States is not one of them. It’s a time for clarity. And Bill Clinton failed to provide it last night, thus reminding even those of us who admire him that his political instincts sometimes overwhelm his moral ones. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Wed Jul 27 19:42:20 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 14:42:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Party's Over Message-ID: <008801d1e83f$0236bb20$06a43160$@comcast.net> July 27, 2016 The Party's Over by Richard Moser * * Description: shutterstock_405351559 (2) Well, the party is over and the machine has prevailed. Our attempt to revive democracy in the electoral arena failed. Still, we owe Bernie so much. He has raised consciousness and expectations while others appealed to fear and told us there is no alternative to the corporate power. But, the struggle continues both within and outside the electoral arena. The corporate elites and the Clinton machine have no idea how deep the divisions go. Trump not Clinton will most likely be the beneficiary of the election fraud, voter suppression and discontent. The DNC has made a historic blunder and it's not going to be pretty either way. Fighting Fascism with the corporate power seems a doomed project since it is precisely the merger of the corporation and government that sets the conditions for the rise of fascism. That is the historical moment we are in and paradox we face. There is already lots of suffering and there is going to be more; much more. We are just going to have to own up to what this country has become. The system is so rotten and dysfunctional that there is no easy way out. No amount of moralizing is going to change anything - that will take political action and organizing. I plan on working for Jill Stein and I will count it a victory if we can get 5%. That will allow the Green Party to get federal funding for next time and maybe help to create a viable opposition party. But this is no 20th century election. The trend lines on war, class warfare, propaganda, the failure of democracy and the vast militarized penal system all point toward deep trouble. On environmental issues alone the crisis will deepen and most likely in a dramatic way. We are woefully unprepared for what lies ahead. But at least millions more have learned that the political system and the economy is rigged. That the lesser of two evils argument or the spoiler are forms of social control that have led us to exactly the choices we now have. If we do not have serious social change it is likely the Trumps of the world will just keep coming right out of the social conditions the Clintons of the world have created. I hear a lot from Clinton supporters, reluctant or not, about how they will continuing the struggle. I hope they are serious. How hard you worked for Bernie or other social movements this past year might be one indication of the value of your claims. No one said revolution was easy, if fact its the hardest thing in the world. I hope mother earth has the patience for us to learn. And, if you decide to persist in building an opposition movement, brace for a fear campaign unlike any you have seen. It's all they have left. "Fear," Gandhi said, "is the enemy. We thought it was hate but it's fear." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 40398 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 27 22:11:20 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 17:11:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] The Party's Over In-Reply-To: <008801d1e83f$0236bb20$06a43160$@comcast.net> References: <008801d1e83f$0236bb20$06a43160$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <38344495-3B9B-4995-BB6E-BC9913270F1D@newsfromneptune.com> Attacking Trump for the Few Sensible Things He Says is Bad Politics and Bad Strategy by Mark Weisbrot This article was published by The Hill on July 26, 2016 ...Since last week Trump has come under heavy fire his response to a question as to whether he would “come to their immediate military aid,” if NATO members including Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia, were attacked by Russia. He said yes, but only “if they fulfill their obligations to us.” He asserted that he wants Europeans to pay for their own defense. Imagine that! I’m sure that the white working class voters who will, as in most of the presidential elections of the past half-century, make up the swing voters this year will recoil in horror at this idea. The European Union has a GDP that is bigger than that of the United States (on a purchasing power parity basis). Most of these countries also provide their citizens with benefits that Americans don’t have, like real universal health care, subsidized child care, paid vacations averaging more than five weeks, and free or low-cost college tuition. Part of the reason that they get so much more for their tax dollars than we do is that they are not spending nearly as much on trying to police the world; although their security problems have increased considerably since Washington (with a lot of help from EU countries) turned the Middle East and North Africa into a hellish mess that exports more terrorism and refugees than ever before. In any case, it’s a tough sell for working and middle class voters here that their tax dollars should pay for Europe’s defense. Or that we should risk a nuclear war with Russia if it were to invade Estonia — which is the principle for which Trump has been so reviled for lately, for not defending, by the (liberal/conservative) foreign policy establishment. Of course, if your opponent says something friendly or diplomatic about a demonized foreign leader, it is generally an easy score in US politics to tar them with that. The media can be counted on to help make this into a capital offense. But if we look at the substance of Trump’s proposal to reach a deal with Putin, it’s tough to see what’s wrong with the concept. Do we really want another Cold War and an indefinite arms race with Russia? There is a whole other side to this story that Trump probably doesn’t even know, and that the media isn’t going to talk about. Neoconservative US officials like Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, played a major role in fomenting the civil war in Ukraine in the first place. They want an arms buildup surrounding Russia that would make any people, not least the Russians who have suffered devastating invasions from the east, nervous. Nuland is a Hillary protégé who is likely to have an even higher position than at present in her administration. For these and related reasons a number of the most violence-prone neocons, the kind who loved the Iraq War and in fact never met a war that they didn’t like, have endorsed Hillary over Trump. On the other side, more serious scholars such as Stephen Cohen, John Mearsheimer, and even the former war criminal Henry Kissinger have criticized the Washington’s confrontational and destructive role, and the folly of pursuing a new Cold War. Do liberals really want to trash Trump for taking positions that are less aggressively militaristic than the nation’s most war-mongering neoconservatives? If there’s any way to lose an election to the most disliked candidate ever to run for president of the United States, attacking him for the things he says that make sense is a good start. [Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the new book Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy(Oxford University Press, 2015). CEPR is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Janet Gornick, Professor at the CUNY Graduate Center and Director of the Luxembourg Income Study; and Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University ...1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 293-5380 ] > On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, 'David Johnson' davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net [sf-core] wrote: > > July 27, 2016 > The Party’s Over > by Richard Moser > • > > Well, the party is over and the machine has prevailed. Our attempt to revive democracy in the electoral arena failed. Still, we owe Bernie so much. He has raised consciousness and expectations while others appealed to fear and told us there is no alternative to the corporate power. But, the struggle continues both within and outside the electoral arena. > The corporate elites and the Clinton machine have no idea how deep the divisions go. Trump not Clinton will most likely be the beneficiary of the election fraud, voter suppression and discontent. The DNC has made a historic blunder and it’s not going to be pretty either way. Fighting Fascism with the corporate power seems a doomed project since it is precisely the merger of the corporation and government that sets the conditions for the rise of fascism. That is the historical moment we are in and paradox we face. > There is already lots of suffering and there is going to be more; much more. We are just going to have to own up to what this country has become. The system is so rotten and dysfunctional that there is no easy way out. No amount of moralizing is going to change anything — that will take political action and organizing. > I plan on working for Jill Stein and I will count it a victory if we can get 5%. That will allow the Green Party to get federal funding for next time and maybe help to create a viable opposition party. But this is no 20th century election. The trend lines on war, class warfare, propaganda, the failure of democracy and the vast militarized penal system all point toward deep trouble. On environmental issues alone the crisis will deepen and most likely in a dramatic way. We are woefully unprepared for what lies ahead. > But at least millions more have learned that the political system and the economy is rigged. That the lesser of two evils argument or the spoiler are forms of social control that have led us to exactly the choices we now have. If we do not have serious social change it is likely the Trumps of the world will just keep coming right out of the social conditions the Clintons of the world have created. I hear a lot from Clinton supporters, reluctant or not, about how they will continuing the struggle. I hope they are serious. How hard you worked for Bernie or other social movements this past year might be one indication of the value of your claims. > No one said revolution was easy, if fact its the hardest thing in the world. I hope mother earth has the patience for us to learn. > And, if you decide to persist in building an opposition movement, brace for a fear campaign unlike any you have seen. It’s all they have left. “Fear,” Gandhi said, “is the enemy. We thought it was hate but it’s fear.” > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jul 27 23:20:10 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 18:20:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] The Party's Over In-Reply-To: <38344495-3B9B-4995-BB6E-BC9913270F1D@newsfromneptune.com> References: <008801d1e83f$0236bb20$06a43160$@comcast.net> <38344495-3B9B-4995-BB6E-BC9913270F1D@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Mark Weisbrot is far too gentle. Clinton is not a liberal but a neoliberal, and a neocon as well. As president she would continue if not intensify the brutal war-making of the Bush and Obama administrations. As the anti-imperialist historian William Blum says, “Yes, [Trump]’s personally obnoxious. I’d have a very hard time being his friend. Who cares?” > On Jul 27, 2016, at 5:11 PM, 'C. G. Estabrook' carl at newsfromneptune.com [sf-core] wrote: > > > Attacking Trump for the Few Sensible Things He Says is Bad Politics and Bad Strategy > by Mark Weisbrot > This article was published by The Hill on July 26, 2016 > > ...Since last week Trump has come under heavy fire his response to a question as to whether he would “come to their immediate military aid,” if NATO members including Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia, were attacked by Russia. He said yes, but only “if they fulfill their obligations to us.” He asserted that he wants Europeans to pay for their own defense. Imagine that! I’m sure that the white working class voters who will, as in most of the presidential elections of the past half-century, make up the swing voters this year will recoil in horror at this idea. > > The European Union has a GDP that is bigger than that of the United States (on a purchasing power parity basis). Most of these countries also provide their citizens with benefits that Americans don’t have, like real universal health care, subsidized child care, paid vacations averaging more than five weeks, and free or low-cost college tuition. Part of the reason that they get so much more for their tax dollars than we do is that they are not spending nearly as much on trying to police the world; although their security problems have increased considerably since Washington (with a lot of help from EU countries) turned the Middle East and North Africa into a hellish mess that exports more terrorism and refugees than ever before. In any case, it’s a tough sell for working and middle class voters here that their tax dollars should pay for Europe’s defense. Or that we should risk a nuclear war with Russia if it were to invade Estonia — which is the principle for which Trump has been so reviled for lately, for not defending, by the (liberal/conservative) foreign policy establishment. > > Of course, if your opponent says something friendly or diplomatic about a demonized foreign leader, it is generally an easy score in US politics to tar them with that. The media can be counted on to help make this into a capital offense. But if we look at the substance of Trump’s proposal to reach a deal with Putin, it’s tough to see what’s wrong with the concept. Do we really want another Cold War and an indefinite arms race with Russia? There is a whole other side to this story that Trump probably doesn’t even know, and that the media isn’t going to talk about. Neoconservative US officials like Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, played a major role in fomenting the civil war in Ukraine in the first place. They want an arms buildup surrounding Russia that would make any people, not least the Russians who have suffered devastating invasions from the east, nervous. Nuland is a Hillary protégé who is likely to have an even higher position than at present in her administration. For these and related reasons a number of the most violence-prone neocons, the kind who loved the Iraq War and in fact never met a war that they didn’t like, have endorsed Hillary over Trump. On the other side, more serious scholars such as Stephen Cohen, John Mearsheimer, and even the former war criminal Henry Kissinger have criticized the Washington’s confrontational and destructive role, and the folly of pursuing a new Cold War. > > Do liberals really want to trash Trump for taking positions that are less aggressively militaristic than the nation’s most war-mongering neoconservatives? > > If there’s any way to lose an election to the most disliked candidate ever to run for president of the United States, attacking him for the things he says that make sense is a good start. > > [Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of the new book Failed: What the "Experts" Got Wrong About the Global Economy(Oxford University Press, 2015). CEPR is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. CEPR's Advisory Board includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Janet Gornick, Professor at the CUNY Graduate Center and Director of the Luxembourg Income Study; and Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University ...1611 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 400 > Washington, DC 20009 (202) 293-5380 ] > > > On Jul 27, 2016, at 2:42 PM, 'David Johnson' davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net [sf-core] wrote: > > > > July 27, 2016 > > The Party’s Over > > by Richard Moser > > • > > > > Well, the party is over and the machine has prevailed. Our attempt to revive democracy in the electoral arena failed. Still, we owe Bernie so much. He has raised consciousness and expectations while others appealed to fear and told us there is no alternative to the corporate power. But, the struggle continues both within and outside the electoral arena. > > The corporate elites and the Clinton machine have no idea how deep the divisions go. Trump not Clinton will most likely be the beneficiary of the election fraud, voter suppression and discontent. The DNC has made a historic blunder and it’s not going to be pretty either way. Fighting Fascism with the corporate power seems a doomed project since it is precisely the merger of the corporation and government that sets the conditions for the rise of fascism. That is the historical moment we are in and paradox we face. > > There is already lots of suffering and there is going to be more; much more. We are just going to have to own up to what this country has become. The system is so rotten and dysfunctional that there is no easy way out. No amount of moralizing is going to change anything — that will take political action and organizing. > > I plan on working for Jill Stein and I will count it a victory if we can get 5%. That will allow the Green Party to get federal funding for next time and maybe help to create a viable opposition party. But this is no 20th century election. The trend lines on war, class warfare, propaganda, the failure of democracy and the vast militarized penal system all point toward deep trouble. On environmental issues alone the crisis will deepen and most likely in a dramatic way. We are woefully unprepared for what lies ahead. > > But at least millions more have learned that the political system and the economy is rigged. That the lesser of two evils argument or the spoiler are forms of social control that have led us to exactly the choices we now have. If we do not have serious social change it is likely the Trumps of the world will just keep coming right out of the social conditions the Clintons of the world have created. I hear a lot from Clinton supporters, reluctant or not, about how they will continuing the struggle. I hope they are serious. How hard you worked for Bernie or other social movements this past year might be one indication of the value of your claims. > > No one said revolution was easy, if fact its the hardest thing in the world. I hope mother earth has the patience for us to learn. > > And, if you decide to persist in building an opposition movement, brace for a fear campaign unlike any you have seen. It’s all they have left. “Fear,” Gandhi said, “is the enemy. We thought it was hate but it’s fear.” > > > From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 13:31:29 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 13:31:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] "It's Their Party" References: <574604324.7055371.1469712689733.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <574604324.7055371.1469712689733.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> It’s Their Party | | | It’s Their Party A generation ago, socialists and civil rights activists tried to transform the Democratic Party. Why did they fail? | | | "The contemporary left should aspire to do what the realignment strategy tried to accomplish — to recognize the different interests that exist within capital, and leverage them to our own ends. To be successful in this endeavor, however, and to avoid the sorry end of postwar realignment, it will have to organize on the basis of two truths that Harrington and his co-thinkers ultimately forgot. First, working-class insurgency is the only force that renders the contradictions between capitals dynamic and capable of serving the Left. Second, whatever power labor manages to assert against capital, whether on the shop floor, in a capitalist party like the Democrats, or even in an actual social-democratic party, will always be partial, and subject to dismemberment as soon as capital is able. While Harrington’s intellectual work stresses this, the project he helped built did not reflect it." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu Jul 28 13:46:03 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 08:46:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "It's Their Party" In-Reply-To: <574604324.7055371.1469712689733.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <574604324.7055371.1469712689733.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <574604324.7055371.1469712689733.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: And the chorus of the ‘60s pop song is “...and I'll cry if I want to... You would cry too if it happened to you!” We just didn’t know then that it was about the Democrats. > On Jul 28, 2016, at 8:31 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > It’s Their Party > > > > It’s Their Party > A generation ago, socialists and civil rights activists tried to transform the Democratic Party. Why did they fail? > > > > "The contemporary left should aspire to do what the realignment strategy tried to accomplish — to recognize the different interests that exist within capital, and leverage them to our own ends. To be successful in this endeavor, however, and to avoid the sorry end of postwar realignment, it will have to organize on the basis of two truths that Harrington and his co-thinkers ultimately forgot. > > First, working-class insurgency is the only force that renders the contradictions between capitals dynamic and capable of serving the Left. Second, whatever power labor manages to assert against capital, whether on the shop floor, in a capitalist party like the Democrats, or even in an actual social-democratic party, will always be partial, and subject to dismemberment as soon as capital is able. While Harrington’s intellectual work stresses this, the project he helped built did not reflect it." > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jul 28 16:02:35 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:02:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Hillary's Campaign Director Podesta & Democratic National Committee Were for Bush's War against Iraq! 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) From: Boyle, Francis A [mailto:fboyle at illinois.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2016 10:02 AM To: Killeacle Subject: Hillary's Campaign Director Podesta & Democratic National Committee Were for Bush's War against Iraq! Dori Smith: Who do you think might be the most effective person to introduce this bill {of impeachment against Bush Jr} and what is in the works in that regard? Francis A. Boyle: We just need one person to introduce the bill with courage, integrity, principles, and of course a safe seat. In Gulf War I, I worked with the late great Congressman Henry B. Gonzales on his bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. We put that one in. I did the first draft the day after the war started. So in my opinion there is no excuse for these bills not to have been put in already. In fact, I think I mentioned to you before, on 11 March 2003 Congressman John Conyers convened a meeting of 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers, to debate putting in immediate bills of impeachment against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, to head off the war. And there were draft bills sitting on the table that had been prepared by me and Ramsey Clark. And the Congressman invited Ramsey and me to come in and state the case for impeachment. It was a two hour debate, very vigorous debate, obviously all of these lawyers there. And most of the lawyers there didn't disagree with us on the merits of impeachment. It was more as they saw it a question of practical politics, namely, John Podesta was there, Clinton's former White House chief of staff; said he was appearing on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and they were against putting in immediate bills of impeachment because it might hurt whoever their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. Well at that time no one even knew who their presidential candidate was going to be in 2004. I didn't argue the point, I'm a political independent, my position, and it was not for me to tell Democrats how to elect their candidates. I just continued arguing the merits of impeachment. But Ramsey is a lifelong Democrat and he argued that he felt that putting in these bills of impeachment might help the Democrats and it certainly wasn't going to hurt them in 2004. Well the Democrats did lose in 2004 but as Ramsey and I were walking out after a two hour debate adjourned and I had offered to stay as long as it took to polish up my bills of impeachment and get them put in right away, because the war started, it was going to start in four days. I turned to Ramsey and I said Ramsey I just don't understand it, their arguments make no sense, why did they not take me up on my offer to stay and polish up those bills of impeachment and put them in right away to head off a war. And sadly, Ramsey said, "I think most of the people there want a war." That was 11 March 2003. It's very clear that the high officials in the Democratic Party, certainly on the DNC, have been complicit with the Bush Administration in this war against Iraq from the get go. The Democratic national committee still vigorously opposes putting in any bills of impeachment against Bush and Cheney. Podesta and the DNC made that very clear to us on 11 March 2003. ________________________________________________ On Tuesday 11 March 2003, with the Bush Jr. administration's war of aggression against Iraq staring the American People, Congress and Republic in their face, Congressman John Conyers of Michigan, the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee (which has jurisdiction over Bills of Impeachment), convened an emergency meeting of forty or more of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and debate immediately putting into the U.S. House of Representatives Bills of Impeachment against President Bush Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and then Attorney General John Ashcroft in order to head off the impending war. Congressman Conyers kindly requested that Ramsey Clark and I come to the meeting in order to argue the case for impeachment. This impeachment debate lasted for two hours. It was presided over by Congressman Conyers, who quite correctly did not tip his hand one way or the other on the merits of impeachment. He simply moderated the debate between Clark and I, on the one side, favoring immediately filing Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr. et al. to stop the threatened war, and almost everyone else there who were against impeachment for partisan political reasons. Obviously no point would be served here by attempting to digest a two-hour-long vigorous debate among a group of well-trained lawyers on such a controversial matter at this critical moment in American history. But at the time I was struck by the fact that this momentous debate was conducted at a private office right down the street from the White House on the eve of war. Suffice it to say that most of the "experts" there opposed impeachment not on the basis of enforcing the Constitution and the Rule of Law, whether international or domestic, but on the political grounds that it might hurt the Democratic Party effort to get their presidential candidate elected in the year 2004. As a political independent, I did not argue that point. Rather, I argued the merits of impeaching Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft under the United States Constitution, U.S. federal laws, U.S. treaties and other international agreements to which the United States is a party, etc. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." This so-called Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution also applies to international executive agreements concluded under the auspices of the U.S. President such as the 1945 Nuremberg Charter. Congressman Conyers was so kind as to allow me the closing argument in the debate. Briefly put, the concluding point I chose to make was historical: The Athenians lost their democracy. The Romans lost their Republic. And if we Americans did not act now we could lose our Republic! The United States of America is not immune to the laws of history! After two hours of most vigorous debate among those in attendance, the meeting adjourned with second revised draft Bills of Impeachment sitting on the table. Certainly, if the U.S. House of Representatives can impeach President Clinton for sex and lying about sex, then a fortiori the House can, should, and must impeach President Bush Jr. for war, lying about war, and threatening more wars. All that is needed is for one Member of Congress with courage, integrity, principles and a safe seat to file these currently amended draft Bills of Impeachment against Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, and now Attorney General Albert Gonzales, who bears personal criminal responsibility for the Bush Jr. administration torture scandal. Failing this, the alternative is likely to be an American Empire abroad, a U.S. police state at home, and continuing wars of aggression to sustain both-along the lines of George Orwell's classic novel 1984. Despite all of the serious flaws demonstrated by successive United States governments that this author has amply documented elsewhere during the past quarter century as a Professor of Law, the truth of the matter is that America is still the oldest Republic in the world today. "We the People of the United States" must fight to keep it that way! Podesta and the DNC did not! [Francis A. Boyle is a Professor of International Law and a human rights attorney. He is the author of "Destroying World Order" (2004, Clarity Press).] 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 davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Jul 28 16:43:35 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 16:43:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] "It's Their Party" In-Reply-To: References: <574604324.7055371.1469712689733.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <574604324.7055371.1469712689733.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1737762990.7243247.1469724215205.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Or as the more radicalized version of Lesley Gore would have said, "You don't own me!" On Thursday, July 28, 2016 8:46 AM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: And the chorus of the ‘60s pop song is “...and I'll cry if I want to... You would cry too if it happened to you!”  We just didn’t know then that it was about the Democrats. On Jul 28, 2016, at 8:31 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: It’s Their Party | | | It’s Their Party A generation ago, socialists and civil rights activists tried to transform the Democratic Party. Why did they fail? | | | "The contemporary left should aspire to do what the realignment strategy tried to accomplish — to recognize the different interests that exist within capital, and leverage them to our own ends. To be successful in this endeavor, however, and to avoid the sorry end of postwar realignment, it will have to organize on the basis of two truths that Harrington and his co-thinkers ultimately forgot. First, working-class insurgency is the only force that renders the contradictions between capitals dynamic and capable of serving the Left. Second, whatever power labor manages to assert against capital, whether on the shop floor, in a capitalist party like the Democrats, or even in an actual social-democratic party, will always be partial, and subject to dismemberment as soon as capital is able. While Harrington’s intellectual work stresses this, the project he helped built did not reflect it."_______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 29 12:00:53 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:00:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demagoguery from Duckworth Message-ID: <9957F4C3-20F8-4DBD-A034-A458B8CDE50C@illinois.edu> [Politico.com ] "U.S. Senate hopeful Tammy Duckworth used her moment in the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday to take it to Republican nominee Donald Trump. Speaking to the convention's delegates, she assailed Trump for his controversial comments asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails [sic]… Duckworth said, 'By the way, Donald Trump, I didn't put my life on the line to defend our democracy so you could invite Russia to interfere in it.' 'You are not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.’" Duckworth, who if she is elected to replace Illinois senator Mark Kirk, will be a reliable vote for more Obama-Clinton war in the Mideast and elsewhere, asserts all of Hillary Clinton’s political program: (1) the president’s primary description is commander-in-chief: the principal job is to make war; and (2) Clinton’s primary qualification is “I am not Donald Trump!” —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri Jul 29 13:27:59 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:27:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Paul Newman 1968 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) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:19 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Paul Newman 1968 I was on the Floor of the Chicago Amphitheater for all 4 nights of the DNC Convention in 1968. Most of us were against the Vietnam War. In any event, the DNC did not subject us to the Massive Display of Militarism, Bloodshed and Warfare that we just saw. How low the Dems have sunk into the pit of militarism, bloodshed and warfare. No light at the end of the tunnel. A pox upon their house! 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 [mailto:fboyle at illinois.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:56 AM To: Killeacle > Subject: Paul Newman 1968 There we were Chicago Amphitheater 1968 DNC Yes that one Paul Newman Walks by His eyes really are that blue, she gushed But i thought you said i had the bluest eyes you had ever seen She only smiled, so polite and diplomatic How could i compete with Paul Newman, Blue eyes or otherwise But i must have been aliright As we kissed into the night fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA Phone: 217-333-7954[X] Fax: 217-244-1478[X] (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 29 13:32:46 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 08:32:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demagoguery from Duckworth In-Reply-To: <9957F4C3-20F8-4DBD-A034-A458B8CDE50C@illinois.edu> References: <9957F4C3-20F8-4DBD-A034-A458B8CDE50C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I'm not in love with the Russia thing, but this is not something that Duckworth in particular is promoting, this is something that Trump did that is so controversial in mainstream U.S. discourse that even Trump backed off of it. It must have been pretty extreme for Trump to back off of it, given all the outrageous things that he's not willing to abandon. Kirk was a principal, vigorous opponent of the Iran nuclear deal and has been a longtime Iran warmonger; he was an Iran warmonger before it was cool to be an Iran warmonger. Kirk is more AIPAC than AIPAC. He actually attacked AIPAC during the #IranDeal fight for not being vicious enough in its attacks on the deal. Duckworth voted for the deal. Every national peace group supported the deal and opposed Kirk's efforts to kill it. Trump, of course, is against the deal, as is virtually the whole GOP. This is part of their play to pander to the extreme right wing of the Israel Lobby. Hillary supports the deal. I expect to have problems with Hillary when she is POTUS. If she tries to lead a regime change war in Syria I will fight her all the way; in fact, I'm already fighting with people on Team Hillary who want her to do this. But so far Hillary is being careful only to emphasize things that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters agree on - as she did last night. Hillary is leading Trump in Illinois by 14 points, according to a recent poll. No mainstream analyst expects the outcome in Illinois to be in dispute: Hillary will beat Trump in Illinois decisively. We likely won't see much campaigning here in the presidential race. But the Senate race is a very different matter. A recent poll had Kirk leading Duckworth. I suspect this result is driven by the fact that many people in Illinois have no idea what a right-wing goon Mark Kirk is. He has carefully worked to cultivate an "independent" image - denouncing Trump, calling for a confirmation hearing for Garland, etc. But on the Middle East, Kirk is no moderate. He is more AIPAC than AIPAC. Duckworth voted for banning the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. Where is Mark Kirk? The election that put Kirk in office was extremely close. Champaign County could make the difference this time. A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC. Tammy Duckworth yard signs are starting to spring up around town. This is a development we should all encourage. === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > [Politico.com] "U.S. Senate hopeful Tammy Duckworth used her moment in > the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday to take it > to Republican nominee Donald Trump. Speaking to the convention's delegates, > she assailed Trump for his controversial comments asking Russia to find > Hillary Clinton's deleted emails [sic]… Duckworth said, 'By the way, Donald > Trump, I didn't put my life on the line to defend our democracy so you > could invite Russia to interfere in it.' 'You are not fit to be > Commander-in-Chief.’" > > Duckworth, who if she is elected to replace Illinois senator Mark Kirk, > will be a reliable vote for more Obama-Clinton war in the Mideast and > elsewhere, asserts all of Hillary Clinton’s political program: > > (1) the president’s primary description is commander-in-chief: the > principal job is to make war; and > (2) Clinton’s primary qualification is “I am not Donald Trump!” > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jul 29 13:34:16 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:34:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Paul Newman 1968 References: Message-ID: And a pox upon the Law School for bringing in Clinton's War Consigliere Killer Koh on October 28 to get her elected president ten days later! 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: Friday, July 29, 2016 8:28 AM To: 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'Karen Aram' ; 'C. G. Estabrook' ; 'David Green' ; 'David Johnson' ; 'Stuart Levy' ; 'Karen Medina' ; Szoke, Ron ; 'Mildred O'brien' ; 'Peace Discuss' ; 'peace at lists.chambana.net' ; 'davegreen84 at yahoo.com' ; Readel, Karin ; Estabrook, Carl G ; 'Belden Fields' ; 'jmachota at shout.net' ; 'Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List' ; 'Bryan Savage' ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas Subject: FW: Paul Newman 1968 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, July 29, 2016 8:19 AM To: SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Paul Newman 1968 I was on the Floor of the Chicago Amphitheater for all 4 nights of the DNC Convention in 1968. Most of us were against the Vietnam War. In any event, the DNC did not subject us to the Massive Display of Militarism, Bloodshed and Warfare that we just saw. How low the Dems have sunk into the pit of militarism, bloodshed and warfare. No light at the end of the tunnel. A pox upon their house! 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 [mailto:fboyle at illinois.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2013 4:56 AM To: Killeacle > Subject: Paul Newman 1968 There we were Chicago Amphitheater 1968 DNC Yes that one Paul Newman Walks by His eyes really are that blue, she gushed But i thought you said i had the bluest eyes you had ever seen She only smiled, so polite and diplomatic How could i compete with Paul Newman, Blue eyes or otherwise But i must have been aliright As we kissed into the night fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA Phone: 217-333-7954[X] Fax: 217-244-1478[X] (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 29 13:36:09 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:36:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP Message-ID: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 29 13:36:09 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:36:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP Message-ID: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 29 14:06:16 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:06:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again *AMY GOODMAN:* It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. *AMY GOODMAN:* And what will that mean for the next president? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. *AMY GOODMAN:* Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. *AMY GOODMAN:* So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— *AMY GOODMAN:* But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. *AMY GOODMAN:* How? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— *AMY GOODMAN:* Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. *AMY GOODMAN:* Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— *AMY GOODMAN:* Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— *AMY GOODMAN:* We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. *PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:* So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. *AMY GOODMAN:* Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. *AMY GOODMAN:* You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called *Rewriting the Rules*, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— *AMY GOODMAN:* What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in *Rewriting the Rules* is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. *AMY GOODMAN:* You— *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Education, access to education. *AMY GOODMAN:* You wrote a piece in *Vanity Fair* headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. *AMY GOODMAN:* Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. *AMY GOODMAN:* Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph > Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some > changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with > gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the > Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called > USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something > passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without > merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is > disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it > in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the > way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on > everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, > then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, > and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, > like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jul 29 14:06:16 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:06:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again *AMY GOODMAN:* It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. *AMY GOODMAN:* And what will that mean for the next president? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. *AMY GOODMAN:* Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. *AMY GOODMAN:* So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— *AMY GOODMAN:* But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. *AMY GOODMAN:* How? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— *AMY GOODMAN:* Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. *AMY GOODMAN:* Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— *AMY GOODMAN:* Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— *AMY GOODMAN:* We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. *PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:* So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. *AMY GOODMAN:* Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. *AMY GOODMAN:* You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called *Rewriting the Rules*, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— *AMY GOODMAN:* What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in *Rewriting the Rules* is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. *AMY GOODMAN:* You— *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Education, access to education. *AMY GOODMAN:* You wrote a piece in *Vanity Fair* headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. *AMY GOODMAN:* Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. *AMY GOODMAN:* Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph > Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some > changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with > gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the > Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called > USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something > passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without > merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is > disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it > in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the > way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on > everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, > then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, > and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, > like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 29 14:29:19 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:29:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demagoguery from Duckworth In-Reply-To: References: <9957F4C3-20F8-4DBD-A034-A458B8CDE50C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC? Is there any more rabid supporter of AIPAC than Hillary Clinton? Just as I won’t vote for Clinton because “She’s not Donald Trump!”, so I won’t vote for Duckworth because “She’s not Mark Kirk!” Pro-war Duckworth was carpet-bagged into a Congressional seat by the national Democratic party in order to displace a popular anti-war Democrat. Following Debs’ advice - that it’s better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it - I’ll vote for the Green party candidate for Senate, Scott Summers. > On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > I'm not in love with the Russia thing, but this is not something that Duckworth in particular is promoting, this is something that Trump did that is so controversial in mainstream U.S. discourse that even Trump backed off of it. It must have been pretty extreme for Trump to back off of it, given all the outrageous things that he's not willing to abandon. > > Kirk was a principal, vigorous opponent of the Iran nuclear deal and has been a longtime Iran warmonger; he was an Iran warmonger before it was cool to be an Iran warmonger. Kirk is more AIPAC than AIPAC. He actually attacked AIPAC during the #IranDeal fight for not being vicious enough in its attacks on the deal. Duckworth voted for the deal. Every national peace group supported the deal and opposed Kirk's efforts to kill it. > > Trump, of course, is against the deal, as is virtually the whole GOP. This is part of their play to pander to the extreme right wing of the Israel Lobby. > > Hillary supports the deal. > > I expect to have problems with Hillary when she is POTUS. If she tries to lead a regime change war in Syria I will fight her all the way; in fact, I'm already fighting with people on Team Hillary who want her to do this. But so far Hillary is being careful only to emphasize things that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters agree on - as she did last night. > > Hillary is leading Trump in Illinois by 14 points, according to a recent poll. No mainstream analyst expects the outcome in Illinois to be in dispute: Hillary will beat Trump in Illinois decisively. We likely won't see much campaigning here in the presidential race. > > But the Senate race is a very different matter. A recent poll had Kirk leading Duckworth. I suspect this result is driven by the fact that many people in Illinois have no idea what a right-wing goon Mark Kirk is. He has carefully worked to cultivate an "independent" image - denouncing Trump, calling for a confirmation hearing for Garland, etc. But on the Middle East, Kirk is no moderate. He is more AIPAC than AIPAC. > > Duckworth voted for banning the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. Where is Mark Kirk? > > The election that put Kirk in office was extremely close. Champaign County could make the difference this time. > > A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC. > > Tammy Duckworth yard signs are starting to spring up around town. This is a development we should all encourage. > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > [Politico.com ] "U.S. Senate hopeful Tammy Duckworth used her moment in the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday to take it to Republican nominee Donald Trump. Speaking to the convention's delegates, she assailed Trump for his controversial comments asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails [sic]… Duckworth said, 'By the way, Donald Trump, I didn't put my life on the line to defend our democracy so you could invite Russia to interfere in it.' 'You are not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.’" > > Duckworth, who if she is elected to replace Illinois senator Mark Kirk, will be a reliable vote for more Obama-Clinton war in the Mideast and elsewhere, asserts all of Hillary Clinton’s political program: > > (1) the president’s primary description is commander-in-chief: the principal job is to make war; and > (2) Clinton’s primary qualification is “I am not Donald Trump!” > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jul 29 14:47:24 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:47:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demagoguery from Duckworth In-Reply-To: References: <9957F4C3-20F8-4DBD-A034-A458B8CDE50C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yes, there is a more rabid supporter of AIPAC than Hillary Clinton: Mark Kirk. Nobody is expecting you to vote for Hillary Clinton or Tammy Duckworth. But if you don't concede that Mark Kirk is more pro-AIPAC than Hillary Clinton, then either you are not informed or you are not telling the truth. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC? Is there any more rabid > supporter of AIPAC than Hillary Clinton? > > Just as I won’t vote for Clinton because “She’s not Donald Trump!”, so I > won’t vote for Duckworth because “She’s not Mark Kirk!” > > Pro-war Duckworth was carpet-bagged into a Congressional seat by the > national Democratic party in order to displace a popular anti-war Democrat. > > Following Debs’ advice - that it’s better to vote for what you want and > not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it - I’ll vote for > the Green party candidate for Senate, Scott Summers. > > > On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:32 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > I'm not in love with the Russia thing, but this is not something that > Duckworth in particular is promoting, this is something that Trump did that > is so controversial in mainstream U.S. discourse that even Trump backed off > of it. It must have been pretty extreme for Trump to back off of it, given > all the outrageous things that he's not willing to abandon. > > Kirk was a principal, vigorous opponent of the Iran nuclear deal and has > been a longtime Iran warmonger; he was an Iran warmonger before it was cool > to be an Iran warmonger. Kirk is more AIPAC than AIPAC. He actually > attacked AIPAC during the #IranDeal fight for not being vicious enough in > its attacks on the deal. Duckworth voted for the deal. Every national peace > group supported the deal and opposed Kirk's efforts to kill it. > > Trump, of course, is against the deal, as is virtually the whole GOP. This > is part of their play to pander to the extreme right wing of the Israel > Lobby. > > Hillary supports the deal. > > I expect to have problems with Hillary when she is POTUS. If she tries to > lead a regime change war in Syria I will fight her all the way; in fact, > I'm already fighting with people on Team Hillary who want her to do this. > But so far Hillary is being careful only to emphasize things that Hillary > supporters and Bernie supporters agree on - as she did last night. > > Hillary is leading Trump in Illinois by 14 points, according to a recent > poll. No mainstream analyst expects the outcome in Illinois to be in > dispute: Hillary will beat Trump in Illinois decisively. We likely won't > see much campaigning here in the presidential race. > > But the Senate race is a very different matter. A recent poll had Kirk > leading Duckworth. I suspect this result is driven by the fact that many > people in Illinois have no idea what a right-wing goon Mark Kirk is. He has > carefully worked to cultivate an "independent" image - denouncing Trump, > calling for a confirmation hearing for Garland, etc. But on the Middle > East, Kirk is no moderate. He is more AIPAC than AIPAC. > > Duckworth voted for banning the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. > Where is Mark Kirk? > > The election that put Kirk in office was extremely close. Champaign County > could make the difference this time. > > A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC. > > Tammy Duckworth yard signs are starting to spring up around town. This is > a development we should all encourage. > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> [Politico.com >> ] "U.S. >> Senate hopeful Tammy Duckworth used her moment in the spotlight at the >> Democratic National Convention on Thursday to take it to Republican nominee >> Donald Trump. Speaking to the convention's delegates, she assailed Trump >> for his controversial comments asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's >> deleted emails [sic]… Duckworth said, 'By the way, Donald Trump, I didn't >> put my life on the line to defend our democracy so you could invite Russia >> to interfere in it.' 'You are not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.’" >> >> Duckworth, who if she is elected to replace Illinois senator Mark Kirk, >> will be a reliable vote for more Obama-Clinton war in the Mideast and >> elsewhere, asserts all of Hillary Clinton’s political program: >> >> (1) the president’s primary description is commander-in-chief: the >> principal job is to make war; and >> (2) Clinton’s primary qualification is “I am not Donald Trump!” >> >> —CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Jul 29 14:53:59 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:53:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demagoguery from Duckworth In-Reply-To: References: <9957F4C3-20F8-4DBD-A034-A458B8CDE50C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <764210636.7707768.1469804039565.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Bob, what do you mean that Kirk is more pro-AIPAC? DG On Friday, July 29, 2016 9:47 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: Yes, there is a more rabid supporter of AIPAC than Hillary Clinton: Mark Kirk.  Nobody is expecting you to vote for Hillary Clinton or Tammy Duckworth.  But if you don't concede that Mark Kirk is more pro-AIPAC than Hillary Clinton, then either you are not informed or you are not telling the truth.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/ naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC? Is there any more rabid supporter of AIPAC than Hillary Clinton? Just as I won’t vote for Clinton because “She’s not Donald Trump!”, so I won’t vote for Duckworth because “She’s not Mark Kirk!” Pro-war Duckworth was carpet-bagged into a Congressional seat by the national Democratic party in order to displace a popular anti-war Democrat. Following Debs’ advice - that it’s better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it - I’ll vote for the Green party candidate for Senate, Scott Summers.   On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:32 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: I'm not in love with the Russia thing, but this is not something that Duckworth in particular is promoting, this is something that Trump did that is so controversial in mainstream U.S. discourse that even Trump backed off of it. It must have been pretty extreme for Trump to back off of it, given all the outrageous things that he's not willing to abandon.  Kirk was a principal, vigorous opponent of the Iran nuclear deal and has been a longtime Iran warmonger; he was an Iran warmonger before it was cool to be an Iran warmonger. Kirk is more AIPAC than AIPAC. He actually attacked AIPAC during the #IranDeal fight for not being vicious enough in its attacks on the deal. Duckworth voted for the deal. Every national peace group supported the deal and opposed Kirk's efforts to kill it.  Trump, of course, is against the deal, as is virtually the whole GOP. This is part of their play to pander to the extreme right wing of the Israel Lobby.  Hillary supports the deal.  I expect to have problems with Hillary when she is POTUS. If she tries to lead a regime change war in Syria I will fight her all the way; in fact, I'm already fighting with people on Team Hillary who want her to do this. But so far Hillary is being careful only to emphasize things that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters agree on - as she did last night.  Hillary is leading Trump in Illinois by 14 points, according to a recent poll. No mainstream analyst expects the outcome in Illinois to be in dispute: Hillary will beat Trump in Illinois decisively. We likely won't see much campaigning here in the presidential race.  But the Senate race is a very different matter. A recent poll had Kirk leading Duckworth. I suspect this result is driven by the fact that many people in Illinois have no idea what a right-wing goon Mark Kirk is. He has carefully worked to cultivate an "independent" image - denouncing Trump, calling for a confirmation hearing for Garland, etc. But on the Middle East, Kirk is no moderate. He is more AIPAC than AIPAC.  Duckworth voted for banning the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. Where is Mark Kirk?  The election that put Kirk in office was extremely close. Champaign County could make the difference this time.  A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC.  Tammy Duckworth yard signs are starting to spring up around town. This is a development we should all encourage.  === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: [Politico.com] "U.S. Senate hopeful Tammy Duckworth used her moment in the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday to take it to Republican nominee Donald Trump. Speaking to the convention's delegates, she assailed Trump for his controversial comments asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails [sic]… Duckworth said, 'By the way, Donald Trump, I didn't put my life on the line to defend our democracy so you could invite Russia to interfere in it.' 'You are not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.’" Duckworth, who if she is elected to replace Illinois senator Mark Kirk, will be a reliable vote for more Obama-Clinton war in the Mideast and elsewhere, asserts all of Hillary Clinton’s political program: (1) the president’s primary description is commander-in-chief: the principal job is to make war; and (2) Clinton’s primary qualification is “I am not Donald Trump!” —CGE _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.chambana.net_mailman_listinfo_peace-2Ddiscuss&d=CwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=tfHzwZBcTLEveiewRiq0OdhFmfRmlvZjpIBS0AUJ2v0&m=ExvJuzYSnc12a8TVJqAT96VNiv6Ryv2n0pida-wdM1A&s=uqBXwx8sk1tgG3QyJ9phg4U46FLollrmeptiPPe7X9Q&e= _______________________________________________ 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 29 14:54:12 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 09:54:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: Demagoguery from Duckworth In-Reply-To: References: <9957F4C3-20F8-4DBD-A034-A458B8CDE50C@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <7D5DF0EF-5194-4AD1-8D2A-1D067F7F14D2@newsfromneptune.com> “MORE pro-AIPAC than Hillary Clinton”? Rather a fine distinction, don’t you think? And hardly a basis for voting for a supporter of Clinton. > On Jul 29, 2016, at 9:47 AM, Robert Naiman naiman.uiuc at gmail.com [sf-core] wrote: > > > Yes, there is a more rabid supporter of AIPAC than Hillary Clinton: Mark Kirk. > > Nobody is expecting you to vote for Hillary Clinton or Tammy Duckworth. > > But if you don't concede that Mark Kirk is more pro-AIPAC than Hillary Clinton, then either you are not informed or you are not telling the truth. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC? Is there any more rabid supporter of AIPAC than Hillary Clinton? > > Just as I won’t vote for Clinton because “She’s not Donald Trump!”, so I won’t vote for Duckworth because “She’s not Mark Kirk!” > > Pro-war Duckworth was carpet-bagged into a Congressional seat by the national Democratic party in order to displace a popular anti-war Democrat. > > Following Debs’ advice - that it’s better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it - I’ll vote for the Green party candidate for Senate, Scott Summers. > > >> On Jul 29, 2016, at 8:32 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: >> >> I'm not in love with the Russia thing, but this is not something that Duckworth in particular is promoting, this is something that Trump did that is so controversial in mainstream U.S. discourse that even Trump backed off of it. It must have been pretty extreme for Trump to back off of it, given all the outrageous things that he's not willing to abandon. >> >> Kirk was a principal, vigorous opponent of the Iran nuclear deal and has been a longtime Iran warmonger; he was an Iran warmonger before it was cool to be an Iran warmonger. Kirk is more AIPAC than AIPAC. He actually attacked AIPAC during the #IranDeal fight for not being vicious enough in its attacks on the deal. Duckworth voted for the deal. Every national peace group supported the deal and opposed Kirk's efforts to kill it. >> >> Trump, of course, is against the deal, as is virtually the whole GOP. This is part of their play to pander to the extreme right wing of the Israel Lobby. >> >> Hillary supports the deal. >> >> I expect to have problems with Hillary when she is POTUS. If she tries to lead a regime change war in Syria I will fight her all the way; in fact, I'm already fighting with people on Team Hillary who want her to do this. But so far Hillary is being careful only to emphasize things that Hillary supporters and Bernie supporters agree on - as she did last night. >> >> Hillary is leading Trump in Illinois by 14 points, according to a recent poll. No mainstream analyst expects the outcome in Illinois to be in dispute: Hillary will beat Trump in Illinois decisively. We likely won't see much campaigning here in the presidential race. >> >> But the Senate race is a very different matter. A recent poll had Kirk leading Duckworth. I suspect this result is driven by the fact that many people in Illinois have no idea what a right-wing goon Mark Kirk is. He has carefully worked to cultivate an "independent" image - denouncing Trump, calling for a confirmation hearing for Garland, etc. But on the Middle East, Kirk is no moderate. He is more AIPAC than AIPAC. >> >> Duckworth voted for banning the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. Where is Mark Kirk? >> >> The election that put Kirk in office was extremely close. Champaign County could make the difference this time. >> >> A vote for Mark Kirk is a vote for AIPAC. >> >> Tammy Duckworth yard signs are starting to spring up around town. This is a development we should all encourage. >> >> === >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> [Politico.com ] "U.S. Senate hopeful Tammy Duckworth used her moment in the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday to take it to Republican nominee Donald Trump. Speaking to the convention's delegates, she assailed Trump for his controversial comments asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails [sic]… Duckworth said, 'By the way, Donald Trump, I didn't put my life on the line to defend our democracy so you could invite Russia to interfere in it.' 'You are not fit to be Commander-in-Chief.’" >> >> Duckworth, who if she is elected to replace Illinois senator Mark Kirk, will be a reliable vote for more Obama-Clinton war in the Mideast and elsewhere, asserts all of Hillary Clinton’s political program: >> >> (1) the president’s primary description is commander-in-chief: the principal job is to make war; and >> (2) Clinton’s primary qualification is “I am not Donald Trump!” >> >> —CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > __._,_.___ > Posted by: Robert Naiman > > Reply via web post • Reply to sender  • Reply to group  • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (3) > Save time and get your email on the go with the Yahoo Mail app > Get the beautifully designed, lighting fast, and easy-to-use Yahoo Mail today. Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. >   > VISIT YOUR GROUP > • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > . > > > __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 29 15:33:00 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Robert First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. AMY GOODMAN: How? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. AMY GOODMAN: You— JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. _______________________________________________ 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 Jul 29 15:33:00 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:33:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Robert First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. AMY GOODMAN: How? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. AMY GOODMAN: You— JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 29 15:56:10 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:56:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Robert > > > First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have > a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. > > > You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I > was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When > Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia > Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary > Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she > wants to make changes. > > > The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming > president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, > with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to > "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is > the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of > the changes she will make. > > > A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta > the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall > about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations > within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in > the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place > amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial > stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. > > > Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the > democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will > proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP > as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. > > > Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come > out against the TPP as well as Nato. > > > Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. > ------------------------------ > *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert > Naiman > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM > *To:* Karen Aram > *Cc:* Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. > > http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again > > *AMY GOODMAN:* It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there > on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. > You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to > a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama > strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until > they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out > against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* And what will that mean for the next president? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever > to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing > is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. > Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners > demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the > corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the > negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an > early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I > thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama > strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that > it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for > democracy. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you > advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the > gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been > immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, > and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t > have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump > does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every > single day of the convention. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I > mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the > negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure > out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably > accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for > good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have > looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what > would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit > to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it > would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has > become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And > the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, > pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on > regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, > that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, > and she’s absolutely right. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance > is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator > of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but > then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have > McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who > says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic > platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a > set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy > it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, > doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they > didn’t make it explicit— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie > delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton > campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they > didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, > what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious > that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my > interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic > administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The > interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners > in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, > but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware > why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a > wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very > strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, > we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see > the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming > out of this. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that > gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a > political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, > because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. > The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is > enormous. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* How? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to > me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the > Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the > question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my > values? You know, and the vice— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* There are some other candidates that I would have > looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start > doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from > states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the > Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. > And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, > important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country > faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated > trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I > think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t > have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I > can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope > he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the > Democratic platform, he has to change. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track > for pushing through TPP. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting > regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* And again, the issue is, once you join on the > Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic > platform. And— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe > Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. > > I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic > policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont > senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. > > *PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:* So, if you agree that there’s too much > inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need > to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ > supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote > for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until > they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the > Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as > actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and > holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an > impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to > have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re > going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that > agenda. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold > her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she > respond to? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, > she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, > I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in > terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve > been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow > banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to > fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, > it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My > view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, > both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and > changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas > which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches > about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to > that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for > the Roosevelt called *Rewriting the Rules*, showing how, beginning with > the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to > promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and > created, generated the most inequality? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* The single most important thing, probably, in—the most > telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the > financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and > in *Rewriting the Rules* is that there’s no single measure. It’s > accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have > inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we > are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that > makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an > important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in > wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a > lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* You— > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Education, access to education. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* You wrote a piece > > in *Vanity Fair* headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What > is it? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s > going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating > the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and > this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll > do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is > particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people > implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we > are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not > only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant > secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. > That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area > of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with > Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the > World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the > Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging > the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about > this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, > coming out at this point, he’s ahead. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, > Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. > But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president > even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the > president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win > in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things > that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of > damage to the United States. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump > has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why > does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we > suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what > his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his > taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he > claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, > "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes > that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You > know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was > keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, > money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because > there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying > under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his > income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s > working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was > unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, > he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and > all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he > paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I > think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as > well. > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph >> Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some >> changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with >> gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the >> Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called >> USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something >> passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without >> merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is >> disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it >> in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the >> way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on >> everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, >> then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, >> and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, >> like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 29 15:56:10 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:56:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Robert > > > First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have > a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. > > > You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I > was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When > Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia > Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary > Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she > wants to make changes. > > > The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming > president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, > with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to > "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is > the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of > the changes she will make. > > > A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta > the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall > about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations > within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in > the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place > amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial > stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. > > > Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the > democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will > proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP > as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. > > > Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come > out against the TPP as well as Nato. > > > Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. > ------------------------------ > *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert > Naiman > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM > *To:* Karen Aram > *Cc:* Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. > > http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again > > *AMY GOODMAN:* It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there > on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. > You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to > a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama > strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until > they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out > against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* And what will that mean for the next president? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever > to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing > is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. > Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners > demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the > corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the > negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an > early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I > thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama > strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that > it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for > democracy. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you > advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the > gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been > immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, > and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t > have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump > does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every > single day of the convention. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I > mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the > negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure > out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably > accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for > good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have > looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what > would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit > to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it > would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has > become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And > the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, > pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on > regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, > that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, > and she’s absolutely right. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance > is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator > of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but > then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have > McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who > says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic > platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a > set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy > it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, > doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they > didn’t make it explicit— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie > delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton > campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they > didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, > what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious > that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my > interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic > administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The > interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners > in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, > but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware > why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a > wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very > strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, > we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see > the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming > out of this. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that > gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a > political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, > because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. > The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is > enormous. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* How? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to > me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the > Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the > question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my > values? You know, and the vice— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* There are some other candidates that I would have > looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start > doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from > states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the > Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. > And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, > important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country > faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated > trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I > think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t > have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I > can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope > he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the > Democratic platform, he has to change. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track > for pushing through TPP. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting > regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* And again, the issue is, once you join on the > Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic > platform. And— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe > Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. > > I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic > policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont > senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. > > *PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:* So, if you agree that there’s too much > inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need > to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ > supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote > for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until > they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the > Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as > actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and > holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an > impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to > have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re > going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that > agenda. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold > her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she > respond to? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, > she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, > I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in > terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve > been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow > banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to > fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, > it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My > view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, > both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and > changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas > which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches > about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to > that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for > the Roosevelt called *Rewriting the Rules*, showing how, beginning with > the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to > promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— > > *AMY GOODMAN:* What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and > created, generated the most inequality? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* The single most important thing, probably, in—the most > telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the > financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and > in *Rewriting the Rules* is that there’s no single measure. It’s > accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have > inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we > are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that > makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an > important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in > wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a > lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* You— > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Education, access to education. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* You wrote a piece > > in *Vanity Fair* headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What > is it? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s > going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating > the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and > this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll > do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is > particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people > implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we > are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not > only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant > secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. > That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area > of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with > Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the > World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the > Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging > the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about > this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, > coming out at this point, he’s ahead. > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, > Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. > But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president > even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the > president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win > in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things > that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of > damage to the United States. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump > has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why > does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? > > *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we > suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what > his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his > taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he > claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, > "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes > that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You > know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was > keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, > money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because > there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying > under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his > income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s > working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was > unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, > he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and > all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he > paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I > think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as > well. > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph >> Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some >> changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with >> gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the >> Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called >> USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something >> passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without >> merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is >> disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it >> in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the >> way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on >> everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, >> then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, >> and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, >> like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Jul 29 17:19:25 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:19:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war candidate. I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I give the wrong impression? "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? " Who is saying "if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." Certainly not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Robert First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. AMY GOODMAN: How? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. AMY GOODMAN: You— JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 29 17:19:25 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:19:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war candidate. I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I give the wrong impression? "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? " Who is saying "if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." Certainly not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Robert First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. AMY GOODMAN: How? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. AMY GOODMAN: You— JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 29 17:41:19 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:41:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. Every anti-TPP campaigner I know strongly agrees that far and away the biggest danger right now is a "lame duck" vote on the TPP after the November election, before Hillary takes office. In other words: far and away the most important thing to focus on right now in terms of what Hillary will or won't do is *not* what Hillary will do or won't do as President, but **what impact her actions (and inactions) between now and December will have on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP.** If we can block a lame duck vote on the TPP, that's not *necessarily* the death of the TPP, but it's a massive, massive blow, which might indeed prove fatal. Even if it does not prove fatal, it will put us in a good position to fundamentally undermine core aspects of the agreement, like the investor-to-state-dispute-system (ISDS) ("corporations suing governments") ("TPP's corporate courts") If we can't block a lame duck vote on the TPP, it is very likely "game over" even before Hillary takes office. So, regardless of whether you love Hillary or hate Hillary or are somewhere in between, this is where the fight is. If you want to be part of the army of people working to hold Hillary accountable on the TPP, this is the fight that matters right now: the impact of her actions and inactions *now* on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP, *not* what she might or might not do as President. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, > probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war > candidate. > > I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I > give the wrong impression? > > > "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that* > if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. *If the latter is true, > why bother with the former? " > > Who is saying "*if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." *Certainly > not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then > repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to > happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push > back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert > Naiman > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM > > *To:* Karen Aram > *Cc:* Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to > me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his > candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, > over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. > > I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if > we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why > bother with the former? > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Robert >> >> >> First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have >> a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. >> >> >> You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I >> was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When >> Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia >> Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary >> Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that >> she wants to make changes. >> >> >> The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming >> president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, >> with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to >> "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is >> the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of >> the changes she will make. >> >> >> A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta >> the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall >> about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations >> within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in >> the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place >> amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial >> stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. >> >> >> Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the >> democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will >> proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP >> as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. >> >> >> Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally >> come out against the TPP as well as Nato. >> >> >> Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of >> Robert Naiman >> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM >> *To:* Karen Aram >> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List >> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP >> >> That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. >> >> http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there >> on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. >> You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to >> a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama >> strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until >> they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out >> against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* And what will that mean for the next president? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever >> to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing >> is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. >> Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners >> demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the >> corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the >> negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an >> early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I >> thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama >> strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that >> it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for >> democracy. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you >> advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the >> gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been >> immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, >> and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t >> have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump >> does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every >> single day of the convention. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. >> I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the >> negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure >> out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably >> accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for >> good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have >> looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what >> would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit >> to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it >> would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has >> become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And >> the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, >> pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on >> regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, >> that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, >> and she’s absolutely right. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance >> is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator >> of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but >> then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have >> McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who >> says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic >> platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a >> set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy >> it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, >> doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they >> didn’t make it explicit— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie >> delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton >> campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they >> didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, >> what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious >> that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my >> interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic >> administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The >> interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners >> in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, >> but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware >> why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a >> wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very >> strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, >> we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see >> the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming >> out of this. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that >> gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a >> political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, >> because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. >> The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is >> enormous. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* How? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to >> me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the >> Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the >> question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my >> values? You know, and the vice— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* There are some other candidates that I would have >> looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start >> doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from >> states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the >> Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. >> And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, >> important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country >> faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated >> trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I >> think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t >> have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I >> can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope >> he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the >> Democratic platform, he has to change. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track >> for pushing through TPP. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting >> regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* And again, the issue is, once you join on the >> Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic >> platform. And— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe >> Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. >> >> I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic >> policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont >> senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. >> >> *PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:* So, if you agree that there’s too much >> inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need >> to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ >> supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote >> for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until >> they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the >> Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as >> actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and >> holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an >> impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to >> have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re >> going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that >> agenda. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold >> her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she >> respond to? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, >> she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, >> I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in >> terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve >> been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow >> banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to >> fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, >> it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My >> view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, >> both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and >> changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas >> which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches >> about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to >> that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for >> the Roosevelt called *Rewriting the Rules*, showing how, beginning with >> the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to >> promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and >> created, generated the most inequality? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* The single most important thing, probably, in—the >> most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to >> the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work >> and in *Rewriting the Rules* is that there’s no single measure. It’s >> accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have >> inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we >> are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that >> makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an >> important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in >> wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a >> lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* You— >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Education, access to education. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* You wrote a piece >> >> in *Vanity Fair* headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What >> is it? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s >> going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating >> the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and >> this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll >> do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is >> particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people >> implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we >> are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not >> only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant >> secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. >> That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area >> of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with >> Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the >> World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the >> Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging >> the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about >> this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, >> coming out at this point, he’s ahead. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, >> Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. >> But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president >> even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the >> president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win >> in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things >> that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of >> damage to the United States. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump >> has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why >> does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we >> suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what >> his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his >> taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he >> claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, >> "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes >> that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You >> know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was >> keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, >> money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because >> there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying >> under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his >> income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s >> working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was >> unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, >> he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and >> all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he >> paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I >> think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as >> well. >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph >>> Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some >>> changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with >>> gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the >>> Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called >>> USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something >>> passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without >>> merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is >>> disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it >>> in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the >>> way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on >>> everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, >>> then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, >>> and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, >>> like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 29 17:41:19 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 12:41:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. Every anti-TPP campaigner I know strongly agrees that far and away the biggest danger right now is a "lame duck" vote on the TPP after the November election, before Hillary takes office. In other words: far and away the most important thing to focus on right now in terms of what Hillary will or won't do is *not* what Hillary will do or won't do as President, but **what impact her actions (and inactions) between now and December will have on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP.** If we can block a lame duck vote on the TPP, that's not *necessarily* the death of the TPP, but it's a massive, massive blow, which might indeed prove fatal. Even if it does not prove fatal, it will put us in a good position to fundamentally undermine core aspects of the agreement, like the investor-to-state-dispute-system (ISDS) ("corporations suing governments") ("TPP's corporate courts") If we can't block a lame duck vote on the TPP, it is very likely "game over" even before Hillary takes office. So, regardless of whether you love Hillary or hate Hillary or are somewhere in between, this is where the fight is. If you want to be part of the army of people working to hold Hillary accountable on the TPP, this is the fight that matters right now: the impact of her actions and inactions *now* on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP, *not* what she might or might not do as President. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, > probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war > candidate. > > I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I > give the wrong impression? > > > "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that* > if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. *If the latter is true, > why bother with the former? " > > Who is saying "*if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." *Certainly > not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then > repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to > happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push > back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert > Naiman > *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM > > *To:* Karen Aram > *Cc:* Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to > me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his > candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, > over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. > > I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if > we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why > bother with the former? > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Robert >> >> >> First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have >> a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. >> >> >> You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I >> was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When >> Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia >> Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary >> Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that >> she wants to make changes. >> >> >> The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming >> president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, >> with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to >> "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is >> the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of >> the changes she will make. >> >> >> A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta >> the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall >> about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations >> within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in >> the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place >> amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial >> stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. >> >> >> Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the >> democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will >> proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP >> as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. >> >> >> Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally >> come out against the TPP as well as Nato. >> >> >> Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of >> Robert Naiman >> *Sent:* Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM >> *To:* Karen Aram >> *Cc:* Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List >> *Subject:* Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP >> >> That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. >> >> http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there >> on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. >> You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to >> a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama >> strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until >> they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out >> against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* And what will that mean for the next president? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever >> to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing >> is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. >> Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners >> demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the >> corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the >> negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an >> early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I >> thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama >> strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that >> it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for >> democracy. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you >> advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the >> gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been >> immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, >> and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t >> have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump >> does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every >> single day of the convention. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. >> I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the >> negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure >> out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably >> accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for >> good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have >> looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what >> would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit >> to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it >> would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has >> become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And >> the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, >> pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on >> regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, >> that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, >> and she’s absolutely right. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance >> is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator >> of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but >> then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have >> McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who >> says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic >> platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a >> set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy >> it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, >> doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they >> didn’t make it explicit— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie >> delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton >> campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they >> didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, >> what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious >> that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my >> interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic >> administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The >> interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners >> in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, >> but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware >> why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a >> wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very >> strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, >> we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see >> the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming >> out of this. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that >> gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a >> political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, >> because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. >> The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is >> enormous. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* How? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to >> me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the >> Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the >> question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my >> values? You know, and the vice— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* There are some other candidates that I would have >> looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start >> doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from >> states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the >> Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. >> And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, >> important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country >> faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated >> trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I >> think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t >> have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I >> can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope >> he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the >> Democratic platform, he has to change. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track >> for pushing through TPP. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting >> regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* And again, the issue is, once you join on the >> Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic >> platform. And— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe >> Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. >> >> I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic >> policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont >> senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. >> >> *PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:* So, if you agree that there’s too much >> inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need >> to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ >> supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote >> for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until >> they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the >> Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as >> actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and >> holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an >> impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to >> have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re >> going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that >> agenda. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold >> her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she >> respond to? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, >> she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, >> I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in >> terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve >> been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow >> banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to >> fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, >> it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My >> view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, >> both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and >> changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas >> which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches >> about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to >> that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for >> the Roosevelt called *Rewriting the Rules*, showing how, beginning with >> the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to >> promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and >> created, generated the most inequality? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* The single most important thing, probably, in—the >> most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to >> the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work >> and in *Rewriting the Rules* is that there’s no single measure. It’s >> accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have >> inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we >> are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that >> makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an >> important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in >> wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a >> lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* You— >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Education, access to education. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* You wrote a piece >> >> in *Vanity Fair* headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What >> is it? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s >> going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating >> the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and >> this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll >> do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is >> particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people >> implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we >> are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not >> only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant >> secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. >> That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area >> of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with >> Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the >> World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the >> Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging >> the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about >> this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, >> coming out at this point, he’s ahead. >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, >> Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. >> But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president >> even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the >> president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win >> in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things >> that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of >> damage to the United States. >> >> *AMY GOODMAN:* Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump >> has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why >> does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? >> >> *JOSEPH STIGLITZ:* Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we >> suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what >> his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his >> taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he >> claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, >> "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes >> that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You >> know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was >> keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, >> money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because >> there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying >> under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his >> income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s >> working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was >> unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, >> he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and >> all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he >> paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I >> think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as >> well. >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph >>> Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some >>> changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with >>> gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the >>> Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called >>> USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something >>> passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without >>> merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is >>> disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it >>> in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the >>> way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on >>> everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, >>> then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, >>> and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, >>> like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 29 19:40:20 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:40:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A74161E-6CF7-4507-A932-2C46990F5B62@newsfromneptune.com> This seems right to me. Therefore the focus now should be on Obama (and our own Congressional representatives). > On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. > > Every anti-TPP campaigner I know strongly agrees that far and away the biggest danger right now is a "lame duck" vote on the TPP after the November election, before Hillary takes office. In other words: far and away the most important thing to focus on right now in terms of what Hillary will or won't do is *not* what Hillary will do or won't do as President, but **what impact her actions (and inactions) between now and December will have on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP.** > > If we can block a lame duck vote on the TPP, that's not *necessarily* the death of the TPP, but it's a massive, massive blow, which might indeed prove fatal. Even if it does not prove fatal, it will put us in a good position to fundamentally undermine core aspects of the agreement, like the investor-to-state-dispute-system (ISDS) ("corporations suing governments") ("TPP's corporate courts") > > If we can't block a lame duck vote on the TPP, it is very likely "game over" even before Hillary takes office. > > So, regardless of whether you love Hillary or hate Hillary or are somewhere in between, this is where the fight is. > > If you want to be part of the army of people working to hold Hillary accountable on the TPP, this is the fight that matters right now: the impact of her actions and inactions *now* on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP, *not* what she might or might not do as President. > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war candidate. > > I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I give the wrong impression? > > > > "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? " > > Who is saying "if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." Certainly not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. > > > > > > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM > > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. > > I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Robert > > > First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. > > > You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. > > > The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. > > > A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. > > > Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. > > > Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. > > > Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. > > http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again > AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. > > AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. > > AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. > > AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— > > AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. > > AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. > > AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. > > AMY GOODMAN: How? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— > > AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. > > AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— > > AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— > > AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. > > I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. > > PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. > > AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. > > AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— > > AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. > > AMY GOODMAN: You— > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. > > AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. > > AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. > > AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 carl at newsfromneptune.com Fri Jul 29 19:40:20 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:40:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A74161E-6CF7-4507-A932-2C46990F5B62@newsfromneptune.com> This seems right to me. Therefore the focus now should be on Obama (and our own Congressional representatives). > On Jul 29, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. > > Every anti-TPP campaigner I know strongly agrees that far and away the biggest danger right now is a "lame duck" vote on the TPP after the November election, before Hillary takes office. In other words: far and away the most important thing to focus on right now in terms of what Hillary will or won't do is *not* what Hillary will do or won't do as President, but **what impact her actions (and inactions) between now and December will have on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP.** > > If we can block a lame duck vote on the TPP, that's not *necessarily* the death of the TPP, but it's a massive, massive blow, which might indeed prove fatal. Even if it does not prove fatal, it will put us in a good position to fundamentally undermine core aspects of the agreement, like the investor-to-state-dispute-system (ISDS) ("corporations suing governments") ("TPP's corporate courts") > > If we can't block a lame duck vote on the TPP, it is very likely "game over" even before Hillary takes office. > > So, regardless of whether you love Hillary or hate Hillary or are somewhere in between, this is where the fight is. > > If you want to be part of the army of people working to hold Hillary accountable on the TPP, this is the fight that matters right now: the impact of her actions and inactions *now* on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP, *not* what she might or might not do as President. > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war candidate. > > I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I give the wrong impression? > > > > "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? " > > Who is saying "if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." Certainly not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. > > > > > > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM > > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. > > I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Robert > > > First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. > > > You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. > > > The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. > > > A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. > > > Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. > > > Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. > > > Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. > From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP > > That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. > > http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again > AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. > > AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. > > AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. > > AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— > > AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. > > AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. > > AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. > > AMY GOODMAN: How? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— > > AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. > > AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— > > AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— > > AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. > > I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. > > PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. > > AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. > > AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— > > AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. > > AMY GOODMAN: You— > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. > > AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. > > AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. > > AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? > > JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Fri Jul 29 20:02:15 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:02:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dick Durbin on "national security letters" Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Senator Richard J. Durbin Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:07 PM Subject: Message from Senator Richard J. Durbin To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org July 29, 2016 Mr. Robert Naiman 802 East California Avenue Urbana, IL 61801-4342 Dear Mr. Naiman: Thank you for contacting me about Senate Amendment 4787 to the Fiscal Year 2017 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I appreciate hearing from you. This amendment, offered by Senator John McCain of Arizona, would permit the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to utilize National Security Letters (NSLs) to obtain more information from suspected terrorists, including internet protocol (IP) addresses and email headers. The amendment also would make permanent a temporary provision, which allows the FBI to use NSLs to obtain electronic information from"lone-wolf" terrorists not connected to foreign terrorist organizations. NSLs are a type of administrative subpoena, which allow the FBI to request certain information from private citizens and companies that is relevant to a national security related investigation. Unlike typical judicial subpoenas, NSLs do not need to be approved by a judge. NSLs may only request transactional information like a list of phone numbers dialed, not the content of phone calls or emails. NSLs may also be accompanied by a non-disclosure agreement, which requires the recipient of the NSL not to disclose any information about the NSL, including to the person whose information has been requested. I oppose this amendment, which failed to receive the 60 votes necessary for adoption when voted on by the Senate on June 22, 2016. Safeguarding the privacy of our citizens while protecting America’s national security is one of the most important issues facing Congress today, and striking that balance is no easy task. I will keep your concerns about NSLs in mind as this issue is considered in the Senate. Thank you again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch. Sincerely, Richard J. Durbin United States Senator RJD/lh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri Jul 29 20:15:26 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:15:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: I agree. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 12:41:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. Every anti-TPP campaigner I know strongly agrees that far and away the biggest danger right now is a "lame duck" vote on the TPP after the November election, before Hillary takes office. In other words: far and away the most important thing to focus on right now in terms of what Hillary will or won't do is *not* what Hillary will do or won't do as President, but **what impact her actions (and inactions) between now and December will have on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP.** If we can block a lame duck vote on the TPP, that's not *necessarily* the death of the TPP, but it's a massive, massive blow, which might indeed prove fatal. Even if it does not prove fatal, it will put us in a good position to fundamentally undermine core aspects of the agreement, like the investor-to-state-dispute-system (ISDS) ("corporations suing governments") ("TPP's corporate courts") If we can't block a lame duck vote on the TPP, it is very likely "game over" even before Hillary takes office. So, regardless of whether you love Hillary or hate Hillary or are somewhere in between, this is where the fight is. If you want to be part of the army of people working to hold Hillary accountable on the TPP, this is the fight that matters right now: the impact of her actions and inactions *now* on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP, *not* what she might or might not do as President. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war candidate. I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I give the wrong impression? "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? " Who is saying "if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." Certainly not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Robert First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. AMY GOODMAN: How? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. AMY GOODMAN: You— JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Jul 29 20:15:26 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 20:15:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: I agree. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 12:41:19 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP Perhaps I misunderstood you. If so, I apologize. Every anti-TPP campaigner I know strongly agrees that far and away the biggest danger right now is a "lame duck" vote on the TPP after the November election, before Hillary takes office. In other words: far and away the most important thing to focus on right now in terms of what Hillary will or won't do is *not* what Hillary will do or won't do as President, but **what impact her actions (and inactions) between now and December will have on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP.** If we can block a lame duck vote on the TPP, that's not *necessarily* the death of the TPP, but it's a massive, massive blow, which might indeed prove fatal. Even if it does not prove fatal, it will put us in a good position to fundamentally undermine core aspects of the agreement, like the investor-to-state-dispute-system (ISDS) ("corporations suing governments") ("TPP's corporate courts") If we can't block a lame duck vote on the TPP, it is very likely "game over" even before Hillary takes office. So, regardless of whether you love Hillary or hate Hillary or are somewhere in between, this is where the fight is. If you want to be part of the army of people working to hold Hillary accountable on the TPP, this is the fight that matters right now: the impact of her actions and inactions *now* on the prospects of a lame duck vote on the TPP, *not* what she might or might not do as President. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Trump has come out unequivocally against TPP, will he keep his word, probably no more than Obama did when he campaigned as the anti-war candidate. I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, are you quoting me? Did I give the wrong impression? "I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? " Who is saying "if we defeat it, it won't make any difference." Certainly not I. I'm saying we need to defeat it, not "renegotiate" and then repackage, rebrand the same basic Trade Pact. That is what is going to happen unless the American people recognize we have to continue to push back against it, we can't trust the two party/corporate owned system. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:56:10 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP To say that Trump has "unequivocally" come out against anything seems to me a deep abuse of the word "unequivocally." A defining feature of his candidacy is his willingness to contradict himself, on issue after issue, over and over, sometimes within the same sentence. I think that one should choose between opposing the TPP and saying that if we defeat it, it won't make any difference. If the latter is true, why bother with the former? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Robert First, my apology for using the acronym TTP when it should be TPP. I have a problem with acronyms, too many to remember over a lifetime. You're quite right, that is not " what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now". I was working from memory and thus my interpretation took over. When Stiglitz referred to "it will be renegotiated" while it was Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe told Politico, this week, that he believes Hillary Clinton would support the TPP if she were elected president, but that she wants to make changes. The trade agreement will be one of the main economic issues the incoming president will have to make. Either way, Stiglitz a brilliant economist, with good intentions, appears naïve in respect to politics. He refers to "renegotiation" of Nafta and "renegotiation" of the TPP. "Renegotiation" is the word he uses and fits in with my assessment as to what we can expect of the changes she will make. A repackaging, rebranding, of the TPP, and even if we did away with Nafta the damage is already done, and of course not an option. It is afterall about control and profit for the corporations. The TPP includes 12 nations within the Pacific Rim, where we have our war ships provoking tensions in the South China Sea. It's about negating trade deals already in place amongst the Southeast Asian nations with China, its a financial stranglehold along with a military stranglehold. Not one of the democrats is talking about that, because that is the democratic plan, its the neocon and the neoliberal plan, and it will proceed no matter what Hillary wants, but her previous reference to the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals speaks volumes as to her intentions. Though not a supporter of Donald Trump, at least he has unequivocally come out against the TPP as well as Nato. Only Jill Stein has been stable and solid on issues of such importance. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com > on behalf of Robert Naiman > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 9:06:16 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] My take on Hillary and the TTP That's not what Stiglitz said on Democracy Now. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/7/28/will_hillary_clinton_flip_flop_again AMY GOODMAN: It’s great to have you with us. So, you know, I was there on the convention floor yesterday, each day, hundreds of anti-TPP signs. You advise Hillary Clinton. What is her position on the TPP? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: She’s against it. And she’s against bringing it up to a vote in the lame-duck session, which was allegedly part of the Obama strategy, you know, that they’re not going to present it to Congress until they—the idea was not to do it until the lame-duck. Everybody has come out against the lame-duck. And so, I think it’s dead for Obama’s administration. AMY GOODMAN: And what will that mean for the next president? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think it makes it very clear that if there is ever to be a TPP, it has to be totally renegotiated. And the interesting thing is, I’ve talked to some of our trading partners, they would welcome that. Some of the worst provisions in there were not because our partners demanded it, it was because we demanded it. When I say "we," it was the corporate interests that, unfortunately, were represented in the negotiations, not we the American people. And, you know, to me, I was an early opponent of TPP. And it’s so heartwarming to see that an issue that I thought would never get raised—you know, I thought it—and I think the Obama strategy was to try to push it through when nobody was looking—to see that it’s now become a mainstream issue. So, to me, this is a real victory for democracy. AMY GOODMAN: Now, you said you were an early opponent. The person you advise, Hillary Clinton, was not an early opponent. She said it was the gold standard, I think was her term, for trade agreements. She has been immensely pressured by, I think, what has shocked the Clinton juggernaut, and that is the tremendous popularity of Bernie Sanders, even if he doesn’t have much corporate media amplification of his views, like Donald Trump does, and she saw she had to change. I mean, you see it on the floor every single day of the convention. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah, I think that’s right, but it’s more than that. I mean, as people started looking at what actually emerged from the negotiations—remember, it was all secret. What we—all we could only figure out was what was coming out of leaks, which turned out to be remarkably accurate. You know, the leaks often do provide some information that, for good reason, the Obama administration didn’t want. And as others have looked at that agreement—even the U.S. government did an estimate of what would be the trade benefit. You know, how would—what would be the benefit to GDP? Negligible. Outside studies, like at Tufts University, said it would actually decrease our GDP. So, the benefits, as the agreement has become out in the open, have clearly—have been seen clearly negative. And the cost—you mentioned, you know, the cost in terms of access to drugs, pricing of drugs. And, to me, the most important aspect, the dampener on regulation, what is called the ISDSprovision, the investment agreement, that’s the provision that Elizabeth Warren has really nailed the TPP on, and she’s absolutely right. AMY GOODMAN: So, what makes you so sure what Hillary Clinton’s stance is? She chooses her running mate, Timothy Kaine. And Tim Kaine, the senator of Virginia, I think as early—as late as Thursday, was hailing the TPP, but then chosen, given the climate, you know, says he is against it. You have McAuliffe, the governor of Virginia, extremely close to the Clintons, who says she’s for it. What do you know that he doesn’t know? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think part of this is that the Democratic platform, which is a commitment of the Democratic Party, came out with a set of principles that any trade agreement, current or past, has to satisfy it. And if you look at those principles, the TPP, in its current form, doesn’t satisfy it. NAFTA doesn’t satisfy it. So, to me, although they didn’t make it explicit— AMY GOODMAN: But, I mean, that was—a lot of especially the Bernie delegates on that platform committee pushed hard for no TPP, and Clinton campaign pushed very hard back, and she won. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. But, to me, my understanding of that was they didn’t want to embarrass President Obama. But you read those principles, what a trade agreement has to satisfy, and it’s pretty obvious that TPP doesn’t satisfy it, NAFTAdoesn’t satisfy it. So, my interpretation, it’s a commitment of Hillary, the next Democratic administration, to renegotiate NAFTA and to renegotiate TPP. The interesting thing is, again, I’ve talked to some of our trade partners in NAFTA, in TPP, and they would welcome that. So, it’s an open door. AMY GOODMAN: What does Hillary Clinton say privately to you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I haven’t talked to her particularly on this, but I have talked to the policy team on it, and I think they are very aware why there’s such hostility, where TPP went wrong. And that, I think, was a wake-up call. You know, there was this sort of ideology that was very strong—you know, trade is what promotes growth, we’re in favor of growth, we want to create jobs, you know, all that. And now that you actually see the agreement and you look at what the studies say, there’s no GDPcoming out of this. AMY GOODMAN: What does Clinton’s selection of Kaine tell you? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think it’s—she’s looking for somebody that gives her credibility with the middle. And she was trying to make a political judgment about what was the best way to win the election, because, let me say, I believe unambiguously there’s one big issue here. The damage that Trump would inflict in our society, if he were elected, is enormous. AMY GOODMAN: How? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Anywhere from racism to his economic policies. So, to me, there’s no choice. You know, it is really imperative that the Democratic—you know, Hillary wins. And then, if I were in a position, the question is: What is the best vice president to win, consistent with my values? You know, and the vice— AMY GOODMAN: Would Tim Kaine have been your pick? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: There are some other candidates that I would have looked at. There’s one other feature that, you know, when I—when you start doing the calculations, some of the best candidates are senators from states where there’s a Republican governor. And if you appoint the Democratic senator, the Republican governor can put a next senator in line. And holding the Senate for the Democrats is extraordinarily important, important for the Supreme Court, one of the really big issues our country faces. So, I guess what I would say is, these are very complicated trade-offs, judgments. You know, the good thing is that in Virginia, I think Kaine will be replaced by another Democratic senator, so that won’t have that negative effect. A lot of the other—well, I’ve met with Kaine. I can understand why she would have a lot of confidence in him. And I do hope he will change his position on TPP. Obviously, if he’s going to support the Democratic platform, he has to change. AMY GOODMAN: Supported fast track, giving President Obama fast track for pushing through TPP. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that was a wrong position. But the fact that— AMY GOODMAN: Also joining with a number of other senators in fighting regulations of large regional banks, this just in the last few weeks. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: And again, the issue is, once you join on the Democratic platform, I think he’s committed to supporting the Democratic platform. And— AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz. We’ll be back with him in a minute. I want to ask about how Bernie Sanders has impacted Clinton’s economic policies, but turn first to President Obama, who mentioned the Vermont senator, the former presidential candidate, last night. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So, if you agree that there’s too much inequality in our economy and too much money in our politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been during this election. We all need to get out and vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, and then hold them accountable until they get the job done. That’s right. Feel the Bern. AMY GOODMAN: Wow, so there you have President Obama saying "Feel the Bern," Joe Stiglitz. I think that’s something he certainly felt. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that’s right. And I think the movement, as actually Sanders has talked about it, is a very important movement, and holding those elected accountable. You know, the Sanders people did have an impact on the Democratic platform, absolutely. And now, we are going to have to hold accountable those people, including Hillary and Kaine. We’re going to have to hold them accountable, so that they actually push for that agenda. AMY GOODMAN: You advise Hillary Clinton. What is the best way to hold her accountable? Since you don’t agree on a number of issues, what does she respond to? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I think, partly, she’s a policy wonk. And so, she does respond to arguments. And, you know, over the last couple years, I’ve been trying to make strong arguments about why TPP is bad, not only in terms of the trade issues, the GDP, but access to health, regulation. I’ve been trying to say it’s not an issue of just dealing with the shadow banking system. It’s not an issue of just dealing with the "too big to fail" banks, the too big to regulate, the too big—we’ve got to do both. So, it wasn’t—you know, Sanders took one position. Hillary took the other. My view has been, look, these banks have done so much damage to our economy, both in terms of the 2008 crisis, but also increasing inequality and changing the focus to a short-term perspective. And that’s one of the areas which she’s picked up very strongly in a couple very powerful speeches about the dangers of short-termism, the kinds of policy that have led to that kind of short-termism. You know, I laid out in a book that we did for the Roosevelt called Rewriting the Rules, showing how, beginning with the Reagan administration, we rewrote the rules of the American economy to promote inequality and short-termism, and what you have to— AMY GOODMAN: What most damaged the U.S. economy, do you believe, and created, generated the most inequality? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: The single most important thing, probably, in—the most telling event was obviously the 2008 crisis, which is very linked to the financial sector. But one of the things that I’ve emphasized in my work and in Rewriting the Rules is that there’s no single measure. It’s accumulation of thing after thing after thing. It’s the failure to have inclusion, inclusion of African Americans, inclusion of women, because we are almost the only civilized society that doesn’t have family leave, that makes it more difficult for women to be in the labor force. That’s an important—you know, we don’t have a law that says you can’t discriminate in wages against women. That’s one of the things that Hillary has emphasized a lot. That both creates inequality and damages our economy. AMY GOODMAN: You— JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Education, access to education. AMY GOODMAN: You wrote a piece in Vanity Fair headlined "Donald Trump’s Biggest Vulnerability." What is it? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: What I emphasize there is the difficulty that he’s going to have of even getting good Republicans to serve, you know, creating the administration. It’s not just one person. I mean, he tries to say, and this is—Kaine gave a very powerful speech, and he said, "Believe me, I’ll do it." Government is not that way. And democratic government is particularly not that way. You need to have hundreds and hundreds of people implementing those policies. You know, you have different agencies. And we are different from other countries, where the president has to appoint not only the secretary, the deputy secretary, the undersecretary, the assistant secretary, the—you know, in many cases, the deputy assistant secretary. That’s a huge number of people. And getting—you know, take just in the area of economics, getting people who are good economists, who will work with Trump, is going to be extraordinarily difficult. AMY GOODMAN: Donald Trump has called for getting rid of the WTO, the World Trade Organization—certainly, activists on the ground, 1999, the Battle of Seattle, that’s what they were calling for—totally challenging the TPP. Mixed message coming out of the Democrats. Are you concerned about this? And do you think Donald Trump could win? I mean, the polls show, coming out at this point, he’s ahead. JOSEPH STIGLITZ: He could win. And it’s not just the polls. Remember, Bush did not get a majority of votes; Gore got many more votes than Bush. But the way our electoral system works is that you can become the president even with a minority of votes. So, when we say could Trump be the president, he doesn’t even have to win the majority of votes. He could win in the Electoral College. So, yes, I am very worried. And one of the things that I’ve been writing recently is, he’s already done an enormous amount of damage to the United States. AMY GOODMAN: Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort said today, "Mr. Trump has said his taxes are under audit, and he will not be releasing them." Why does that matter, Joe Stiglitz? JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Oh, it matters because there is a good reason why we suspect that he has not been honest about either where his wealth is, what his charitable contributions is, or that he’s paid a fair share of his taxes. Now, even if they’re under audit, he can release the taxes that he claims. You know, the IRS may say, "You’re wrong," but you can still say, "This is what I believed my income was. This is what I believed the taxes that I should have paid." And that will tell an important message. You know, when Mitt Romney released his taxes and it became clear he was keeping his money in the Cayman Islands, not because, the Cayman Islands, money grows stronger in the sunshine in the Cayman Islands, but because there were other reasons, that told Americans a lot, that he was paying under 15 percent of his income. What his taxes were as a fraction of his income were much, much lower than a plumber or some other person who’s working for a living. Something was going on that Americans said was unfair. We would like to know, is Trump paying his fair share? You know, he’s engaged in bad practices in Trump University, stiffed his workers and all kinds of bad practice. We want to know, is he a good citizen? Is he paying his fair share of taxes? So I think it’s really important. And I think it’s really important that his vice president release his taxes, as well. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Will Hillary support TTP? Seems to be a major policy question. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize economist, "she probably will after making some changes". I have no doubt she will support it, she will support it with gusto, the same policies of the Obama administration, just as he did the Bush administration before him. Yes, she will insist on changes, its called USG plan B, or C or D. When you get push back, and can't get something passed because it has been noted that its dangerous, cruel or without merit, immoral or just wrong. You change the name, take out that which is disturbing to others, rewrite it in order to disguise it, and then bury it in reams of material so that its almost impossible to find. You know, the way insurance policies have become, contracts, all the fine print on everything warning us of the dangers that require a microscope to discover, then you repackage it as a "positive" better or unrelated to the previous, and of course always, always ignore the "negatives" it imposes. You know, like the EU, Nafta, doing away with banking regulations, unions, etc. _______________________________________________ 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 31 16:59:23 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 11:59:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AMP: Hank Johnson went out on a limb for Palestinians NOW HE NEEDS OUR HELP Message-ID: I remember when they took Cynthia McKinney down - Hank Johnson's predecessor in this seat. The conclusion that people drew wasn't that you should be more careful in how you criticize (which she sure as hell wasn't.) The conclusion that people drew was that you can't criticize at all. This is what I fear is going to happen if the adversary succeeds in taking Hank Johnson down. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: American Muslims for Palestine Date: Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:22 AM Subject: U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson went out on a limb for Palestinians NOW HE NEEDS OUR HELP To: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org ------------------------------ *ACTION ALERT* *U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson went out on a limb for Palestinians NOW HE NEEDS OUR HELP* U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) has a history of supporting Palestinian human rights. And last week in Philadelphia he spoke on a panel discussion organized by our friends at the *US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation* and *American Friends Service Committee*. The event was held to educate delegates to the Democratic National convention. During his remarks, Rep. Johnson made a comparison between settlement activity and termites. He said settlements were eating up Palestinian land the way termites can eat up a house. Now Zionists are attacking him by twisting his words. They say he called Jews termites, which simply did not happen. *AMP was there and we know what he said. *These are his exact words: *“There has been a steady, almost like termites can get into a residence and eat it up before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself, there has been settlement activity that has marched forward with impunity at a [sic] ever-increasing rate to the point where it has become alarming.”* Watch the video and see for yourself . U.S. policy considers settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace and the U.S. State Department last week issued its strongest condemnation yet on plans for new settlement construction, calling them “corrosive.” Mr. Johnson issued a clarifying statement , but the chairman of the Georgia Republican Committee has called for his resignation anyway. (Click on News.) We must support Rep. Johnson. We cannot allow him to face this attack alone. *TAKE ACTION* *TODAY* Send an email today to Mr. DuBose Porter, the chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party, and tell him you stand by Rep. Johnson. Forward this email to all your networks and friends and ask them to take action immediately. *MONDAY* Please call the Georgia Democratic Party Chairman, Mr. DuBose Porter, and Rep. Hank Johnson to tell them you stand with the representative. *CONTACT INFO* Democratic Party Georgia Headquarters – *678.278.2016 <678.278.2016>*. If Mr. Porter is not available, leave a message. Rep. Johnson - D.C. office: *202.225.1605 <202.225.1605>*; Lithonia, Georgia office: *770.987.2291 <770.987.2291>* *TALKING POINTS* I support Rep. Johnson and appreciate his remarks on justice for Palestinians. It is clear Rep. Johnson was speaking about settlement construction and not Jews or Israelis during his remarks. Rep. Johnson was speaking up for Palestinian rights and that is not anti-Semitic. Affording one group of people its human rights does not detract from the human rights of any other groups. Criticizing Israeli policies or illegal activities is not anti-Semitic. International law, the global community and U.S. policy all consider settlements to be illegal. Rep. Johnson deserves our respect and support for speaking up for justice. ------------------------------ American Muslims for Palestine 10101 S. Roberts Road Palos Hills, IL 60465 708.598.4267 info at ampalestine.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Sun Jul 31 22:51:12 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 17:51:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Know ppl in Florida? Monday deadline to register to vote for August 30 primary Message-ID: Know people in Florida? If they want to vote for Alan Grayson or Patrick Murphy for Senate, or Tim Canova or DWS for the House in the August 30 primary, they have to be registered to vote by Monday. (Florida has a "closed primary.") Here is an article in the *Miami Herald* you can share on social media about the voter registration deadline: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article92684587.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: