From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jun 1 06:55:03 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 01:55:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: <2cba73a0-a725-b539-5b89-a6fd467387c5@gmail.com> <0432852e-5d73-529d-6c27-d8f8a5be86f0@gmail.com> <4D31501D-F358-4385-A9AD-03107B1C117E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <64E78B41-04E5-4BD8-A3A8-DDB78E1D08D3@newsfromneptune.com> [Here's a recent opening comment for AWARE ON THE AIR] 1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. [2] We are recording this at noon on Tuesday May 10 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, IL. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. [3] AWARE is part of the national and intentional anti-war movement, against the wars waged by the Bush and Obama administrations - unfortunately, in a consistent US tradition: US presidents have killed, wounded or made homeless well over 20 million human beings, mostly civilians, since the 1960s - far more than any other government in the world. [4] Today President Obama says he is fighting terrorism in the Mideast, but the real reason is what it’s been for a long time - control of the region’s energy resources. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the US a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries. That control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate over more than a generation - in a general economic and political program that has been called “neoliberalism.” [5] The neoliberal programs of the past generation in both US political parties have concentrated wealth and power in far fewer hands while undermining functioning democracy, but those programs have aroused opposition as well, in the US and abroad. [6] In Europe mainstream parties have been rapidly losing members to left and to right. There is a mood of angry impotence as the real power to shape events largely shifted from national political leaders (who, in principle at least, are subject to democratic politics) to the market, the institutions of the European Union and corporations, quite in accord with neoliberal doctrine. Very similar processes are under way in the United States, for somewhat similar reasons, a matter of significance and concern not just for the country but, because of US power, for the world. [7] The rising opposition to the neoliberal assault highlights another crucial aspect of the standard convention: it sets aside the public, which often fails to accept the role of “spectators” (rather than “participants”) assigned to it in liberal democratic theory. Such disobedience has always been of concern to the dominant classes. Just keeping to American history, George Washington regarded the common people who formed the militias that he was to command as “an exceedingly dirty and nasty people [evincing] an unaccountable kind of stupidity in the lower class of these people.” [8] General Washington was so anxious to sideline the fighters he despised that he came close to losing the Revolution. Indeed, he might have actually done so had France not massively intervened and saved the Revolution, which until then had been won by guerrillas — whom we would now call “terrorists” — while Washington’s British-style army was defeated time after time and almost lost the war. [9] A common feature of successful insurgencies like the American ‘War of Independence’ is that once popular support dissolves after victory, the leadership suppresses the “dirty and nasty people” who actually won the war with guerrilla tactics and terror, for fear that they might challenge class privilege. The elites’ contempt for “the lower class of these people” has taken various forms throughout the years. In recent times one expression of this contempt is the call for passivity and obedience (“moderation in democracy”) by American politicians reacting to the dangerous democratizing effects of the popular movements of the 1960s. [10] For example, global opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was overwhelming. Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls. Opposition sparked huge worldwide protests, in the United States as well, probably the first time in history that imperial aggression was strongly protested even before it was officially launched. The front page of the New York Times reported that “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.” [11] Unprecedented protest in the United States was a manifestation of the opposition to aggression that began decades earlier in the condemnation of the US war in Vietnam, reaching a scale that was substantial and influential, even if far too late. [12] The antiwar movement of the 1960s and ‘70s did become a force that could not be ignored. Nor could it be ignored when Ronald Reagan came into office in the 1980s - determined to launch an assault on Central America. His administration mimicked closely the steps John F. Kennedy had taken 20 years earlier in launching the war against South Vietnam, but the Reaganites had to back off because of the kind of vigorous public protest that had been lacking in the early 1960s. Reagan’s assault on Central America was awful enough; the victims have yet to recover. But what happened to South Vietnam and later all of Indochina, where “the second superpower” - that is, the world anti-war movement - imposed its impediments only much later in the conflict, was incomparably worse. [13] It is often argued that the enormous public opposition to the invasion of Iraq had no effect. That seems incorrect. Again, the invasion was horrifying enough, and its aftermath is utterly grotesque. Nevertheless, it could have been far worse. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s top officials could never even contemplate the sort of measures that President Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson adopted 40 years earlier largely without protest, like carpet bombing poor populations. [14] We here at AWARE ON THE AIR want to encourage similar opposition to the Obama administration’s madly dangerous provocations of Russia and China, whom US planners see as challenging the United States and its “overall framework of order (in Henry Kissinger’s words) - as well as the new cold war simmering in eastern Europe, the Global War on Terror, American hegemony and American decline, and a range of similar considerations. [15] Ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the overwhelming power of the U.S. military has been the central fact of international politics. This is particularly crucial in three regions: ~ East Asia, where the U.S. Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake’; ~ Europe, where the United States, which accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending; and ~ the Middle East, with its giant U.S. naval and air bases, as Ron Szoke has described on this program. [16] And as Karen Aram has described here, Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. In part, these developments are within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes the Central Asian states and Russia, and soon India and Pakistan with Iran as one of the observers: the United States was called on to close all military bases in the region. China is constructing a modernized version of the old silk roads, with the intent not only of integrating the region under Chinese influence, but also of reaching Europe and the Middle Eastern oil-producing regions. It is pouring huge sums into creating an integrated Asian energy and commercial system, with extensive high-speed rail lines and pipelines. [17] Finally to control the economy of Eurasia - the goal of US political leaders as long ago as the US Open Door policy in China in the late 19th century, and the US invasion of Russia in 1918 - the US today is largely responsible for nine wars now going on between north Pakistan and northwest Nigeria – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, southwest Turkey, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, northeast Nigeria, and Somalia. [18] Forty years ago, the U.S. government withdrew from an illegal war because Americans demanded it: by the late 1960s, polls showed that 70 percent of US citizens regarded the war in Vietnam as not “a mistake,” but as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” [19] We must begin to see today’s American wars as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” We must demand that President Obama and his successor (probably Clinton) (1) end the drone assassinations; (2) bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home; (3) close the 1,000 foreign U.S. bases around the world (Russia and China together have no more than twelve); (4) end the provocations of Russia (in eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea); (5) end support for Israel's apartheid policy, and stop sending them money and weapons; and (6) support negotiations among the U.S., Russia and their clients to end the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars. [20] In a book on the last presidential campaign, Pres. Obama is quoted as follows: “‘Turns out I'm really good at killing people,’ Obama said quietly. ‘Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.’” However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true: President Obama has attacked 8 countries (George Bush attacked only 6); his drone assassinations (for which he chooses the targets) have killed thousands of people, including US citizens and hundreds of children; and his special forces are active in no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world - their activities included kidnapping (“rendition”), torture, and murder. There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight... > On May 31, 2016, at 6:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote: > > "Two Minutes Hate," from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a literally (and figuratively) Orwellian objection to what 'AWARE on the Air' was designed to do - i.e., aid awareness of the wars that the Obama administration is carrying on around the world, despite their largely successful attempt to direct attention away from them. > > And in that attempt they’ve been aided by liberals employing identity politics - e.g., “You hate Obama!” > > No, we hate Obama’s mass murders. He lied his way into the job (twice) by pretending he did too. > > The point was made by the late Alex Cockburn, whom I’m proud to call a friend: > > "'Is your hate pure?' he would ask a new Nation intern, one eyebrow raised, in merriment or inquisition the intern was unsure. It was a startling question, but then this was—it still is—a startling time. For what the ancients called avarice and iniquity Alex’s hate was pure, and across the years no writer had a deadlier sting against the cruelties and dangerous illusions, the corruptions of empire. But, oh, how much more he was the sum of all he loved.” [JoAnn Wypijewski >] > > But Ron is nevertheless correct about the format of 'AWARE on the Air': members and friends of AWARE are invited "to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix." > > And I'll continue with an opening comment about what AWARE is attempting to do as part of the anti-war movement - and why that’s necessary. > > —CGE > >> […] >> From: Szoke, Ron > >> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 4:55:15 PM >> To: Jason Liggett >> Cc: Stuart Levy; Karen Aram; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson; Harry Mickalide >> Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air >> >> Okay, thanks everyone, for all the warnings, suggestions & advice I’ve been receiving about what to do & how to do it. We’ll be expecting David G., Stuart L., Harry M., & possibly one or two other people. I would like to dispense with the recital of a manifesto & the Two Minutes Hate that has preceded most past programs. >> >> But please feel free to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix. >> >> Lauren Q. of Mothers Demand Action (against gun violence) said she has a conflict this time. >> >> Tuesday, May 31, noon-1 pm, at the Urbana city building, 400 S Vine St. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> ~~ Ron Szoke >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Wed Jun 1 21:47:08 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 21:47:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] what's up with the Clinton nuke bailout? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CFBB525-A6CD-4FA2-AF29-9F3A4C27BB13@illinois.edu> I consider this largely as an ignorant statement. Some people are screaming— it becomes a fetish— and most of those are trading on an fear bred from ignorance. Even for TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, mortality rates from nuclear power per se have been, all sources considered ( in mining, in construction, pollution, …), lower than for other principal sources of energy. The dangers from present reactors are essentially nonexistent. Fear has made the consequences of the extreme examples above worse. What do one really know about the harms emanating presently from Hanford, or leakage of tritium from a few reactors? Meanwhile, we all receive the benefits from nuclear radiation in our health systems, and think little about it. One might note that small amounts of toxic materials often have beneficial effects, medications and x-rays ,for example. Human physiology has adapted to the natural radiations of the environments throughout (human) evolution. It’s probably inherent in our immune systems. Meanwhile, nuclear power plants will have to be used to limit carbon emissions/ global warming in future decades, so even if not “economical” compared to fossil fuels now, it behooves states to develop and produce even better reactors in the future. This is increasingly being recognized by governments and environmentalists. China and India, among others, are planning to develop and increase their nuclear power sources. There are too many unsubstanciated assertions in the discussion below, as regards France for example. Finally, I offer the opinion that the production and distribution of energy should not be under private profit making corporations. —mkb Bob Good question, because all around the world people are screaming to close down nuclear plants. In the US we have Hanford in the state of Washington, which has been leaking dangerous amounts of radiation for some time now. Turkey Point in Fla. is a problem. And, one must keep in mind the US hasn't built a new nuclear plant in over 36 years. It's true Westinghouse has developed the most up to date model, they are marketing. In France, the #1 when it comes to building nuclear power plants, workers have gone on strike and now management is attempting to prevent cool downs which are very dangerous if not controlled properly. Managers are not necessarily skilled workers either. The Chinese put a hold on their production of new plants after the Fukashima disaster, though I will have to update my info. on that. The concern over workers being unemployed is a joke, given the lack of concern for workers in general in this state/nation. Maybe it's because there is big money in the financing of upgrading nuclear power plants that has this issue on the table of concern. Or, the fact that prices are coming down for solar, which also provides employment, and doesn't degrade the environment. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:02:26 PM To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] what's up with the Clinton nuke bailout? Could someone please explain to us why it's a good idea to have a ratepayer bailout of Exelon's nuclear power plants? "Exelon's plan would raise electric rates statewide -- it said it would cost the typical residential user about 25 cents a month — in order to keep open the Clinton plant and another nuclear unit near the Quad Cities. Exelon said earlier this month that the plants have lost about $800 million over the last six years, mainly because natural gas prices have been so low and have undercut nuclear power's cost." http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-05-30/sponsor-no-vote-exelon-bill-future-clinton-plant-unclear.html === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Jun 1 22:24:59 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:24:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] what's up with the Clinton nuke bailout? In-Reply-To: <5CFBB525-A6CD-4FA2-AF29-9F3A4C27BB13@illinois.edu> References: <5CFBB525-A6CD-4FA2-AF29-9F3A4C27BB13@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Considering the argument that we should subsidize nuclear power because of climate change: shouldn't Exelon, or someone, have to show that this is the most efficient way to achieve reductions in carbon emissions for the amount of subsidy? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I consider this largely as an ignorant statement. *Some* people are > screaming— it becomes a fetish— and most of those are trading on an fear > bred from ignorance. Even for TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, mortality rates > from nuclear power per se have been, all sources considered ( in mining, > in construction, pollution, …), lower than for other principal sources of > energy. The dangers from present reactors are essentially nonexistent. Fear > has made the consequences of the extreme examples above worse. What do one > really know about the harms emanating presently from Hanford, or leakage of > tritium from a few reactors? Meanwhile, we all receive the benefits from > nuclear radiation in our health systems, and think little about it. One > might note that small amounts of toxic materials often have beneficial > effects, medications and x-rays ,for example. Human physiology has adapted > to the natural radiations of the environments throughout (human) evolution. > It’s probably inherent in our immune systems. Meanwhile, nuclear power > plants will have to be used to limit carbon emissions/ global warming in > future decades, so even if not “economical” compared to fossil fuels now, > it behooves states to develop and produce even better reactors in the > future. This is increasingly being recognized by governments and > environmentalists. China and India, among others, are planning to develop > and increase their nuclear power sources. There are too many > unsubstanciated assertions in the discussion below, as regards France for > example. > > Finally, I offer the opinion that the production and distribution of > energy should not be under private profit making corporations. > > —mkb > > > Bob > > Good question, because all around the world people are screaming to close > down nuclear plants. In the US we have Hanford in the state of Washington, > which has been leaking dangerous amounts of radiation for some time now. > Turkey Point in Fla. is a problem. And, one must keep in mind the US hasn't > built a new nuclear plant in over 36 years. It's true Westinghouse has > developed the most up to date model, they are marketing. > > In France, the #1 when it comes to building nuclear power plants, workers > have gone on strike and now management is attempting to prevent cool downs > which are very dangerous if not controlled properly. Managers are not > necessarily skilled workers either. > > The Chinese put a hold on their production of new plants after the > Fukashima disaster, though I will have to update my info. on that. > > > The concern over workers being unemployed is a joke, given the lack of > concern for workers in general in this state/nation. > > *Maybe it's because there is big money in the financing of upgrading > nuclear power plants that has this issue on the table of concern. Or, the > fact that prices are coming down for solar, which also provides employment, > and doesn't degrade the environment.* > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peace-discuss on > behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:02:26 PM > *To:* Peace-discuss List > *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] what's up with the Clinton nuke bailout? > > Could someone please explain to us why it's a good idea to have a > ratepayer bailout of Exelon's nuclear power plants? > > "Exelon's plan would raise electric rates statewide -- it said it would > cost the typical residential user about 25 cents a month — in order to keep > open the Clinton plant and another nuclear unit near the Quad Cities. > Exelon said earlier this month that the plants have lost about $800 million > over the last six years, mainly because natural gas prices have been so low > and have undercut nuclear power's cost." > > > http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-05-30/sponsor-no-vote-exelon-bill-future-clinton-plant-unclear.html > > > === > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jun 2 00:01:14 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 00:01:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] what's up with the Clinton nuke bailout? In-Reply-To: References: <5CFBB525-A6CD-4FA2-AF29-9F3A4C27BB13@illinois.edu>, Message-ID: I admit I'm not a nuclear scientist as is Mort however..... Though using nuclear power to eliminate carbon emissions is acceptable to many people, as an asthmatic I could prefer it to fossil fuels, but I don't because the cost is still too high if there is an accident. And, though I accept the technology as created being sound, just as the engineers designing and constructing generally know what they are doing, nonetheless there is always human error, either in the construction, maintaining, or as in Fukushima, acts of nature. Mort's statement "Human physiology has adapted to the natural radiations of the environments throughout (human) evolution. It’s probably inherent in our immune systems'' Really? So, how many generations does that take. Is it the pesticides that are killing us, the radiation we are surrounded by, the chemicals in our water or is the cancer rate in developed societies to be ignored. And, what about disposal, we still have no means of disposal of that which we create. Just look to Nevada on that one. I know the engineers proud of their work which is now of concern. As to people screaming, I'm referring to scientists in reference to the leaching from the plants, I forgot to mention Indian Point in New York state. The one recently in California, and there are still issues of containment in Chernobyl. Yes, China and India are likely planning to go ahead with more plants, at least they were a few years ago, I recruited the people to build the most recent Chinese plants for a US corporation, and it was a very difficult process because the US, so desperate to gain the contract, settled for one that paid significantly lower salaries than what most Americans or Canadians would consider. The Chinese government wanted top quality employees from the US, but they weren't willing to pay for it. I had to recruit lesser qualified Asians and Eastern Europeans most of the time, because my US employer was only concerned with the profit. Since then, the government of France invested in creating a school in China to teach nuclear power to new grads, those with little or no experience who will be the constructers of the future. The security of nuclear power plants is also an issue, given that an 80 year old nun and colleagues with no weapons were able to access one recently, just to prove how easily it can be accomplished. A nation so concerned with "terrorism", should be more concerned with the security of our nuclear and chemical plants. I do agree with Mort's last statement, that Finally, I offer the opinion that the production and distribution of energy should not be under private profit making corporations. Good luck on that one, all of the companies involved in the production or upgrading of nuclear power plants are concerned with profit. And, even if a public company, or the government offering oversight, given the risk the US is willing to take with nuclear weapons in the S. China Sea and the border of Russia, I certainly wouldn't trust them either. Back to Bob's question, I think nuclear plants should be closed down and replaced with solar power, something that is safe and doesn't degrade, the price keeps coming down with time, and it would provide jobs, that's an industry we should be focused on. ________________________________ From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com on behalf of Robert Naiman Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 5:24:59 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: Karen Aram; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] what's up with the Clinton nuke bailout? Considering the argument that we should subsidize nuclear power because of climate change: shouldn't Exelon, or someone, have to show that this is the most efficient way to achieve reductions in carbon emissions for the amount of subsidy? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: I consider this largely as an ignorant statement. Some people are screaming— it becomes a fetish— and most of those are trading on an fear bred from ignorance. Even for TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, mortality rates from nuclear power per se have been, all sources considered ( in mining, in construction, pollution, …), lower than for other principal sources of energy. The dangers from present reactors are essentially nonexistent. Fear has made the consequences of the extreme examples above worse. What do one really know about the harms emanating presently from Hanford, or leakage of tritium from a few reactors? Meanwhile, we all receive the benefits from nuclear radiation in our health systems, and think little about it. One might note that small amounts of toxic materials often have beneficial effects, medications and x-rays ,for example. Human physiology has adapted to the natural radiations of the environments throughout (human) evolution. It’s probably inherent in our immune systems. Meanwhile, nuclear power plants will have to be used to limit carbon emissions/ global warming in future decades, so even if not “economical” compared to fossil fuels now, it behooves states to develop and produce even better reactors in the future. This is increasingly being recognized by governments and environmentalists. China and India, among others, are planning to develop and increase their nuclear power sources. There are too many unsubstanciated assertions in the discussion below, as regards France for example. Finally, I offer the opinion that the production and distribution of energy should not be under private profit making corporations. —mkb Bob Good question, because all around the world people are screaming to close down nuclear plants. In the US we have Hanford in the state of Washington, which has been leaking dangerous amounts of radiation for some time now. Turkey Point in Fla. is a problem. And, one must keep in mind the US hasn't built a new nuclear plant in over 36 years. It's true Westinghouse has developed the most up to date model, they are marketing. In France, the #1 when it comes to building nuclear power plants, workers have gone on strike and now management is attempting to prevent cool downs which are very dangerous if not controlled properly. Managers are not necessarily skilled workers either. The Chinese put a hold on their production of new plants after the Fukashima disaster, though I will have to update my info. on that. The concern over workers being unemployed is a joke, given the lack of concern for workers in general in this state/nation. Maybe it's because there is big money in the financing of upgrading nuclear power plants that has this issue on the table of concern. Or, the fact that prices are coming down for solar, which also provides employment, and doesn't degrade the environment. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 6:02:26 PM To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] what's up with the Clinton nuke bailout? Could someone please explain to us why it's a good idea to have a ratepayer bailout of Exelon's nuclear power plants? "Exelon's plan would raise electric rates statewide -- it said it would cost the typical residential user about 25 cents a month — in order to keep open the Clinton plant and another nuclear unit near the Quad Cities. Exelon said earlier this month that the plants have lost about $800 million over the last six years, mainly because natural gas prices have been so low and have undercut nuclear power's cost." http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2016-05-30/sponsor-no-vote-exelon-bill-future-clinton-plant-unclear.html === Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 2 02:44:23 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 02:44:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: <2cba73a0-a725-b539-5b89-a6fd467387c5@gmail.com> <0432852e-5d73-529d-6c27-d8f8a5be86f0@gmail.com> <4D31501D-F358-4385-A9AD-03107B1C117E@illinois.edu> <64E78B41-04E5-4BD8-A3A8-DDB78E1D08D3@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: Harry, it doesn't appear to be. Sometimes it takes a couple days. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 9:21:12 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Ron Szoke; Jason Liggett; Stuart Levy; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air Has last episode been put online? On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: [Here's a recent opening comment for AWARE ON THE AIR] 1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. [2] We are recording this at noon on Tuesday May 10 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, IL. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. [3] AWARE is part of the national and intentional anti-war movement, against the wars waged by the Bush and Obama administrations - unfortunately, in a consistent US tradition: US presidents have killed, wounded or made homeless well over 20 million human beings, mostly civilians, since the 1960s - far more than any other government in the world. [4] Today President Obama says he is fighting terrorism in the Mideast, but the real reason is what it’s been for a long time - control of the region’s energy resources. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the US a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries. That control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate over more than a generation - in a general economic and political program that has been called “neoliberalism.” [5] The neoliberal programs of the past generation in both US political parties have concentrated wealth and power in far fewer hands while undermining functioning democracy, but those programs have aroused opposition as well, in the US and abroad. [6] In Europe mainstream parties have been rapidly losing members to left and to right. There is a mood of angry impotence as the real power to shape events largely shifted from national political leaders (who, in principle at least, are subject to democratic politics) to the market, the institutions of the European Union and corporations, quite in accord with neoliberal doctrine. Very similar processes are under way in the United States, for somewhat similar reasons, a matter of significance and concern not just for the country but, because of US power, for the world. [7] The rising opposition to the neoliberal assault highlights another crucial aspect of the standard convention: it sets aside the public, which often fails to accept the role of “spectators” (rather than “participants”) assigned to it in liberal democratic theory. Such disobedience has always been of concern to the dominant classes. Just keeping to American history, George Washington regarded the common people who formed the militias that he was to command as “an exceedingly dirty and nasty people [evincing] an unaccountable kind of stupidity in the lower class of these people.” [8] General Washington was so anxious to sideline the fighters he despised that he came close to losing the Revolution. Indeed, he might have actually done so had France not massively intervened and saved the Revolution, which until then had been won by guerrillas — whom we would now call “terrorists” — while Washington’s British-style army was defeated time after time and almost lost the war. [9] A common feature of successful insurgencies like the American ‘War of Independence’ is that once popular support dissolves after victory, the leadership suppresses the “dirty and nasty people” who actually won the war with guerrilla tactics and terror, for fear that they might challenge class privilege. The elites’ contempt for “the lower class of these people” has taken various forms throughout the years. In recent times one expression of this contempt is the call for passivity and obedience (“moderation in democracy”) by American politicians reacting to the dangerous democratizing effects of the popular movements of the 1960s. [10] For example, global opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was overwhelming. Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls. Opposition sparked huge worldwide protests, in the United States as well, probably the first time in history that imperial aggression was strongly protested even before it was officially launched. The front page of the New York Times reported that “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.” [11] Unprecedented protest in the United States was a manifestation of the opposition to aggression that began decades earlier in the condemnation of the US war in Vietnam, reaching a scale that was substantial and influential, even if far too late. [12] The antiwar movement of the 1960s and ‘70s did become a force that could not be ignored. Nor could it be ignored when Ronald Reagan came into office in the 1980s - determined to launch an assault on Central America. His administration mimicked closely the steps John F. Kennedy had taken 20 years earlier in launching the war against South Vietnam, but the Reaganites had to back off because of the kind of vigorous public protest that had been lacking in the early 1960s. Reagan’s assault on Central America was awful enough; the victims have yet to recover. But what happened to South Vietnam and later all of Indochina, where “the second superpower” - that is, the world anti-war movement - imposed its impediments only much later in the conflict, was incomparably worse. [13] It is often argued that the enormous public opposition to the invasion of Iraq had no effect. That seems incorrect. Again, the invasion was horrifying enough, and its aftermath is utterly grotesque. Nevertheless, it could have been far worse. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s top officials could never even contemplate the sort of measures that President Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson adopted 40 years earlier largely without protest, like carpet bombing poor populations. [14] We here at AWARE ON THE AIR want to encourage similar opposition to the Obama administration’s madly dangerous provocations of Russia and China, whom US planners see as challenging the United States and its “overall framework of order (in Henry Kissinger’s words) - as well as the new cold war simmering in eastern Europe, the Global War on Terror, American hegemony and American decline, and a range of similar considerations. [15] Ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the overwhelming power of the U.S. military has been the central fact of international politics. This is particularly crucial in three regions: ~ East Asia, where the U.S. Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake’; ~ Europe, where the United States, which accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending; and ~ the Middle East, with its giant U.S. naval and air bases, as Ron Szoke has described on this program. [16] And as Karen Aram has described here, Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. In part, these developments are within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes the Central Asian states and Russia, and soon India and Pakistan with Iran as one of the observers: the United States was called on to close all military bases in the region. China is constructing a modernized version of the old silk roads, with the intent not only of integrating the region under Chinese influence, but also of reaching Europe and the Middle Eastern oil-producing regions. It is pouring huge sums into creating an integrated Asian energy and commercial system, with extensive high-speed rail lines and pipelines. [17] Finally to control the economy of Eurasia - the goal of US political leaders as long ago as the US Open Door policy in China in the late 19th century, and the US invasion of Russia in 1918 - the US today is largely responsible for nine wars now going on between north Pakistan and northwest Nigeria – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, southwest Turkey, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, northeast Nigeria, and Somalia. [18] Forty years ago, the U.S. government withdrew from an illegal war because Americans demanded it: by the late 1960s, polls showed that 70 percent of US citizens regarded the war in Vietnam as not “a mistake,” but as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” [19] We must begin to see today’s American wars as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” We must demand that President Obama and his successor (probably Clinton) (1) end the drone assassinations; (2) bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home; (3) close the 1,000 foreign U.S. bases around the world (Russia and China together have no more than twelve); (4) end the provocations of Russia (in eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea); (5) end support for Israel's apartheid policy, and stop sending them money and weapons; and (6) support negotiations among the U.S., Russia and their clients to end the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars. [20] In a book on the last presidential campaign, Pres. Obama is quoted as follows: “‘Turns out I'm really good at killing people,’ Obama said quietly. ‘Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.’” However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true: President Obama has attacked 8 countries (George Bush attacked only 6); his drone assassinations (for which he chooses the targets) have killed thousands of people, including US citizens and hundreds of children; and his special forces are active in no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world - their activities included kidnapping (“rendition”), torture, and murder. There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight... On May 31, 2016, at 6:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: "Two Minutes Hate," from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a literally (and figuratively) Orwellian objection to what 'AWARE on the Air' was designed to do - i.e., aid awareness of the wars that the Obama administration is carrying on around the world, despite their largely successful attempt to direct attention away from them. And in that attempt they’ve been aided by liberals employing identity politics - e.g., “You hate Obama!” No, we hate Obama’s mass murders. He lied his way into the job (twice) by pretending he did too. The point was made by the late Alex Cockburn, whom I’m proud to call a friend: "'Is your hate pure?' he would ask a new Nation intern, one eyebrow raised, in merriment or inquisition the intern was unsure. It was a startling question, but then this was—it still is—a startling time. For what the ancients called avarice and iniquity Alex’s hate was pure, and across the years no writer had a deadlier sting against the cruelties and dangerous illusions, the corruptions of empire. But, oh, how much more he was the sum of all he loved.” [JoAnn Wypijewski ] But Ron is nevertheless correct about the format of 'AWARE on the Air': members and friends of AWARE are invited "to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix." And I'll continue with an opening comment about what AWARE is attempting to do as part of the anti-war movement - and why that’s necessary. —CGE […] ________________________________ From: Szoke, Ron > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 4:55:15 PM To: Jason Liggett Cc: Stuart Levy; Karen Aram; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson; Harry Mickalide Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air Okay, thanks everyone, for all the warnings, suggestions & advice I’ve been receiving about what to do & how to do it. We’ll be expecting David G., Stuart L., Harry M., & possibly one or two other people. I would like to dispense with the recital of a manifesto & the Two Minutes Hate that has preceded most past programs. But please feel free to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix. Lauren Q. of Mothers Demand Action (against gun violence) said she has a conflict this time. Tuesday, May 31, noon-1 pm, at the Urbana city building, 400 S Vine St. Best wishes, ~~ Ron Szoke -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jun 2 03:36:35 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 22:36:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: <2cba73a0-a725-b539-5b89-a6fd467387c5@gmail.com> <0432852e-5d73-529d-6c27-d8f8a5be86f0@gmail.com> <4D31501D-F358-4385-A9AD-03107B1C117E@illinois.edu> <64E78B41-04E5-4BD8-A3A8-DDB78E1D08D3@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: This episode (May 10) is up at >. Yesterday’s (May 31) doesn’t seem to be posted yet. —CGE > On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:44 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Harry, it doesn't appear to be. Sometimes it takes a couple days. > From: Harry Mickalide > > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 9:21:12 PM > To: C. G. Estabrook > Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Ron Szoke; Jason Liggett; Stuart Levy; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson > Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air > > Has last episode been put online? > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > [Here's a recent opening comment for AWARE ON THE AIR] > 1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. > [2] We are recording this at noon on Tuesday May 10 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, IL. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. > The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. > [3] AWARE is part of the national and intentional anti-war movement, against the wars waged by the Bush and Obama administrations - unfortunately, in a consistent US tradition: > US presidents have killed, wounded or made homeless well over 20 million human beings, mostly civilians, since the 1960s - far more than any other government in the world. > [4] Today President Obama says he is fighting terrorism in the Mideast, but the real reason is what it’s been for a long time - control of the region’s energy resources. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the US a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries. That control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate over more than a generation - in a general economic and political program that has been called “neoliberalism.” > [5] The neoliberal programs of the past generation in both US political parties have concentrated wealth and power in far fewer hands while undermining functioning democracy, but those programs have aroused opposition as well, in the US and abroad. > [6] In Europe mainstream parties have been rapidly losing members to left and to right. There is a mood of angry impotence as the real power to shape events largely shifted from national political leaders (who, in principle at least, are subject to democratic politics) to the market, the institutions of the European Union and corporations, quite in accord with neoliberal doctrine. Very similar processes are under way in the United States, for somewhat similar reasons, a matter of significance and concern not just for the country but, because of US power, for the world. > [7] The rising opposition to the neoliberal assault highlights another crucial aspect of the standard convention: it sets aside the public, which often fails to accept the role of “spectators” (rather than “participants”) assigned to it in liberal democratic theory. Such disobedience has always been of concern to the dominant classes. Just keeping to American history, George Washington regarded the common people who formed the militias that he was to command as “an exceedingly dirty and nasty people [evincing] an unaccountable kind of stupidity in the lower class of these people.” > [8] General Washington was so anxious to sideline the fighters he despised that he came close to losing the Revolution. Indeed, he might have actually done so had France not massively intervened and saved the Revolution, which until then had been won by guerrillas — whom we would now call “terrorists” — while Washington’s British-style army was defeated time after time and almost lost the war. > [9] A common feature of successful insurgencies like the American ‘War of Independence’ is that once popular support dissolves after victory, the leadership suppresses the “dirty and nasty people” who actually won the war with guerrilla tactics and terror, for fear that they might challenge class privilege. The elites’ contempt for “the lower class of these people” has taken various forms throughout the years. In recent times one expression of this contempt is the call for passivity and obedience (“moderation in democracy”) by American politicians reacting to the dangerous democratizing effects of the popular movements of the 1960s. > [10] For example, global opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was overwhelming. Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls. Opposition sparked huge worldwide protests, in the United States as well, probably the first time in history that imperial aggression was strongly protested even before it was officially launched. The front page of the New York Times reported that “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.” > [11] Unprecedented protest in the United States was a manifestation of the opposition to aggression that began decades earlier in the condemnation of the US war in Vietnam, reaching a scale that was substantial and influential, even if far too late. > [12] The antiwar movement of the 1960s and ‘70s did become a force that could not be ignored. Nor could it be ignored when Ronald Reagan came into office in the 1980s - determined to launch an assault on Central America. His administration mimicked closely the steps John F. Kennedy had taken 20 years earlier in launching the war against South Vietnam, but the Reaganites had to back off because of the kind of vigorous public protest that had been lacking in the early 1960s. Reagan’s assault on Central America was awful enough; the victims have yet to recover. But what happened to South Vietnam and later all of Indochina, where “the second superpower” - that is, the world anti-war movement - imposed its impediments only much later in the conflict, was incomparably worse. > [13] It is often argued that the enormous public opposition to the invasion of Iraq had no effect. That seems incorrect. Again, the invasion was horrifying enough, and its aftermath is utterly grotesque. Nevertheless, it could have been far worse. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s top officials could never even contemplate the sort of measures that President Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson adopted 40 years earlier largely without protest, like carpet bombing poor populations. > [14] We here at AWARE ON THE AIR want to encourage similar opposition to the Obama administration’s madly dangerous provocations of Russia and China, whom US planners see as challenging the United States and its “overall framework of order (in Henry Kissinger’s words) - as well as the new cold war simmering in eastern Europe, the Global War on Terror, American hegemony and American decline, and a range of similar considerations. > [15] Ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the overwhelming power of the U.S. military has been the central fact of international politics. This is particularly crucial in three regions: > ~ East Asia, where the U.S. Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake’; > ~ Europe, where the United States, which accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending; and > ~ the Middle East, with its giant U.S. naval and air bases, as Ron Szoke has described on this program. > [16] And as Karen Aram has described here, Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. In part, these developments are within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes the Central Asian states and Russia, and soon India and Pakistan with Iran as one of the observers: the United States was called on to close all military bases in the region. China is constructing a modernized version of the old silk roads, with the intent not only of integrating the region under Chinese influence, but also of reaching Europe and the Middle Eastern oil-producing regions. It is pouring huge sums into creating an integrated Asian energy and commercial system, with extensive high-speed rail lines and pipelines. > [17] Finally to control the economy of Eurasia - the goal of US political leaders as long ago as the US Open Door policy in China in the late 19th century, and the US invasion of Russia in 1918 - the US today is largely responsible for nine wars now going on between north Pakistan and northwest Nigeria – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, southwest Turkey, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, northeast Nigeria, and Somalia. > [18] Forty years ago, the U.S. government withdrew from an illegal war because Americans demanded it: by the late 1960s, polls showed that 70 percent of US citizens regarded the war in Vietnam as not “a mistake,” but as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” > [19] We must begin to see today’s American wars as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” We must demand that President Obama and his successor (probably Clinton) > (1) end the drone assassinations; > (2) bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home; > (3) close the 1,000 foreign U.S. bases around the world (Russia and China together have no more than twelve); > (4) end the provocations of Russia (in eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea); > (5) end support for Israel's apartheid policy, and stop sending them money and weapons; and > (6) support negotiations among the U.S., Russia and their clients to end the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars. > [20] In a book on the last presidential campaign, Pres. Obama is quoted as follows: > “‘Turns out I'm really good at killing people,’ Obama said quietly. ‘Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.’” > However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true: President Obama has attacked 8 countries (George Bush attacked only 6); his drone assassinations (for which he chooses the targets) have killed thousands of people, including US citizens and hundreds of children; and his special forces are active in no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world - their activities included kidnapping (“rendition”), torture, and murder. > There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight... > >> On May 31, 2016, at 6:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> "Two Minutes Hate," from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a literally (and figuratively) Orwellian objection to what 'AWARE on the Air' was designed to do - i.e., aid awareness of the wars that the Obama administration is carrying on around the world, despite their largely successful attempt to direct attention away from them. >> >> And in that attempt they’ve been aided by liberals employing identity politics - e.g., “You hate Obama!” >> >> No, we hate Obama’s mass murders. He lied his way into the job (twice) by pretending he did too. >> >> The point was made by the late Alex Cockburn, whom I’m proud to call a friend: >> >> "'Is your hate pure?' he would ask a new Nation intern, one eyebrow raised, in merriment or inquisition the intern was unsure. It was a startling question, but then this was—it still is—a startling time. For what the ancients called avarice and iniquity Alex’s hate was pure, and across the years no writer had a deadlier sting against the cruelties and dangerous illusions, the corruptions of empire. But, oh, how much more he was the sum of all he loved.” [JoAnn Wypijewski >] >> >> But Ron is nevertheless correct about the format of 'AWARE on the Air': members and friends of AWARE are invited "to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix." >> >> And I'll continue with an opening comment about what AWARE is attempting to do as part of the anti-war movement - and why that’s necessary. >> >> —CGE >> >>> […] >>> From: Szoke, Ron > >>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 4:55:15 PM >>> To: Jason Liggett >>> Cc: Stuart Levy; Karen Aram; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson; Harry Mickalide >>> Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air >>> >>> Okay, thanks everyone, for all the warnings, suggestions & advice I’ve been receiving about what to do & how to do it. We’ll be expecting David G., Stuart L., Harry M., & possibly one or two other people. I would like to dispense with the recital of a manifesto & the Two Minutes Hate that has preceded most past programs. >>> >>> But please feel free to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix. >>> >>> Lauren Q. of Mothers Demand Action (against gun violence) said she has a conflict this time. >>> >>> Tuesday, May 31, noon-1 pm, at the Urbana city building, 400 S Vine St. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> ~~ Ron Szoke >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jcliggett at urbanaillinois.us Thu Jun 2 11:35:22 2016 From: jcliggett at urbanaillinois.us (Liggett, Jason) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:35:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: <2cba73a0-a725-b539-5b89-a6fd467387c5@gmail.com> <0432852e-5d73-529d-6c27-d8f8a5be86f0@gmail.com> <4D31501D-F358-4385-A9AD-03107B1C117E@illinois.edu> <64E78B41-04E5-4BD8-A3A8-DDB78E1D08D3@newsfromneptune.com> , Message-ID: Here's a playlist with past episodes of AWARE on the Air https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2B283336F85E5A0 The most recent episode will be on top. In this case, episode #366 which was taped on May 31st. ________________________________ From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:36 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Harry Mickalide; Peace Discuss; Ron Szoke; Liggett, Jason Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air This episode (May 10) is up at >. Yesterday’s (May 31) doesn’t seem to be posted yet. —CGE On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:44 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Harry, it doesn't appear to be. Sometimes it takes a couple days. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 9:21:12 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Ron Szoke; Jason Liggett; Stuart Levy; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air Has last episode been put online? On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: [Here's a recent opening comment for AWARE ON THE AIR] 1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. [2] We are recording this at noon on Tuesday May 10 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, IL. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. [3] AWARE is part of the national and intentional anti-war movement, against the wars waged by the Bush and Obama administrations - unfortunately, in a consistent US tradition: US presidents have killed, wounded or made homeless well over 20 million human beings, mostly civilians, since the 1960s - far more than any other government in the world. [4] Today President Obama says he is fighting terrorism in the Mideast, but the real reason is what it’s been for a long time - control of the region’s energy resources. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the US a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries. That control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate over more than a generation - in a general economic and political program that has been called “neoliberalism.” [5] The neoliberal programs of the past generation in both US political parties have concentrated wealth and power in far fewer hands while undermining functioning democracy, but those programs have aroused opposition as well, in the US and abroad. [6] In Europe mainstream parties have been rapidly losing members to left and to right. There is a mood of angry impotence as the real power to shape events largely shifted from national political leaders (who, in principle at least, are subject to democratic politics) to the market, the institutions of the European Union and corporations, quite in accord with neoliberal doctrine. Very similar processes are under way in the United States, for somewhat similar reasons, a matter of significance and concern not just for the country but, because of US power, for the world. [7] The rising opposition to the neoliberal assault highlights another crucial aspect of the standard convention: it sets aside the public, which often fails to accept the role of “spectators” (rather than “participants”) assigned to it in liberal democratic theory. Such disobedience has always been of concern to the dominant classes. Just keeping to American history, George Washington regarded the common people who formed the militias that he was to command as “an exceedingly dirty and nasty people [evincing] an unaccountable kind of stupidity in the lower class of these people.” [8] General Washington was so anxious to sideline the fighters he despised that he came close to losing the Revolution. Indeed, he might have actually done so had France not massively intervened and saved the Revolution, which until then had been won by guerrillas — whom we would now call “terrorists” — while Washington’s British-style army was defeated time after time and almost lost the war. [9] A common feature of successful insurgencies like the American ‘War of Independence’ is that once popular support dissolves after victory, the leadership suppresses the “dirty and nasty people” who actually won the war with guerrilla tactics and terror, for fear that they might challenge class privilege. The elites’ contempt for “the lower class of these people” has taken various forms throughout the years. In recent times one expression of this contempt is the call for passivity and obedience (“moderation in democracy”) by American politicians reacting to the dangerous democratizing effects of the popular movements of the 1960s. [10] For example, global opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was overwhelming. Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls. Opposition sparked huge worldwide protests, in the United States as well, probably the first time in history that imperial aggression was strongly protested even before it was officially launched. The front page of the New York Times reported that “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.” [11] Unprecedented protest in the United States was a manifestation of the opposition to aggression that began decades earlier in the condemnation of the US war in Vietnam, reaching a scale that was substantial and influential, even if far too late. [12] The antiwar movement of the 1960s and ‘70s did become a force that could not be ignored. Nor could it be ignored when Ronald Reagan came into office in the 1980s - determined to launch an assault on Central America. His administration mimicked closely the steps John F. Kennedy had taken 20 years earlier in launching the war against South Vietnam, but the Reaganites had to back off because of the kind of vigorous public protest that had been lacking in the early 1960s. Reagan’s assault on Central America was awful enough; the victims have yet to recover. But what happened to South Vietnam and later all of Indochina, where “the second superpower” - that is, the world anti-war movement - imposed its impediments only much later in the conflict, was incomparably worse. [13] It is often argued that the enormous public opposition to the invasion of Iraq had no effect. That seems incorrect. Again, the invasion was horrifying enough, and its aftermath is utterly grotesque. Nevertheless, it could have been far worse. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s top officials could never even contemplate the sort of measures that President Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson adopted 40 years earlier largely without protest, like carpet bombing poor populations. [14] We here at AWARE ON THE AIR want to encourage similar opposition to the Obama administration’s madly dangerous provocations of Russia and China, whom US planners see as challenging the United States and its “overall framework of order (in Henry Kissinger’s words) - as well as the new cold war simmering in eastern Europe, the Global War on Terror, American hegemony and American decline, and a range of similar considerations. [15] Ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the overwhelming power of the U.S. military has been the central fact of international politics. This is particularly crucial in three regions: ~ East Asia, where the U.S. Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake’; ~ Europe, where the United States, which accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending; and ~ the Middle East, with its giant U.S. naval and air bases, as Ron Szoke has described on this program. [16] And as Karen Aram has described here, Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. In part, these developments are within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes the Central Asian states and Russia, and soon India and Pakistan with Iran as one of the observers: the United States was called on to close all military bases in the region. China is constructing a modernized version of the old silk roads, with the intent not only of integrating the region under Chinese influence, but also of reaching Europe and the Middle Eastern oil-producing regions. It is pouring huge sums into creating an integrated Asian energy and commercial system, with extensive high-speed rail lines and pipelines. [17] Finally to control the economy of Eurasia - the goal of US political leaders as long ago as the US Open Door policy in China in the late 19th century, and the US invasion of Russia in 1918 - the US today is largely responsible for nine wars now going on between north Pakistan and northwest Nigeria – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, southwest Turkey, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, northeast Nigeria, and Somalia. [18] Forty years ago, the U.S. government withdrew from an illegal war because Americans demanded it: by the late 1960s, polls showed that 70 percent of US citizens regarded the war in Vietnam as not “a mistake,” but as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” [19] We must begin to see today’s American wars as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” We must demand that President Obama and his successor (probably Clinton) (1) end the drone assassinations; (2) bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home; (3) close the 1,000 foreign U.S. bases around the world (Russia and China together have no more than twelve); (4) end the provocations of Russia (in eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea); (5) end support for Israel's apartheid policy, and stop sending them money and weapons; and (6) support negotiations among the U.S., Russia and their clients to end the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars. [20] In a book on the last presidential campaign, Pres. Obama is quoted as follows: “‘Turns out I'm really good at killing people,’ Obama said quietly. ‘Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.’” However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true: President Obama has attacked 8 countries (George Bush attacked only 6); his drone assassinations (for which he chooses the targets) have killed thousands of people, including US citizens and hundreds of children; and his special forces are active in no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world - their activities included kidnapping (“rendition”), torture, and murder. There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight... On May 31, 2016, at 6:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: "Two Minutes Hate," from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a literally (and figuratively) Orwellian objection to what 'AWARE on the Air' was designed to do - i.e., aid awareness of the wars that the Obama administration is carrying on around the world, despite their largely successful attempt to direct attention away from them. And in that attempt they’ve been aided by liberals employing identity politics - e.g., “You hate Obama!” No, we hate Obama’s mass murders. He lied his way into the job (twice) by pretending he did too. The point was made by the late Alex Cockburn, whom I’m proud to call a friend: "'Is your hate pure?' he would ask a new Nation intern, one eyebrow raised, in merriment or inquisition the intern was unsure. It was a startling question, but then this was—it still is—a startling time. For what the ancients called avarice and iniquity Alex’s hate was pure, and across the years no writer had a deadlier sting against the cruelties and dangerous illusions, the corruptions of empire. But, oh, how much more he was the sum of all he loved.” [JoAnn Wypijewski >] But Ron is nevertheless correct about the format of 'AWARE on the Air': members and friends of AWARE are invited "to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix." And I'll continue with an opening comment about what AWARE is attempting to do as part of the anti-war movement - and why that’s necessary. —CGE […] ________________________________ From: Szoke, Ron > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 4:55:15 PM To: Jason Liggett Cc: Stuart Levy; Karen Aram; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson; Harry Mickalide Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air Okay, thanks everyone, for all the warnings, suggestions & advice I’ve been receiving about what to do & how to do it. We’ll be expecting David G., Stuart L., Harry M., & possibly one or two other people. I would like to dispense with the recital of a manifesto & the Two Minutes Hate that has preceded most past programs. But please feel free to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix. Lauren Q. of Mothers Demand Action (against gun violence) said she has a conflict this time. Tuesday, May 31, noon-1 pm, at the Urbana city building, 400 S Vine St. Best wishes, ~~ Ron Szoke _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jun 2 16:42:18 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:42:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air In-Reply-To: References: <2cba73a0-a725-b539-5b89-a6fd467387c5@gmail.com> <0432852e-5d73-529d-6c27-d8f8a5be86f0@gmail.com> <4D31501D-F358-4385-A9AD-03107B1C117E@illinois.edu> <64E78B41-04E5-4BD8-A3A8-DDB78E1D08D3@newsfromneptune.com> , , Message-ID: Great show guys, I just finished watching and I was very impressed. The focus on war and it's interconnectedness with climate change, national militarism was very informative, I am so pleased I feel compelled to comment and encourage anyone who hasn't watched the program to do so. Ron, I'm pleased you didn't choke when reading from the WorldSocialistWebSite, a sign of real progress, in my estimation. Peter Symonds is the first person from whom I heard anything in relation to Obama's "Pivot to Asia", though it wasn't called that, he simply reported the US troops and military base being set up in Australia. No one was talking about it, or concerned except me, until Carl referred to it on AOTA, and the spiral downward since then has continued non stop with US provocations, troops, and battleships in the S. China Sea. Harry, you were very good, your movement with S.T.E.M. is so important and inspiring. I'm currently communicating with a potential relative, a physicist with Livermore, not to quit his job, yet, but to open his eyes to what is being constructed in their labs and the danger they pose, small nuclear bombs with supposedly better capability to target, but so much easier to utilize. And, I loved your song, so relevant. You are quite right, the sixties music was an important tool encouraging activism, something I bemoan every time I turn on the radio, and listen to todays music, of as little relevance to the world as that which existed in the fifties. Hootenannies were the start with Peter, Paul and Mary, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez and John Lennon. David, I recently had a well respected socialist, tell me that the SWP Socialist Workers Party made a mistake by focusing too much on the anti-war movement in the sixties and early seventies. While I think they made some mistakes that resulted in their demise as an organization, I totally disagree that it was a result of focus on the anti-war movement. I believe in addition to labor abuses, the immorality of war which encourages people to become politically active is the door opener or first step in the process to a final analysis that unless we defeat capitalism we will always have wars. Stuart, bringing up and reminding us of the militarism of our own community is quite valuable, and needs no explanation. ________________________________ From: Liggett, Jason Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 6:35:22 AM To: C. G. Estabrook; Karen Aram Cc: Harry Mickalide; Peace Discuss; Ron Szoke Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air Here's a playlist with past episodes of AWARE on the Air https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF2B283336F85E5A0 The most recent episode will be on top. In this case, episode #366 which was taped on May 31st. ________________________________ From: C. G. Estabrook [carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 10:36 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Harry Mickalide; Peace Discuss; Ron Szoke; Liggett, Jason Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air This episode (May 10) is up at >. Yesterday’s (May 31) doesn’t seem to be posted yet. —CGE On Jun 1, 2016, at 9:44 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Harry, it doesn't appear to be. Sometimes it takes a couple days. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide > Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 9:21:12 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Karen Aram; Peace Discuss; Ron Szoke; Jason Liggett; Stuart Levy; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air Has last episode been put online? On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:55 AM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: [Here's a recent opening comment for AWARE ON THE AIR] 1] Good evening and welcome to AWARE on the Air, a unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the racism they inspire. [2] We are recording this at noon on Tuesday May 10 in the studios of Urbana Public Television, Urbana, IL. Our program is presented by members and friends of AWARE, a local peace group. The name AWARE stands for “anti-war anti-racism effort.” I’m Carl Estabrook. [3] AWARE is part of the national and intentional anti-war movement, against the wars waged by the Bush and Obama administrations - unfortunately, in a consistent US tradition: US presidents have killed, wounded or made homeless well over 20 million human beings, mostly civilians, since the 1960s - far more than any other government in the world. [4] Today President Obama says he is fighting terrorism in the Mideast, but the real reason is what it’s been for a long time - control of the region’s energy resources. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the US a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries. That control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who’ve seen wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands at an accelerating rate over more than a generation - in a general economic and political program that has been called “neoliberalism.” [5] The neoliberal programs of the past generation in both US political parties have concentrated wealth and power in far fewer hands while undermining functioning democracy, but those programs have aroused opposition as well, in the US and abroad. [6] In Europe mainstream parties have been rapidly losing members to left and to right. There is a mood of angry impotence as the real power to shape events largely shifted from national political leaders (who, in principle at least, are subject to democratic politics) to the market, the institutions of the European Union and corporations, quite in accord with neoliberal doctrine. Very similar processes are under way in the United States, for somewhat similar reasons, a matter of significance and concern not just for the country but, because of US power, for the world. [7] The rising opposition to the neoliberal assault highlights another crucial aspect of the standard convention: it sets aside the public, which often fails to accept the role of “spectators” (rather than “participants”) assigned to it in liberal democratic theory. Such disobedience has always been of concern to the dominant classes. Just keeping to American history, George Washington regarded the common people who formed the militias that he was to command as “an exceedingly dirty and nasty people [evincing] an unaccountable kind of stupidity in the lower class of these people.” [8] General Washington was so anxious to sideline the fighters he despised that he came close to losing the Revolution. Indeed, he might have actually done so had France not massively intervened and saved the Revolution, which until then had been won by guerrillas — whom we would now call “terrorists” — while Washington’s British-style army was defeated time after time and almost lost the war. [9] A common feature of successful insurgencies like the American ‘War of Independence’ is that once popular support dissolves after victory, the leadership suppresses the “dirty and nasty people” who actually won the war with guerrilla tactics and terror, for fear that they might challenge class privilege. The elites’ contempt for “the lower class of these people” has taken various forms throughout the years. In recent times one expression of this contempt is the call for passivity and obedience (“moderation in democracy”) by American politicians reacting to the dangerous democratizing effects of the popular movements of the 1960s. [10] For example, global opposition to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was overwhelming. Support for Washington’s war plans scarcely reached 10% almost anywhere, according to international polls. Opposition sparked huge worldwide protests, in the United States as well, probably the first time in history that imperial aggression was strongly protested even before it was officially launched. The front page of the New York Times reported that “there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.” [11] Unprecedented protest in the United States was a manifestation of the opposition to aggression that began decades earlier in the condemnation of the US war in Vietnam, reaching a scale that was substantial and influential, even if far too late. [12] The antiwar movement of the 1960s and ‘70s did become a force that could not be ignored. Nor could it be ignored when Ronald Reagan came into office in the 1980s - determined to launch an assault on Central America. His administration mimicked closely the steps John F. Kennedy had taken 20 years earlier in launching the war against South Vietnam, but the Reaganites had to back off because of the kind of vigorous public protest that had been lacking in the early 1960s. Reagan’s assault on Central America was awful enough; the victims have yet to recover. But what happened to South Vietnam and later all of Indochina, where “the second superpower” - that is, the world anti-war movement - imposed its impediments only much later in the conflict, was incomparably worse. [13] It is often argued that the enormous public opposition to the invasion of Iraq had no effect. That seems incorrect. Again, the invasion was horrifying enough, and its aftermath is utterly grotesque. Nevertheless, it could have been far worse. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest of Bush’s top officials could never even contemplate the sort of measures that President Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson adopted 40 years earlier largely without protest, like carpet bombing poor populations. [14] We here at AWARE ON THE AIR want to encourage similar opposition to the Obama administration’s madly dangerous provocations of Russia and China, whom US planners see as challenging the United States and its “overall framework of order (in Henry Kissinger’s words) - as well as the new cold war simmering in eastern Europe, the Global War on Terror, American hegemony and American decline, and a range of similar considerations. [15] Ever since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the overwhelming power of the U.S. military has been the central fact of international politics. This is particularly crucial in three regions: ~ East Asia, where the U.S. Navy has become used to treating the Pacific as an ‘American lake’; ~ Europe, where the United States, which accounts for a staggering three-quarters of NATO’s military spending; and ~ the Middle East, with its giant U.S. naval and air bases, as Ron Szoke has described on this program. [16] And as Karen Aram has described here, Chinese leaders understand very well that their country’s maritime trade routes are ringed with hostile powers from Japan through the Malacca Straits and beyond, backed by overwhelming U.S. military force. Accordingly, China is proceeding to expand westward with extensive investments and careful moves toward integration. In part, these developments are within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes the Central Asian states and Russia, and soon India and Pakistan with Iran as one of the observers: the United States was called on to close all military bases in the region. China is constructing a modernized version of the old silk roads, with the intent not only of integrating the region under Chinese influence, but also of reaching Europe and the Middle Eastern oil-producing regions. It is pouring huge sums into creating an integrated Asian energy and commercial system, with extensive high-speed rail lines and pipelines. [17] Finally to control the economy of Eurasia - the goal of US political leaders as long ago as the US Open Door policy in China in the late 19th century, and the US invasion of Russia in 1918 - the US today is largely responsible for nine wars now going on between north Pakistan and northwest Nigeria – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, southwest Turkey, Yemen, Libya, South Sudan, northeast Nigeria, and Somalia. [18] Forty years ago, the U.S. government withdrew from an illegal war because Americans demanded it: by the late 1960s, polls showed that 70 percent of US citizens regarded the war in Vietnam as not “a mistake,” but as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” [19] We must begin to see today’s American wars as “fundamentally wrong and immoral.” We must demand that President Obama and his successor (probably Clinton) (1) end the drone assassinations; (2) bring all U.S. troops (and weapons) home; (3) close the 1,000 foreign U.S. bases around the world (Russia and China together have no more than twelve); (4) end the provocations of Russia (in eastern Europe) and China (in the South China Sea); (5) end support for Israel's apartheid policy, and stop sending them money and weapons; and (6) support negotiations among the U.S., Russia and their clients to end the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars. [20] In a book on the last presidential campaign, Pres. Obama is quoted as follows: “‘Turns out I'm really good at killing people,’ Obama said quietly. ‘Didn't know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.’” However ironically he meant it, the quote has not been denied by the White House, and it turns out to be true: President Obama has attacked 8 countries (George Bush attacked only 6); his drone assassinations (for which he chooses the targets) have killed thousands of people, including US citizens and hundreds of children; and his special forces are active in no less than 3/4 of the countries of the world - their activities included kidnapping (“rendition”), torture, and murder. There’s a lot of news about US government war-making this week, but you won’t hear much about it in the American media. We’ll mention some of it tonight... On May 31, 2016, at 6:36 PM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: "Two Minutes Hate," from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, is a literally (and figuratively) Orwellian objection to what 'AWARE on the Air' was designed to do - i.e., aid awareness of the wars that the Obama administration is carrying on around the world, despite their largely successful attempt to direct attention away from them. And in that attempt they’ve been aided by liberals employing identity politics - e.g., “You hate Obama!” No, we hate Obama’s mass murders. He lied his way into the job (twice) by pretending he did too. The point was made by the late Alex Cockburn, whom I’m proud to call a friend: "'Is your hate pure?' he would ask a new Nation intern, one eyebrow raised, in merriment or inquisition the intern was unsure. It was a startling question, but then this was—it still is—a startling time. For what the ancients called avarice and iniquity Alex’s hate was pure, and across the years no writer had a deadlier sting against the cruelties and dangerous illusions, the corruptions of empire. But, oh, how much more he was the sum of all he loved.” [JoAnn Wypijewski >] But Ron is nevertheless correct about the format of 'AWARE on the Air': members and friends of AWARE are invited "to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix." And I'll continue with an opening comment about what AWARE is attempting to do as part of the anti-war movement - and why that’s necessary. —CGE […] ________________________________ From: Szoke, Ron > Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 4:55:15 PM To: Jason Liggett Cc: Stuart Levy; Karen Aram; Karen Medina; David Green; David Johnson; Harry Mickalide Subject: Re: May 31, 2016 AWARE on the Air Okay, thanks everyone, for all the warnings, suggestions & advice I’ve been receiving about what to do & how to do it. We’ll be expecting David G., Stuart L., Harry M., & possibly one or two other people. I would like to dispense with the recital of a manifesto & the Two Minutes Hate that has preceded most past programs. But please feel free to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix. Lauren Q. of Mothers Demand Action (against gun violence) said she has a conflict this time. Tuesday, May 31, noon-1 pm, at the Urbana city building, 400 S Vine St. Best wishes, ~~ Ron Szoke _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 2 17:56:50 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:56:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Thursday once again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1712808806.3869397.1464890210737.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> My friend Peggy Aylsworth of Santa Monica, CA, whom I have known for over 50 years since I became friends with her son in what used to be called junior high school, still writes and disseminates a weekly poem at age 95. DG On Thursday, June 2, 2016 12:27 PM, Peggy AYLSWORTH wrote: ​Dears... Perhaps you read the story a few days ago about the Japanese man, a Hiroshima survivor,who spent every weekend for 20 years looking in U.S. phone books to locate the familiesof the 12 American POWs who died when the A bomb was dropped.  This poem is meantto commemorate this exemplary man.. Love...Peggy                                     HONOR TO SHIGEAKI  MORI Hiroshima                        That place           That time                                          The holocaust Americans                        imprisoned              victims                                     of theircountry’s      detonation They never                     tasted                                                                                            my fried cauliflower                            A man              a native                                                 a survivor chose             compassion’s                                           chore       to locate                              over 20years                                                      families of the enemy                          whose sons                                                              had perished                                                  fromthe Bomb  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jun 2 18:34:00 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:34:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Proposed flyer for Saturday's demonstration Message-ID: <2BCC17F8-97EC-4F1D-99AB-93B9940A11CB@newsfromneptune.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer-201606rev1.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 213502 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sat Jun 4 12:05:14 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 07:05:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune, 3 June 2015 Message-ID: <446C2514-49D7-486A-8E79-7F1B056CCC57@newsfromneptune.com> News from Neptune, 3 June 2015, A "Travelers' Tales" Edition Karen Aram, David Green, and C. G. Estabrook discuss the news of the week & its coverage by the media in a program inspired by Noam Chomsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VYm7CYxWEU From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 4 13:52:44 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Today's demo References: <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Given that the rain is predicted to last through most of the afternoon, I would suggest re-scheduling this afternoon's monthly AWARE demonstration in downtown Champaign. David Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:13:55 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:13:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] WAR & STARVATION CONTINUES Message-ID: Amnesty International: People in Faluja/civilians are starving and committing suicide. John Pilger: In the last couple weeks China has noted the US placing guid...ed missiles in the South China Sea. Up to now China has kept separate their weapon from the war heads. Unlike Russia or the US, who have always been on high alert. With Nato provocations on the borders of Russia, and continuing to ring throughout Eastern Europe and the Balkans......Many wars have been started by accident. Join AWARE members and friends today, and every first Saturday of the month, in our demonstration against the many wars for which the US is responsible. Downtown: Champaign, Il at Church & Neil St. intersection, 2:00pm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:13:55 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:13:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] WAR & STARVATION CONTINUES Message-ID: Amnesty International: People in Faluja/civilians are starving and committing suicide. John Pilger: In the last couple weeks China has noted the US placing guid...ed missiles in the South China Sea. Up to now China has kept separate their weapon from the war heads. Unlike Russia or the US, who have always been on high alert. With Nato provocations on the borders of Russia, and continuing to ring throughout Eastern Europe and the Balkans......Many wars have been started by accident. Join AWARE members and friends today, and every first Saturday of the month, in our demonstration against the many wars for which the US is responsible. Downtown: Champaign, Il at Church & Neil St. intersection, 2:00pm. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:16:34 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:16:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Today's demo In-Reply-To: <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com>, <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I don't think we should reschedule. Next week we do the Market and a Prairie Green Meeting. Even if there are just a couple of us, we need to stay on schedule, holding umbrella's in one place under the clock if necessary, in case others show up. People are dying under worse conditions around the world than a little rain. ________________________________ From: Peace on behalf of David Green via Peace Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 8:52:44 AM To: Peace List; Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace] Today's demo Given that the rain is predicted to last through most of the afternoon, I would suggest re-scheduling this afternoon's monthly AWARE demonstration in downtown Champaign. David Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 4 14:34:21 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:34:21 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Today's demo In-Reply-To: References: <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <557141587.4896386.1465050862019.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Yes, but they are also predicting thunderstorms during the 2-4 period. Not safe for anyone to be outside. On Saturday, June 4, 2016 9:17 AM, Karen Aram wrote: #yiv2523165019 #yiv2523165019 -- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}#yiv2523165019 I don't think we should reschedule. Next week we do the Market and a Prairie Green Meeting. Even if there are just a couple of us, we need to stay on schedule, holding umbrella's in one place under the clock if necessary, in case others show up. People are dying under worse conditions around the world than a little rain. From: Peace on behalf of David Green via Peace Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 8:52:44 AM To: Peace List; Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace] Today's demo Given that the rain is predicted to last through most of the afternoon, I would suggest re-scheduling this afternoon's monthly AWARE demonstration in downtown Champaign. David Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:38:51 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:38:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE Demonstration today Message-ID: If someone is not feeling well, then of course they may wish to stay home. I will be there with at least one other person, because I don't mind rain. I often leave early when its too cold or too hot, will play it by ear. We should not reschedule given some people don't receive our email messages. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:38:51 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:38:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE Demonstration today Message-ID: If someone is not feeling well, then of course they may wish to stay home. I will be there with at least one other person, because I don't mind rain. I often leave early when its too cold or too hot, will play it by ear. We should not reschedule given some people don't receive our email messages. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat Jun 4 14:39:02 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:39:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Today's demo In-Reply-To: References: <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4148F9B8-8F1A-4C22-922F-2B6CD05BC1D7@illinois.edu> Karen is right, of course, but I’m afraid I can’t make it this afternoon so won’t vote. Stuart & Karen MEL are away, and the rain is supposed to keep up. We can distribute our usual flyers next week at the Market. > On Jun 4, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I don't think we should reschedule. Next week we do the Market and a Prairie Green Meeting. > > Even if there are just a couple of us, we need to stay on schedule, holding umbrella's in one place under the clock if necessary, in case others show up. People are dying under worse conditions around the world than a little rain. > From: Peace > on behalf of David Green via Peace > > Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 8:52:44 AM > To: Peace List; Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace] Today's demo > > Given that the rain is predicted to last through most of the afternoon, I would suggest re-scheduling this afternoon's monthly AWARE demonstration in downtown Champaign. > > David Green > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Jun 4 14:40:45 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:40:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE Demonstration today In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <967594C9-FB73-4AC8-BD4F-D75D55409B79@illinois.edu> That’s good of you, but don’t risk your health. > On Jun 4, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > If someone is not feeling well, then of course they may wish to stay home. I will be there with at least one other person, because I don't mind rain. I often leave early when its too cold or too hot, will play it by ear. We should not reschedule given some people don't receive our email messages. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:54:00 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 14:54:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Today's demo In-Reply-To: <4148F9B8-8F1A-4C22-922F-2B6CD05BC1D7@illinois.edu> References: <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1343192623.4877075.1465048364459.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> , <4148F9B8-8F1A-4C22-922F-2B6CD05BC1D7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yes, exactly we can distribute flyers next week at the market. But, we shouldn't cancel today. I will be there, Julie will join me. We don't know if Doug will be there, or who might show up. Ron can come with signs or not, its up to him. Julie and I have our own signs. We might seek shelter at some point, in one of the local establishments. ________________________________ From: Carl G. Estabrook Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 9:39:02 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List; David Green Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Today's demo Karen is right, of course, but I'm afraid I can't make it this afternoon so won't vote. Stuart & Karen MEL are away, and the rain is supposed to keep up. We can distribute our usual flyers next week at the Market. On Jun 4, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: I don't think we should reschedule. Next week we do the Market and a Prairie Green Meeting. Even if there are just a couple of us, we need to stay on schedule, holding umbrella's in one place under the clock if necessary, in case others show up. People are dying under worse conditions around the world than a little rain. ________________________________ From: Peace > on behalf of David Green via Peace > Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 8:52:44 AM To: Peace List; Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace] Today's demo Given that the rain is predicted to last through most of the afternoon, I would suggest re-scheduling this afternoon's monthly AWARE demonstration in downtown Champaign. David Green _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 15:35:32 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 15:35:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Todays AWARE Demo in the rain Message-ID: I have 7 signs I will bring, if they get wet no problem, I plan to make new ones anyway. We can leave the usual signs at Stuart's and Karen's home, so they will stay dry and not be ruined. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Sat Jun 4 23:45:25 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration today References: <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> After my initial trepidation, I ended up holding a sign for the full 2 hours. It was a nice day for a demonstration. Lots of amicable horn honking, waving, and smiling from the passers-by. There seems to be a pervasive opposition to war. DG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 4 23:55:40 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 23:55:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration today In-Reply-To: <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry I couldn’t stay, for the two full hours. My blood pressure was sky high, took some meds and got a rest. It was a nice day. On Jun 4, 2016, at 4:45 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: After my initial trepidation, I ended up holding a sign for the full 2 hours. It was a nice day for a demonstration. Lots of amicable horn honking, waving, and smiling from the passers-by. There seems to be a pervasive opposition to war. DG _______________________________________________ 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 Sat Jun 4 23:56:49 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 18:56:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Demonstration today In-Reply-To: <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1253810397.5035483.1465083925428.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7C15B7F9-EE58-459B-A926-B5484704FE8F@illinois.edu> KarenA was right. We weaker brethren applaud your resolve. (I spent the afternoon with a group watching an indifferent movie at the Art.) "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but s/he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value." —CGE > On Jun 4, 2016, at 6:45 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > After my initial trepidation, I ended up holding a sign for the full 2 hours. It was a nice day for a demonstration. Lots of amicable horn honking, waving, and smiling from the passers-by. There seems to be a pervasive opposition to war. > > DG > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cge at shout.net Sun Jun 5 07:58:52 2016 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 02:58:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] July 4th Parade ? In-Reply-To: <00c401d1bd06$f9ff0bf0$edfd23d0$@comcast.net> References: <00c401d1bd06$f9ff0bf0$edfd23d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <61CB3DA6-AAA9-4057-BBDD-235B29B36B6D@shout.net> David— During the Bush-Obama wars, AWARE has had some (sometimes rather elaborate) floats in the July 4 parade, and in recent years AWARE members have marched with other groups. I’d be open to doing that again, but I wouldn’t want to march with people or groups who will eventually be part of a Clinton campaign, even if they consider themselves “progressives.” I think that would contradict what AWARE has stood for - but I could see AWARE being part of what is essentially a ‘Bernie’ coalition. Would that work? I’ll plan to raise the matter at tonight’s AWARE meeting and on peace-discuss and fb. Regards, Carl > On Jun 2, 2016, at 2:43 PM, David Johnson wrote: > > Does AWARE have any plans to have a presence in the 4th of July parade this year ? > > What does everyone think of having a large Left presence in the parade of all of the various organizations in C-U. > > We did this back in 2000, 6-months after the WTO Seattle protests and it was the largest procession in the parade which stretched over one block long. > > Let me know what all of you think and if so, I will help organize it. > > David J. From cge at shout.net Sun Jun 5 09:32:19 2016 From: cge at shout.net (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 04:32:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] July 4th Parade ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On the theme “Celebrate America,” AWARE members could carry posters celebrating Americans’ historic reluctance to go to war. (President John Adams, writing in 1813 about the French revolutionary wars: "The middle third [of the US population] composed principally of the Yeomanry the soundest part of the Nation and always averse to War, were rather luke warm both to England and France.”) Every American war since (and including) the 'War of Independence’ has been opposed by a majority of Americans, who had to be manipulated into war by government leaders. Not just Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy - but also current leaders: the greatest anti-war demonstrations in human history occurred before the invasion of Iraq; and Obama got himself elected (twice) by co-opting the anti-war movement. See the excellent recent collection in the Library of America series, "War No More"; on the ‘hard case’ - the Second World War - see the devastating account by Nicholson Baker, “Human Smoke”; and for the horrors of the current US policy - Obama’s drone program is "the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times” - see Andrew Cockburn, "Kill Chain.” (Maybe we should think about another AWARE reading group on books like these.) [1] "War No More: Three Centuries of American Antiwar and Peace Writing” (2016) ed. Lawrence Rosenwald: ; [2] "Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization” (2008) by Nicholson Baker: ; and [3] "Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins" (2015) by Andrew Cockburn: . Since the Clinton campaign is smearing Americans’ opposition to war as “isolationism,” we should provide some counter to their propaganda for the July 4 march. —CGE > On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:02 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I certainly support a coming together and unification of like minded groups who support the battle against, war, injustice and racism. That might therefore exclude some, just as some groups might object to us. I hope you guys who have done an excellent job in the past, can bring it together in the spirit of cooperation, as you envision. > From: Stuart Levy > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 8:08:41 AM > To: David Johnson; C. G. Estabrook; David Green; Karen Aram; Karen Medina; Stuart Levy > Cc: salevy at Illinois.edu > Subject: RE: July 4th Parade ? > > AWARE hasn't even talked about the parade this year. We should! > > We have organized/participated with other groups more recently. For example two(?) years ago we were part of a Progressive Coalition that included Aware, the PDA and a few other people. But most other potentially interested groups marched on their own. > > Application deadline: June 26th. Theme this year: "Celebrate America". > > Dave, I think this would be a wonderful thing to do! > > Karen and I are out of town until the 16th and can't help much until after then. > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: David Johnson > Date: 06/02/2016 14:43 (GMT-06:00) > To: cge at shout.net,davegreen84 at yahoo.com,karenaram at hotmail.com,kmedina67 at gmail.com,stuartnlevy at gmail.com,salevy at illinois.edu > Subject: July 4th Parade ? > > > Does AWARE have any plans to have a presence in the 4th of July parade this year ? > > What does everyone think of having a large Left presence in the parade of all of the various organizations in C-U. > > We did this back in 2000, 6-months after the WTO Seattle protests and it was the largest procession in the parade which stretched over one block long. > > Let me know what all of you think and if so, I will help organize it. > > David J. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jun 5 18:18:50 2016 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 18:18:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "A Case Against America" Message-ID: <36E9CAE0-F8AD-4ACE-88D6-0680D695A678@illinois.edu> * A Case Against America Kenneth Roth JUNE 9, 2016 ISSUE New York Review of Books Who Rules the World? by Noam Chomsky Metropolitan, 307 pp., $28.00 It is hard to see yourself as others do, all the more so if you are the world’s sole remaining superpower. In unparalleled fashion, the United States today has the capacity to project its military might throughout vast parts of the globe, even if blunders in Iraq and Libya, unresolved crises in Syria and Yemen, and disturbing trends in Russia and China demonstrate the limits of American military power to shape world events. In an increasingly multipolar world, America’s power is far from its dominant heights after World War II, but it is still unmatched. Americans tend to ease any qualms about such military supremacy with self-assurances about US benevolence. Noam Chomsky is at his best in putting those platitudes to rest, seeing an America of hypocrisy and self-interest. Yes, there are times when the United States does good, but Chomsky in his latest book, Who Rules the World?, reminds us of a long list of harms that most Americans would rather forget. His memory is almost entirely negative but it is strong and unsparing. Chomsky reminds us that parallels to America’s tendency to act in its own interest while speaking of more global interests can be found among the powerful throughout history. As predecessors to “American exceptionalism” he cites France’s “civilizing mission” among its colonies and even imperial Japan’s vow to bring “earthly paradise” to China under its tutelage. These past slogans are now widely seen as euphemisms for exploitation and plunder, yet Americans tend to believe that their government acts in the world without similar imperial baggage. Chomsky’s book is not an objective account of the past. It is a polemic designed to awaken Americans from complacency. America, in his view, must be reined in, and he makes the case with verve and self-confident assertion, even if factual details are sometimes selective or scarce. Yet Who Rules the World? is also an infuriating book because it is so partisan that it leaves the reader convinced not of his insights but of the need to hear the other side. It doesn’t help that the book is a collection of previously published essays with no effort to trim the repetitive points that pop up in chapter after chapter. Nor was much attempt made to update earlier chapters in light of later events. The Iranian nuclear accord and the Paris climate deal are mentioned only toward the end of the book, even though the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and climate change appear in earlier chapters. At times Chomsky’s book suffers from simple sloppiness. For example, he reports that “the Obama administration considered reviving military commissions” on Guantánamo when in fact these commissions have been operating there for most of President Barack Obama’s eight years in office. And in certain places it is simply confused, as when Chomsky quotes from a review by Jessica Mathews in these pages and implies that she subscribes to the view that America advances “universal principles” rather than “national interests,” when in fact she was criticizing that perspective as part of her negative review of a book by Bret Stephens.* In some respects, Chomsky’s preoccupation with American power seems out of date because the limits of American power have become so apparent. When we ask “Who rules the world?” and take account of Syrian atrocities, the emergence of the Islamic State, or the mass displacement of refugees, the answer is less likely to be the American superpower than no one. Obama’s foreign policy has been far more about recognizing the limits of US military power than the exercise of that power, but this merits barely a mention by Chomsky. His America is the one of military adventure—the Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs, the Central American conflicts of the 1980s, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the potentially suicidal recklessness of the nuclear arms race. Chomsky’s selective use of history limits his persuasiveness. He blames Middle East turmoil, for example, largely on the World War I–era Sykes-Picot agreement that divided the former Ottoman Empire among British and French colonial powers. He’s right that the borders were drawn arbitrarily, and that the multiethnic and multiconfessional states they produced are difficult to govern, but is that really an adequate explanation of the region’s current turmoil? President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq fits his thesis of American malevolence, and the terrible human costs of the war get mentioned, but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s decision to fight his country’s civil war by targeting civilians in opposition-held areas, killing hundreds of thousands and setting off the flight of several million refugees, does not. Nor does Russia’s decision to back Assad’s murderous shredding of the Geneva Conventions, since Chomsky’s focus is America’s contribution to global suffering, not Vladimir Putin’s. Still, it is useful to read Chomsky because he does undermine the facile if comforting myths that are often used to justify US action abroad—the distinction between, as Chomsky puts it, “what we stand for” and “what we do.” His views are held not only by American critics on the left but also by many people around the world who are more likely to think of themselves as targeted rather than protected by US military power. For example, Americans are rightly appalled by al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11, 2001, which killed some three thousand people, but most Americans have relegated to distant memory what Chomsky calls “the first 9/11”—September 11, 1973—when the US government backed a coup in Chile that brought to power General Augusto Pinochet, who proceeded to execute some three thousand people. As with US actions in Cuba and Vietnam, the US-endorsed overthrow of the socialist government of Chilean President Salvador Allende was meant, in the words of the Nixon administration quoted by Chomsky, to kill the “virus” before it “spread contagion” among those who didn’t want to accommodate the interests of a US-led order. The “virus,” Chomsky writes, “was the idea that there might be a parliamentary path toward some kind of socialist democracy.” He goes on: The way to deal with such a threat was to destroy the virus and inoculate those who might be infected, typically by imposing murderous national-security states. Thus began the US-led redirection of Latin American militaries from external defense to internal security, with the ensuing “dirty wars” and their trails of torture, execution, and forced disappearance. A similar rationale lay behind US actions in Vietnam and the “domino theory” used to rationalize it. Among its most tragic applications was Indonesia’s slaughter in 1965 and 1966 of half a million or more alleged Communists under the guidance of then General and soon-to-be President Suharto. Chomsky describes how this “staggering mass slaughter” was greeted with “unrestrained euphoria” in Washington’s corridors of power. Suharto so successfully swept these extensive crimes under the rug that thirty years later Bill Clinton welcomed him as “our kind of guy.” Indonesia’s current president, Joko Widodo, widely known as Jokowi, has bravely taken initial steps to expose this ugly chapter of his country’s history. Obama could assist him by opening US government archives to reveal the working relationship between CIA and US embassy operatives and the Indonesian forces doing the killing. Chomsky takes on the facile use of the label “terrorism” to describe the actions of one’s enemies but not one’s friends. Why, Chomsky asks, did the US government condemn the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut as an act of terrorism, given that in war a military base is a legitimate military target, but not the Israeli-backed slaughter in 1982 by Lebanese Phalangists of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? To describe any attack by one’s opponent regardless of the target as “terrorism” is to endanger ordinary civilians by blurring the important distinction established by international humanitarian law between combatants and noncombatants. The view, as Chomsky mockingly puts it, that “our terrorism, even if surely terrorism, is benign” is dangerous, since most governments and groups, even the Islamic State, believe they are acting for some conception of the good. Chomsky criticizes the US government for discounting large-scale civilian deaths that are the foreseeable outcome of a policy even if they are not the intent of that policy. The deliberate targeting of civilians is rightfully viewed as a war crime, but what of an attacker who knows that the consequence of an attack on a military target will be substantial civilian deaths? Chomsky cites Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile attack on Sudan’s al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, in the unjustified belief that it was producing chemical weapons, when the attack “apparently led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people” deprived of the drugs it was producing. As is often the case, Chomsky gives no substantiation for this enormous number, but the point remains. Chomsky makes a similar observation about Israel’s bombing of electrical plants in Gaza, which interrupted water supply to Palestinians and helped to cripple Gaza’s economy, and Israel’s West Bank checkpoints, which deprive Palestinians of timely access to emergency medical care. As for promoting democracy abroad, Chomsky says that US support for it “is the province of ideologists and propagandists.” “In the real world,” he explains, “elite dislike of democracy is the norm.” Democracy is supported “only insofar as it contributes to social and economic objectives.” But what happens when the preferences of a nation’s public differ from US objectives—such as what Chomsky describes as the Arab public’s sense that Israel is a greater threat than Iran? In those cases, Chomsky argues, notwithstanding a brief flirtation with the Arab Spring, the US government tends to be amenable to dictatorships that favor warmer relations with the West: Favored dictators must be supported as long as they can maintain control (as in the major oil states). When that is no longer possible, discard them and try to restore the old regime as fully as possible (as in…Egypt). The epitome of this policy, according to Chomsky, was the 2006 decision to “impose harsh penalties on Palestinians for voting the wrong way” and electing Hamas in Gaza. [unknown.jpg] Stephen Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images George W. Bush on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, declaring the end of major fighting in Iraq, May 2003 In the Middle East, Chomsky focuses in particular on US hypocrisy toward Israel. Washington’s attitude toward the West Bank settlements is illustrative. The Carter administration, like most of the world, recognized that the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition on transferring an occupying power’s population to occupied territory. The US government has never repudiated that view but, since the Reagan administration, it has tended to refer to the settlements as only “a barrier to peace.” While the United States has periodically pressed Israel to stop expanding the settlements, that “pretense of opposition reached the level of farce in February 2011, when Obama vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for implementation of official US policy.” Similarly, in May 2014, the United States supported jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Syria (Russia and China vetoed the resolution) but only after insisting that the resolution exempt Israel from any possible liability. That is consistent with US legislation adopted under George W. Bush authorizing an invasion of the Netherlands should any American or allied suspect be brought to The Hague for trial before the ICC. It is also consistent with the Obama administration’s failed pressure on Palestine not to ratify the ICC treaty. Chomsky has one chapter on America’s selective outrage. Americans were outraged when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine, apparently by Russia-backed forces, killing 298 people. But who remembers when the USS Vincennesshot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 people? The Vincennes was in the Persian Gulf at the time to defend the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, then a US ally at war with Iran. In neither case is there reason to believe that the attacker knowingly targeted a civilian aircraft, but the Western response was notably different. Chomsky cites a New York Times report that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the United Nations, “choked up as she spoke of infants who perished” in the Malaysia Airlines crash. But he notes that the commander of the Vincennes and his anti–air warfare officer were given the US Legion of Merit award for “exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service” and for the “calm and professional atmosphere” maintained during the period of the downing. President Reagan blamed the Iranians for the tragedy. Only under the Clinton administration did the US government admit “deep regret” and pay compensation to the victims—facts that Chomsky neglects to mention. Likewise, the US is rightfully outraged at Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians but far more reticent about the large-scale destruction of civilian property and loss of civilian life caused by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Invocations of Hamas using human shields do not begin to account for such likely war crimes as Israel’s targeting of Hamas commanders’ family homes or its use of artillery that had wide effects in densely populated areas. Or to cite another example: the US government rightfully expressed outrage over the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo by Islamist extremists who killed eleven journalists. But as Chomsky points out, there was nothing comparable to the “I am Charlie” campaign when in 1999 during the war with Serbia over Kosovo, NATOdeliberately sent a missile into Serbian state television and radio (RTS) headquarters, killing sixteen journalists. Even though RTS was a propaganda outlet, that did not make it a legitimate military target, yet Washington defended the attack. Chomsky introduces the concept of “living memory”—“a category carefully constructed to include theircrimes against us while scrupulously excluding our crimes against them”—to explain why there was no collection of Western leaders proclaiming “We are RTS.” Even after the Charlie Hebdo attack, while France was portraying itself as a champion of free expression, it prosecuted advocacy of boycotting goods from Israel or its settlements. While Chomsky mostly looks back in time, he does not spare Barack Obama. One of Obama’s first acts as president was to order an end to the CIA’s use of torture, yet Chomsky quotes the journalist Allan Nairn to the effect that Obama “merely repositioned” the United States to the historical norm in which torture is carried out by proxies. But Chomsky gives no evidence of torture by such proxies under Obama. Even before Bush administration lawyers contorted the meaning of the prohibition against torture in the notorious “Torture Memos,” Chomsky notes, the legal defense for the types of mental torture preferred by the Bush CIA, euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” was foreshadowed by the Reagan administration in the form of detailed reservations about the definition of torture in the international Convention against Torture, which were endorsed by the Clinton administration at the time of ratification in 1994. One reason often driving the US government to ignore international norms is a sense of impunity. For example, until recently, only the United States had weaponized drones, so why should the US bother to articulate and respect rules governing their use? But such technological monopolies are inevitably short-lived, and America’s many years of using drones without articulated standards are much more likely to influence how other countries behave when they too have weaponized drones than any belated effort at standard-setting. Chomsky does nothing to contribute to what those standards might be, lapsing into denunciatory language about drone attacks being “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.” He describes “assassination” in violation of “the presumption of innocence” without addressing the obvious retort—that combatants in war can be targeted—or grappling with the central question of whether US drone attacks in places like Yemen and Somalia should be considered acts of war or bound by the more restrictive standards of law enforcement. Groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State certainly have no intention of abiding by international standards. Yet the Geneva Conventions deliberately impose duties regardless of an adversary’s conduct—and for good reason, because otherwise virtually any war would descend into a tit-for-tat spiral of atrocity and retaliation. US compliance with international humanitarian law is all the more important in view of America’s unique superpower status, because its actions are more visible and far-reaching. That makes it all the more lamentable that Obama has refused to authorize prosecution of the CIA torturers or those in the Bush administration who authorized them, thus leaving torture as a policy option for the next US president facing a serious security threat, and setting a disastrous precedent for other countries. Needless to say, many other parts of the world do not accord these actions the presumption of benevolence that Americans are more willing to embrace. How does such hypocrisy persist in US foreign policy? Chomsky provides no clear answer. He alludes to the power of commercial interests in setting Washington’s agenda. He also notes the importance of secrecy. Government secrecy, he explains, “is rarely motivated by a genuine need for security, but it definitely does serve to keep the population in the dark.” As an example, Chomsky cites the National Security Agency’s mass collection of telecommunications metadata—a deeply intrusive program in which the records of many of our most intimate contacts have been stored in government computers and kept available for official inspection. Operating with the benefit of secrecy, government officials claimed the program was needed and had stopped fifty-four terrorist plots. Once the claim was subjected to scrutiny, it turned out that the program, at enormous costs to American taxpayers and their privacy, had identified only one supposed plot—someone who had sent $8,500 to Somalia. Two independent oversight bodies with access to classified information have found that the phone metadata program has provided no unique value in countering terrorist threats. More recently, Chomsky notes that the details of transpacific and transatlantic trade deals have been kept secret from the public but not from “the hundreds of corporate lawyers who are drawing up the detailed provisions.” It is perhaps unfair to challenge an author for what he didn’t write rather than what he did, but given the broad question that Chomsky asks—“Who rules the world?”—I could not help noticing how little of the world he discusses. The book is about the parts of the world where America and its closest allies, such as Israel, assert military power, but Chomsky does not in this book seem interested in the parts of the world where US military power is not exercised and seemingly incapable of making much of a difference. Africa barely appears except as a source of migration—we get no sense of the deadly conflict in South Sudan, the growing turmoil in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, or the murderous rampage of the Islamist group Boko Haram. China is largely ignored. Russia emerges with respect to nuclear issues but little else. South Asia appears mainly as the site of Osama bin Laden’s demise. Chomsky does no more than touch on the issue of migration—one of today’s most complex problems. Without elaboration, he attributes Mexican migration to the United States to Mexican campesinos being forced under the NAFTA agreement to compete with heavily subsidized US agribusiness. He takes no account of Central Americans fleeing drug cartels, or even of the consequences of America’s ill-fated “war on drugs.” He mentions African migration to Europe with a passing, undeveloped reference to European colonialism. Perhaps his most interesting contribution in an otherwise superficial discussion is his recollection that Benjamin Franklin once warned against admitting German and Swedish immigrants to the United States because they were “swarthy” and would tarnish “Anglo-Saxon purity.” We can hope that before long we will regard today’s rampant Islamophobia with equal ridicule. Chomsky concludes by answering the titular question of his book with a question. Beyond asking “Who rules the world?” we should also inquire, “What principles and values rule the world?” It is easy for a superpower to deviate from Kantian principles—to avoid treating its neighbors as it would want to be treated—because it can. No external power can compel a superpower to be principled. That is the task of its citizens. Chomsky offers little in the way of prescription. His book is mainly a critique, as if he cannot envision a positive role for America other than a negation of the harmful ones he highlights. Yet imperfect as the book is, we should understand it as a plea to end American hypocrisy, to introduce a more consistently principled dimension to American relations with the world, and, instead of assuming American benevolence, to scrutinize critically how the US government actually exercises its still-unmatched power. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.gif Type: image/gif Size: 42 bytes Desc: unknown.gif URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unknown.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 495562 bytes Desc: unknown.jpg URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jun 5 18:35:57 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:35:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "A Case Against America" In-Reply-To: <36E9CAE0-F8AD-4ACE-88D6-0680D695A678@illinois.edu> References: <36E9CAE0-F8AD-4ACE-88D6-0680D695A678@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <7C3A9408-5930-4042-9760-98875441CCB9@newsfromneptune.com> "A Case Against America” by Kenneth Roth (New York Review of Books, 9 June 2016) - a review of "Who Rules the World?” by Noam Chomsky - is not really worth much attention, unless it leads one to the read the book ostensibly under review. It’s a typical liberal exercise - “Chomsky is too harsh! He isn’t even-handed between good and evil! He doesn’t strike a liberal balance, which would tend to exculpate US foreign policy!” - i.e., he tells the truth. (Roth is a lawyer from the US-regime friendly Human Rights Watch.) Thus Roth refers to "blunders [sic] in Iraq and Libya, unresolved crises in Syria and Yemen” - rather than to the greatest crimes of the century, committed by the US government. He condemns Chomsky for not being academically clubbable - "so partisan that [he] leaves the reader convinced not of his insights but of the need to hear the other side.” He makes the amazing statement about the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” that "Chomsky’s preoccupation with American power seems out of date because the limits of American power have become so apparent”! (“apparent” - apparently in that US aggression has not eliminated all the enemies of the profits of the US 1%). Roth could give lessons to P. Pilate on political hand-washing - "When we ask 'Who rules the world?' and take account of Syrian atrocities, the emergence of the Islamic State, or the mass displacement of refugees, the answer is less likely to be the American superpower than no one." Although Obama has attacked eight countries - two more than G. Bush - Roth keeps up the current administration’s agitprop that "Obama’s foreign policy has been far more about recognizing the limits of US military power than the exercise of that power." Roth is reduced to outright misrepresentation of what Chomsky has written about extensively, e.g., “[Chomsky] blames Middle East turmoil ... largely on the World War I–era Sykes-Picot agreement that divided the former Ottoman Empire among British and French colonial powers." But he accepts without question the US government account of controverted issues, e.g., "Americans were outraged when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine, apparently by Russia-backed forces, killing 298 people.” And he’s absolutely incoherent on justification of Obama’s drone assassinations, reduced to saying “Groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State certainly have no intention of abiding by international standards” - as if Obama can commit war crimes because the people he’s killing might. --CGE > On Jun 5, 2016, at 1:18 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > • A Case Against America > > Kenneth Roth > JUNE 9, 2016 ISSUE New York Review of Books > > Who Rules the World? > by Noam Chomsky > Metropolitan, 307 pp., $28.00 > > It is hard to see yourself as others do, all the more so if you are the world’s sole remaining superpower. In unparalleled fashion, the United States today has the capacity to project its military might throughout vast parts of the globe, even if blunders in Iraq and Libya, unresolved crises in Syria and Yemen, and disturbing trends in Russia and China demonstrate the limits of American military power to shape world events. In an increasingly multipolar world, America’s power is far from its dominant heights after World War II, but it is still unmatched. > Americans tend to ease any qualms about such military supremacy with self-assurances about US benevolence. Noam Chomsky is at his best in putting those platitudes to rest, seeing an America of hypocrisy and self-interest. Yes, there are times when the United States does good, but Chomsky in his latest book, Who Rules the World?, reminds us of a long list of harms that most Americans would rather forget. His memory is almost entirely negative but it is strong and unsparing. > Chomsky reminds us that parallels to America’s tendency to act in its own interest while speaking of more global interests can be found among the powerful throughout history. As predecessors to “American exceptionalism” he cites France’s “civilizing mission” among its colonies and even imperial Japan’s vow to bring “earthly paradise” to China under its tutelage. These past slogans are now widely seen as euphemisms for exploitation and plunder, yet Americans tend to believe that their government acts in the world without similar imperial baggage. > Chomsky’s book is not an objective account of the past. It is a polemic designed to awaken Americans from complacency. America, in his view, must be reined in, and he makes the case with verve and self-confident assertion, even if factual details are sometimes selective or scarce. > Yet Who Rules the World? is also an infuriating book because it is so partisan that it leaves the reader convinced not of his insights but of the need to hear the other side. It doesn’t help that the book is a collection of previously published essays with no effort to trim the repetitive points that pop up in chapter after chapter. Nor was much attempt made to update earlier chapters in light of later events. The Iranian nuclear accord and the Paris climate deal are mentioned only toward the end of the book, even though the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and climate change appear in earlier chapters. > At times Chomsky’s book suffers from simple sloppiness. For example, he reports that “the Obama administration considered reviving military commissions” on Guantánamo when in fact these commissions have been operating there for most of President Barack Obama’s eight years in office. And in certain places it is simply confused, as when Chomsky quotes from a review by Jessica Mathews in these pages and implies that she subscribes to the view that America advances “universal principles” rather than “national interests,” when in fact she was criticizing that perspective as part of her negative review of a book by Bret Stephens.* > In some respects, Chomsky’s preoccupation with American power seems out of date because the limits of American power have become so apparent. When we ask “Who rules the world?” and take account of Syrian atrocities, the emergence of the Islamic State, or the mass displacement of refugees, the answer is less likely to be the American superpower than no one. Obama’s foreign policy has been far more about recognizing the limits of US military power than the exercise of that power, but this merits barely a mention by Chomsky. His America is the one of military adventure—the Vietnam War, the Bay of Pigs, the Central American conflicts of the 1980s, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the potentially suicidal recklessness of the nuclear arms race. > Chomsky’s selective use of history limits his persuasiveness. He blames Middle East turmoil, for example, largely on the World War I–era Sykes-Picot agreement that divided the former Ottoman Empire among British and French colonial powers. He’s right that the borders were drawn arbitrarily, and that the multiethnic and multiconfessional states they produced are difficult to govern, but is that really an adequate explanation of the region’s current turmoil? President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq fits his thesis of American malevolence, and the terrible human costs of the war get mentioned, but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s decision to fight his country’s civil war by targeting civilians in opposition-held areas, killing hundreds of thousands and setting off the flight of several million refugees, does not. Nor does Russia’s decision to back Assad’s murderous shredding of the Geneva Conventions, since Chomsky’s focus is America’s contribution to global suffering, not Vladimir Putin’s. > > > Still, it is useful to read Chomsky because he does undermine the facile if comforting myths that are often used to justify US action abroad—the distinction between, as Chomsky puts it, “what we stand for” and “what we do.” His views are held not only by American critics on the left but also by many people around the world who are more likely to think of themselves as targeted rather than protected by US military power. > For example, Americans are rightly appalled by al-Qaeda’s attacks on September 11, 2001, which killed some three thousand people, but most Americans have relegated to distant memory what Chomsky calls “the first 9/11”—September 11, 1973—when the US government backed a coup in Chile that brought to power General Augusto Pinochet, who proceeded to execute some three thousand people. As with US actions in Cuba and Vietnam, the US-endorsed overthrow of the socialist government of Chilean President Salvador Allende was meant, in the words of the Nixon administration quoted by Chomsky, to kill the “virus” before it “spread contagion” among those who didn’t want to accommodate the interests of a US-led order. The “virus,” Chomsky writes, “was the idea that there might be a parliamentary path toward some kind of socialist democracy.” He goes on: > The way to deal with such a threat was to destroy the virus and inoculate those who might be infected, typically by imposing murderous national-security states. > Thus began the US-led redirection of Latin American militaries from external defense to internal security, with the ensuing “dirty wars” and their trails of torture, execution, and forced disappearance. > A similar rationale lay behind US actions in Vietnam and the “domino theory” used to rationalize it. Among its most tragic applications was Indonesia’s slaughter in 1965 and 1966 of half a million or more alleged Communists under the guidance of then General and soon-to-be President Suharto. Chomsky describes how this “staggering mass slaughter” was greeted with “unrestrained euphoria” in Washington’s corridors of power. Suharto so successfully swept these extensive crimes under the rug that thirty years later Bill Clinton welcomed him as “our kind of guy.” Indonesia’s current president, Joko Widodo, widely known as Jokowi, has bravely taken initial steps to expose this ugly chapter of his country’s history. Obama could assist him by opening US government archives to reveal the working relationship between CIA and US embassy operatives and the Indonesian forces doing the killing. > Chomsky takes on the facile use of the label “terrorism” to describe the actions of one’s enemies but not one’s friends. Why, Chomsky asks, did the US government condemn the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut as an act of terrorism, given that in war a military base is a legitimate military target, but not the Israeli-backed slaughter in 1982 by Lebanese Phalangists of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps? To describe any attack by one’s opponent regardless of the target as “terrorism” is to endanger ordinary civilians by blurring the important distinction established by international humanitarian law between combatants and noncombatants. The view, as Chomsky mockingly puts it, that “our terrorism, even if surely terrorism, is benign” is dangerous, since most governments and groups, even the Islamic State, believe they are acting for some conception of the good. > Chomsky criticizes the US government for discounting large-scale civilian deaths that are the foreseeable outcome of a policy even if they are not the intent of that policy. The deliberate targeting of civilians is rightfully viewed as a war crime, but what of an attacker who knows that the consequence of an attack on a military target will be substantial civilian deaths? Chomsky cites Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile attack on Sudan’s al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant, in the unjustified belief that it was producing chemical weapons, when the attack “apparently led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people” deprived of the drugs it was producing. As is often the case, Chomsky gives no substantiation for this enormous number, but the point remains. Chomsky makes a similar observation about Israel’s bombing of electrical plants in Gaza, which interrupted water supply to Palestinians and helped to cripple Gaza’s economy, and Israel’s West Bank checkpoints, which deprive Palestinians of timely access to emergency medical care. > As for promoting democracy abroad, Chomsky says that US support for it “is the province of ideologists and propagandists.” “In the real world,” he explains, “elite dislike of democracy is the norm.” Democracy is supported “only insofar as it contributes to social and economic objectives.” But what happens when the preferences of a nation’s public differ from US objectives—such as what Chomsky describes as the Arab public’s sense that Israel is a greater threat than Iran? In those cases, Chomsky argues, notwithstanding a brief flirtation with the Arab Spring, the US government tends to be amenable to dictatorships that favor warmer relations with the West: > Favored dictators must be supported as long as they can maintain control (as in the major oil states). When that is no longer possible, discard them and try to restore the old regime as fully as possible (as in…Egypt). > The epitome of this policy, according to Chomsky, was the 2006 decision to “impose harsh penalties on Palestinians for voting the wrong way” and electing Hamas in Gaza. > > Stephen Jaffe/AFP/Getty Images > > George W. Bush on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, declaring the end of major fighting in Iraq, May 2003 > In the Middle East, Chomsky focuses in particular on US hypocrisy toward Israel. Washington’s attitude toward the West Bank settlements is illustrative. The Carter administration, like most of the world, recognized that the settlements violate the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibition on transferring an occupying power’s population to occupied territory. The US government has never repudiated that view but, since the Reagan administration, it has tended to refer to the settlements as only “a barrier to peace.” While the United States has periodically pressed Israel to stop expanding the settlements, that “pretense of opposition reached the level of farce in February 2011, when Obama vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling for implementation of official US policy.” > Similarly, in May 2014, the United States supported jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Syria (Russia and China vetoed the resolution) but only after insisting that the resolution exempt Israel from any possible liability. That is consistent with US legislation adopted under George W. Bush authorizing an invasion of the Netherlands should any American or allied suspect be brought to The Hague for trial before the ICC. It is also consistent with the Obama administration’s failed pressure on Palestine not to ratify the ICC treaty. > Chomsky has one chapter on America’s selective outrage. Americans were outraged when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down in eastern Ukraine, apparently by Russia-backed forces, killing 298 people. But who remembers when the USS Vincennesshot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 people? The Vincennes was in the Persian Gulf at the time to defend the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, then a US ally at war with Iran. In neither case is there reason to believe that the attacker knowingly targeted a civilian aircraft, but the Western response was notably different. > Chomsky cites a New York Times report that Samantha Power, US ambassador to the United Nations, “choked up as she spoke of infants who perished” in the Malaysia Airlines crash. But he notes that the commander of the Vincennes and his anti–air warfare officer were given the US Legion of Merit award for “exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service” and for the “calm and professional atmosphere” maintained during the period of the downing. President Reagan blamed the Iranians for the tragedy. Only under the Clinton administration did the US government admit “deep regret” and pay compensation to the victims—facts that Chomsky neglects to mention. > Likewise, the US is rightfully outraged at Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians but far more reticent about the large-scale destruction of civilian property and loss of civilian life caused by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Invocations of Hamas using human shields do not begin to account for such likely war crimes as Israel’s targeting of Hamas commanders’ family homes or its use of artillery that had wide effects in densely populated areas. > Or to cite another example: the US government rightfully expressed outrage over the murderous attack on Charlie Hebdo by Islamist extremists who killed eleven journalists. But as Chomsky points out, there was nothing comparable to the “I am Charlie” campaign when in 1999 during the war with Serbia over Kosovo, NATOdeliberately sent a missile into Serbian state television and radio (RTS) headquarters, killing sixteen journalists. Even though RTS was a propaganda outlet, that did not make it a legitimate military target, yet Washington defended the attack. Chomsky introduces the concept of “living memory”—“a category carefully constructed to include theircrimes against us while scrupulously excluding our crimes against them”—to explain why there was no collection of Western leaders proclaiming “We are RTS.” Even after the Charlie Hebdo attack, while France was portraying itself as a champion of free expression, it prosecuted advocacy of boycotting goods from Israel or its settlements. > While Chomsky mostly looks back in time, he does not spare Barack Obama. One of Obama’s first acts as president was to order an end to the CIA’s use of torture, yet Chomsky quotes the journalist Allan Nairn to the effect that Obama “merely repositioned” the United States to the historical norm in which torture is carried out by proxies. But Chomsky gives no evidence of torture by such proxies under Obama. Even before Bush administration lawyers contorted the meaning of the prohibition against torture in the notorious “Torture Memos,” Chomsky notes, the legal defense for the types of mental torture preferred by the Bush CIA, euphemistically called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” was foreshadowed by the Reagan administration in the form of detailed reservations about the definition of torture in the international Convention against Torture, which were endorsed by the Clinton administration at the time of ratification in 1994. > One reason often driving the US government to ignore international norms is a sense of impunity. For example, until recently, only the United States had weaponized drones, so why should the US bother to articulate and respect rules governing their use? But such technological monopolies are inevitably short-lived, and America’s many years of using drones without articulated standards are much more likely to influence how other countries behave when they too have weaponized drones than any belated effort at standard-setting. > Chomsky does nothing to contribute to what those standards might be, lapsing into denunciatory language about drone attacks being “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times.” He describes “assassination” in violation of “the presumption of innocence” without addressing the obvious retort—that combatants in war can be targeted—or grappling with the central question of whether US drone attacks in places like Yemen and Somalia should be considered acts of war or bound by the more restrictive standards of law enforcement. > Groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State certainly have no intention of abiding by international standards. Yet the Geneva Conventions deliberately impose duties regardless of an adversary’s conduct—and for good reason, because otherwise virtually any war would descend into a tit-for-tat spiral of atrocity and retaliation. US compliance with international humanitarian law is all the more important in view of America’s unique superpower status, because its actions are more visible and far-reaching. > That makes it all the more lamentable that Obama has refused to authorize prosecution of the CIA torturers or those in the Bush administration who authorized them, thus leaving torture as a policy option for the next US president facing a serious security threat, and setting a disastrous precedent for other countries. Needless to say, many other parts of the world do not accord these actions the presumption of benevolence that Americans are more willing to embrace. > How does such hypocrisy persist in US foreign policy? Chomsky provides no clear answer. He alludes to the power of commercial interests in setting Washington’s agenda. He also notes the importance of secrecy. Government secrecy, he explains, “is rarely motivated by a genuine need for security, but it definitely does serve to keep the population in the dark.” As an example, Chomsky cites the National Security Agency’s mass collection of telecommunications metadata—a deeply intrusive program in which the records of many of our most intimate contacts have been stored in government computers and kept available for official inspection. Operating with the benefit of secrecy, government officials claimed the program was needed and had stopped fifty-four terrorist plots. > Once the claim was subjected to scrutiny, it turned out that the program, at enormous costs to American taxpayers and their privacy, had identified only one supposed plot—someone who had sent $8,500 to Somalia. Two independent oversight bodies with access to classified information have found that the phone metadata program has provided no unique value in countering terrorist threats. More recently, Chomsky notes that the details of transpacific and transatlantic trade deals have been kept secret from the public but not from “the hundreds of corporate lawyers who are drawing up the detailed provisions.” > It is perhaps unfair to challenge an author for what he didn’t write rather than what he did, but given the broad question that Chomsky asks—“Who rules the world?”—I could not help noticing how little of the world he discusses. The book is about the parts of the world where America and its closest allies, such as Israel, assert military power, but Chomsky does not in this book seem interested in the parts of the world where US military power is not exercised and seemingly incapable of making much of a difference. Africa barely appears except as a source of migration—we get no sense of the deadly conflict in South Sudan, the growing turmoil in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, or the murderous rampage of the Islamist group Boko Haram. China is largely ignored. Russia emerges with respect to nuclear issues but little else. South Asia appears mainly as the site of Osama bin Laden’s demise. > Chomsky does no more than touch on the issue of migration—one of today’s most complex problems. Without elaboration, he attributes Mexican migration to the United States to Mexican campesinos being forced under the NAFTA agreement to compete with heavily subsidized US agribusiness. He takes no account of Central Americans fleeing drug cartels, or even of the consequences of America’s ill-fated “war on drugs.” He mentions African migration to Europe with a passing, undeveloped reference to European colonialism. Perhaps his most interesting contribution in an otherwise superficial discussion is his recollection that Benjamin Franklin once warned against admitting German and Swedish immigrants to the United States because they were “swarthy” and would tarnish “Anglo-Saxon purity.” We can hope that before long we will regard today’s rampant Islamophobia with equal ridicule. > Chomsky concludes by answering the titular question of his book with a question. Beyond asking “Who rules the world?” we should also inquire, “What principles and values rule the world?” It is easy for a superpower to deviate from Kantian principles—to avoid treating its neighbors as it would want to be treated—because it can. No external power can compel a superpower to be principled. That is the task of its citizens. > Chomsky offers little in the way of prescription. His book is mainly a critique, as if he cannot envision a positive role for America other than a negation of the harmful ones he highlights. Yet imperfect as the book is, we should understand it as a plea to end American hypocrisy, to introduce a more consistently principled dimension to American relations with the world, and, instead of assuming American benevolence, to scrutinize critically how the US government actually exercises its still-unmatched power. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jun 6 14:30:37 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Celebrate America" & Americans' opposition to war Message-ID: The theme of this year’s July 4 parade in C-U is “Celebrate America.” I suggest we celebrate Americans’ historic reluctance to fight wars. They have had to manipulated - and lied - into it from the beginning: AMERICAN ‘WAR OF INDEPENDENCE’ 1775-83 American leaders encourage separation from Britain not for ‘liberty’ but to protect the slave economy from British threats to abolish it AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1860-65 Lincoln and the Republicans attack the South not to free the slaves but to bring the whole country’s economy under Northern control (“a house divided”) WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Pres. Wilson is re-elected in 1916 on the slogan, “He kept us out of war!” - while he is scheming with NY banks to get the U.S. into the First World War (cf. Creel Commission) WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Pres. Roosevelt uses Pearl Harbor (probably known in advance) to get an anti-war public to continue the fight for US economic control of the Pacific KOREA 1950-53 Pres. Truman, having used the atomic bombs to show US military superiority to the post-WWI world, uses Russia & China to “scare hell out of the American people” & continue war economy VIETNAM 1962-75 Pres. Kennedy carpet-bombs & sends troops to deter “the threat of a good example” - a post-colonial society developing outside US world economic control (‘domino theory’) TERROR WARS I: CENTRAL AMERICA 1981-96 Pres. Reagan plans to do in Central America what Kennedy did in SE Asia but is prevented by post-Vietnam anti-war sentiment; instead sponsors proxy wars throughout the region TERROR WARS II: MIDEAST 1991-ongoing Pres. Bush I attacks Iraq in 1991 to “kick the Vietnam syndrome” [= the public’s aversion to war] & begin a generation of US attacks on the Mideast to control its energy resources. =================================== "The middle third [of the white male US population is] composed principally of the Yeomanry, the soundest part of the Nation and always averse to War.” --President John Adams, 1813 —CGE From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jun 6 14:30:37 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 09:30:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Celebrate America" & Americans' opposition to war Message-ID: The theme of this year’s July 4 parade in C-U is “Celebrate America.” I suggest we celebrate Americans’ historic reluctance to fight wars. They have had to manipulated - and lied - into it from the beginning: AMERICAN ‘WAR OF INDEPENDENCE’ 1775-83 American leaders encourage separation from Britain not for ‘liberty’ but to protect the slave economy from British threats to abolish it AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1860-65 Lincoln and the Republicans attack the South not to free the slaves but to bring the whole country’s economy under Northern control (“a house divided”) WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Pres. Wilson is re-elected in 1916 on the slogan, “He kept us out of war!” - while he is scheming with NY banks to get the U.S. into the First World War (cf. Creel Commission) WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Pres. Roosevelt uses Pearl Harbor (probably known in advance) to get an anti-war public to continue the fight for US economic control of the Pacific KOREA 1950-53 Pres. Truman, having used the atomic bombs to show US military superiority to the post-WWI world, uses Russia & China to “scare hell out of the American people” & continue war economy VIETNAM 1962-75 Pres. Kennedy carpet-bombs & sends troops to deter “the threat of a good example” - a post-colonial society developing outside US world economic control (‘domino theory’) TERROR WARS I: CENTRAL AMERICA 1981-96 Pres. Reagan plans to do in Central America what Kennedy did in SE Asia but is prevented by post-Vietnam anti-war sentiment; instead sponsors proxy wars throughout the region TERROR WARS II: MIDEAST 1991-ongoing Pres. Bush I attacks Iraq in 1991 to “kick the Vietnam syndrome” [= the public’s aversion to war] & begin a generation of US attacks on the Mideast to control its energy resources. =================================== "The middle third [of the white male US population is] composed principally of the Yeomanry, the soundest part of the Nation and always averse to War.” --President John Adams, 1813 —CGE From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jun 6 16:38:04 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:38:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Invitation to 'AWARE on the Air, ' Tuesdays at noon, at Urbana Public TV, 400 Vine St., Urbana Message-ID: Members and friends of the 'Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana’ (AWARE) are invited to participate in the weekly TV program, ‘AWARE on the Air.’ The hour-long program is an unrehearsed panel discussion of the US government’s wars and the attendant racism (including Islamophobia, support for racist states, and the economic draft of people of color into the US military). We record at noon on Tuesdays in the Urbana City Building, 400 South Vine Street, Urbana. The program is cable-cast at 10pm Tuesdays (channel 6) and is always available on YouTube. AWARE was established almost 15 years ago, after the counter-attacks in New York and Washington on 9/11/2001. The founders of AWARE were citizens of Champaign-Urbana who realized that the US government would use the 9/11 crimes to justify its already long-standing attempt to exercise military control over the Middle East and its energy resources. The US doesn’t need oil from the Mideast, but Mideast gas and oil are needed by America’s economic competitors in Europe and Asia, and so control over them gives the US a major advantage over China, Germany, and other countries; that control benefits only the American economic elite - the one percent - and not Americans in general, who pay for war while they've watched wealth concentrate in fewer and fewer hands - at an accelerating rate - over a generation In almost 15 years of continuous war around the world since 9/11, the Bush-Obama administrations have killed more than a million people; the Obama administration continues the killing today. The focus of our program is opposition to the ongoing US wars, but as one regular panelist says, "please feel free to recite, declaim, denounce, rant & sing as you like for some 10–15 minutes, & we’ll see what comes out of the mix." The next taping will be Tuesday 7 June at noon in the UPTV studios. Please join us. —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue Jun 7 15:19:11 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:19:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FYI Nuclear power Message-ID: The Department of Energy is conducting an eight-city national tour aimed at gathering public feedback on the issue of where to store nuclear waste. The agency has launched a so-called consent-based siting model to determine where to store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. At a hearing in Boston Thursday, Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear raised objections to the process. Paul Gunter: "How does the public in the affected community build trust when the Department of Energy itself is a promotional agency doing the bidding of the nuclear industry by direct promotion, and that the whole process going forward to date has lacked consent? There's never been consent with regard to generation of nuclear waste." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue Jun 7 15:39:01 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:39:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FYI Nuclear power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The waste-storage issue has become a political problem, not a science based issue. Gunter’s statement that the department of energy does the bidding of the nuclear industry is without foundation, simply his bias. Some so-called environmentalists have become Luddites. —mkb . On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The Department of Energy is conducting an eight-city national tour aimed at gathering public feedback on the issue of where to store nuclear waste. The agency has launched a so-called consent-based siting model to determine where to store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. At a hearing in Boston Thursday, Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear raised objections to the process. Paul Gunter: "How does the public in the affected community build trust when the Department of Energy itself is a promotional agency doing the bidding of the nuclear industry by direct promotion, and that the whole process going forward to date has lacked consent? There’s never been consent with regard to generation of nuclear waste." _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jun 7 16:26:46 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:26:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FYI Nuclear power In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Just looking at what the Environmental Protection Agency has become, a supporter of corporate interests, you're right its all very political, with concerns for profit, not safety. It's not about the science. ________________________________ From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 10:39:01 AM To: Karen Aram Cc: Robert Naiman; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FYI Nuclear power The waste-storage issue has become a political problem, not a science based issue. Gunter's statement that the department of energy does the bidding of the nuclear industry is without foundation, simply his bias. Some so-called environmentalists have become Luddites. -mkb . On Jun 7, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The Department of Energy is conducting an eight-city national tour aimed at gathering public feedback on the issue of where to store nuclear waste. The agency has launched a so-called consent-based siting model to determine where to store spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. At a hearing in Boston Thursday, Paul Gunter of Beyond Nuclear raised objections to the process. Paul Gunter: "How does the public in the affected community build trust when the Department of Energy itself is a promotional agency doing the bidding of the nuclear industry by direct promotion, and that the whole process going forward to date has lacked consent? There's never been consent with regard to generation of nuclear waste." _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Jun 8 15:53:41 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 15:53:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AOTA yesterday Message-ID: David, While I do agree that trials of criminals in relation to human rights abuses should include western criminals as well as African leaders, I applaud Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, for her coverage of the verdict against the former Chad dictator Hababre on June 2nd., as she made it clear that this brutal dictator was supported during his reign by the US government, and he was not tried in the ICC, but in a African court in Senegal, by the victims of his crimes. It sends a message to all "dictators" protected by the US that once we don't need you, or if as in the case of so many others you don't do our bidding, you are disposable. Granted, it's not perfect and I have no doubt there are flaws in this system, and he maybe a scapegoat. The fact that Kerry and the Washington Post commented on it, is suspicious. However, I don't think Amy deserves criticism for this, I reserve my criticism of her for not focusing on the greatest danger facing the world today. Nato on the border of Russia and US provocations in the S.China Sea. Too much focus on identity politics and the interests of the audience, which is never true journalism. See below: Chad is a mostly desert country in northern Africa that was under French colonial rule from 1900 to 1960. Sectarian warfare followed. U.S. President Ronald Reagan supported a coup in Chad, led by Hissene Habre, despite knowing his record of brutality. Habre had a mass grave behind his residence. He ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, and he terrorized his critics, both real and imagined. More than 40,000 people were killed, many tortured in the notorious "Piscine," or "the Pool," a prison and torture center located in a converted swimming pool. In 2001, 11 years after Habre fled to Senegal (taking most of Chad's national treasury with him), an intrepid attorney with Human Rights Watch, Reed Brody, entered the abandoned headquarters of Habre's notorious secret police force, the DDS. What he found there was astounding: thousands upon thousands of documents, dust-covered and forgotten, that detailed arrests, torture and killing of more than 13,000 of Habre's victims. This documentary evidence, along with unrelenting organizing among the victims themselves, by people like prison survivor Souleymane Guengueng, led to the first trial in an African nation of a former head of state from another African nation. In the past, such trials have taken place in international tribunals, outside of the continent. Senegal formed a special court specifically to try his case. "It hurts me that many of my colleagues died along the way. They could not be here to see the result, which is why I was moved and brought to tears," Souleymane Guengueng said after the verdict was read. "Hissene Habre was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will finish off his life in prison, and that's all we wanted. I hope this serves as a lesson to all the other dictators out there." Bignone and the Argentine junta, and Hissene Habre, could not have committed their atrocities were it not for the support of the U.S. government. Secretary of State John Kerry called Habre's verdict "an opportunity for the United States to reflect on, and learn from, our own connection with past events in Chad." The U.S. should definitely reflect on, and learn from, these guilty verdicts. But we also should investigate, charge and put on trial U.S. government officials who aided and abetted these dictators. We need a uniform standard of justice, applied equally, across the globe. not the ICC, but it sends a message to all leaders of crimes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 8 16:36:17 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] AOTA yesterday In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <167360550.584035.1465403778095.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Fair enough, Karen. I spoke mainly from a general cynicism rather than a specific understanding of the situation; I was mistaken that he was tried in Europe, my bad. And perhaps Reed Brody should replace Kenneth Roth as head of HRW; but there I go again. On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 10:55 AM, Karen Aram wrote: David, While I do agree that trials of criminals in relation to human rights abuses should include western criminals as well as African leaders, I applaud Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, for her coverage of the verdict against the former Chad dictator Hababre on June 2nd., as she made it clear that this brutal dictator was supported during his reign by the US government, and he was not tried in the ICC, but in a African court in Senegal, by the victims of his crimes. It sends a message to all "dictators" protected by the US that once we don't need you, or if as in the case of so many others you don't do our bidding, you are disposable. Granted, it's not perfect and I have no doubt there are flaws in this system, and he maybe a scapegoat. The fact that Kerry and the Washington Post commented on it, is suspicious.  However, I don't think Amy deserves criticism for this, I reserve my criticism of her for not focusing on the greatest danger facing the world today. Nato on the border of Russia and US provocations in the S.China Sea. Too much focus on identity politics and the interests of the audience, which is never true journalism. See below:Chad is a mostly desert country in northern Africa that was under French colonial rule from 1900 to 1960. Sectarian warfare followed. U.S. President Ronald Reagan supported a coup in Chad, led by Hissene Habre, despite knowing his record of brutality. Habre had a mass grave behind his residence. He ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, and he terrorized his critics, both real and imagined. More than 40,000 people were killed, many tortured in the notorious “Piscine,” or “the Pool,” a prison and torture center located in a converted swimming pool.In 2001, 11 years after Habre fled to Senegal (taking most of Chad’s national treasury with him), an intrepid attorney with Human Rights Watch, Reed Brody, entered the abandoned headquarters of Habre’s notorious secret police force, theDDS. What he found there was astounding: thousands upon thousands of documents, dust-covered and forgotten, that detailed arrests, torture and killing of more than 13,000 of Habre’s victims. This documentary evidence, along with unrelenting organizing among the victims themselves, by people like prison survivor Souleymane Guengueng, led to the first trial in an African nation of a former head of state from another African nation. In the past, such trials have taken place in international tribunals, outside of the continent. Senegal formed a special court specifically to try his case.“It hurts me that many of my colleagues died along the way. They could not be here to see the result, which is why I was moved and brought to tears,” Souleymane Guengueng said after the verdict was read. “Hissene Habre was sentenced to life imprisonment. He will finish off his life in prison, and that’s all we wanted. I hope this serves as a lesson to all the other dictators out there.”Bignone and the Argentine junta, and Hissene Habre, could not have committed their atrocities were it not for the support of the U.S. government. Secretary of State John Kerry called Habre’s verdict “an opportunity for the United States to reflect on, and learn from, our own connection with past events in Chad.” The U.S. should definitely reflect on, and learn from, these guilty verdicts. But we also should investigate, charge and put on trial U.S. government officials who aided and abetted these dictators. We need a uniform standard of justice, applied equally, across the globe. not the ICC, but it sends a message to all leaders of crimes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Thu Jun 9 00:20:12 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:20:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR SAT. JUNE 11th References: <00b701d1c1df$69e4dfd0$3dae9f70$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <00d701d1c1e4$b3118870$19349950$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY JUNE 11th 11 AM - 1PM U.S. Central Time 90.1 FM and webcast LIVE world-wide at ; www.weft.org STEPHANIE SEAWELL Past President of the GEO Graduate Employees Union at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign and current Staff person for the ILLINOIS LABOR HISTORY SOCIETY, will discuss past and current projects of the Illinois Labor History Society including a soon to open Mother Jones museum in Mount Olive Illinois. Stay tuned after the World Labor Hour for THE UNION EDGE , broadcast from Pittsburgh Pa. with Host Charles Showalter. WEFT - Listener supported community radio for Central Illinois and the WORLD. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jun 12 12:59:51 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:59:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: [New post] The Chronic Problem of Single-Issue Politics In-Reply-To: <61854989.1312.0@wordpress.com> References: <61854989.1312.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: The article below chronicles single issues in Thailand, which is a problem everywhere, unless the single issue concerned peoples, unite with one another to change the capitalist system there isn't much hope for any of us in this world of ever increasing violence and poverty. ________________________________ From: Uglytruth-Thailand Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 3:00 AM To: karenaram at hotmail.com Subject: [New post] The Chronic Problem of Single-Issue Politics uglytruththailand posted: "Giles Ji Ungpakorn Single-issue politics has been a chronic problem which has dogged the Thai movements for many years. The root cause of this debilitating disease started with the collapse of the Stalinist communist parties and the rejection of what t" 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 Chronic Problem of Single-Issue Politics by uglytruththailand Giles Ji Ungpakorn Single-issue politics has been a chronic problem which has dogged the Thai movements for many years. The root cause of this debilitating disease started with the collapse of the Stalinist communist parties and the rejection of what the Post Modernists and Anarchists called “Grand Political Theories or Narratives”. When the Communist Party of Thailand collapsed in the mid-1980s, activists turned towards single-issue campaigns along with a rejection of politics and the need to overthrow the repressive state. They may have kidded themselves that they could somehow turn their backs on the state or steer a path round the state, as advocated by people such as John Holloway or Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt, but reality they just transformed themselves into NGO lobbyists. These NGO activists were happy to lobby anyone in power, irrespective of whether they were democratically elected or military juntas. They also ignored the politics of the powerful elites and rejected the idea of class. Therefore Thai NGO activists, who called themselves “the peoples’ movement”, enthusiastically lobbied Taksin’s government. When the Taksin government out-manoeuvred them with its pro-poor policies and also threatened them with mild repression, they became disenchanted with Taksin. As a result they chose to make an alliance with the most backward and conservative elements among the powerful elite, forming the royalist yellow-shirt “Peoples’ Alliance for Democracy”. They celebrated when the military eventually overthrew Taksin in the 2006 military coup. Some members of international NGOs based in Thailand, such as “Focus on Global South”, supported this reactionary position. The Thai NGOs continued along this path, trying to work with or lobby various dictatorships and some even joined with Sutep Tuaksuban’s anti-democratic mob. Lately the NGOs have become “disappointed” in the junta’s reforms. What a farce! The NGOs may or may not have learnt a lesson about supporting the destruction of democracy, but most have not given up their single-issue politics. Some of the recent NGO critics of the junta’s draft constitution, especially those concerned with health issues, have merely concentrated on their own single issues in their opposition. Instead they should be combining a general analysis about the destruction of democracy with a multitude of concrete issues to build a big picture criticism of the junta’s plans. This big picture analysis should go beyond the crude listing of all the various single issues in one place, as NGO coordinating networks tend to do. It should explain why all the issues are linked to the political and economic system. In terms of the present draft military constitution links must be made to military rule and the destruction of democracy since 2006. When I was involved with the Thai Social Forum in Bangkok in 2006 I and my comrades tried to promote the inter-linking of various issues but experienced stiff resistance from most Thai NGOs. The problem of "single-issue cretinism" is not confined to just some NGOs. On International Workers’ Day this year the “New Democracy Movement” issued an 8 point statement about why workers should reject the constitution. It was a dumbed-down document which merely talked about workers’ bread and butter issues. It failed to mention the attack on the universal health care system, presumably because they thought it was “nothing to do with workers” who have their own national insurance scheme. Yet workers’ families rely on the universal health care system. The worst offence by the “New Democracy Movement” was a failure to mention the problem of prolonging the dictatorship and the destruction of democracy. It was like they assumed that workers were too stupid to understand general big-picture politics. The labour movement in Thailand contains progressive groups who have a big picture analysis of politics and have already rejected the military junta. Yet the “New Democracy Movement” ignored them and chose instead to take up a position alongside the most backward elements of the labour movement who reject or ignore politics. This is such a shame because the “New Democracy Movement” has a good record of organising anti-dictatorship events, the latest of which, was the recent march to the democracy monument on the anniversary of Prayut's coup. One aspect of the NGO-style single-issue disease is that the former leadership of the railway workers union also supported the yellow-shirts and celebrated the 2006 military coup because they hated Taksin. But now the military have turned on them, threatening sections of the railways with privatisation. Of course, Taksin would have done the same as the military, but there was no excuse for the support given to the reactionaries. Political theories and strategies have real concrete effects. It is not just an academic debate. We need a revolutionary Marxist party in Thailand that can act as a bridge to link all the various single bread and butter issues with a class analysis of Thai capitalism in order to agitate for fundamental change. Such a party would also be at the forefront of building a mass social movement to get rid of the military. This is something we are trying to do, but so far the progress is painfully slow. Further Reading http://bit.ly/1UpZbhh On Thai NGOs and their politics http://bit.ly/1TdKKYs "Thailand's Crisis and the Fight for Democracy" uglytruththailand | June 12, 2016 at 8:00 am | Tags: constitution, Giles Ji Ungpakorn, labour movement, Military junta, NGOs, single-issue politics | Categories: Thai politics | URL: http://wp.me/p4bxj7-la 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/2016/06/12/the-chronic-problem-of-single-issue-politics/ 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 Jun 12 14:18:29 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 10:18:29 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: If you support Bernie, take action now References: <2866981871.756766997@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: <395289A7-A055-4CB4-87BE-11E053A9A30F@newsfromneptune.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: RootsAction Team > Date: June 12, 2016 at 9:46:47 AM EDT > To: carl at newsfromneptune.com > Subject: If you support Bernie, take action now > Reply-To: info at rootsaction.org > > > > > > Let It Bern. > Continue to the Convention. > > > > > > Share this action on Facebook > Share this action on Twitter > > A petition is launching to tell Bernie Sanders: "We urge you to complete the process of fully representing ​the millions of people who've worked​, ​donated and voted for you." > > To add your name to this urgent message, click here. > > The petition says: "We hope that you will resist the latest ​calls ​from the Democratic Party establishment and corporate media ​to end our campaign before the national convention​​." > > At this crucial time, express that hope directly to Bernie. > > The petition notes that the Bernie Sanders campaign "has clearly stood for democratizing the United States, while insisting that democratic principles must apply to the Democratic Party." > > And the petition adds: "We believe that every vote should count -- including on the convention floor. That should mean a roll call vote on the nominee for president as part of an official process, including the nominating and seconding speeches." > > If you agree, become a signer now! > > As the petition says, "We reject the idea that democracy weakens a political party named for democracy." > > After signing the petition, please use the tools on the next webpage to share it with your friends. > > This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. > > -- The RootsAction.org Team > > P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. > > Background: > > Bill Moyers, Michael Winship: Wasserman Schultz Has a Change of Heart, But Too Little, Too Late > > Norman Solomon: RootsAction.org co-founder on Democracy Now this week, debating the best path forward > > > > www.RootsAction.org > > > > Click here to unsubscribe and stop ALL email from RootsAction. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 02:05:00 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 02:05:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: RT discussion - June 12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ________________________________ Dear Friends, We invite you to Continue the Conversation that the film Racial Taboo helped us begin last December as we nurture friendships and discuss ways to recognize and eliminate racial prejudice in Champaign-Urbana. Our next scheduled meeting at the Bahá'í Center in Urbana is this weekend: Sunday, June 12 4:00 to 5:30pm Bahá'í Center 807 E. Green Street Urbana We are discussing action items from last week's session. Hope to see you there. Everyone is welcome! Amy Amy Felty 217-637-3125 ** Stone Creek Church in Urbana is showing the film Racial Taboo this summer: Friday, July 22 6:30pm - supper 7:00pm - the film begins 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 03:43:49 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:43:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE cosponsorship of July 9th Kathy Kelly event ... ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5c1a17db-c3ec-99ca-e048-86ac89a025f4@gmail.com> Hello AWARE people, Is AWARE willing to sign on as a co-sponsor to this event, with *Kathy Kelly speaking on July 9th at Channing-Murray*? I think Ron Szoke may have raised it at tonight's meeting - thank you, Ron! - and this should give more detail about what's up. The event is being organized by the Eco-Justice Collaborative , Pam and Lan Richart. If we agree to co-sponsor, they'll list AWARE as such on their flyer, and we'd agree to help promote the event. (I think this would be a great thing to do - hope the discussion was/is positive! - Stuart) Is anyone interested in discussing what else we can do around Kathy Kelly's appearance, as they suggest below? Also, would the Green Party be interested in co-sponsoring too? The family of issues she's raising would be a natural fit for the Greens. Pam and Lan write: Kathy will be speaking about her work with the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers and the #Enough! GEN multi-generational movement of ordinary people who say #Enough! to the interconnected global crises of global warming, socioeconomic inequalities and violence with its nuclear-risk wars, by nurturing a critical mass of GEN ( Green, Equal and Nonviolent ) relationships and alternatives. By saying #Enough! to the crises, the people of #Enough! GEN are affirming the value of love for the Earth and all of humanity, and liberating themselves from the grip of various abuses of money and power, including liberating themselves from fossil fuels and wars, income inequality and elitism, corporatization and militarism, class warfare and racism etc. As people from different regions respond freely, the Afghan Peace Volunteers will try to organize a Skype/Zoom conversation by region or continent, in order to listen, to encourage, to imagine, to relate through conversations focused on GEN alternatives. This may have wide local appeal and potentially bring together folks working on issues that should be connected. Lots of possibilities here. Would some AWARE folks be interested in getting together to discuss how we might build on Kathy’s appearance? We want to generate personal and financial support for Voices, but we might also want to think about what fruit this might bear after she visits. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jun 13 04:30:28 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:30:28 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE cosponsorship of July 9th Kathy Kelly event ... ? In-Reply-To: <5c1a17db-c3ec-99ca-e048-86ac89a025f4@gmail.com> References: <5c1a17db-c3ec-99ca-e048-86ac89a025f4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Vote yes Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 12, 2016, at 11:43 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Hello AWARE people, > > Is AWARE willing to sign on as a co-sponsor to this event, with Kathy Kelly speaking on July 9th at Channing-Murray? I think Ron Szoke may have raised it at tonight's meeting - thank you, Ron! - and this should give more detail about what's up. > > The event is being organized by the Eco-Justice Collaborative, Pam and Lan Richart. If we agree to co-sponsor, they'll list AWARE as such on their flyer, and we'd agree to help promote the event. > > (I think this would be a great thing to do - hope the discussion was/is positive! - Stuart) > > Is anyone interested in discussing what else we can do around Kathy Kelly's appearance, as they suggest below? > > Also, would the Green Party be interested in co-sponsoring too? The family of issues she's raising would be a natural fit for the Greens. > > > Pam and Lan write: > Kathy will be speaking about her work with the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers and the #Enough! GEN multi-generational movement of ordinary people who say #Enough! to the interconnected global crises of global warming, socioeconomic inequalities and violence with its nuclear-risk wars, by nurturing a critical mass of GEN ( Green, Equal and Nonviolent ) relationships and alternatives. > > By saying #Enough! to the crises, the people of #Enough! GEN are affirming the value of love for the Earth and all of humanity, and liberating themselves from the grip of various abuses of money and power, including liberating themselves from fossil fuels and wars, income inequality and elitism, corporatization and militarism, class warfare and racism etc. > > As people from different regions respond freely, the Afghan Peace Volunteers will try to organize a Skype/Zoom conversation by region or continent, in order to listen, to encourage, to imagine, to relate through conversations focused on GEN alternatives. > > This may have wide local appeal and potentially bring together folks working on issues that should be connected. Lots of possibilities here. Would some AWARE folks be interested in getting together to discuss how we might build on Kathy’s appearance? We want to generate personal and financial support for Voices, but we might also want to think about what fruit this might bear after she visits. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 12:14:41 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 12:14:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE cosponsorship of July 9th Kathy Kelly event ... ? In-Reply-To: <5c1a17db-c3ec-99ca-e048-86ac89a025f4@gmail.com> References: , <5c1a17db-c3ec-99ca-e048-86ac89a025f4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, Ron discussed it with us at the meeting, and we were all in agreement, Kathy Kelly represents the ideals of AWARE probably better than anyone possibly could. The Daniel Berrigan of the middle east wars? ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 10:43:49 PM To: Peace Discuss Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE cosponsorship of July 9th Kathy Kelly event ... ? Hello AWARE people, Is AWARE willing to sign on as a co-sponsor to this event, with Kathy Kelly speaking on July 9th at Channing-Murray? I think Ron Szoke may have raised it at tonight's meeting - thank you, Ron! - and this should give more detail about what's up. The event is being organized by the Eco-Justice Collaborative, Pam and Lan Richart. If we agree to co-sponsor, they'll list AWARE as such on their flyer, and we'd agree to help promote the event. (I think this would be a great thing to do - hope the discussion was/is positive! - Stuart) Is anyone interested in discussing what else we can do around Kathy Kelly's appearance, as they suggest below? Also, would the Green Party be interested in co-sponsoring too? The family of issues she's raising would be a natural fit for the Greens. Pam and Lan write: Kathy will be speaking about her work with the Afghan Youth Peace Volunteers and the #Enough! GEN multi-generational movement of ordinary people who say #Enough! to the interconnected global crises of global warming, socioeconomic inequalities and violence with its nuclear-risk wars, by nurturing a critical mass of GEN ( Green, Equal and Nonviolent ) relationships and alternatives. By saying #Enough! to the crises, the people of #Enough! GEN are affirming the value of love for the Earth and all of humanity, and liberating themselves from the grip of various abuses of money and power, including liberating themselves from fossil fuels and wars, income inequality and elitism, corporatization and militarism, class warfare and racism etc. As people from different regions respond freely, the Afghan Peace Volunteers will try to organize a Skype/Zoom conversation by region or continent, in order to listen, to encourage, to imagine, to relate through conversations focused on GEN alternatives. This may have wide local appeal and potentially bring together folks working on issues that should be connected. Lots of possibilities here. Would some AWARE folks be interested in getting together to discuss how we might build on Kathy's appearance? We want to generate personal and financial support for Voices, but we might also want to think about what fruit this might bear after she visits. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jun 13 12:36:44 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:36:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: URGENT ACTION: No more deaths in the Champaign jail! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801d1c570$407f0410$c17d0c30$@comcast.net> From: James Kilgore [mailto:jjincu at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:22 AM To: James Kilgore Subject: URGENT ACTION: No more deaths in the Champaign jail! URGENT ACTION: The death of Veronica Horstead last Friday makes three deaths in the Champaign County jail in a little over 6 months. These deaths are a serious and heinous tragedy. Build Programs, Not Jails urges you to bring this crisis to the attention of the Champaign County board this TUESDAY, JUNE 14TH at 6:30PM (Brookens Administrative Center, 1776 E. Washington, Urbana) For more background on these recent deaths please see below. No more deaths in the jail! Build Programs, Not Jails * * * Local activists and concerned community members are planning to attend the county board meeting Tuesday night 6:30 p.m. to protest a rash of recent deaths in the local jail. On Friday, Veronica “Love” Horstead was found unresponsive in the Champaign County Jail. Her death was the third in the jail in just over six months. She was the mother of a six-year-old, and a 2014 graduate of Eastern Illinois University, but for years had struggled with drug addiction. On December 1, 2015, jail video footage showed Toya Frazier laid presumably dead in a solitary cell for nearly an hour and a half before being discovered by jail guards. She had spent the previous night screaming from the pain of heroin withdrawal. On Easter Morning, March 27, 2016, Paul Clifton was pronounced dead of “natural causes,” after multiple asthma attacks in the jail. He had been arrested late night at his home for a warrant of driving on a suspended license. All three were African American, in a jail where Blacks make up 60-70% of the daily population. They were each well-known in the community and will be sorely missed. As concerned community members we will address the Champaign County Board during public comment on Tuesday night, 6:30 p.m. at Brookens Administrative Center, 1776 E. Washington, Urbana. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon Jun 13 12:42:26 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:42:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Exposing Class Division in Democrats Message-ID: <006301d1c571$0bd91f10$238b5d30$@comcast.net> Adolph Reed: Identity Politics Exposing Class Division in Democrats Posted on June 13, 2016 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente. NC Readers are already familiar with Adolph Reed; his "early call" on Obama is famous. Here's a video from Reed on The Benjamin Dixon Show; it's only ten minutes, and well worth a listen. Here's what I think is the key exchange: DIXON: . the unbelievable use of identity politics to undermine a class-based argument. You diagnosed this problem before we even got to this problem. . In this election, I've seen like a swift-boating of class-based arguments, using race to the detriment of black people. REED [O]ne of the nice things about being an old guy - and there aren't a lot - but one of them is that you see phenomena like this happening and you recognize what's going on, and what's happened now - and I think that this largely was consolidated by the Clinton administration - and subsequently the centrist or dominant wing, I should say of the Democratic Party as its been tightening its grip - is a disconnection of the notion of social justice from economic inequality and economic security. And that's a notion of racial justice that first of all fits very comfortably with the people in elite colleges where I've been teaching for the last 35 years because they're all expected to be part of the upper class, but it also has meant that we have a national politics now. And this takes us back to the fault lines in the current race, that that we have a national politics now that has for 20 years at least, longer, given us two choices. And one of them is a party that's committed to Wall Street and to neoliberalism and is deeply and earnestly committed to a notion of diversity and multiculturalism, and a party that's committed to Wall Street and neoliberalism, and is deeply opposed to multiculturalism and diversity. So, if we have to choose between those two, obviously for most of us who are committed to the ideals of justice and equality, the one that's committed to multiculturalism and diversity is less bad than the one that's opposed to them. But the deeper problem is that they're both actively committed to maintaining and intensifying economic inequality, and as I and my friend and colleague Walter Benn Michaels have pointed out tirelessly over the last decade or so, that that ideal of a just society is one in which one percent of the population can control ninety percent of the stuff, but it would be just if twelve percent of the one percent were black, fourteen percent Latino, and half of them were women, and whatever percentage were gay, and what that means, then, is that most Black people, and most Latinos, and most white people, and most Asian Americans would would be stuck holding like the end of the stick with the stuff on it that I assume I can't call by its right name. Notice that if a "Reed Coalition" were to be created, it would encompass the 80% or 90% of the population that doesn't own or control "all the stuff." The "Obama Coalition" ( so-called), which Clinton hopes to leverage, is necessarily smaller, because of conflicts and contradictions between the identity categories it seeks to assemble. Hence, Clintonian incrementalism is the flip side of identity politics; it's just math. The audio, from which the video is taken, is a good deal longer, so sit down with a cup of coffee; it's well worth it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 13 15:07:23 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:07:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: No War 2016 -- Details Announced In-Reply-To: <575eb1f0ac4_66553f598dc940765c1@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> References: <575eb1f0ac4_66553f598dc940765c1@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: David Swanson via WorldBeyondWar.org Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:15 AM Subject: No War 2016 -- Details Announced [http://www.worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WBW_emailheader.jpg] No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/002poster-300x111.jpg]Many details have now been made public for the No War 2016 conference in Washington, D.C., September 23-25, and many have already signed up to attend. If you are thinking about attending, now's the time to register. The main webpage for more information (and check out the new videos) is here: http://worldbeyondwar.org/NoWar2016 Register to attend. Agenda. Speakers. While much is set, there's still room to adjust our plans. We welcome partners, cosponsors, ideas for speakers and workshop leaders, ideas for topics and tactics. Get in touch! We're also helping to bring together similar events at the same time in other places. Let us know if we can help you. One such event will be in Berlin, Germany, at which U.S. whistleblowers and former drone program personnel will deliver to the German government this petition urging the closure of Ramstein Air Base (please add your name): http://bit.ly/1r41wT6 A big protest at Ramstein this past weekend helped to put this issue into the news. We've asked planned speakers to record more videos on why they'll be at No War 2016. You are invited to do the same and send them to us! 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 Mon Jun 13 15:07:23 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:07:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: No War 2016 -- Details Announced In-Reply-To: <575eb1f0ac4_66553f598dc940765c1@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> References: <575eb1f0ac4_66553f598dc940765c1@ip-10-0-0-61.mail> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: David Swanson via WorldBeyondWar.org Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 8:15 AM Subject: No War 2016 -- Details Announced [http://www.worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/WBW_emailheader.jpg] No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism [http://worldbeyondwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/002poster-300x111.jpg]Many details have now been made public for the No War 2016 conference in Washington, D.C., September 23-25, and many have already signed up to attend. If you are thinking about attending, now's the time to register. The main webpage for more information (and check out the new videos) is here: http://worldbeyondwar.org/NoWar2016 Register to attend. Agenda. Speakers. While much is set, there's still room to adjust our plans. We welcome partners, cosponsors, ideas for speakers and workshop leaders, ideas for topics and tactics. Get in touch! We're also helping to bring together similar events at the same time in other places. Let us know if we can help you. One such event will be in Berlin, Germany, at which U.S. whistleblowers and former drone program personnel will deliver to the German government this petition urging the closure of Ramstein Air Base (please add your name): http://bit.ly/1r41wT6 A big protest at Ramstein this past weekend helped to put this issue into the news. We've asked planned speakers to record more videos on why they'll be at No War 2016. You are invited to do the same and send them to us! 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 03:07:26 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 22:07:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?iso-8859-1?q?Fwd=3A_=5Bufpj-activist=5D_June_15?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=3A_Global_Action_Justice_for_Berta_C=E1ceres!_Accion_Glob?= =?iso-8859-1?q?al_=A1Justicia_para_Berta_C=E1ceres!?= Message-ID: -------- Original message -------- From: Hendrik Voss Date: 06/13/2016 16:00 (GMT-06:00) To: Presente Honduras ,lasolidarity at lists.mayfirst.org,ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org Subject: [ufpj-activist] June 15: Global Action Justice for Berta Cáceres! Accion Global ¡Justicia para Berta Cáceres! On June 15th, human rights activists will assemble around the world, at Honduran Embassies, international development agencies, and government installations that provide economic development and security aid to the Honduran government. In the United States, protests for Justice for Berta Cáceres will take place in Washington, DC: https://www.facebook.com/events/548045192052957/ Los Angeles: https://www.facebook.com/events/855994941171533/ Atlanta: https://www.facebook.com/events/192429924489940/ New York City: https://www.facebook.com/events/1897800743780119/ Chicago: https://www.facebook.com/events/1021169234639317/  Albuquerque, and other places.* The human rights activists will demand: 1) The immediate establishment of an independent research group led by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to clarify the assassination of internationally-renowned Honduran Indigenous and land rights defender Berta Cáceres on March 3, 2016, and ensure the prosecution of all those responsible. 2) The immediate and definitive cancellation of the concession granted to the DESA company, builder of the “Agua Zarca” Hydroelectric Dam Project in Río Blanco, Honduras, which Cáceres was protesting at the time of her murder. Moreover, they are calling for an overhaul of the perverse “development” model, which the U.S. and other world powers are pushing in Honduras and throughout the developing world, including through international financial institutions (IFIs) the U.S. leads. In recently discussing “the Berta Cácereses of the world,” World Bank President Jim Kim said, “you cannot do the work we’re trying to do and not have some of these incidents happen.” This chilling frankness about the costs, in human life, of the dominant, top-down model of development, shows the urgency of systemic change. "We are confronting a monster- just for defending the natural resources. When a community resists, when it doesn't want to give away and privatize the land and water, it is threatened with violence and the Honduran state begins to take away public services and strategically divide the community," notes Tomás Gómez Membreño, Cáceres’ successor as head of the organization she founded. Gómez has been touring the U.S. in the weeks leading up to the 15th, when he will be speaking to members of Congress and representatives of IFIs in DC. Those standing with Gómez and Honduras’ social movements echo their call for comprehensive change to U.S. policy and development practices impacting Honduras.   Over 60 members of Congress have asked for: an independent international investigation into Cáceres’ assassination; an immediate halt to all U.S. assistance to Honduran state security forces; the review of U.S. support for loans to projects in Honduras from U.S.-funded IFIs; and the cessation of the Agua Zarca dam. High-profile celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo have expressed sadness and outrage over Cáceres’ murder. They are part of a groundswell that will not cease until justice and comprehensive policy change take place. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Tue Jun 14 13:38:49 2016 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:38:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: WORLD LABOR HOUR NEXT TWO EPISODES - SAT. JUNE 18th and SAT JUNE 25th Message-ID: <007801d1c642$17f18360$47d48a20$@comcast.net> WORLD LABOR HOUR SATURDAY JUNE 18TH AND SATURDAY JUNE 25TH 11 AM - 1PM U.S. CENTRAL TIME 90.1 FM and webcast LIVE world-wide at ; www.weft.org SATURDAY JUNE 18th JOHN GEYMAN M.D. Member of the National Academy of Medicine, past President of Physicians for a National Health Program, and Author of the books - " HIJACKED ! The road to single payer in the aftermath of stolen health care reform " and " THE HUMAN FACE OF OBAMACARE promises vs. reality and what comes next ", will call in to the program. And SATURDAY JUNE 25th RICHARD MASTER Will call in to the World Labor Hour. He is the CEO of MCS Industries Inc., the nation's leading supplier of wall and poster frames, is bent on arousing the nation's business leaders to back single-payer - the efficient full Medicare for all health care solution. The woefully wasteful and profiteering health care industries have blocked majority opinion, and a majority of physicians and nurses, to keep the present sky-high costly system in place, that receives huge taxpayer subsidies without any reasonable, and meaningful, price restraints. Health care companies exploit the complexities of Obamacare, which is powerless to restrain price spirals Mr. Master's first step is now complete. He has produced a short movie called "Fix It: Healthcare at the Tipping Point" which makes a powerful business case for replacing the current wasteful multi-payer system with a single payer one. Master's film can be found at www.fixithealthcare.com. You can watch Richard Master's film ' FIX IT " On LABOR'S WORLD VIEW T.V. from 4-5PM Central Time on Sunday June 26th on Comcast channel 6 and LIVE world-wide at www.urbanapublictelevision.org Stay tuned after the WORLD LABOR HOUR on both Saturdays for " THE UNION EDGE " from Pittsburgh Pa. with Host Charles Showalter WEFT - listener supported community radio for Central Illinois and the world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 00:27:26 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 19:27:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: URGENT: key vote tomorrow on unnecessary & dangerous new nuclear weapons Message-ID: Ask Rep. Davis to support this amendment, and oppose funding for a _new_ nuclear weapon.   Reduce the deficit by a smidgin instead. -------- Original message -------- From: "Nicolas Davies (Relayed)" Date: 06/15/2016 18:54 (GMT-06:00) To: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org Subject: {Disarmed} [ufpj-activist] URGENT: key vote tomorrow on unnecessary & dangerous new nuclear weapons I hope some other groups will also rally their members to back this amendment. - Nicolas "Sandy" Davies URGENT The US House of Representatives is likely to vote on a proposed new nuclear weapon. Write today to urge your representative to vote for the amendment that will cut funding for this dangerous and unnecessary new nuclear weapons system. Take Action Today! ACTION ALERT Critical Vote on Unnecessary & Dangerous New Nuclear Weapons Dear Nicolas J S, Tomorrow, the US House of Representatives is likely to vote on an amendment to cut funding for proposed new nuclear weapons. In today's world, nuclear weapons are a security liability, not an asset. This nuclear-armed cruise missile known as the Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) weapon is unnecessary and will cost tens of billions of dollars. The amendment, which will be voted on in the House, is a key first step in the fight against this weapon and against a dangerous new global nuclear arms race. Write today and urge your representative to vote for the amendment that will cut funding for this dangerous and unnecessary new weapon from the defense spending bill. The amendment would cut $75.8 million from the weapon program and move the savings to deficit reduction. It would effectively delay the cruise missile by one year and allow more time for the next administration and Congress to decide whether or not to pursue it—and time for UCS, our supporters, and our allies to more fully oppose this dangerous weapons program. Can we count on you to help stop the LRSO before the program gets off the ground? Write your representative today! Sincerely, Sean Meyer Manager of Strategic Campaigns Global Security Program Union of Concerned Scientists   Science for a healthy planet and safer world UCS is a 501(c)(3) organization. All gifts are tax deductible. You can be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely. About UCS | Take Action | Donate | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Unsubscribe | Update Your Profile Union of Concerned Scientists 2 Brattle Square | Cambridge, MA 02138-3780 © Union of Concerned Scientists. All rights reserved. www.ucsusa.org nonprofit software -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 01:46:07 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 01:46:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] ISP Officer who killed Kelley Wilson allegedly going 108 miles per hour References: <732701817.3876261.1466041567256.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <732701817.3876261.1466041567256.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> http://www.wandtv.com/story/32229131/coroner-inquest-crash-that-killed-woman-an-accident DECATUR -- WAND: Many questions remain in the car accident between an Illinois State Police Officer and Kelley Wilson.The key finding is the Coroner's Jury of Macon County found the crash to be accidental. The hearing was held at the Coroner's Office in order to complete 26-year-old Kelley Wilson's death certificate. A toxicology report indicates that she was over the legal limit.Two Illinois State Police Sergeants testified before the jury saying that the accident is still under investigation. Witnesses tell them that the officer driving the unmarked police car, Sergeant Jeff Denning, did have his lights on at the time of the crash. Sergeant Shad Edwards says Denning was going 108 miles per hour two seconds before the crash, according to an initial ACM speed reading, and 85 miles per hour half a second before the point of impact.The Illinois State Police Reconstruction Unit won't confirm those speeds. It is still unknown if the siren was sounding. The SafeGuard video from the Illinois State Police car is being analyzed. Some witnesses say they heard the siren, while others say they did not. WAND will continue to follow this story. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 16 13:33:47 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Wilson follow-up References: <1943017617.4314049.1466084027701.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1943017617.4314049.1466084027701.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Posted on Facebook: I have been following the story of the killing of Kelley Wilson in Decatur, a 26 year old mother of 2 young girls, by an Illinois State Police Officer in May, subsequent to a Pendleton-Scharlow police encounter, gunfight, and escape in Mahomet, unrelated to Kelley Wilson. http://www.wandtv.com/story/32229131/coroner-inquest-crash-that-killed-woman-an-accident I have been waiting for information regarding the speed that the officer was travelling when he impacted Wilson, who was making a left turn on to the road, resulting in the crash and her instant death. Yesterday, information was released that the police officer was traveling at 108 miles per hour. What this means is that the officer was traveling at 53 yards per second. That means that the officer would have travelled the final 200 yards, 2 football fields, in less than 4 seconds; the final 100 yards in less than 2 seconds. This of course needs to be considered when evaluating what chance Wilson had to respond to the police car before making her left turn, and whether this should be judged a reckless homicide, or whatever the charge might be. The article linked to above also states: "A toxicology report indicates that she was over the legal limit." It does not say limit for what. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 17 20:50:35 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:50:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Discuss] another side of this issue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1481554308.5249062.1466196635715.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> This critique is much needed. It has been interesting to me that Amy Goodman has not only been aggressive in her criticism of Persky, but has in conjunction last week allowed allegations against a black man of sexual assault to be made by his accuser, after a 4-year process of acquittal. As 13M People Read Stanford Victim's Letter, Advocates See "Watershed" Moment in Fight Against Rape | | | | | | | | | | | As 13M People Read Stanford Victim's Letter, Advocates See "Waters... More than 60,000 people have signed a petition calling for Stanford University to apologize publicly to the woma... | | | | On Friday, June 17, 2016 3:38 PM, Barbara kessel via Discuss-CommunityCourtwatch wrote: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/06/16/could-removing-brock-turner-s-judge-hurt-poor-and-minority-defendants#.Bf0LDUg8h. Now I understand why Judge Flannel did not want me talking about particular cases of Judge Klaus to him (on the phone), but wanted to keep it to general demeanor.  Barbara Kessel _______________________________________________ Discuss-CommunityCourtwatch mailing list Discuss-CommunityCourtwatch at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/discuss-communitycourtwatch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 18 14:23:04 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 14:23:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: No to Missile "Defense" Sites in Ohio, Mich., NY In-Reply-To: <2877139358.304480693@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <2877139358.304480693@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: Please sign and circulate the below petition, before July 18th. Say "No, to war provocations". ________________________________ From: info=rootsaction.org at mail.salsalabs.net on behalf of RootsAction Team Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 8:49 AM Subject: No to Missile "Defense" Sites in Ohio, Mich., NY [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/RA_Header.jpg] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/donate3bucks200b.png] No to New Missile Sites in U.S. [http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/missileoffenseEMAIL.png] [GRAPHIC: Sign here button] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_facebook_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Facebook [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_twitter_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Twitter The U.S. military has now built missile "defense" sites in Alaska and California (as well as Romania, and under construction in Poland). Next will be New York, Michigan, or Ohio, unless we can stop them. Please click here to modify and personalize the following draft comments, and to email them and make them part of the public record to be addressed in the final Environmental Impact Statement. I strongly oppose building a Ground-Based Mid-Course Missile "Defense" system in New York, Ohio, Michigan, or anywhere else on earth. These missiles are a highly provocative part of the U.S. arms race, taken as hostile by Russia and China. Arguments in Washington, D.C., for a militarized defense against a supposed Russian threat were rejected by a senior Pentagon officer in Politico on May 12, 2016, in these terms: "The Army is looking for a purpose, and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. What a crock." Bureaucracy and profiteering are not sufficient justification for constructing these counterproductive systems, which will endanger, rather than protect, us, damage the natural environment, and waste huge sums of money needed for useful projects that answer legitimate human needs. Click here to submit your comments. After submitting your comments, please use the tools on the next webpage to share this action with your friends. Please forward this email to everyone you can so that we can send more comments before the July 18th deadline. This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. -- The RootsAction.org Team P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: Organizing Notes: Public Comments Needed on New 'Missile Defense' Deployments Politico: The U.S. Army's War Over Russia www.RootsAction.org [Donate button] [Facebook button] [Twitter button] Click here to unsubscribe and stop ALL email from RootsAction. [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat Jun 18 14:23:04 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 14:23:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: No to Missile "Defense" Sites in Ohio, Mich., NY In-Reply-To: <2877139358.304480693@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> References: <2877139358.304480693@wfc.wfcDB.reply.salsalabs.com> Message-ID: Please sign and circulate the below petition, before July 18th. Say "No, to war provocations". ________________________________ From: info=rootsaction.org at mail.salsalabs.net on behalf of RootsAction Team Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 8:49 AM Subject: No to Missile "Defense" Sites in Ohio, Mich., NY [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/RA_Header.jpg] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/donate3bucks200b.png] No to New Missile Sites in U.S. [http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/missileoffenseEMAIL.png] [GRAPHIC: Sign here button] [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_facebook_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Facebook [https://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6503/images/btn_twitter_icon_sm.jpg] Share this action on Twitter The U.S. military has now built missile "defense" sites in Alaska and California (as well as Romania, and under construction in Poland). Next will be New York, Michigan, or Ohio, unless we can stop them. Please click here to modify and personalize the following draft comments, and to email them and make them part of the public record to be addressed in the final Environmental Impact Statement. I strongly oppose building a Ground-Based Mid-Course Missile "Defense" system in New York, Ohio, Michigan, or anywhere else on earth. These missiles are a highly provocative part of the U.S. arms race, taken as hostile by Russia and China. Arguments in Washington, D.C., for a militarized defense against a supposed Russian threat were rejected by a senior Pentagon officer in Politico on May 12, 2016, in these terms: "The Army is looking for a purpose, and a bigger chunk of the budget. And the best way to get that is to paint the Russians as being able to land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time. What a crock." Bureaucracy and profiteering are not sufficient justification for constructing these counterproductive systems, which will endanger, rather than protect, us, damage the natural environment, and waste huge sums of money needed for useful projects that answer legitimate human needs. Click here to submit your comments. After submitting your comments, please use the tools on the next webpage to share this action with your friends. Please forward this email to everyone you can so that we can send more comments before the July 18th deadline. This work is only possible with your financial support. Please chip in $3 now. -- The RootsAction.org Team P.S. RootsAction is an independent online force endorsed by Jim Hightower, Barbara Ehrenreich, Cornel West, Daniel Ellsberg, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Bill Fletcher Jr., Laura Flanders, former U.S. Senator James Abourezk, Coleen Rowley, Frances Fox Piven, Lila Garrett, Phil Donahue, Sonali Kolhatkar, and many others. Background: Organizing Notes: Public Comments Needed on New 'Missile Defense' Deployments Politico: The U.S. Army's War Over Russia www.RootsAction.org [Donate button] [Facebook button] [Twitter button] Click here to unsubscribe and stop ALL email from RootsAction. [empowered by Salsa] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Jun 19 20:17:16 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 15:17:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for progressive group-of-groups?! Message-ID: Hey all, Something we should discuss tonight is July 4th parade participation. Submission deadline is in just over a week, and earlier would be better. What's been happening with this, anyone know? Are other groups involved at this point, has anyone undertaken to submit a parade entry, ... ? It's a bleak time for the anti-war movement - we should do something! I spoke with the Sandefurs at the Farmer's Market yesterday. Though PDA's official contingent will be marching with the mainline Dems this year, which AWARE certainly would not want to do, there /will/ likely be individual PDA people who would like to join us in a separate progressive-or-whatever marching group, they say. I'm also Cc'ing Lois Kain of Food and Water Watch, and some people who'd stopped at the AWARE Market table last week (thanks Karen Aram and Ron!). Even if we just march and carry mostly signs we already have, it'll be worth doing. If anyone's been proposing grander ideas that's even better. Stuart [AWARE meeting tonight is 5pm-ish at Pizza M / Cafeteria & Company in downtown Urbana, 208 W. Main St, next to Siam Terrace - generally every Sunday at 5.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jun 19 21:45:08 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:45:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for progressive group-of-groups?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David Johnson suggested the IWW, Black Lives Matter, other groups that are opposed to war, and do not support the Democratic Party. David is going or gone, on vacation so I hope he has passed the contact details to you by now. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 3:17:16 PM To: Peace Discuss Cc: Todd Durnil; Lois Kain; Harry Mickalide Subject: [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for progressive group-of-groups?! Hey all, Something we should discuss tonight is July 4th parade participation. Submission deadline is in just over a week, and earlier would be better. What's been happening with this, anyone know? Are other groups involved at this point, has anyone undertaken to submit a parade entry, ... ? It's a bleak time for the anti-war movement - we should do something! I spoke with the Sandefurs at the Farmer's Market yesterday. Though PDA's official contingent will be marching with the mainline Dems this year, which AWARE certainly would not want to do, there will likely be individual PDA people who would like to join us in a separate progressive-or-whatever marching group, they say. I'm also Cc'ing Lois Kain of Food and Water Watch, and some people who'd stopped at the AWARE Market table last week (thanks Karen Aram and Ron!). Even if we just march and carry mostly signs we already have, it'll be worth doing. If anyone's been proposing grander ideas that's even better. Stuart [AWARE meeting tonight is 5pm-ish at Pizza M / Cafeteria & Company in downtown Urbana, 208 W. Main St, next to Siam Terrace - generally every Sunday at 5.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Sun Jun 19 23:13:34 2016 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:13:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for progressive group-of-groups?! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'll march whatever contingent we're in. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > David Johnson suggested the IWW, Black Lives Matter, other groups that are > opposed to war, and do not support the Democratic Party. David is going or > gone, on vacation so I hope he has passed the contact details to you by > now. > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peace-discuss on > behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > *Sent:* Sunday, June 19, 2016 3:17:16 PM > *To:* Peace Discuss > *Cc:* Todd Durnil; Lois Kain; Harry Mickalide > *Subject:* [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for > progressive group-of-groups?! > > Hey all, > > Something we should discuss tonight is July 4th parade participation. > Submission deadline is in just over a week, and earlier would be better. > What's been happening with this, anyone know? Are other groups involved at > this point, has anyone undertaken to submit a parade entry, ... ? It's > a bleak time for the anti-war movement - we should do something! > > I spoke with the Sandefurs at the Farmer's Market yesterday. Though > PDA's official contingent will be marching with the mainline Dems this > year, which AWARE certainly would not want to do, there *will* likely be > individual PDA people who would like to join us in a separate > progressive-or-whatever marching group, they say. > > I'm also Cc'ing Lois Kain of Food and Water Watch, and some people who'd > stopped at the AWARE Market table last week (thanks Karen Aram and Ron!). > > Even if we just march and carry mostly signs we already have, it'll be > worth doing. If anyone's been proposing grander ideas that's even better. > > Stuart > > [AWARE meeting tonight is 5pm-ish at Pizza M / Cafeteria & Company in > downtown Urbana, 208 W. Main St, next to Siam Terrace - generally every > Sunday at 5.] > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jun 20 02:43:22 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 21:43:22 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Video: "Stop Illegal Wars - Tulsi Gabbard @ People's Summit in Chicago" Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Eisenscher Date: Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 3:18 PM Subject: Video: "Stop Illegal Wars - Tulsi Gabbard @ Peoples Summit in Chicago" http://uslaboragainstwar.org/Article/75837/stop-illegal-wars-antiwar-tulsi-gabbard-peoples-summit-in-chicago Michael has shared a video with you *Tulsi Gabbard's speech * at People's Summit in Chicago, 6/18/2016 Stop Illegal Wars - Tulsi Gabbard @ Peoples Summit in Chicago by antikriegTV ©2016 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Michael Eisenscher.headshot.png Type: image/png Size: 3901 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 20 03:04:38 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 03:04:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for progressive group-of-groups?! In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: We want you with the AWARE contingent, Harry. ________________________________ From: Harry Mickalide Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 6:13:34 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; Stuart Levy; Todd Durnil; Lois Kain Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for progressive group-of-groups?! I'll march whatever contingent we're in. On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: David Johnson suggested the IWW, Black Lives Matter, other groups that are opposed to war, and do not support the Democratic Party. David is going or gone, on vacation so I hope he has passed the contact details to you by now. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 3:17:16 PM To: Peace Discuss Cc: Todd Durnil; Lois Kain; Harry Mickalide Subject: [Peace-discuss] for AWARE tonight: July 4th participation for progressive group-of-groups?! Hey all, Something we should discuss tonight is July 4th parade participation. Submission deadline is in just over a week, and earlier would be better. What's been happening with this, anyone know? Are other groups involved at this point, has anyone undertaken to submit a parade entry, ... ? It's a bleak time for the anti-war movement - we should do something! I spoke with the Sandefurs at the Farmer's Market yesterday. Though PDA's official contingent will be marching with the mainline Dems this year, which AWARE certainly would not want to do, there will likely be individual PDA people who would like to join us in a separate progressive-or-whatever marching group, they say. I'm also Cc'ing Lois Kain of Food and Water Watch, and some people who'd stopped at the AWARE Market table last week (thanks Karen Aram and Ron!). Even if we just march and carry mostly signs we already have, it'll be worth doing. If anyone's been proposing grander ideas that's even better. Stuart [AWARE meeting tonight is 5pm-ish at Pizza M / Cafeteria & Company in downtown Urbana, 208 W. Main St, next to Siam Terrace - generally every Sunday at 5.] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 03:10:40 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:10:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Where is the Outcry over Children Killed by US Led Forces?" Message-ID: <6039425d-daf7-7df4-1e30-8f82b9885b02@gmail.com> After Karen Aram's discussion about trying to move people by showing them pictures of children harmed by US-supported wars, I found this: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/where-is-outcry-over-children-killed-by-u-s-led-forces/ A September, 2015 article in a mainstream science magazine (Scientific American), by a guy whom I'd known as mainstream science writer (John Horgan). He appears to have a whole series of anti-war articles in Sci Am over the last few years. Quoting from this one: > [...] Unfortunately, many people react to the killing of children with > a shrug or a cheer. Americans flocked to /American Sniper/, which > lionizes a soldier who, in the opening scene, shoots an Iraqi boy and > his mother. (See my critique of the film here. > ) > When I object to the U.S. military killing children, I often hear > three counter-arguments. Here they are, with my responses: > > *Argument 1: Children are often killers themselves, whom our troops > kill in self-defense.* This is the view advanced implicitly in > /American Sniper/. The sniper, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, shoots a boy who > is threatening U.S. soldiers with a bomb. The phenomenon of child > warriors is all too real. According to the United Nations > , > “hundreds of thousands of children are used as soldiers in armed > conflicts around the world.” But child soldiers are victims, who > should if possible be rescued and rehabilitated, not killed. Moreover, > the vast majority of children killed by U.S. forces are not suspected > combatants. They are “collateral damage” resulting from U.S. attacks > on adult targets. > > *Argument 2. Our enemies kill children too.* The Islamic State of Iraq > and Syria (ISIS), Boko Haram and other militant groups have indeed > committed atrocities against children, according the United Nations > . But we abhor these > groups, supposedly, because we find their brutal treatment of > civilians (among other acts) inexcusable. Their behavior cannot excuse > ours. Moreover, when we commit atrocities, we provide ISIS and other > groups with a provocation and justification for their behavior. We > should set a moral example for militant groups, not stoop to their > behavior. > > *Argument 3. We don’t kill children on purpose.* When presented with > irrefutable evidence that its forces have killed children or other > civilians, the U.S. occasionally apologizes (see below), while > insisting that the deaths were unintentional. But when our forces kill > children over and over again, claims that the killings are > unintentional become hollow, a cynical evasion of responsibility. We > would be outraged if American police, in attacks on suspected > criminals, routinely killed children who happened to be nearby. We > should be equally outraged when U.S. troops kill children in their > operations. > > Last November, for example, an air strike by the U.S.-led alliance > aimed at a suspected “explosives-making and storage facility” in Syria > “likely caused the deaths of two civilian children,” the Pentagon has > acknowledged > . > One was a five year old girl, Daniya Ali Al Haj Qaddour, who poses > with her father, Ali Saeed Al Haj Qaddoura, a suspected militant, in > the photo above. Airwars.org has posted a video > of Daniya and the other child killed in the attack here > . > Pentagon officials admit that the deaths of the two children violate > “international humanitarian law” and state that the alliance should > “ensure that it doesn’t happen again.” > > At this point, many readers are no doubt thinking that war is a messy, > unpredictable business, which always ends up hurting innocent people, > such as children. Exactly. That is why war must end. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jun 20 03:15:08 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 22:15:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Where is the Outcry over Children Killed by US Led Forces?" In-Reply-To: <6039425d-daf7-7df4-1e30-8f82b9885b02@gmail.com> References: <6039425d-daf7-7df4-1e30-8f82b9885b02@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00183465-63C7-428B-B4A9-55D68B5CB97B@illinois.edu> Perhaps a flyer for the July demonstration? We could include a B&W photo. > On Jun 19, 2016, at 10:10 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss wrote: > > After Karen Aram's discussion about trying to move people by showing them pictures of children harmed by US-supported wars, I found this: > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/where-is-outcry-over-children-killed-by-u-s-led-forces/ > > A September, 2015 article in a mainstream science magazine (Scientific American), by a guy whom I'd known as mainstream science writer (John Horgan). He appears to have a whole series of anti-war articles in Sci Am over the last few years. Quoting from this one: > >> [...] Unfortunately, many people react to the killing of children with a shrug or a cheer. Americans flocked to American Sniper, which lionizes a soldier who, in the opening scene, shoots an Iraqi boy and his mother. (See my critique of the film here. ) When I object to the U.S. military killing children, I often hear three counter-arguments. Here they are, with my responses: >> >> Argument 1: Children are often killers themselves, whom our troops kill in self-defense. This is the view advanced implicitly in American Sniper. The sniper, Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, shoots a boy who is threatening U.S. soldiers with a bomb. The phenomenon of child warriors is all too real. According to the United Nations , “hundreds of thousands of children are used as soldiers in armed conflicts around the world.” But child soldiers are victims, who should if possible be rescued and rehabilitated, not killed. Moreover, the vast majority of children killed by U.S. forces are not suspected combatants. They are “collateral damage” resulting from U.S. attacks on adult targets. >> >> Argument 2. Our enemies kill children too. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Boko Haram and other militant groups have indeed committed atrocities against children, according the United Nations . But we abhor these groups, supposedly, because we find their brutal treatment of civilians (among other acts) inexcusable. Their behavior cannot excuse ours. Moreover, when we commit atrocities, we provide ISIS and other groups with a provocation and justification for their behavior. We should set a moral example for militant groups, not stoop to their behavior. >> >> Argument 3. We don’t kill children on purpose. When presented with irrefutable evidence that its forces have killed children or other civilians, the U.S. occasionally apologizes (see below), while insisting that the deaths were unintentional. But when our forces kill children over and over again, claims that the killings are unintentional become hollow, a cynical evasion of responsibility. We would be outraged if American police, in attacks on suspected criminals, routinely killed children who happened to be nearby. We should be equally outraged when U.S. troops kill children in their operations. >> >> Last November, for example, an air strike by the U.S.-led alliance aimed at a suspected “explosives-making and storage facility” in Syria “likely caused the deaths of two civilian children,” the Pentagon has acknowledged . One was a five year old girl, Daniya Ali Al Haj Qaddour, who poses with her father, Ali Saeed Al Haj Qaddoura, a suspected militant, in the photo above. Airwars.org has posted a video of Daniya and the other child killed in the attack here . Pentagon officials admit that the deaths of the two children violate “international humanitarian law” and state that the alliance should “ensure that it doesn’t happen again.” >> >> At this point, many readers are no doubt thinking that war is a messy, unpredictable business, which always ends up hurting innocent people, such as children. Exactly. That is why war must end. >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jun 20 10:41:30 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 05:41:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for June 17 Message-ID: https://archive.org/details/News_From_Neptune_-_Episode_304 News from Neptune for June 17, 2016, a "Fight It Out On This Line If It Takes All Summer" (unfortunately not resolve shown by B. Sanders) edition. Karen Aram, C. G. Estabrook, and David Green discuss the news of the week and its coverage by the 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.” –Noam Chomsky ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jun 20 13:56:53 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:56:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Public Defenders: Recalling Judge Persky could hurt poor & minority defendants Message-ID: Could Removing Brock Turner’s Judge Hurt Poor and Minority Defendants? A group of public defenders says yes. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/06/16/could-removing-brock-turner-s-judge-hurt-poor-and-minority-defendants === 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 davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 20 15:42:57 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:42:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] The death of Kelley Wilson References: <2028285934.6284490.1466437377598.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2028285934.6284490.1466437377598.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> This will be read on CU Progressive News (WEFT) this evening: Regarding the Death of Kelley WilsonDavid GreenJune 16th, 2016On the evening of Saturday May 7th, 2016, analtercation in Mahomet between a police officer and Dracy “Clint” Pendleton ledto a gun fight, after which Pendleton fled towards I-72. Pendleton died a weeklater in the midst of a shoot-out in Southern Illinois.As a result of the police chase for Pendleton, a motorist inDecatur was killed late in the evening of May 7th. That motorist wasKelley Wilson of Decatur, a 26-year-old single mother of 2 young daughters, whoworked at Panera Bread. Wilson was making a left turn, trying to head south, onthe road on which an Illinois State Police officer was traveling north. That officerwas responding to a call and on his way to I-72 in pursuit of the fleeing Pendleton.He was also injured in the accident, but is recovering.The News-Gazette reported on May 8th: “Master Sgt. Matthew Boerwinkle said thetrooper was in the center of the city when he received the call that a Mahometpolice officer had been shot and that the shooter was headed for Interstate 72.”At that point, there was no information regarding the speed at which theofficer was travelling.On June 15th,the News-Gazette reported: “Macon County Coroner Michael Day said testimony atWednesday's (June 15th) inquest revealed that (ISP Officer Jeff) Denning'sunmarked squad car had its lights and siren activated and was traveling 108 mphjust before the crash and 85 mph at impact.”According to theNews-Gazette, Coroner Day also stated: “Wilson had a blood alcoholconcentration of 0.094%, which is over the limit for an Illinois driver to bepresumed intoxicated. He said the woman also had marijuana byproducts in hersystem.”This fatalcollision was judged by the coroner’s jury to be “accidental.” It should benoted that at 108 miles per hour, a car travels the length of a football fieldin less than 2 seconds. It would be difficult for any ordinary motorist to instantlyjudge that speed, especially in the dark.A commenter onthe News-Gazette website stated: “Driving 108 MPH on a city street to"pursue" a suspect 45 miles away is absurdly reckless.”As anothercommenter noted: “Ms. Wilson's BAC was higher than it should have been and Ican understand the officer's desire to help catch Pendleton. But 108 mph insidea city seems excessive, even with lights and siren.”A third commenterobserved: “I can't fathom how that rate of speed could possibly be withinallowable limits even when pursuing a suspect.  You should not be allowedto jeopardize the rest of the public's safety, even if you're all jacked upabout catching the cop-shooter.”The public isleft with at least two issues in relation to this tragic incident. The firstconcerns the implication that the victim, Kelley Wilson, is being blamed forher death. The second concerns the appropriateness of high-speed chases, especiallyon city streets.At a broaderlevel, concerned citizens might question a hyper-reactive and hyper-empoweredpanic mentality among police officers upon hearing of an attack on anotherpolice officer. Our culture has accorded a unique status to police officers,their choices to use violence, and their choices in responding to violence,especially when that violence is directed at them. Both police culture and thebroader culture need to be critically examined in this light. In our high-tech andhyper-surveilled era, fleeing suspects are inevitably located and captured. Itwould seem that measured and deliberate patience with utmost regard for safetyduring that process, rather than enraged panic, should be the mentality withwhich police are trained to approach such situations.David Green lives in Champaign. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 20 16:47:30 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:47:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] follow-up on Kelly Wilson References: <171061360.6319680.1466441250322.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <171061360.6319680.1466441250322.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> http://herald-review.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/trooper-might-have-hit-mph-before-fatal-crash/article_c408c9fd-f525-51c7-b476-e6e27ec39f58.html Attorney Tim Shay, who was present at the inquest, said he has been retained by Wilson's parents, administrators of her estate, to investigate the circumstances of her death.“We were stunned to learn that Officer Jeff Denning was traveling at 108 mph on a city street,” Shay said. “Based upon the information we found today and our own independent investigation, we anticipate filing a civil lawsuit for the wrongful death of Kelly Wilson.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkb3 at icloud.com Mon Jun 20 21:44:57 2016 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:44:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for June 17 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8D342447-646C-459D-96BE-477AF4583ECE@icloud.com> Congratulations on your impressive informative program last week with David Green and Karen Aram. This is not to say that it is not always so. Mort > On Jun 20, 2016, at 5:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook > wrote: > > https://archive.org/details/News_From_Neptune_-_Episode_304 > > News from Neptune for June 17, 2016, a "Fight It Out On This Line If It Takes All Summer" (unfortunately not resolve shown by B. Sanders) edition. > > Karen Aram, C. G. Estabrook, and David Green discuss the news of the week and its coverage by the 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.” –Noam Chomsky > > ### > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jun 20 21:59:59 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 16:59:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Friends of Sabeel NA: Presbyterians & Unitarian Universalists Are Voting This Week! Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Friends of Sabeel North America Date: Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:18 PM Subject: The Presbyterians and Unitarian Universalists Are Voting This Week! To: Robert Naiman A Christian Voice for Palestine l *The Presbyterians and Unitarian Universalists Are Voting This Week!* *[image: presbyterian-church-logo-clipart-1.gif][image: symbol_gradient.png] * *And We Can Help* For the past several months FOSNA has been working closely with the Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church and the Unitarian Universalists for Justice in the Middle East to promote several divestment resolutions, which the Presbyterian and UU churches are considering at their upcoming general assemblies. A longtime Christian voice for Palestine, FOSNA will be present during the assemblies: FOSNA staff and volunteers will be educating delegates on the situation on the ground in Palestine, Israel’s continuing human rights violations, FOSNA’s North American justice campaigns, and the work of our Sabeel-Jerusalem office. FOSNA will also testify at committee hearings on the importance of these resolutions for reaching a just peace. Additionally, for the past six months, along with Jewish Voice for Peace and the Palestinian Christian Alliance for Peace, FOSNA has ensured the presence of Palestinian and Jewish voices at both of the assemblies. Please consider supporting our efforts so we can continue to provide this work for all denominational divestment efforts. *Presbyterian General Assembly, Portland, Oregon, June 18–25* At its 222nd general assembly, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is considering resolutions focused on the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, including fully boycotting Hewlett Packard Inc. and calling for Re/Max Corporation to cease selling property in the illegal Israeli settlements. The church is also advocating for the safety and well-being of the children of Palestine/Israel and calling for human values in the face of Israel’s occupation. Executive director Tarek Abuata and Reverend Don Wagner will represent FOSNA throughout the assembly. *Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly, Columbus, Ohio, June 22–26**Follow UUJME on Twitter at @uujme and the UUA General Assembly hashtag #UUAGA* The general assembly will consider a business resolution asking the UUA to divest from corporations complicit in human rights abuses in occupied Palestine. In March, the UUA Socially Responsible Investment Committee adopted an investment screen that evaluates corporations around the world for human rights abuses, including those committed in occupied Palestine. At the general assembly, the UU community as a whole will vote to affirm this divestment decision. FOSNA national organizer Rochelle Gause, communications coordinator Nadya Tannous, and intern Nadia Hararah will represent FOSNA in Columbus. At a time when the Israeli government is funding multimillion-dollar campaigns aimed at defeating the BDS movement within churches, FOSNA’s presence is essential in speaking truth, in line with our mission of developing a spirituality based on justice, peace, nonviolence, liberation and reconciliation. We are uniquely positioned to provide a national umbrella for these efforts, sharing the knowledge gained among the different denominational efforts, providing opportunities for larger reflection as we expand our work, and reaching out to our base to show up and support these efforts. Please consider making a donation to support FOSNA’s presence at these important historic moments to strengthen this work for collective liberation. We cannot pray for peace and invest in violence! Rochelle Gause Tarek Abuata National Organizer Executive Director [image: FOSNA_signature.jpg] Friends of Sabeel North America [image: donate_button.png] Thank you for being a part of Revolutionary Palestinian Liberation Theology! *Friends of Sabeel - North America503.653.6624 <503.653.6624>Visit our Website &STAY CONNECTED* [image: Twitter] [image: Facebook] [image: YouTube] [image: RSS] -=-=- Friends of Sabeel North America · United States -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jun 22 15:44:12 2016 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:44:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Is the US Pursuing a Rogue Policy by Waging Undeclared War Against Russia? References: Message-ID: <324C5DC3-3AA5-4947-88D7-5E02D93F2A24@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Is the US Pursuing a Rogue Policy by Waging Undeclared War Against Russia? Date: June 22, 2016 at 10:31:25 AM CDT To: "Szoke, Ron" > https://www.thenation.com/article/is-the-us-pursuing-a-rogue-policy-by-waging-undeclared-war-against-russia/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jun 23 00:20:57 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:20:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad In-Reply-To: References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com> C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. —CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > That’s Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin ; Belden Fields ; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List ; Bryan Savage ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking-assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats’ proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over “responsibility to protect” and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It’s called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL’s Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > “We came! We saw! He died!,” said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus > washing her hands. I have known her continue in this a quarter of > an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to > satisfy my remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then > 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and > afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our > pow'r to accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to > have had so much blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26–40 > > > > > > > > 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 Thu Jun 23 00:24:08 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:24:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad In-Reply-To: <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com> References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin ; Belden Fields ; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List ; Bryan Savage ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Occupy CU ; sf-core ; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. —CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > That’s Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin ; > Belden Fields ; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List ; Bryan > Savage ; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats’ proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over “responsibility to protect” and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It’s called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL’s Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > “We came! We saw! He died!,” said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26–40 > > > > > > > > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jun 23 00:52:36 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:52:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad In-Reply-To: References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin ; Belden Fields ; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List ; Bryan Savage ; Hoffman, Valerie J ; Miller, Joseph Thomas ; Occupy CU ; sf-core ; Peace-discuss AWARE Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. —CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > That’s Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin ; > Belden Fields ; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List ; Bryan > Savage ; Hoffman, Valerie J > ; Miller, Joseph Thomas > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats’ proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over “responsibility to protect” and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It’s called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL’s Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > “We came! We saw! He died!,” said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26–40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 23 01:06:07 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:06:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad In-Reply-To: References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 23 01:19:23 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:19:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: We have a nice big courtyard on the North Side of the College of Law where we can exercise our First Amendment Rights to protest and demonstrate against our so-called College of Law inviting Killer Koh to speak in favor of his Fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Hey! Hey! College of Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Clinton is a psychopath and a war criminal. Ditto for her War Consigliere Harold Killer Koh. Fab. Doctor: What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. Gentlewoman: It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. Lady Macbeth: Yet here's a spot. Doctor: Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly. Lady Macbeth: Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him? Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 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 22, 2016 8:06 PM To: '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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 23 01:21:57 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:21:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/ode-to-harold-killer-koh/ Ode to Harold Killer Koh by Francis A. Boyle / April 19th, 2015 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 "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! 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 22, 2016 8:19 PM To: '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' Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad We have a nice big courtyard on the North Side of the College of Law where we can exercise our First Amendment Rights to protest and demonstrate against our so-called College of Law inviting Killer Koh to speak in favor of his Fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Hey! Hey! College of Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Clinton is a psychopath and a war criminal. Ditto for her War Consigliere Harold Killer Koh. Fab. Doctor: What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. Gentlewoman: It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. Lady Macbeth: Yet here's a spot. Doctor: Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly. Lady Macbeth: Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him? Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 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 22, 2016 8:06 PM To: '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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 23 01:28:07 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:28:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: Reclaiming Human Rights An Examination of Harold Koh and His Disservice to Global Peace Menu Skip to content § Home § About § Drones § Human Cost § Koh & Drones § Critics § In the Press § Koh's "Other" Record § Events § Letters § CoLR § Gilbert § O'Connell § We Respond § Links § Contact Koh's "Other" Record Work-in-Progress [Please feel free to contact and help us expand Harold Koh's lesser-known résumé] In response to Harold Koh's cronies, the "human rights hawks", who dismissed our petition and attempted to silence our dissent, we have initiated a compilation of Koh's lesser-known actions and utterances, which further call into question his work for human rights. For a complete list of Koh's closest adulators, many of whom are staunch supporters of Israel's colonial occupation of Palestine and current/former servants of the White House whether under Republican or Democratic presidents, please visit the "Open Letter In Support of Harold Koh." Harold Hongju Koh Yale Law School P.O. Box 208215 New Haven, CT 06520 2015 § On March 10, the Guardian reporter Jon Swaine writes that: Hillary Clinton's most senior legal adviser while she was secretary of state has refused to disclose advice he gave her on the legality of operating a private email system, arguing that the secrecy of their discussion is protected by law. Harold Koh, who was legal adviser of the Department of State between 2009 and 2013, declined to discuss "advice I gave as a lawyer to my client" as Clinton prepared to address the controversy at a press conference in New York on Tuesday. "This is attorney-client privilege, I can't answer that question," Koh said, during a brief telephone interview with the Guardian. "You know, what as a lawyer you say to your client ... I can't answer that question." In response to Koh, Mr. Swaine interviewed Edna Selan Epstein, a retired prosecutor and attorney and author of the American Bar Association's authoritative guide on attorney-client privilege." In Ms. Epstein's own words: "It is not as clearcut as he suggests," adding that Koh's defence could be challenged in court. "The question is whether his real client is the American public or the government official," Epstein said on Monday. "There is not a clear statute or large body of law on it, and there were cases, particularly during the Bill Clinton era, where privilege was not upheld." Source: Jon Swaine, "Clinton's Former Legal Adviser Deflects Questions About Private Email Account," The Guardian, 10 March 2015. 2013 § On February 20, 2013, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti reports that Harold Koh encouraged "rights groups to embrace John Brennan's nomination" as CIA director. In Koh's own words: "Who would they rather have, and why would that person promote their values as C.I.A. director more than John Brennan?" Source: Scott Shane & Mark Mazzetti, White House Tactic for C.I.A. Bid Holds Back Drone Memos, the New York Times, Feb. 20, 2013. 2012 § May 2012: Harold Koh refers to John Brennan, a key architect of the Bush Administration's detention, interrogation, and torture program, as "a person of genuine moral rectitude ... It's as though you had a priest with extremely strong moral values who was suddenly charged with leading a war." Source: Jo Becker and Scott Shane, "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will," New York Times, May, 29, 2012; Ray McGovern, The Moral Challenge of 'Kill Lists', Consortiumnews.com, May 30, 2012; see also Conor Friedersdorf, Does It Matter if John Brennan Was Complicit in Illegal Torture?, The Atlantic, Jan. 8, 2013. 2011 § June 2011: Harold Koh, the US State Department Legal Advisor, argued against Jeh Johnson (then-Pentagon General Counsel) and Caroline Krass (then-acting head of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) that the United States' actions in Libya-dropping bombs and firing drones-did not constitute "hostilities" within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, which allowed the destruction of Libya to continue without further Congressional authorization. Johnson and Krass, meanwhile, had argued, in contrast to Koh, that U.S. actions in Libya did constitute "hostilities" and that the continued bombardment would violate the War Powers Resolution. Source: Charlie Savage, 2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate, The New York Times, June 17, 2011. § June 29, 2011. Reuters reports that the "State Department legal adviser Harold Koh urged U.S. lawmakers to nonetheless vote for a resolution authorizing the U.S. role in the NATO-led mission." Reuters also unveiled Koh's claims, in his own words: "The U.S. intervention was not extensive enough in 'nature, scope and duration' to require a congressional declaration of war under Article One of the U.S. constitution." "Nor did it constitute the kind of hostilities envisioned by the War Powers Resolution [...] [t]his was because there were limits to the mission as well as the exposure of U.S. armed forces. The risk of escalation and the military means used by the United States were also limited, he said. The violence that U.S. armed forces had directly inflicted or facilitated after the handoff to NATO has been 'modest'," he said. Source: Reuters, Harold Koh, Top Obama lawyer, Defends Libya Operation Over Congress' War Powers Objections, Huffington Post, June 28, 2011. § March 2011: Harold Koh yet again offers a "robust defense" of targeted killings in a speech before the European University Institute's Global Governance Programme, according to journalist Cian Murphy. Source: Cian Murphy, Chomsky takes Obama to task, the Guardian, Oct. 13, 2011. § In 2011, the survivors of a 1997 massacre by Mexican paramilitary groups sued former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo alleging that he was responsible for the attack. At the time, Zedillo was a scholar at Yale University. "The State Department said Mr. Zedillo should have immunity because the suit, filed in federal court in Connecticut, concerned actions taken in his official capacity ... 'The complaint is predicated on former President Zedillo's actions as president, not private conduct,' Harold Hongju Koh, a State Department legal adviser and a professor at Yale Law School, wrote in a letter accompanying the filing. He said that the complaint's 'generalized allegations' did not give the department any reason to rule differently." Source: Randal C. Archibold, S. Moves to Grant Former Mexican President Immunity in Suit, The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2012. 2010 § Harold Koh "had set his own legal standard to justify the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen: He felt that Awlaki would have to be shown to be 'evil,' with iron-clad intelligence to prove it. After absorbing the chilling intel, which included multiple bombing plots and elaborate plans to attack Americans with ricin and cyanide, Koh concluded that Awlaki was not just evil; he was 'satanic.'" See Daniel Klaidman, "John Brennan and the Drone Consensus,' The Daily Beast, 9 February 2013; and Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield (2013), p. 371. § March 25, 2010: Harold Koh gives a speech before the American Society of International Law in which he defends U.S. targeted killing practices, stating that, "S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war." Source: Lawfare, "The Obama Administration and International Law, Speech by Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State," Mar. 25, 2010. § According to investigative reporter Allan Nairn, "A few years ago, the Obama administration sent Harold Koh to the ICC, International Criminal Court, conference in Africa to try to rewrite the definition of "aggression" so the U.S. couldn't be touched." Source: Investigative Reporter Allan Nairn speaking on DN!, Tuesday, October 28, 2014. § On June 15, 2010, Mr. Koh reported the following during a special briefing on the outcome of the ICC Conference on the Crime of Aggression: "We think that . . . the outcome protected our vital interests. The court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression without a further decision to take place sometime after January 1st, 2017. The [ICC] prosecutor cannot charge nationals of non-state parties, including U.S. nationals, with a crime of aggression. No U.S. national can be prosecuted for aggression so long as the U.S. remains a non-state party. And if we were to become a state party, we'd still have the option to opt out from having our nationals prosecuted for aggression. So we ensure total protection for our Armed Forces and other U.S. nationals going forward." "If the Security Council did not make a determination that aggression had occurred, the prosecutor would have to offer a reasonable basis for investigating the crime under a definition that's been clarified by understandings we suggested. The prosecution would have to get a majority vote of six judges of the court's pretrial division. The Security Council would still, at that point, have the authority to stop the prosecution with a red light Chapter 7 resolution disapproving the resolution. And as I said, the channel would not apply to nationals of non-state parties or any non-consenting state party who opted out." "The big picture going forward, I think we should keep in mind, is that as the country of Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Jackson, we are the only country that has successfully prosecuted the crime of aggression at Nuremberg and Tokyo. Of course, we do not commit aggression and the chances are extremely remote that a prosecution on this crime will, at some point in the distant future, affect us negatively." "So to paraphrase Churchill, this is not the end, it was not the beginning of the end, but it did feel like the end of the beginning of the U.S's 12-year relationship with this court. After 12 years, I think we have reset the default on the U.S. relationship with the court from hostility to positive engagement. In this case, principal engagement worked to protect our interest, to improve the outcome, and to bring us renewed international goodwill." Source: "US Engagement With the ICC and the Outcome of the Recently Conducted Review Conference," Special Briefing by Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State, and Stephen J. Rapp, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Washington, DC, June 15, 2010. § On November 5, 2010, Koh was one of the 30 officials representing the United States during a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. As journalist Mark Tran from The Guardian reports, the US delegation "was forced to listen to repeated calls for the US to put an end to the death penalty." Koh then defended the U.S. by claiming that "capital punishment was a subject of vigorous debate and litigation in the US and was applied for in only the most serious crimes." He resumed his statement on the death penalty by reiterating its legality. In his own words, "International human rights law does not bar it per se." Source: Mark Tran, "UN Human Rights Council Urges US to End Death Penalty," The Guardian, Nov. 5, 2010. § On that same occasion, namely the UN Human Rights Council meeting of November 5, 2010, Koh "defended the use of unmanned drone aircraft to kill 'high value targets' on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and in Yemen." In Koh's own words: "Our targeting practice complies with all human rights law," he said. "Operations are conducted in conformity with rule of law principles. It has been long legitimate to target enemy leaders and force is directed only at lawful targets." Source: Mark Tran, "UN Human Rights Council Urges US to End Death Penalty," The Guardian, Nov. 5, 2010. § November 26, 2010: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wrote to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman requesting that the government "privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed." Assange expressed WikiLeaks' willingness to "respect the confidentiality of advice provided by the United States Government and is prepared to consider any such submissions made without delay." Source: Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government, the New York Times. § November 27, 2010: Harold Koh responded with a letter addressed to both Mr. Assange and to Mr. Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. In it, he imputed to them both the "intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government document" in violation of U.S. law. Source: Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government, the New York Times. [click here to download a copy of Koh's Letter to Ms. Robinson] § December 10, 2010: Gail Davidson, Founder of Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada wrote to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to express "alarm" by Harold Koh's actions: "LRWC is alarmed by actions of US State Department Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh that put British barrister Jennifer Robinson in jeopardy and interfere with the right of her client Julian Assange, to be represented." [...] "Mr. Koh violated US and international standards when he wrongly identified Ms. Robinson's with the allegations of criminal wrongdoing made by the US against her client." [...] "Mr. Koh has demonstrated professional irresponsibility by publishing exaggerated and unsubstantiated allegations of serious criminal acts against Ms. Robinson and her client." Source: Gail Davidson, Statement linking lawyer Jennifer Robinson with her client Julian Assange violates advocacy rights, Dec. 10, 2010. 2009 § July 29, 2009: According to an internal government cable released by WikiLeaks: "In a July 29 meeting with [Afghan] Attorney General [Muhamad Ishaq] Aloko, Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh and Deputy Ambassador Francis Ricciardone pressed Aloko on the release without trial of detainees transferred from Bagram and Guantanamo to Afghan custody, and convicted narco-traffickers. Koh had visited the Afghan National Detention Facility (ANDF), Pol-i-Charki, the Counternarcotics Justice Center, and Bagram before seeing Aloko. Koh reported that he has observed juvenile detainees as 13 yeas old being held in the ANDF, an adult facility, and urged their immediate transfer to a juvenile detention center. On pretrial pardons, Koh also told Aloko that he would have difficulty reporting to his supervisors in the USG that he had confidence in the Afghan government who was releasing dangerous individuals into Afghan society without trial. [...] Ambassador Ricciardone pressed Aloko on why, contrary to explicit agreement, the GIRoA allowed 150 pre-trial releases from the ANDF, including the recent release without trial of Abdullah Shahab, nephew of anti-American Mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [...] Aloko argued that when U.S. transfers detainees to the GIRoA, the U.S.-provided evidence against some detainees is insufficient for prosecution, so he is sometimes left with no other choice than to release the detainee rather than let their cases take up time in already overburdened courts. Source: Afghanistan, Kabul to Secretary of State, Secret Kabul 002245, August 6, 2009; available thanks to Wikileaks. [PDF available here] 2003 § In the Summer of 2003, Harold Koh wrote an eulogy for Eugene V. Rostow. So who was Rostow? According to Godfrey Hogdson, the author of The Myth of American Exceptionalism (Yale, 2010), Rostow "was an opponent of arms limitation under President Ford, head of the arms control agency under President Reagan (1981-83), and in his 70s and 80s a champion of Israel and of the Likud party's defiant policies." "As early as the 1970s," Hogdson writes for The Guardian, "Rostow was attacking Israel's critics. He made himself useful to that country and especially to its US supporters by lending his prestige to a number of Israeli contentions, chiefly the proposition that there was no legal reason why Israel should not build West Bank settlements." Yet none of what Hogdson reported in his own obituary of Rostow appeared in Koh's piece. The following passages will unveil Koh's "understanding" (or concealment) of Rostow: Rushing to teach my morning class last November, I opened The New York Times and found Dean Rostow's obituary. As I walked to the Law School, I thought of how much he had done for my family, for Yale, for the nation. As I began my lecture, I suddenly realized I was standing under Dean Rostow's portrait. I looked up again at the man who had reminded us to be greater than ourselves. He sits, resplendent and regal in academic robes, with that twinkle I remember. It must have been painted around the time I first met him. I paused and asked the class, "Do you know who this man is, and why he is so important?" And when they shook their heads, I told them Dean Rostow's story. I told them about his courage, his humanity, and his vision. It just needed saying, that's all. Source: Godfrey Hogdson, "Eugene Rostow: Liberal Academic Lawyer Who Turned Sharply to the Right," The Guardian, November 28, 2002; and Harold Koh, "In Memoriam: Dean Eugene V. Rostow," Yale Law Report 16 (Summer 2003). 2001 § October 4, 2001. Professor Harold Koh delivered the Richard J. Childress Memorial Lecture at the Saint Louis University School of Law. During this presentation, Koh stated his personal opinion that the US should have participated in the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, South Africa). Yet he had his own proposal for how the US could have undermined and, at the same time, redirected the participants from paying attention to Israel and, particularly Zionism. In Koh's own words: Another failure to speak came at the recent World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, where Secretary of State Colin Powell declined to appear out of protest over the Conference's scapegoating of Israel. Had he appeared, he could have used his speech-much as Warren Christopher did at the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights and Hillary Clinton did at the 1995 Beijing Women's Conference-to tell America's story. He could have recounted the story of his own remarkable odyssey to become America's first African-American Secretary of State as living proof of America's sincere commitment to promoting racial equality. By taking the podium, he could not only have told the truth to those who wanted to use the Conference to assert that Zionism is racism, but also could have redirected the Conference agenda toward the real emerging global discrimination issues of the twenty-first century, such as caste discrimination, discrimination against refugees, workable affirmative action techniques and other efforts to give meaningful reparations for past discrimination. Source: Harold Koh, "A United States Human Rights Policy For The 21st Century," Saint Louis University Law Journal, vol. 46, no. 293 (2002), 309. 1999 § "As the US stepped up its bombing raids against Yugoslavia, Harold Koh, then assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, called the leaders of several US human rights groups to a hastily arranged meeting at his offices in Foggy Bottom. Koh started the session by telling the groups' leaders, who included Amnesty International-USA's head Dr. William Schulz, that he was sorry that the administration could not support the extradition of Pinochet. He stressed that while Madeleine Albright cared deeply about human rights matters, the Defense Department had quashed the idea. But, Koh said, there was good news. Albright had convinced the Defense Department and Clinton that human rights concerns should be the driving force behind the bombing of the Serbs. Koh said he hoped the human rights groups would enthusiastically support the mission and promised that if they did, Albright might even meet with them in person in the near future. Source: Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. Clair, Those Incubator Babies, Once More?, Counterpunch, June 15, 1999. Share this: § Twitter § Facebook2 § Google § Like this: Like Loading... Blog at WordPress.com. | The Motif Theme. Follow Follow "Reclaiming Human Rights" Top of Form Get every new post delivered to your Inbox. Bottom of Form Build a website with WordPress.com %d bloggers like this:

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 22, 2016 8:22 PM To: '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' Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/ode-to-harold-killer-koh/ Ode to Harold Killer Koh by Francis A. Boyle / April 19th, 2015 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 "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! 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 22, 2016 8:19 PM To: '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' > Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad We have a nice big courtyard on the North Side of the College of Law where we can exercise our First Amendment Rights to protest and demonstrate against our so-called College of Law inviting Killer Koh to speak in favor of his Fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Hey! Hey! College of Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Clinton is a psychopath and a war criminal. Ditto for her War Consigliere Harold Killer Koh. Fab. Doctor: What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. Gentlewoman: It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. Lady Macbeth: Yet here's a spot. Doctor: Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly. Lady Macbeth: Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him? Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 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 22, 2016 8:06 PM To: '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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 262 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jun 23 01:36:16 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:36:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: [http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/ced5d57/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fd1%2F4d%2F94e485044edfa2bd32904fd5aac1%2F160609-hillary-clinton-blackberry-ap-1160.jpg] Killer Koh is sitting behind Clinton. Killer Koh was her right-hand man for all four years at Secretary of State. Killer Koh publicly admitted that he advised SOS Clinton on her emails scandal, but refused to say what he advised her to do, pleading attorney/client confidences. Of course that is a lie and he knows it. This argument was rejected by the United States Supreme Court when President Clinton tried to plead attorney/client confidences to prevent his White House Lawyers from testifying before the Grand Jury. The Supreme Court ruled that government lawyers like Koh work for the American People and therefore there is no attorney/client privilege between government lawyers and government officials like SOS Clinton. The Supreme Court also ruled that if government officials want to establish an attorney/client privilege/confidence with a lawyer, they have to go out and hire their own private lawyers. So when President Bush Jr realized he had some serious legal problems, he went out and hired his own private lawyer. Killer Koh is a Liar too. Just like he was the only lawyer in the entire Obama administration willing to get up in front of a Senate Committee and lie to them about Obama's unconstitutional war against Libya. Lying to Congress is a Crime. Subverting the United States Constitution is an Impeachable Offense and an Historical Injustice to this Republic and our Rule of Law. But of course the pro-Clinton College of Law Faculty mired in 15 years of continual scandals of their own have no problem inviting this high level Clinton Presidential Campaign apparatchik and long-time Clinton legal fixer giving an endowed lecture for $5k ten days before the presidential elections in order to pretty up his Boss for the public so as to improve his chances to get a coveted nomination to the US Supreme Court from a Second President Clinton. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 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 22, 2016 8:28 PM To: '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' Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Reclaiming Human Rights An Examination of Harold Koh and His Disservice to Global Peace Menu Skip to content § Home § About § Drones § Human Cost § Koh & Drones § Critics § In the Press § Koh's "Other" Record § Events § Letters § CoLR § Gilbert § O'Connell § We Respond § Links § Contact Koh's "Other" Record Work-in-Progress [Please feel free to contact and help us expand Harold Koh's lesser-known résumé] In response to Harold Koh's cronies, the "human rights hawks", who dismissed our petition and attempted to silence our dissent, we have initiated a compilation of Koh's lesser-known actions and utterances, which further call into question his work for human rights. For a complete list of Koh's closest adulators, many of whom are staunch supporters of Israel's colonial occupation of Palestine and current/former servants of the White House whether under Republican or Democratic presidents, please visit the "Open Letter In Support of Harold Koh." Harold Hongju Koh Yale Law School P.O. Box 208215 New Haven, CT 06520 2015 § On March 10, the Guardian reporter Jon Swaine writes that: Hillary Clinton's most senior legal adviser while she was secretary of state has refused to disclose advice he gave her on the legality of operating a private email system, arguing that the secrecy of their discussion is protected by law. Harold Koh, who was legal adviser of the Department of State between 2009 and 2013, declined to discuss "advice I gave as a lawyer to my client" as Clinton prepared to address the controversy at a press conference in New York on Tuesday. "This is attorney-client privilege, I can't answer that question," Koh said, during a brief telephone interview with the Guardian. "You know, what as a lawyer you say to your client ... I can't answer that question." In response to Koh, Mr. Swaine interviewed Edna Selan Epstein, a retired prosecutor and attorney and author of the American Bar Association's authoritative guide on attorney-client privilege." In Ms. Epstein's own words: "It is not as clearcut as he suggests," adding that Koh's defence could be challenged in court. "The question is whether his real client is the American public or the government official," Epstein said on Monday. "There is not a clear statute or large body of law on it, and there were cases, particularly during the Bill Clinton era, where privilege was not upheld." Source: Jon Swaine, "Clinton's Former Legal Adviser Deflects Questions About Private Email Account," The Guardian, 10 March 2015. 2013 § On February 20, 2013, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti reports that Harold Koh encouraged "rights groups to embrace John Brennan's nomination" as CIA director. In Koh's own words: "Who would they rather have, and why would that person promote their values as C.I.A. director more than John Brennan?" Source: Scott Shane & Mark Mazzetti, White House Tactic for C.I.A. Bid Holds Back Drone Memos, the New York Times, Feb. 20, 2013. 2012 § May 2012: Harold Koh refers to John Brennan, a key architect of the Bush Administration's detention, interrogation, and torture program, as "a person of genuine moral rectitude ... It's as though you had a priest with extremely strong moral values who was suddenly charged with leading a war." Source: Jo Becker and Scott Shane, "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will," New York Times, May, 29, 2012; Ray McGovern, The Moral Challenge of 'Kill Lists', Consortiumnews.com, May 30, 2012; see also Conor Friedersdorf, Does It Matter if John Brennan Was Complicit in Illegal Torture?, The Atlantic, Jan. 8, 2013. 2011 § June 2011: Harold Koh, the US State Department Legal Advisor, argued against Jeh Johnson (then-Pentagon General Counsel) and Caroline Krass (then-acting head of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) that the United States' actions in Libya-dropping bombs and firing drones-did not constitute "hostilities" within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, which allowed the destruction of Libya to continue without further Congressional authorization. Johnson and Krass, meanwhile, had argued, in contrast to Koh, that U.S. actions in Libya did constitute "hostilities" and that the continued bombardment would violate the War Powers Resolution. Source: Charlie Savage, 2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate, The New York Times, June 17, 2011. § June 29, 2011. Reuters reports that the "State Department legal adviser Harold Koh urged U.S. lawmakers to nonetheless vote for a resolution authorizing the U.S. role in the NATO-led mission." Reuters also unveiled Koh's claims, in his own words: "The U.S. intervention was not extensive enough in 'nature, scope and duration' to require a congressional declaration of war under Article One of the U.S. constitution." "Nor did it constitute the kind of hostilities envisioned by the War Powers Resolution [...] [t]his was because there were limits to the mission as well as the exposure of U.S. armed forces. The risk of escalation and the military means used by the United States were also limited, he said. The violence that U.S. armed forces had directly inflicted or facilitated after the handoff to NATO has been 'modest'," he said. Source: Reuters, Harold Koh, Top Obama lawyer, Defends Libya Operation Over Congress' War Powers Objections, Huffington Post, June 28, 2011. § March 2011: Harold Koh yet again offers a "robust defense" of targeted killings in a speech before the European University Institute's Global Governance Programme, according to journalist Cian Murphy. Source: Cian Murphy, Chomsky takes Obama to task, the Guardian, Oct. 13, 2011. § In 2011, the survivors of a 1997 massacre by Mexican paramilitary groups sued former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo alleging that he was responsible for the attack. At the time, Zedillo was a scholar at Yale University. "The State Department said Mr. Zedillo should have immunity because the suit, filed in federal court in Connecticut, concerned actions taken in his official capacity ... 'The complaint is predicated on former President Zedillo's actions as president, not private conduct,' Harold Hongju Koh, a State Department legal adviser and a professor at Yale Law School, wrote in a letter accompanying the filing. He said that the complaint's 'generalized allegations' did not give the department any reason to rule differently." Source: Randal C. Archibold, S. Moves to Grant Former Mexican President Immunity in Suit, The New York Times, Sept. 8, 2012. 2010 § Harold Koh "had set his own legal standard to justify the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen: He felt that Awlaki would have to be shown to be 'evil,' with iron-clad intelligence to prove it. After absorbing the chilling intel, which included multiple bombing plots and elaborate plans to attack Americans with ricin and cyanide, Koh concluded that Awlaki was not just evil; he was 'satanic.'" See Daniel Klaidman, "John Brennan and the Drone Consensus,' The Daily Beast, 9 February 2013; and Jeremy Scahill, Dirty Wars: The World is a Battlefield (2013), p. 371. § March 25, 2010: Harold Koh gives a speech before the American Society of International Law in which he defends U.S. targeted killing practices, stating that, "S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war." Source: Lawfare, "The Obama Administration and International Law, Speech by Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State," Mar. 25, 2010. § According to investigative reporter Allan Nairn, "A few years ago, the Obama administration sent Harold Koh to the ICC, International Criminal Court, conference in Africa to try to rewrite the definition of "aggression" so the U.S. couldn't be touched." Source: Investigative Reporter Allan Nairn speaking on DN!, Tuesday, October 28, 2014. § On June 15, 2010, Mr. Koh reported the following during a special briefing on the outcome of the ICC Conference on the Crime of Aggression: "We think that . . . the outcome protected our vital interests. The court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression without a further decision to take place sometime after January 1st, 2017. The [ICC] prosecutor cannot charge nationals of non-state parties, including U.S. nationals, with a crime of aggression. No U.S. national can be prosecuted for aggression so long as the U.S. remains a non-state party. And if we were to become a state party, we'd still have the option to opt out from having our nationals prosecuted for aggression. So we ensure total protection for our Armed Forces and other U.S. nationals going forward." "If the Security Council did not make a determination that aggression had occurred, the prosecutor would have to offer a reasonable basis for investigating the crime under a definition that's been clarified by understandings we suggested. The prosecution would have to get a majority vote of six judges of the court's pretrial division. The Security Council would still, at that point, have the authority to stop the prosecution with a red light Chapter 7 resolution disapproving the resolution. And as I said, the channel would not apply to nationals of non-state parties or any non-consenting state party who opted out." "The big picture going forward, I think we should keep in mind, is that as the country of Nuremberg prosecutor Justice Jackson, we are the only country that has successfully prosecuted the crime of aggression at Nuremberg and Tokyo. Of course, we do not commit aggression and the chances are extremely remote that a prosecution on this crime will, at some point in the distant future, affect us negatively." "So to paraphrase Churchill, this is not the end, it was not the beginning of the end, but it did feel like the end of the beginning of the U.S's 12-year relationship with this court. After 12 years, I think we have reset the default on the U.S. relationship with the court from hostility to positive engagement. In this case, principal engagement worked to protect our interest, to improve the outcome, and to bring us renewed international goodwill." Source: "US Engagement With the ICC and the Outcome of the Recently Conducted Review Conference," Special Briefing by Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Advisor U.S. Department of State, and Stephen J. Rapp, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues, Washington, DC, June 15, 2010. § On November 5, 2010, Koh was one of the 30 officials representing the United States during a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. As journalist Mark Tran from The Guardian reports, the US delegation "was forced to listen to repeated calls for the US to put an end to the death penalty." Koh then defended the U.S. by claiming that "capital punishment was a subject of vigorous debate and litigation in the US and was applied for in only the most serious crimes." He resumed his statement on the death penalty by reiterating its legality. In his own words, "International human rights law does not bar it per se." Source: Mark Tran, "UN Human Rights Council Urges US to End Death Penalty," The Guardian, Nov. 5, 2010. § On that same occasion, namely the UN Human Rights Council meeting of November 5, 2010, Koh "defended the use of unmanned drone aircraft to kill 'high value targets' on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and in Yemen." In Koh's own words: "Our targeting practice complies with all human rights law," he said. "Operations are conducted in conformity with rule of law principles. It has been long legitimate to target enemy leaders and force is directed only at lawful targets." Source: Mark Tran, "UN Human Rights Council Urges US to End Death Penalty," The Guardian, Nov. 5, 2010. § November 26, 2010: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange wrote to U.S. Ambassador Louis B. Susman requesting that the government "privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed." Assange expressed WikiLeaks' willingness to "respect the confidentiality of advice provided by the United States Government and is prepared to consider any such submissions made without delay." Source: Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government, the New York Times. § November 27, 2010: Harold Koh responded with a letter addressed to both Mr. Assange and to Mr. Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. In it, he imputed to them both the "intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified U.S. Government document" in violation of U.S. law. Source: Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government, the New York Times. [click here to download a copy of Koh's Letter to Ms. Robinson] § December 10, 2010: Gail Davidson, Founder of Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada wrote to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder to express "alarm" by Harold Koh's actions: "LRWC is alarmed by actions of US State Department Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh that put British barrister Jennifer Robinson in jeopardy and interfere with the right of her client Julian Assange, to be represented." [...] "Mr. Koh violated US and international standards when he wrongly identified Ms. Robinson's with the allegations of criminal wrongdoing made by the US against her client." [...] "Mr. Koh has demonstrated professional irresponsibility by publishing exaggerated and unsubstantiated allegations of serious criminal acts against Ms. Robinson and her client." Source: Gail Davidson, Statement linking lawyer Jennifer Robinson with her client Julian Assange violates advocacy rights, Dec. 10, 2010. 2009 § July 29, 2009: According to an internal government cable released by WikiLeaks: "In a July 29 meeting with [Afghan] Attorney General [Muhamad Ishaq] Aloko, Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh and Deputy Ambassador Francis Ricciardone pressed Aloko on the release without trial of detainees transferred from Bagram and Guantanamo to Afghan custody, and convicted narco-traffickers. Koh had visited the Afghan National Detention Facility (ANDF), Pol-i-Charki, the Counternarcotics Justice Center, and Bagram before seeing Aloko. Koh reported that he has observed juvenile detainees as 13 yeas old being held in the ANDF, an adult facility, and urged their immediate transfer to a juvenile detention center. On pretrial pardons, Koh also told Aloko that he would have difficulty reporting to his supervisors in the USG that he had confidence in the Afghan government who was releasing dangerous individuals into Afghan society without trial. [...] Ambassador Ricciardone pressed Aloko on why, contrary to explicit agreement, the GIRoA allowed 150 pre-trial releases from the ANDF, including the recent release without trial of Abdullah Shahab, nephew of anti-American Mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [...] Aloko argued that when U.S. transfers detainees to the GIRoA, the U.S.-provided evidence against some detainees is insufficient for prosecution, so he is sometimes left with no other choice than to release the detainee rather than let their cases take up time in already overburdened courts. Source: Afghanistan, Kabul to Secretary of State, Secret Kabul 002245, August 6, 2009; available thanks to Wikileaks. [PDF available here] 2003 § In the Summer of 2003, Harold Koh wrote an eulogy for Eugene V. Rostow. So who was Rostow? According to Godfrey Hogdson, the author of The Myth of American Exceptionalism (Yale, 2010), Rostow "was an opponent of arms limitation under President Ford, head of the arms control agency under President Reagan (1981-83), and in his 70s and 80s a champion of Israel and of the Likud party's defiant policies." "As early as the 1970s," Hogdson writes for The Guardian, "Rostow was attacking Israel's critics. He made himself useful to that country and especially to its US supporters by lending his prestige to a number of Israeli contentions, chiefly the proposition that there was no legal reason why Israel should not build West Bank settlements." Yet none of what Hogdson reported in his own obituary of Rostow appeared in Koh's piece. The following passages will unveil Koh's "understanding" (or concealment) of Rostow: Rushing to teach my morning class last November, I opened The New York Times and found Dean Rostow's obituary. As I walked to the Law School, I thought of how much he had done for my family, for Yale, for the nation. As I began my lecture, I suddenly realized I was standing under Dean Rostow's portrait. I looked up again at the man who had reminded us to be greater than ourselves. He sits, resplendent and regal in academic robes, with that twinkle I remember. It must have been painted around the time I first met him. I paused and asked the class, "Do you know who this man is, and why he is so important?" And when they shook their heads, I told them Dean Rostow's story. I told them about his courage, his humanity, and his vision. It just needed saying, that's all. Source: Godfrey Hogdson, "Eugene Rostow: Liberal Academic Lawyer Who Turned Sharply to the Right," The Guardian, November 28, 2002; and Harold Koh, "In Memoriam: Dean Eugene V. Rostow," Yale Law Report 16 (Summer 2003). 2001 § October 4, 2001. Professor Harold Koh delivered the Richard J. Childress Memorial Lecture at the Saint Louis University School of Law. During this presentation, Koh stated his personal opinion that the US should have participated in the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban, South Africa). Yet he had his own proposal for how the US could have undermined and, at the same time, redirected the participants from paying attention to Israel and, particularly Zionism. In Koh's own words: Another failure to speak came at the recent World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, where Secretary of State Colin Powell declined to appear out of protest over the Conference's scapegoating of Israel. Had he appeared, he could have used his speech-much as Warren Christopher did at the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights and Hillary Clinton did at the 1995 Beijing Women's Conference-to tell America's story. He could have recounted the story of his own remarkable odyssey to become America's first African-American Secretary of State as living proof of America's sincere commitment to promoting racial equality. By taking the podium, he could not only have told the truth to those who wanted to use the Conference to assert that Zionism is racism, but also could have redirected the Conference agenda toward the real emerging global discrimination issues of the twenty-first century, such as caste discrimination, discrimination against refugees, workable affirmative action techniques and other efforts to give meaningful reparations for past discrimination. Source: Harold Koh, "A United States Human Rights Policy For The 21st Century," Saint Louis University Law Journal, vol. 46, no. 293 (2002), 309. 1999 § "As the US stepped up its bombing raids against Yugoslavia, Harold Koh, then assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor, called the leaders of several US human rights groups to a hastily arranged meeting at his offices in Foggy Bottom. Koh started the session by telling the groups' leaders, who included Amnesty International-USA's head Dr. William Schulz, that he was sorry that the administration could not support the extradition of Pinochet. He stressed that while Madeleine Albright cared deeply about human rights matters, the Defense Department had quashed the idea. But, Koh said, there was good news. Albright had convinced the Defense Department and Clinton that human rights concerns should be the driving force behind the bombing of the Serbs. Koh said he hoped the human rights groups would enthusiastically support the mission and promised that if they did, Albright might even meet with them in person in the near future. Source: Alexander Cockburn & Jeffrey St. Clair, Those Incubator Babies, Once More?, Counterpunch, June 15, 1999. Share this: § Twitter § Facebook2 § Google § Like this: Like Loading... Blog at WordPress.com. | The Motif Theme. Follow Follow "Reclaiming Human Rights" Top of Form Get every new post delivered to your Inbox. Bottom of Form Build a website with WordPress.com %d bloggers like this:

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 22, 2016 8:22 PM To: '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' > Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/ode-to-harold-killer-koh/ Ode to Harold Killer Koh by Francis A. Boyle / April 19th, 2015 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 "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! 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 22, 2016 8:19 PM To: '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' > Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad We have a nice big courtyard on the North Side of the College of Law where we can exercise our First Amendment Rights to protest and demonstrate against our so-called College of Law inviting Killer Koh to speak in favor of his Fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton. Hey! Hey! College of Law Say! How many kids! Did you kill today! "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Clinton is a psychopath and a war criminal. Ditto for her War Consigliere Harold Killer Koh. Fab. Doctor: What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. Gentlewoman: It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. Lady Macbeth: Yet here's a spot. Doctor: Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly. Lady Macbeth: Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him? Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 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 22, 2016 8:06 PM To: '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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13597 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 262 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jun 23 02:15:11 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 02:15:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad In-Reply-To: References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, , Message-ID: Good, we're going to hold you to that too. Carl, or David, I hope one of you will speak about this on NFN Friday. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:06:07 PM To: 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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. —CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That’s Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats’ proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over “responsibility to protect” and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It’s called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL’s Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > “We came! We saw! He died!,” said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!—One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.—Hell is murky.—Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?—Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26–40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Jun 23 02:27:00 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 21:27:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air for June 21 (#368) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33E96E7D-348A-4440-9986-269D6C990A8C@newsfromneptune.com> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXxfMgL8uuo '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 #368 was recorded at noon on Tuesday 21 June in the studios of Urbana Public Television for cablecast Tuesday at 10pm & on demand on YouTube. https://www.facebook.com/groups/305897426305/ ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jun 23 11:52:03 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 11:52:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad In-Reply-To: References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, , Message-ID: Subject: Declaration in Hancock 17 Drone Resistance Case/Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison DECLARATION OF FRANCIS A. BOYLE Pursuant to 28 USC 1746, Francis A. Boyle declares under penalty of perjury: 1. I am a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Illinois. I hold a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and an A.M. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Government, where I specialized in International Political Science and its relationship to International Law. I graduated from the same Harvard Ph.D. Program that produced Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington et al. before me. My resume is attached to this Declaration and is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. I am an expert in International Law and Foreign Policy. I have studied, read, taught, and written extensively in these areas, and have been qualified as an expert witness in several courts across the country and abroad. I also currently teach a course on The Constitutional Law of U.S. Foreign Affairs. Previously, I taught the course here on Criminal Law for several years. 3. I have been qualified as an Expert and testified in U.S. military court-martial proceedings involving (1) U.S.M.C. Corporal Jeff Paterson (1990); (2) U.S. Army Captain Doctor Yolanda Huet-Vaugn (1991); (3) U.S. Army Captain Lawrence Rockwood (1995); (4) U.S. Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia (2003); and (5) U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada (2006). 4. In 1983 the United States Military Academy at West Point invited me to lecture and debate before their 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear Deterrence on the subject of Nuclear Deterrence and International Law. The audience consisted of about 200 high-level officials from the United States government in charge of U.S. nuclear weapons policies, both military and civilian. Sitting in the audience for my entire presentation was the 3-Star General in charge of War Operations at the Pentagon. 5. Starting in October of 2001, the United States war against Afghanistan has been and still is an illegal war of aggression that violates the United Nations Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). Therefore the U.S. war against Afghanistan constitutes a Nuremberg Crime against Peace against the State of Afghanistan, its Taliban Government, Taliban government officials, Taliban combatants, and the citizens of Afghanistan. The reasons for these conclusions are set forth in two scholarly essays I have published: George Bush, Jr., September 11 and the Rule of Law, in my book The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence 16-39 (Clarity Press: 2002); and No War Against Afghanistan!, in my book Tackling America's Toughest Questions 24-38 (Clarity Press: 2009). I have attached copies of these essays to this Declaration and hereby incorporate them by reference. 6. In addition, I also wish to draw to the Court's attention the memoirs by Richard A. Clark, Chairman of the Counter-terrorism Security Group at the White House under President George Bush Jr. on September 11, 2001, Against All Enemies (2004), at page 24: "When later in the discussion [on the evening of Sept. 11, with Bush and his crisis advisors], Secretary Rumsfeld noted that international law allowed the use of force only to prevent future attacks and not for retribution, Bush nearly bit his head off. 'No,' the President yelled in the narrow conference room, 'I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.'" (Emphasis added.) 7. The Nuremberg Crime Against Peace has been expressly incorporated into Department of the Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956), which in relevant part provides as follows: Section II. CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise: a. Crimes against peace. b. Crimes against humanity. c. War crimes. .... 8. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) was drafted for the United States Army by then Major Richard R. Baxter. Professor Baxter later taught me his course on The Laws of War at Harvard Law School. I was the top student in his class and Professor Baxter recommended me for my current position as a law professor. Professor Baxter was later elected a Judge on the International Court of Justice, the so-called World Court of the United Nations System. While he was alive, Professor Baxter was generally considered to be the world's leading expert on the Laws of War. 9. Therefore, I am uniquely qualified to testify concerning the relevance of the Laws of War to these proceedings. The Defendants have asked me to testify. I have agreed to testify. I hereby respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify at this trial. 10. Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force including and especially by means of drones supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. 11. These and other U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine by means of drones and otherwise constitute Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. 12. Wherefore I most respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify in these proceedings. 13. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I am prepared to testify under oath and answer questions on these and related matters. Most respectfully submitted by, FRANCIS ANTHONY BOYLE Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) Signed this 23rd day of January 2014, at Champaign, Illinois Attachments . Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. And apparently even if the supposed combatants are located within the United States of America. 11. These U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine have been officially authorized, approved, and justified by, among others: 1. President Barack Obama, Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and thus Commander-in-Chief of everyone involved in these proceedings except for civilians.. President Obama is a distinguished graduate of the Harvard Law School and used to teach law at the University of Chicago Law School. 2. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, including but not limited to a March 2012 speech he delivered at Northwestern Law School in Chicago, Illinois at the specific request of their Dean Daniel Rodriguez and for which he received standing ovations by the Northwestern Law Professors in attendance. 3. General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Defense, Mr. Jeh Johnson. 4. Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, Yale Law Dean and Law Professor Harold Koh, who has now returned to teach at Yale Law School. 5. Mr. John Brennan, Counter-terrorism Advisor to President Obama at the White House and now Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency as confirmed by the United States Senate. 6. Two Law Professors working for the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel: Harvard Law Professor David Barron, who has now returned to teach at Harvard Law School; and Georgetown Law Professor Martin Lederman, who has now returned to teach at Georgetown Law School. 7. Numerous Members of the Honorable United States House of Representatives and Numerous Members of the Honorable United States Senate, many of whom are distinguished Lawyers with substantial Legal Experience and Credentials. 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: public at lists.accuracy.org [mailto:public at lists.accuracy.org] On Behalf Of Institute for Public Accuracy Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: Institute for Public Accuracy Subject: Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org ____________________________________________ Thursday, January 23, 2014 Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison While 29 of President Obama's judicial nominees were voted out of committee last week, one is coming under criticism from both the left and right. Legal Times reports that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) "voiced numerous concerns about [David] Barron for the First Circuit, saying he has advocated for positions 'far outside the mainstream.' Barron, Grassley said, quoting from a New York Times article, participated in crafting the Justice Department legal memo authorizing the use of drones to kill U.S. citizens in other countries. The committee voted 10-8 to approve Barron's nomination." Just after his November nomination, the New York Times noted that Barron "signed two secret memorandums declaring that it would be lawful for the United States to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen suspected of plotting terrorist attacks, if it were not feasible to capture him." FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America's Toughest Questions. He said today: "Barron co-authored the infamous Justice department opinion authorizing Obama's murder of U.S. citizens. This is a total disgrace. If approved, we will have a murderer and a war criminal sitting on the U.S. First Circuit. ... So here Barron and [his coauthor in the legal opinion Martin] Lederman deliberately and maliciously write a get-out-of-jail-free card for Obama so that he can murder U.S. citizens, which he does. ... Barron is neither fit nor qualified to serve as a Judge on the First Circuit -- a post which would make him a prime candidate for a U.S. Supreme Court seat. ... This is exactly how Bush paid back Jay Bybee [author of legal memos on torture] when he put him on the Ninth Circuit. Obama is worse than Bush in that Obama is a lawyer and knows better." Meanwhile, the trial of the "Hancock 17" peace activists is taking place. The defendants and their allies released a statement: "After awaiting trial for 15 months, the defense case of the Hancock 17 will begin at 5 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 23, continuing on Friday, Jan. 24, in De Witt Town Court, near Syracuse. On Oct. 25, 2012, 17 people were arrested for symbolically blocking the three gates at Hancock National Air Guard Base which is a site where MQ 9 Reaper drones are piloted over Afghanistan. ... They stood in front of the gates with banners and and signs calling for an end to drone warfare and read a citizen's War Crimes Indictment to the base personnel at the gates. They called for an end of attacks on civilians that are illegal under international war. "After almost three hours outside the gates, the protesters were arrested and arraigned on charges of Trespass and Disorderly Conduct. ... The protesters were also issued Orders of Protection for Col. Earl Evans which require them to stay away from the base. Violating the Order carries potential misdemeanor or even felony charges. ... "The defendants' case is supported by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Law professor Francis Boyle, Urbana Champagne, University of Illinois, expert on drones and international law." CAROL BAUM, carol at peacecouncil.net Baum is with the Syracuse Peace Council. MARY ANNE GRADY FLORES, gradyflores08 at gmail.com One of those being prosecuted, Flores is with the Catholic Worker in Ithaca, New York. ED KINANE, edkinane at verizon.net Another one of the "Hancock 17," Kinane is with Upstate Drone Action in Syracuse. For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan,(541) 484-9167 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:15 PM To: Boyle, Francis A ; C. G. Estabrook ; David Green ; David Johnson ; Stuart Levy ; Karen Medina ; Szoke, Ron ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace Discuss ; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Good, we're going to hold you to that too. Carl, or David, I hope one of you will speak about this on NFN Friday. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:06:07 PM To: 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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 130 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 181 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jun 23 12:10:08 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:10:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, , Message-ID: Meanwhile, the trial of the "Hancock 17" peace activists is taking place. The defendants and their allies released a statement: "After awaiting trial for 15 months, the defense case of the Hancock 17 will begin at 5 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 23, continuing on Friday, Jan. 24, in De Witt Town Court, near Syracuse. On Oct. 25, 2012, 17 people were arrested for symbolically blocking the three gates at Hancock National Air Guard Base which is a site where MQ 9 Reaper drones are piloted over Afghanistan. ... They stood in front of the gates with banners and and signs calling for an end to drone warfare and read a citizen's War Crimes Indictment to the base personnel at the gates. They called for an end of attacks on civilians that are illegal under international war. "After almost three hours outside the gates, the protesters were arrested and arraigned on charges of Trespass and Disorderly Conduct. ... The protesters were also issued Orders of Protection for Col. Earl Evans which require them to stay away from the base. Violating the Order carries potential misdemeanor or even felony charges. ... "The defendants' case is supported by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Law professor Francis Boyle, Urbana Champagne, University of Illinois, expert on drones and international law." 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, June 23, 2016 6:52 AM To: '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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Subject: Declaration in Hancock 17 Drone Resistance Case/Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison DECLARATION OF FRANCIS A. BOYLE Pursuant to 28 USC 1746, Francis A. Boyle declares under penalty of perjury: 1. I am a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Illinois. I hold a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and an A.M. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Government, where I specialized in International Political Science and its relationship to International Law. I graduated from the same Harvard Ph.D. Program that produced Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington et al. before me. My resume is attached to this Declaration and is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. I am an expert in International Law and Foreign Policy. I have studied, read, taught, and written extensively in these areas, and have been qualified as an expert witness in several courts across the country and abroad. I also currently teach a course on The Constitutional Law of U.S. Foreign Affairs. Previously, I taught the course here on Criminal Law for several years. 3. I have been qualified as an Expert and testified in U.S. military court-martial proceedings involving (1) U.S.M.C. Corporal Jeff Paterson (1990); (2) U.S. Army Captain Doctor Yolanda Huet-Vaugn (1991); (3) U.S. Army Captain Lawrence Rockwood (1995); (4) U.S. Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia (2003); and (5) U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada (2006). 4. In 1983 the United States Military Academy at West Point invited me to lecture and debate before their 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear Deterrence on the subject of Nuclear Deterrence and International Law. The audience consisted of about 200 high-level officials from the United States government in charge of U.S. nuclear weapons policies, both military and civilian. Sitting in the audience for my entire presentation was the 3-Star General in charge of War Operations at the Pentagon. 5. Starting in October of 2001, the United States war against Afghanistan has been and still is an illegal war of aggression that violates the United Nations Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). Therefore the U.S. war against Afghanistan constitutes a Nuremberg Crime against Peace against the State of Afghanistan, its Taliban Government, Taliban government officials, Taliban combatants, and the citizens of Afghanistan. The reasons for these conclusions are set forth in two scholarly essays I have published: George Bush, Jr., September 11 and the Rule of Law, in my book The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence 16-39 (Clarity Press: 2002); and No War Against Afghanistan!, in my book Tackling America's Toughest Questions 24-38 (Clarity Press: 2009). I have attached copies of these essays to this Declaration and hereby incorporate them by reference. 6. In addition, I also wish to draw to the Court's attention the memoirs by Richard A. Clark, Chairman of the Counter-terrorism Security Group at the White House under President George Bush Jr. on September 11, 2001, Against All Enemies (2004), at page 24: "When later in the discussion [on the evening of Sept. 11, with Bush and his crisis advisors], Secretary Rumsfeld noted that international law allowed the use of force only to prevent future attacks and not for retribution, Bush nearly bit his head off. 'No,' the President yelled in the narrow conference room, 'I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.'" (Emphasis added.) 7. The Nuremberg Crime Against Peace has been expressly incorporated into Department of the Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956), which in relevant part provides as follows: Section II. CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise: a. Crimes against peace. b. Crimes against humanity. c. War crimes. .... 8. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) was drafted for the United States Army by then Major Richard R. Baxter. Professor Baxter later taught me his course on The Laws of War at Harvard Law School. I was the top student in his class and Professor Baxter recommended me for my current position as a law professor. Professor Baxter was later elected a Judge on the International Court of Justice, the so-called World Court of the United Nations System. While he was alive, Professor Baxter was generally considered to be the world's leading expert on the Laws of War. 9. Therefore, I am uniquely qualified to testify concerning the relevance of the Laws of War to these proceedings. The Defendants have asked me to testify. I have agreed to testify. I hereby respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify at this trial. 10. Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force including and especially by means of drones supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. 11. These and other U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine by means of drones and otherwise constitute Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. 12. Wherefore I most respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify in these proceedings. 13. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I am prepared to testify under oath and answer questions on these and related matters. Most respectfully submitted by, FRANCIS ANTHONY BOYLE Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) Signed this 23rd day of January 2014, at Champaign, Illinois Attachments . Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. And apparently even if the supposed combatants are located within the United States of America. 11. These U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine have been officially authorized, approved, and justified by, among others: 1. President Barack Obama, Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and thus Commander-in-Chief of everyone involved in these proceedings except for civilians.. President Obama is a distinguished graduate of the Harvard Law School and used to teach law at the University of Chicago Law School. 2. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, including but not limited to a March 2012 speech he delivered at Northwestern Law School in Chicago, Illinois at the specific request of their Dean Daniel Rodriguez and for which he received standing ovations by the Northwestern Law Professors in attendance. 3. General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Defense, Mr. Jeh Johnson. 4. Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, Yale Law Dean and Law Professor Harold Koh, who has now returned to teach at Yale Law School. 5. Mr. John Brennan, Counter-terrorism Advisor to President Obama at the White House and now Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency as confirmed by the United States Senate. 6. Two Law Professors working for the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel: Harvard Law Professor David Barron, who has now returned to teach at Harvard Law School; and Georgetown Law Professor Martin Lederman, who has now returned to teach at Georgetown Law School. 7. Numerous Members of the Honorable United States House of Representatives and Numerous Members of the Honorable United States Senate, many of whom are distinguished Lawyers with substantial Legal Experience and Credentials. 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: public at lists.accuracy.org [mailto:public at lists.accuracy.org] On Behalf Of Institute for Public Accuracy Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: Institute for Public Accuracy Subject: Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org ____________________________________________ Thursday, January 23, 2014 Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison While 29 of President Obama's judicial nominees were voted out of committee last week, one is coming under criticism from both the left and right. Legal Times reports that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) "voiced numerous concerns about [David] Barron for the First Circuit, saying he has advocated for positions 'far outside the mainstream.' Barron, Grassley said, quoting from a New York Times article, participated in crafting the Justice Department legal memo authorizing the use of drones to kill U.S. citizens in other countries. The committee voted 10-8 to approve Barron's nomination." Just after his November nomination, the New York Times noted that Barron "signed two secret memorandums declaring that it would be lawful for the United States to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen suspected of plotting terrorist attacks, if it were not feasible to capture him." FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America's Toughest Questions. He said today: "Barron co-authored the infamous Justice department opinion authorizing Obama's murder of U.S. citizens. This is a total disgrace. If approved, we will have a murderer and a war criminal sitting on the U.S. First Circuit. ... So here Barron and [his coauthor in the legal opinion Martin] Lederman deliberately and maliciously write a get-out-of-jail-free card for Obama so that he can murder U.S. citizens, which he does. ... Barron is neither fit nor qualified to serve as a Judge on the First Circuit -- a post which would make him a prime candidate for a U.S. Supreme Court seat. ... This is exactly how Bush paid back Jay Bybee [author of legal memos on torture] when he put him on the Ninth Circuit. Obama is worse than Bush in that Obama is a lawyer and knows better." Meanwhile, the trial of the "Hancock 17" peace activists is taking place. The defendants and their allies released a statement: "After awaiting trial for 15 months, the defense case of the Hancock 17 will begin at 5 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 23, continuing on Friday, Jan. 24, in De Witt Town Court, near Syracuse. On Oct. 25, 2012, 17 people were arrested for symbolically blocking the three gates at Hancock National Air Guard Base which is a site where MQ 9 Reaper drones are piloted over Afghanistan. ... They stood in front of the gates with banners and and signs calling for an end to drone warfare and read a citizen's War Crimes Indictment to the base personnel at the gates. They called for an end of attacks on civilians that are illegal under international war. "After almost three hours outside the gates, the protesters were arrested and arraigned on charges of Trespass and Disorderly Conduct. ... The protesters were also issued Orders of Protection for Col. Earl Evans which require them to stay away from the base. Violating the Order carries potential misdemeanor or even felony charges. ... "The defendants' case is supported by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Law professor Francis Boyle, Urbana Champagne, University of Illinois, expert on drones and international law." CAROL BAUM, carol at peacecouncil.net Baum is with the Syracuse Peace Council. MARY ANNE GRADY FLORES, gradyflores08 at gmail.com One of those being prosecuted, Flores is with the Catholic Worker in Ithaca, New York. ED KINANE, edkinane at verizon.net Another one of the "Hancock 17," Kinane is with Upstate Drone Action in Syracuse. For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan,(541) 484-9167 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:15 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Good, we're going to hold you to that too. Carl, or David, I hope one of you will speak about this on NFN Friday. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:06:07 PM To: 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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 130 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 181 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jun 23 13:02:51 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:02:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad In-Reply-To: References: <74F685ED-2795-46FC-B849-4F4717F8CC2A@illinois.edu> <65AE020E-4F05-4D7C-83E7-BC2669F3753E@newsfromneptune.com>, , Message-ID: USA: Acronym for United States of Assassinations? By Sherwood Ross What the United Nations independent investigator on extrajudicial killings would like is for countries that employ surprise drone attacks to first prove they have attempted to capture or incapacitate suspects. The investigator, Philip Alston, issued a 29-page report Wednesday that the New York Times termed "Highly Critical" of such attacks by the U.S. and, says the Associated Press, "called on countries to lay out rules and safeguards for carrying out the strikes." By going after terrorist networks, Alston warned, the U.S. example "could quickly lead to a situation in which dozens of countries carry out 'competing drone attacks' outside their borders against people 'labeled as terrorists by one group or another,'" Charlie Savage reported for the Times. "I'm particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe," Alston is quoted as saying. "This expansive and open-ended interpretation of the right to self-defense goes a long way towards destroying the prohibition on the use of armed force contained in the U.N. Charter," Alston pointed out. Alston can demand restraint all he likes but the administration of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama is not apt to listen. Obama has dramatically stepped up such attacks by the CIA over the occasional sorties resorted to by his predecessor. Washington's thinking appears to be, Why should U.S. troops risk storming some alleged terrorist hideout when a CIA operator in far-off Langley, Va., needs only to manipulate a computer screen to have a drone wipe them out? Reasons against using the drones include the possibility there may be innocent persons in the same building as the alleged terrorists. Only a week ago the military conceded its own drone operators called in an airstrike in February that killed 23 Afghan civilians, including women and children. Another argument against drones is that the alleged terrorists have no opportunity to surrender or to get a jury trial. The U.N.'s Alston also warns that for CIA operators thousands of miles from the point of attack "there is a risk of developing a 'PlayStation' mentality to killing." Yet another argument against the drones is that the survivors of those killed regard such attacks as cowardly and each successful (from the CIA's viewpoint) air strike only increases the public's resolve to resist the U.S. occupation. Friends and relatives of the slain innocents turn bitterly against the U.S. This situation, by the way, is nothing new. U.S. and British air attacks on German facilities in occupied France during World War II were frequently so off target that the French Resistance pleaded with the U.S. to stop the bombing and to let them take out the Nazi targets from the ground, even at great risk to themselves. Sadly, 70,000 French civilians were killed by Allied aerial bombardments gone awry. "So far," says international legal authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois at Champaign, "all CIA drone attacks have been murders, assassinations, and extrajudicial executions--a grave violation of international human rights law, the laws of the countries where the attacks took place, and of US domestic law." Boyle added, "All CIA drone strikes in Pakistan are criminal and a grave violation of international human rights law." While the laws of war apply to insurgents engaged in armed combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, Boyle says, they do not apply "when they are sleeping at their homes with their families." Moreover, "it appears that the Pentagon's use of drones has serious problems of discriminating between civilians and insurgents engaged in armed combat, (resulting in a seriously disproportional ratio between allegedly dead insurgents and civilian casualties) which raises the issue of war crimes accountability." In about his first 10 months in office, President Obama okayed at least 41 drone strikes in Pakistan that killed between 326 and 538 people, many of them "innocent bystanders, including children," according to a study by the non-profit New America Foundation of Washington, D.C. Example: on his third day in the White House, Obama sanctioned two strikes, the second of which mistakenly struck the home of a pro-government tribal leader that killed his entire family, including three children, one as young as five. "The point is," Louise Doswald-Beck, a professor of international law at the Geneva Graduate Institute in Switzerland, told the AP, "innocent people have been killed, this has been proved over and over again." Civilian casualties raise the issue of whether remote controlled drones "can ever be used in a manner consistent with the laws of war in actual war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan," Boyle says. "I suspect that...the Pentagon has consigned this 'wet-work' to the CIA," Boyle added, because "they have a long history of doing it, especially in Operation Phoenix during the Vietnam War. The CIA is an organized and ongoing criminal conspiracy under international law and US domestic law. Does the Pentagon want to or intend to become the same?" he asks. The CIA's key role in carrying out what academic critics call international crime, raises troubling questions about who actually is running the United States of America. It should be recalled that Obama---who was employed after graduating Columbia University as a business writer for CIA-front Business International Corp.---wrote a letter to the CIA on April 16, 2009, that stated, "It is a core American value that we are a Nation of laws, and the CIA protects and upholds that principle under extraordinarily difficult circumstances every day." "Laws?" When Obama has declined to prosecute CIA thugs for torture (in violation of U.S. law) and who obstructed justice by destroying taped recordings of torture sessions! By contrast, Pentagon jailers accused of torturing in the Middle East have been tried and convicted. Bluntly, CIA officials appear to be above the law. The bottom line today is that CIA officials seated at computers in Langley, Va., can decide who lives or dies most anywhere on the planet without regard for international law or fear of prosecution from Obama's Justice Department. And we have a president formerly employed by the CIA who is empowering its crimes, including assassination, which Webster's defines as "to kill suddenly or secretively, especially to murder a politically prominent person." (Italics added.) # (Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based writer and author of "Gruening of Alaska"(Best Books). His articles have been published by The New York Herald-Tribune, The Washington Post and the U.S. Information Agency, among other media outlets. Reach him at sherwoodross10 at gmail.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) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 7:10 AM To: 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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Meanwhile, the trial of the "Hancock 17" peace activists is taking place. The defendants and their allies released a statement: "After awaiting trial for 15 months, the defense case of the Hancock 17 will begin at 5 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 23, continuing on Friday, Jan. 24, in De Witt Town Court, near Syracuse. On Oct. 25, 2012, 17 people were arrested for symbolically blocking the three gates at Hancock National Air Guard Base which is a site where MQ 9 Reaper drones are piloted over Afghanistan. ... They stood in front of the gates with banners and and signs calling for an end to drone warfare and read a citizen's War Crimes Indictment to the base personnel at the gates. They called for an end of attacks on civilians that are illegal under international war. "After almost three hours outside the gates, the protesters were arrested and arraigned on charges of Trespass and Disorderly Conduct. ... The protesters were also issued Orders of Protection for Col. Earl Evans which require them to stay away from the base. Violating the Order carries potential misdemeanor or even felony charges. ... "The defendants' case is supported by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Law professor Francis Boyle, Urbana Champagne, University of Illinois, expert on drones and international law." 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, June 23, 2016 6:52 AM To: '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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Subject: Declaration in Hancock 17 Drone Resistance Case/Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison DECLARATION OF FRANCIS A. BOYLE Pursuant to 28 USC 1746, Francis A. Boyle declares under penalty of perjury: 1. I am a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Illinois. I hold a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School and an A.M. and Ph.D. in Political Science from the Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Government, where I specialized in International Political Science and its relationship to International Law. I graduated from the same Harvard Ph.D. Program that produced Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington et al. before me. My resume is attached to this Declaration and is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. I am an expert in International Law and Foreign Policy. I have studied, read, taught, and written extensively in these areas, and have been qualified as an expert witness in several courts across the country and abroad. I also currently teach a course on The Constitutional Law of U.S. Foreign Affairs. Previously, I taught the course here on Criminal Law for several years. 3. I have been qualified as an Expert and testified in U.S. military court-martial proceedings involving (1) U.S.M.C. Corporal Jeff Paterson (1990); (2) U.S. Army Captain Doctor Yolanda Huet-Vaugn (1991); (3) U.S. Army Captain Lawrence Rockwood (1995); (4) U.S. Army Reserve Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia (2003); and (5) U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada (2006). 4. In 1983 the United States Military Academy at West Point invited me to lecture and debate before their 21st Senior Conference on Nuclear Deterrence on the subject of Nuclear Deterrence and International Law. The audience consisted of about 200 high-level officials from the United States government in charge of U.S. nuclear weapons policies, both military and civilian. Sitting in the audience for my entire presentation was the 3-Star General in charge of War Operations at the Pentagon. 5. Starting in October of 2001, the United States war against Afghanistan has been and still is an illegal war of aggression that violates the United Nations Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Charter (1945), the Nuremberg Judgment (1946), and the Nuremberg Principles (1950). Therefore the U.S. war against Afghanistan constitutes a Nuremberg Crime against Peace against the State of Afghanistan, its Taliban Government, Taliban government officials, Taliban combatants, and the citizens of Afghanistan. The reasons for these conclusions are set forth in two scholarly essays I have published: George Bush, Jr., September 11 and the Rule of Law, in my book The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence 16-39 (Clarity Press: 2002); and No War Against Afghanistan!, in my book Tackling America's Toughest Questions 24-38 (Clarity Press: 2009). I have attached copies of these essays to this Declaration and hereby incorporate them by reference. 6. In addition, I also wish to draw to the Court's attention the memoirs by Richard A. Clark, Chairman of the Counter-terrorism Security Group at the White House under President George Bush Jr. on September 11, 2001, Against All Enemies (2004), at page 24: "When later in the discussion [on the evening of Sept. 11, with Bush and his crisis advisors], Secretary Rumsfeld noted that international law allowed the use of force only to prevent future attacks and not for retribution, Bush nearly bit his head off. 'No,' the President yelled in the narrow conference room, 'I don't care what the international lawyers say, we are going to kick some ass.'" (Emphasis added.) 7. The Nuremberg Crime Against Peace has been expressly incorporated into Department of the Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956), which in relevant part provides as follows: Section II. CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 498. Crimes Under International Law Any person, whether a member of the armed forces or a civilian, who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Such offenses in connection with war comprise: a. Crimes against peace. b. Crimes against humanity. c. War crimes. .... 8. U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956) was drafted for the United States Army by then Major Richard R. Baxter. Professor Baxter later taught me his course on The Laws of War at Harvard Law School. I was the top student in his class and Professor Baxter recommended me for my current position as a law professor. Professor Baxter was later elected a Judge on the International Court of Justice, the so-called World Court of the United Nations System. While he was alive, Professor Baxter was generally considered to be the world's leading expert on the Laws of War. 9. Therefore, I am uniquely qualified to testify concerning the relevance of the Laws of War to these proceedings. The Defendants have asked me to testify. I have agreed to testify. I hereby respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify at this trial. 10. Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force including and especially by means of drones supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. 11. These and other U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine by means of drones and otherwise constitute Crimes against Peace, Crimes against Humanity, and War Crimes. 12. Wherefore I most respectfully request this Honorable Court to permit me to testify in these proceedings. 13. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. I am prepared to testify under oath and answer questions on these and related matters. Most respectfully submitted by, FRANCIS ANTHONY BOYLE Professor of Law University of Illinois College of Law Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) Signed this 23rd day of January 2014, at Champaign, Illinois Attachments . Since the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United Government and its Armed Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency have operated in accordance with the Doctrine of the Global Battlefield. Pursuant thereto, the United States Government, United States Armed Forces as well as the Central Intelligence Agency will target and have targeted with deadly force supposed combatants anywhere in the world: And even if the supposed combatants are far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are sleeping in their beds at home at night with their wives and their children far from any field of battle. And even if the supposed combatants are citizens of the United States of America. And apparently even if the supposed combatants are located within the United States of America. 11. These U.S. targeting doctrines for the declared U.S. Global Battlefield Doctrine have been officially authorized, approved, and justified by, among others: 1. President Barack Obama, Commander-in-Chief of United States Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution and thus Commander-in-Chief of everyone involved in these proceedings except for civilians.. President Obama is a distinguished graduate of the Harvard Law School and used to teach law at the University of Chicago Law School. 2. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, including but not limited to a March 2012 speech he delivered at Northwestern Law School in Chicago, Illinois at the specific request of their Dean Daniel Rodriguez and for which he received standing ovations by the Northwestern Law Professors in attendance. 3. General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Defense, Mr. Jeh Johnson. 4. Legal Adviser to the United States Department of State, Yale Law Dean and Law Professor Harold Koh, who has now returned to teach at Yale Law School. 5. Mr. John Brennan, Counter-terrorism Advisor to President Obama at the White House and now Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency as confirmed by the United States Senate. 6. Two Law Professors working for the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel: Harvard Law Professor David Barron, who has now returned to teach at Harvard Law School; and Georgetown Law Professor Martin Lederman, who has now returned to teach at Georgetown Law School. 7. Numerous Members of the Honorable United States House of Representatives and Numerous Members of the Honorable United States Senate, many of whom are distinguished Lawyers with substantial Legal Experience and Credentials. 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: public at lists.accuracy.org [mailto:public at lists.accuracy.org] On Behalf Of Institute for Public Accuracy Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: Institute for Public Accuracy Subject: Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org ____________________________________________ Thursday, January 23, 2014 Pro-Drone Lawyer Up for Judgeship while Drone Protesters Face Prison While 29 of President Obama's judicial nominees were voted out of committee last week, one is coming under criticism from both the left and right. Legal Times reports that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) "voiced numerous concerns about [David] Barron for the First Circuit, saying he has advocated for positions 'far outside the mainstream.' Barron, Grassley said, quoting from a New York Times article, participated in crafting the Justice Department legal memo authorizing the use of drones to kill U.S. citizens in other countries. The committee voted 10-8 to approve Barron's nomination." Just after his November nomination, the New York Times noted that Barron "signed two secret memorandums declaring that it would be lawful for the United States to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a United States citizen suspected of plotting terrorist attacks, if it were not feasible to capture him." FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle at illinois.edu Boyle is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America's Toughest Questions. He said today: "Barron co-authored the infamous Justice department opinion authorizing Obama's murder of U.S. citizens. This is a total disgrace. If approved, we will have a murderer and a war criminal sitting on the U.S. First Circuit. ... So here Barron and [his coauthor in the legal opinion Martin] Lederman deliberately and maliciously write a get-out-of-jail-free card for Obama so that he can murder U.S. citizens, which he does. ... Barron is neither fit nor qualified to serve as a Judge on the First Circuit -- a post which would make him a prime candidate for a U.S. Supreme Court seat. ... This is exactly how Bush paid back Jay Bybee [author of legal memos on torture] when he put him on the Ninth Circuit. Obama is worse than Bush in that Obama is a lawyer and knows better." Meanwhile, the trial of the "Hancock 17" peace activists is taking place. The defendants and their allies released a statement: "After awaiting trial for 15 months, the defense case of the Hancock 17 will begin at 5 p.m., Thursday, Jan. 23, continuing on Friday, Jan. 24, in De Witt Town Court, near Syracuse. On Oct. 25, 2012, 17 people were arrested for symbolically blocking the three gates at Hancock National Air Guard Base which is a site where MQ 9 Reaper drones are piloted over Afghanistan. ... They stood in front of the gates with banners and and signs calling for an end to drone warfare and read a citizen's War Crimes Indictment to the base personnel at the gates. They called for an end of attacks on civilians that are illegal under international war. "After almost three hours outside the gates, the protesters were arrested and arraigned on charges of Trespass and Disorderly Conduct. ... The protesters were also issued Orders of Protection for Col. Earl Evans which require them to stay away from the base. Violating the Order carries potential misdemeanor or even felony charges. ... "The defendants' case is supported by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, Law professor Francis Boyle, Urbana Champagne, University of Illinois, expert on drones and international law." CAROL BAUM, carol at peacecouncil.net Baum is with the Syracuse Peace Council. MARY ANNE GRADY FLORES, gradyflores08 at gmail.com One of those being prosecuted, Flores is with the Catholic Worker in Ithaca, New York. ED KINANE, edkinane at verizon.net Another one of the "Hancock 17," Kinane is with Upstate Drone Action in Syracuse. For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan,(541) 484-9167 Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 9:15 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Good, we're going to hold you to that too. Carl, or David, I hope one of you will speak about this on NFN Friday. ________________________________ From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 8:06:07 PM To: 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 Subject: RE: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Right. I am happy to speak at the demonstration and denounce the entire Law School Faculty for bringing in Killer Koh. When they announced this at the end of last summer, I objected in the strongest terms possibly imaginable and repeatedly with ample documentation of all the dirty work he had done for Mrs Clinton when she was Secretary of State and he was her Lawyer on the Law School email list going out to all law faculty members. The COL had the entire 2015-2016 academic year to bring him in here to lecture. Instead, the COL are bringing him in here on October 28, 2016, ten days before the Presidential Election, to make the best case he can to get his fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton elected President. And it has already been reported that he is a high level operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. We cannot let this Travesty of Justice pass! No! No! Killer Koh! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram [mailto:karenaram at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:53 PM To: Boyle, Francis A >; C. G. Estabrook >; David Green >; David Johnson >; Stuart Levy >; Karen Medina >; Szoke, Ron >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace Discuss >; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad Carl and Prof. Boyle, David and David, Stuart and Karen M, Ron, and Midge. Yes we do need to bring this community together to voice our opposition to the continued killings. There is so much talent in this community but everyone is focused on single issues of interest. The best we were able to do last year at the U of I Law School discussion related to the "Legitimacy of Drone Killing", was about 6 of us. It's time for everyone who wants justice to come together on the single issue of war, hegemony, killing and destruction. We need to remember the date October 28th and plan. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss > on behalf of Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:24:08 PM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace-discuss AWARE; sf-core; Readel, Karin; Belden Fields; Hoffman, Valerie J; Miller, Joseph Thomas; Bryan Savage; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List; Occupy CU Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad For sure. We need a demonstration here at the College of Law on October 28 as big as the demonstration we had against Meese in 1987 when the College of Law invited Meese to speak "in honor" of the 200th Anniversary of the US Constitution over at the Krannert Center. Hey! Hey! Killer Koh 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) -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:carl at newsfromneptune.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 7:21 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J >; Miller, Joseph Thomas >; Occupy CU >; sf-core >; Peace-discuss AWARE > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new Hillary Clinton TV Ad C-U anti-war people should demonstrate against Koh (and Clinton) on October 28. -CGE > On Jun 22, 2016, at 7:06 PM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > That's Killer Koh at work. He is parroting his Yale Law Mafia Boss Clinton for whose election campaign he works in the hope and expectation that he will become her Attorney General or Secretary of State. And when he comes out here to the College of Law to speak on October 28, ten days before the Presidential Election, he will make the best pitch he can to get her elected for a $5000 honorarium and in violation of the Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for partisan electoral 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) > > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:40 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > > Cc: davegreen84 at yahoo.com; Readel, Karin >; > Belden Fields >; jmachota at shout.net; Vietnam > Veterans Against the War Mailing List >; Bryan > Savage >; Hoffman, Valerie J > >; Miller, Joseph Thomas > > Subject: Re: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > https://www.lawfareblog.com/obama-legal-team-and-lawfulness-attacking- > assad > > ...In an essay cross-posted at Lawfare and Just Security, Ashley Deeks and Marty Lederman criticize the dissent memo in part because it does not address how it would be lawful for the United States to attack Syrian government forces. They suggested it would be illegal under both domestic and international law. In a rejoinder posted at Just Security,Harold Koh argues that whether or not the diplomats' proposed policy is a good idea, there would be stronger legal authority for it than they maintain. (This is obviously, in part, an iteration in the long-running debate over "responsibility to protect" and whether humanitarian interventions can be lawful even without a United Nations Security Council resolution or a self-defense rationale.)... > > > > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Boyle, Francis A > wrote: > > I did speak with a former student of Killer Koh at Yale Law School, who is now a law professor himself. He told me that Killer Koh is gunning to become either the Secretary of State or the Attorney General in a Mrs Clinton Administration. Obviously, the Yale Law Mafia who run this Law School are inviting Killer Koh out here ten days before the presidential election to make the best pitch he can for electing his Boss Yale Law Mafia Mrs Clinton in the hopes and expectations that they can get some nice cushy appointments in a Clinton Administration under Killer Koh at either State or Justice, etc. It's called Bootlicking. > > 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, June 19, 2016 8:52 AM > To: 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: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Ditto for COL's Yale Law Mafia Killer Koh: > > Hey! Hey! > Harold say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > > Hey! Hey! > U of I 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, June 19, 2016 8:48 AM > To: 'SECTNS.aals at lists.aals.org' > > Subject: "Helping Children Has been the cause of her life"--new > Hillary Clinton TV Ad > > Oh yeah, Lady MacBeth. How many children did you kill in Libya? > > Hey! Hey! > Hillary say! > How many kids! > Did you kill today! > Fab > "We came! We saw! He died!," said Clinton mimicking Julius Caesar then laughing hysterically after Ghadafy was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. Fab. > Doctor: > What is it she does now? Look how she rubs her hands. > Gentlewoman: > It is an accustom'd action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I > have known her continue in this a quarter of an hour. > Lady Macbeth: > Yet here's a spot. > Doctor: > Hark, she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my > remembrance the more strongly. > Lady Macbeth: > Out, damn'd spot! out, I say!-One; two: why, then 'tis time to > do't.-Hell is murky.-Fie, my lord, fie, a soldier, and afeard? What > need we fear who knows it, when none can call our pow'r to > accompt?-Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much > blood in him? > Macbeth Act 5, scene 1, 26-40 > > > > > > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 130 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 181 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jun 23 13:06:05 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:06:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Obama Drone Campaign "Verges on Genocide" Legal Authority Says In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - Bing News Posted on: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:48 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - Bing News Subject: Obama Drone Campaign "Verges on Genocide" Legal Authority Says President Obama's drone attacks on the Middle Eastern nations are not just lawless war crimes. As the "murderous drone campaign is both widespread and systematic it thus qualifies as a crime against humanity that verges on genocide," the distinguished ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jun 23 13:15:11 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:15:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Obama Drone Campaign "Verges on Genocide" Legal Authority Says In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I want to make it perfectly clear. I gave all these materials and a lot more to the entire Law Faculty by means of our email system last summer when they first said they were inviting Killer Koh. And then instead of inviting him to speak during the 2015-2016 Academic year, they are inviting him to speak during the 2016-2017 Academic Year, on October 28, 2016, that is ten days before the presidential election so that Killer Koh can come out here and make the best case he can for electing his Fellow Yale Law Mafia Boss Mrs Clinton and in violation of an Illinois Statute strictly prohibiting the use of the University of Illinois for domestic, partisan electoral purposes—even one email. Koh is High Level Operative in the Clinton Presidential Campaign. And the College of Law is apparently going to give him a $5000 honorarium to come out here and campaign for Mrs Clinton—our going rate for endowed lectures. 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: Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:06 AM To: 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 Subject: FW: Obama Drone Campaign "Verges on Genocide" Legal Authority Says Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - Bing News Posted on: Sunday, February 09, 2014 2:48 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - Bing News Subject: Obama Drone Campaign "Verges on Genocide" Legal Authority Says President Obama's drone attacks on the Middle Eastern nations are not just lawless war crimes. As the "murderous drone campaign is both widespread and systematic it thus qualifies as a crime against humanity that verges on genocide," the distinguished ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jun 23 14:08:02 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:08:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] What the mainstream news doesn't tell us. Message-ID: * Contact & Privacy “China will react if provoked again: you risk the war” – Interview with Andre Vltchek 22nd June 2016 / Global ["China will react if provoked again: you risk the war" - Interview with Andre Vltchek] The AntiDiplomatico (Italy) interviews philosopher, Andre Vltchek: “Russia and China are forming an incredible defensive wall to protect humanity from Western terrorism.” By Alessandro Bianchi Andre Vltchek has become renowned in Italy for being the co-author, along with Noam Chomsky, of the famous book “Western Terrorism” (Ponte alle Grazie). A documentary filmmaker, novelist, essayist, philosopher and intellectual, multi-faceted Vltchek is the cosmopolitan man par excellence, a “true revolutionary” as he likes to call himself. In recent years with his camera and his extraordinary commitment against injustice on this planet he has explored every corner of the Earth and taken over the length and breadth of Western terrorism, one that our media likes to censor and hide from our consciences. After the interviews with the great Australian journalist John Pilger and the famous American playwright John Steppling, we have the honor and privilege of speaking to our great friend of l’AntiDiplomatico, asking some questions on burning current international issues. This interview first appeared in the Italian language, published by ‘L’AntiDiplomatico’ Q: I start from a brutal question: What has become of a country that it offering Donald Trump as its ‘best candidate’? AV: It is not much different from the country that it used to be for decades, even centuries. Since the beginning, the US presidents (all of European stock, of course), had been promoting slavery, extermination campaigns against the native population of North America, barbaric wars of aggression against Mexico, and other Latin American countries, the Philippines, etc. Has anything changed now? I highly doubt it. Donald Trump is horrendous, but he is also honest. Both Presidents Clinton and Obama were great speakers, but unrepentant mass murderers. Q: In a recent survey over 53% of Americans were against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. How long will we continue to consider the United States a democracy? And why, in your opinion, is abstention the only form of “rebellion” by a population completely excluded from the decision-making stage? AV: “Democracy” means nothing else other than, “rule of the people”, in Greek. There is nothing democratic about the political concepts of the United States and Europe. And there is absolutely nothing democratic about the “global arrangement” through which the West has been ruling over the rest of the world for decades and centuries. The second part is, I’m convinced, much more important, much more devastating; in the West, people have been tolerating their insane political system, in exchange for the countless privileges they are getting from their countries’ plundering of the planet, and violating entire nations and continents. But in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, those “un-people” have no choice at all. Q: Is Bernie Sanders really the change that many in Europe have described? AV: Bernie Sanders is like those liberal members of the German National Socialist Party during the WWII, or of the Italian Fascist movement during Mussolini. They’d do much for their own workers and peasants, socially… as long as funds were flowing in from the countries plundered by their imperialism. Under Bernie Sanders, Western workers would definitely do much better, but the rest of the world, the “wretched of the Earth” would still have to pay the bill. Q: What would happen to the world under a Hillary Clinton’s presidency? AV: Nothing exceptional – things would stay the same: sponsorship of “Color” or “Umbrella” or whatever “revolutions”, some more coups, “regime changes”, direct invasions, bombing, propaganda warfare against China, Russia, Iran, South Africa and what is left of the Latin American revolutions. There would be plenty of torture in “secret centers”, but it would not be as advertised and glorified as it would be if Trump were elected. World War III would become a great possibility, but such a scenario is quite possible under any new US administration… To answer your question: business as usual. Q: What did you feel when you recently saw Obama speaking in Hiroshima and not apologizing for what was done by his country, declaring almost sarcastically – as the head of the world’s first atomic power – hope for a world without nuclear weapons? AV: I’m quite immune to such speeches, aren’t you? Although, yes… somehow Obama’s is much more disgusting than others, because he is smart and we all “know that he knows”. He is thoroughly dishonest and it is clear. It would be somehow more acceptable to see George W. puking over sushi. And Trump: he’d probably declare in Hiroshima that he’d nuke half of Asia if it would help the West to retain its control over the world. At least one would not harbor any false hopes. Q: Will the growing US expansionism come to a breaking point and collision with China? AV: Yes it will. I have no doubt about it. China is one of the greatest cultures on Earth, and it is one of those countries that suffered immensely from colonialist horrors and humiliation. Chinese people are indignant. Indignant! For decades, despite everything, they tried to make peace with the West. They are in fact the most peaceful big nation on Earth and what do they get in return? They get insults, provocations and intimidation. The Western public should learn and remember one essential thing about China: no matter what European and North American propaganda barks about the People’s Republic, China is much more “democratic” than the West. It is democratic in its own way. For thousands of years, it developed its own political system. Its rulers, no matter who they are, are given a conditional right to govern by the people. In the past, but even now it is called a “Heavenly Mandate”. If the rulers fail to respect the will of the people, they get deposed. And the Communist Party of China is greatly respectful of the desires of the majority of the Chinese people. When they want liberal reforms, they are delivered. When they want more Communism and an epic fight against corruption, like now, China’s government immediately reacts. It is powerful and democratic, although a very specific and complex arrangement. And now, the Chinese people are outraged and they are sending clear signals to Beijing: “do not succumb to the West.” “If you do, our nation will suffer immensely, and the rest of the world will turn to ashes.” Do understand: Chinese people are brilliant; the West cannot fool them. And they are thoroughly sick of Western imperialism. This time, if confronted and provoked, the Chinese government would yield to the pressure from its people: it would be forced to give orders to fight – to defend its motherland! Q: Although it is NATO that is bringing his installations more and more to the East, in Europe our information apparatus feeds the danger of an aggressive Russia. Who benefits from spreading these Russophobe feelings? AV: Of course, the Empire! Of course, the Western supremacists! With Russia, it is almost similar to China: people there have had it up to here with the West! The Russian people suffered immensely from Western imperialism. Throughout their history they fought countless invasions led by the French, Scandinavians, Brits, North Americans, Germans, Poles, Czechs and others. Tens of millions of Russian people died, fighting all sorts of Western expansionism. They defeated Nazism. They helped to liberate much of our world from colonialism. Of course the West never forgave Russia for fighting the epic battles against its expansionism and colonialism. But it is not only European and North American propaganda that is responsible for the present state of things: it is also the people, quite ordinary people, living in the West. For years now, the fake European ‘left’ is trying to portray European citizens as victims of the US imperialism. It is even trying to make the world feel sorry for those European workers who do not get a fair deal from their governments! It is thoroughly absurd. Overwhelming the majority of European citizens are unhappy with the social deal they get, yes; and that is why they are so angry with their governments. Because they want more, much more! They couldn’t care less that their benefits, salaries and other privileges, have been, for decades and centuries ‘subsidized’ by the plunder of other parts of the planet; that they are paid for by blood. There is absolutely no solidarity in the West towards its own victims, and the recent ‘refugee crises’ is direct proof of it. Fanon and Sartre had already determined more than 50 years ago, each and every European citizen is responsible for (and has been benefiting from) the countless genocides and unbridled theft. It has to be repeated again and again: you give Europeans once again ‘all benefits that they can eat’, you make them work shorter hours, and you give more money, and they’d be back in a self-congratulatory, self-righteous mode; damned be the rest of the world. The only reason so many are so pissed off at the US is because they see North America as promoting a ‘bad deal’ for its own masses, not because it is ruining the rest of the world! So, back to Russia… Russia, despite its heavy flirtation with capitalism and some quite unsavory oligarchs, is still building its foreign policy on the Soviet ideals of internationalism, solidarity and logic. And even domestically, President Putin is slowly, step-by-step, restoring many important Soviet achievements that were torpedoed by a nitwit, and one gangster – Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Let’s not forget that one poll after another clearly demonstrates that well over 50% of Russian citizens still wants both socialism and the USSR back. And the Russian government is listening. The West, both the elites (consciously) and ordinary people (sub-consciously), want Russia to go to hell; to disappear, drown, explode. It is because Russia is once again defending humanism all over the world. If it succeeds, the elites would lose their power over the planet, and the ‘ordinary citizens’ of the West would lose their privileges; the plunder would have to stop, and the life of one African or Asian person would suddenly gain the same value as that of a one European or North American. And that would be really ‘unacceptable’! On top of it, Russia and China have become two great allies. They’d never be divided as they were during the Cold War Days. Russia and China together cannot be defeated: militarily, economically or morally. The West can only try to destroy them internally, through horrendous sets of tricks, propaganda and toxic lies. But now even such a scenario is unlikely. Russian people, like their Chinese comrades, are well aware of what is going on. And there are tens of millions of their martyrs who are reminding them what is to be expected from the West. Encircled and provoked, Russia is once again turning into a mighty monolithic defense wall. Its people are ready! They want peace, above anything else. But if they’d have to fight for their own survival, and for the survival of the world, they will. And this time again, if there is a showdown, two enormous nations, Russia and China, standing side-by-side, will defeat fascism! That is why Russia is hated. That is why China is hated. They are forming a tremendous, final defense line protecting humanity from the Western terror. Q: Since the advent of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’, which began with the famous Obama’s speech at the University of Cairo in 2009, the Eastern Mediterranean has become a powder keg. Was it an external plan – a planned destruction of the states hostile to rulers in Washington, like Libya and Syria in particular, or was it a real quest for democracy and freedom? AV: Both. Some socialist movements in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain, for instance, were genuine. I was making films about the so-called Arab Spring, and I’m well aware of how complex the situation really was. But it goes without saying is that the West immediately infiltrated and ‘derailed’ the revolutions, turning them into what you have described. Remember, the West had absolutely no appetite for risking its dictatorial powers over the area. It had no desire to let democratic and revolutionary forces take control of their countries. Why? Just look, again, at the polls: the majority of Arab people see the United States and Israel (definitely not Iran or Syria) as the greatest danger to the world. Could you imagine what the Arab people would do if true democracy (rule of the people) were to be victorious? They’d side with Russia and China, not with the West. And they’d throw their ‘elites’ groomed in and by the West, straight out the window. Q: Is it right today, to define Aleppo as the “Stalingrad of Syria” and “the cemetery of the dreams of fascist Erdogan” as stated by the Syrian President Assad? AV: Yes, it is like that, or at least, it is somewhere along those lines. Aleppo, Homs… Yes. I wrote about it earlier, comparing Syria to Stalingrad. Q: What do you think will be the final scenario for Syria? It risks crystallization like the Cold War-style situation between the two blocks – Damascus, Russia and regional allies, on the one hand, and Kurds with the United States on the other – and Raqqa, which would become a new Berlin? AV: The Western planners are definitely trying to fragment the entire Middle East. They already have done, on several historical occasions. But this is a new chapter. They play with the Arab countries as if they were simply some milking cows. There is no regard for human lives, or local national interests. It is because the West, despite its hypocritical rhetoric (political correctness) does not really consider non-whites and non-Christians as human beings. You kill millions, so be it. You ruin 5 regional states; who cares? Q: What role, in your opinion, do the human rights NGOs play in the current international context? AV: Even that term, ‘human rights’, makes me ill. You have to really go back to Fanon and Sartre… They said it all. Human rights are only for ‘humans’, therefore for the West. And for the rest of the Planet: there, the ‘human rights’ are used to discredit uncomfortable, even ‘hostile’ governments through countless implants like NGOs. Who talks about the real human rights violations, those committed by the West? Europeans and North Americans have already butchered hundreds of millions of people, or close to one billion, to be precise. They have been looting, torturing and raping. Even now, they are killing millions directly and tens of millions indirectly. But it does not count; because their victims are not white, therefore not human, and as a result, they don’t really have any rights. Q: 14 years ago, the coup in Venezuela against the democratically elected President Hugo Chavez failed and began the US exit from Latin America. Shortly after, the US invaded Iraq. Today the hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean wobbles, and Washington uses all the weapons at its disposal to return to Latin America. Is, in your opinion, President Rafael Correa right when he says that we are facing a new Plan Condor in the region? AV: Definitely! Comrade Correa gets it right, most of the time. This is new, ‘final’ offensive of the Empire in Latin America. I have just returned from Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay; it is absolutely horrible what is going on there. The Empire is trying to finish both BRICS and all the Latin American revolutions. Q: If that is the case, considering what has also happened in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia, which techniques are being used today? AV: The same as ‘before’, the same techniques, which have been used against, for instance President Allende and ‘Unidad Popular’ in Chile, before the 9-11-1973 US-orchestrated coup. The West is supporting, even financing the right-wing media, it is financing ‘the opposition’, encourages capital flight of billions of dollars, works closely with the local ‘elites’ to create ‘deficits’, ‘uncertainty’ and despair. It creates corruption scandals, and it even supports fake ‘left’ anti-government movements. And of course it is training and corrupting some key military cadres. Q: The future of the world offers at the moment two possible paths: a US unilateralism, particularly in the event of Clinton’s presidency, made up of areas of “free” trade treaties around the world on the NAFTA model (such as the TTIP in Europe), with millions as the desperately poor products of them, profits only for multinationals, and the planned destruction of all countries who rebel against this vision (Libya and Syria style); or, the second possibility: a period of multilateralism, respect for sovereignty, self-determination and peace. If the alternative project to the ‘Washington Consensus’ were to prevail, it would be that of the BRICS and regional integration in Latin America, designed and built by Chavez, Lula and Kirchner. And which of the two views will prevail in your opinion? AV: There will be great battles fought for the future of the world! The coming years will be very tough. In order for the second scenario to win, the world would have to return where the struggle for independence and against Western colonialism and imperialism was lost or abandoned more than 50 years ago. Let’s face it: the world was never really completely de-colonized. It would be total hypocrisy to claim otherwise. One of the popular views in the liberal circles of the West is that we are actually ‘all victims of capitalism’. I disagree. This savage global capitalism is only one of the most terrible bi-products of the dominant Western culture of racism, greed, brutality and unbridled desire to control the world. The world is still being battered by the Western/white/Christian supremacy dogmas and practices, by the most primitive and fundamentalist ‘principles’. The truth has to be unveiled. If the West insists, if it keeps pushing, the battles have to be fought. And they will be fought. And the forces of internationalism, humanism and solidarity will have to be victorious, or soon there will be nothing left of the human race. Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about Indonesia: “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 17:00:58 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:00:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 12:30 Monday 6/27 - Anita Ortiz, Activist from El Salvador visits Champaign In-Reply-To: <04CBF5EE1541574C964220812854F4E12A89D2B1@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> References: <04CBF5EE1541574C964220812854F4E12A89D2B1@CITESMBX4.ad.uillinois.edu> Message-ID: [from La Casa Cultural Latina - an interesting visitor is coming to speak next Monday at noon] -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Anita Ortiz, Activist from El Salvador visits Champaign Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:53:41 +0000 From: Guerra Perez, Gioconda Reply-To: Guerra Perez, Gioconda To: lccl-l at lists.illinois.edu CC: You are cordially invited to Anita Ortiz’ visit from El Salvador. Salvadorian activist and part of the people’s struggle movement. Please share! *Gioconda Guerra Pérez, PhD* *Director* *La Casa Cultural Latina* *Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Relations* *University of Illinois Urbana Champaign * *1203 West Nevada Street, MC 145* *Urbana, IL 61801* *Phone: 217-244-3674* *Fax: 217-244-4513* *Email: gguerra at illinois.edu * *http://go.illinois.edu/lacasa * *Follow us on FB: La Casa Cultural Latina* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 93910 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Ortiz.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 340583 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 21:57:10 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:57:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE at the Farmer's Market, Saturday 8am-noon Message-ID: <2240869f-0ab9-e326-d7ab-565154759c09@gmail.com> Hello all, AWARE will be back at the Farmer's Market again tomorrow morning, Saturday 8AM - noon. It's a time of ferment, for better and worse. If you'd like to come by and talk with us about it, please do. We can provide a soapbox (well, kinda) if you'd like to sound off. And remember, I *think* we are going to be marching somehow in the July 4th parade, and, For certain, on July 9th, 7-9pm, the great peace activist Kathy Kelly of Voices for Creative Nonviolence will be speaking - * From the Front Lines of Global Peacemaking An Evening of Story, Music, and Inspiration *That's at Channing-Murray Foundation, 1209 W Oregon St. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkb3 at icloud.com Sat Jun 25 02:31:48 2016 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 21:31:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?What_is_the_matter_with_Europe=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <04E1117D-8196-4189-BB6D-246D5ABBBF40@icloud.com> An article by Jean Bricmont, with which I’m largely sympathetic, i.e., in agreement: Perhaps worthy of more discussion. https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-european-dead-end/ —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Jun 26 00:47:23 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:47:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? Message-ID: Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun Jun 26 00:58:06 2016 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 00:58:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sounds good to me. ~~ Ron [cid:AB2CEC1F-6B70-4FE8-BDCE-B16192188081] On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace > wrote: Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Nights with Hillary.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 119348 bytes Desc: Nights with Hillary.jpg URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Sun Jun 26 01:44:11 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:44:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Kathy Kelly in Russia - "The Stakes Are Enormously High Along the Russian Border" Message-ID: <0f5fdeac-7508-d4e1-7a6a-92d9e28c6862@gmail.com> Kathy Kelly writes from Russia ... http://commondreams.org/views/2016/06/24/stakes-are-enormously-high-along-russian-border e.g. In 1954 the Soviet government transferred this largely Russian-speaking area from Russia to the Ukraine. In 2014, after Ukraine's elected president was ousted and its new government formed in part by avowed neo-Nazis, Russia occupied the Crimea and after overwhelmingly winning an uncomfortably hasty vote, annexed it or “reunited” the Crimean peninsula with Russia, depending on who describes the history. The Ukraine ouster, it is widely believed here and in much of the world outside the United States, is considered to have been engineered by the United States and NATO. What plays in the U.S. as Russian aggression is seen by many here as a response to antidemocratic NATO interference along the Russian border. [...] The Federation of American Scientists, in its 2016 inventory of nuclear forces, states that approximately 93 percent of all nuclear warheads are owned by Russia and the United States who each have roughly 4,500-4,700 warheads in their military stockpiles. Konstatin, a veteran from the USSR war in Afghanistan, now a grandfather, spoke to us about Yalta’s history during World War II. “Manypeople perished here,” he said. “More than a million perished during WWII. This tourist resort was founded from the bones of people killed in the war.” Some 22 million Russians overall died during World War II, most of them civilians. Konstatin urged all of us to find ways for avoiding further war, and he spoke about how funds spent on weapons are crucially needed to help heal children afflicted by disease or hunger. Julia, a University student who wants to become an interpreter working with diplomats, said that she is glad and grateful never to have lived through a war." I always want to choose words instead of weapons,” Julia said. We asked university students what they thought of prospects for abolition of nuclear weapons. Anton, who studies engineering, told us that he believes “the youth of different countries would like to bridge the gap and work out ways to unite people.” His words are extremely important now, as Russia and the U.S., possessing such huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, engage in intensifying conflict. “All of us should soften the geopolitical relations between our countries,” Anton continued, “and try to get together on the same level, on the same ground. The idea of this future should be attractive to everyone and enable us to solve ecological problems. And if we all put efforts into reaching this idea of development and creativity, in the future, then the nuclear abolition will be something we can accomplish” In 1954 the Soviet government transferred this largely Russian-speaking area from Russia to the Ukraine. In 2014, after Ukraine's elected president was ousted and its new government formed in part by avowed neo-Nazis, Russia occupied the Crimea and after overwhelmingly winning an uncomfortably hasty vote, annexed it or “reunited” the Crimean peninsula with Russia, depending on who describes the history. The Ukraine ouster, it is widely believed here and in much of the world outside the United States, is considered to have been engineered by the United States and NATO. What plays in the U.S. as Russian aggression is seen by many here as a response to antidemocratic NATO interference along the Russian border. It can be credibly argued that at its creation NATO’s mission was essentially defensive. Stalin was a terrifying dictator, suffering from increasing psychosis, with a long history of betraying even those who seemed to be his closest allies. Yet, as one Russian World War II veteran noted, the Russians had not tried to take over other countries far from their borders. They actually had been very cautious and conservative about extending the boundaries or reach of the Soviet empire by military force, and after World War II Russia needed to focus on rebuilding the internal Soviet economy and society. The continuously assertive military posturing of NATO undermines and conflicts with the mission and development of instruments for international negotiation and constructive cooperation. Among the most striking examples in recent years are: * the decision to expand NATO into eastern and southern Europe by accepting the membership or candidacy of countries as far south as Georgia; * the 2001 decision by George Bush to abrogate the U.S. – Russian Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems treaty and to build a so-called ballistic missile shield system in East European countries, allegedly intended to protect against prospective Iranian missile launches directed toward Europe; * the 2001 to the present decisions by the U.S. and NATO to invade Afghanistan and to establish long term military bases there, anchoring a military presence in the center of Central Asia. New conflicts around the Ukraine are still brewing. [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Sun Jun 26 04:29:20 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:29:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune for June 24 Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOdZS2Ex0jQ News from Neptune for 24 June 2016 - an INVADE RUSSIA edition - a Chomskyan take on the news from Urbana (IL) Public TV June 24 is the anniversary of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, in 1812, which has sent me back to one of the great works of modern history and theory, Tolstoy’s War and Peace. (It’s a novel, but a supreme illustration of the News from Neptune maxim that the poets often get there first. It’s very much worth reading in the classic English translations, if you can’t read the Russian, as I’m sorry to say I can’t. A modern liberal education should begin with learning to read languages other than one’s own - Greek, Latin, Russian, and Chinese at the top of the list. June 22 is the anniversary of Hitler’s invasion of Russia, in 1941, for which the indispensable work today is also by a novelist, a more recent book by Nicholson Baker, “Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization” (2008), and his accompanying essay “Why I’m a pacifist: The dangerous myth of the Good War.” (I’ll put links on the NFN fb page.) There was of course another German war with Russia between 1812 and 1941, part of the First World War, that led to the establishment of the Soviet Union. Russia was attacked twice across the plains of Eastern Europe in the first half of the 20th century, and today it seems to be under attack again, now from the US ‘hybrid war.” This June we have the absolutely amazing provocations of Russia by Barack Obama, who’s risking nuclear war as viciously as John Kennedy did more than 50 years ago, in the so-called Cuban Missile Crisis. To explain what the US is doing - and has been doing for a while - the estimable Pepe Escobar has an important article out this week, “It’s All About Eurasia Integration.” Regular listeners to this program know that we’ve argued that US war policy is "all about Eurasia integration" - and the willingness of all US administrations to kill people to prevent the economic integration of Eurasia - principally Russia and China - because it challenges the world economic dominance of the US economic elite, the one percent. Regular listeners have also heard that, although US government tactics may change, the strategy extends back over a century, because the 'Manifest Destiny' of US capitalism to expand across North America did not stop at the water's edge but extended across the Pacific: see the Open Door Policy (1899), Mackinder's 'Heartland' doctrine (1904), and the unpleasantness with Japan that peaked in the 1940s… In their relations with Eurasia, dominant social groups in the US have illustrated the mid-19th-century maxim that ruling groups have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests - and continue to do so today, risking the future of the human race. At the recently concluded 20th St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) – 30 ministers from 21 nations and 880 CEOs attending [but not reported in the US media] - Obama administration economic sanctions on Russia were resisted. [Pepe Escobar reports] "It was left to Putin to joke about it with Italian PM Renzi: «Matteo, why? Why are you enduring this?» [Italians know that the sanctions on Russia are having a depressive effect on the Italian economy.] "[But in spite of US roadblocks, it now seems] the breakneck-speed expansion of the Great Eurasian Corridor is unstoppable. And with Russia matching its land and wealth of natural resources with China’s population and virtually unlimited funds, there’s nothing Hybrid Wars [Pepe’s term for the open and hidden aggression of the Obama administration against Russia and China] can do to divert Russia’s own pivot to Asia.” That's why the Obama administration has been so incredibly willing to provoke war with Russia and China. ("Russian aggression!" "Chinese aggression!" they cry - in a massive case of what the psychologists call projection.) It’s really American aggression - and a Clinton administration will probably be even worse. --C. G. Estabrook, with Karen Aram & David Green -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jun 26 20:38:58 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:38:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. Message-ID: Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titled Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. ________________________________ transcript [How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote]GREGORY WILPERT, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Gregory Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. Britain's referendum in favor of leaving, or exiting, the European Union, the Brexit referendum, as the results are known, won with 52 percent of the vote on Thursday, June 23, stunning Europe's political establishment. One of the issues that has raised concern for many is that what does the Brexit mean for Britain's and Europe's economy and politics. This was one of the main topics leading up to the referendum, but a lot of disinformation [reigned] in the discussion. With us to discuss the economic and political context of the Brexit is Michael Hudson. He is a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Also, he is an economics adviser to several governments, including Greece, Iceland, Latvia, and China. He joins us right now from New York City. Thanks, Michael, for joining us. MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here again. WILPERT: So let's begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain's ability to control its own economy, what would you say--what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place? HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they're talking about are from the near East. And they're aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration. The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms--and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed. So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they're all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it's America's new Cold War against Russia that's been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that's spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things. So what you're seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration's pro-war, new Cold War policy. WILPERT: So are you saying that people voted for Brexit because they are really--that they were concerned about the influence of the U.S.? Or are you saying that it's because of the backlash, because of the immigration that happened, and the fact that the right wing took advantage of that [crosstalk]. HUDSON: It's a combination. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they're threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why are these immigrants coming here? They're coming here because of Europe's support of NATO, and NATO's war that's bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine. In England, many of the so-called Polish plumbers that came years ago have now gone back to Poland, because that country's recovered. But now the worry is that a whole new wave of Ukrainians--and basically the U.S. policy is one of destabilization--so even the right-wing, while they have talked about immigrants, they have also denounced the [inaud.] fact that the European policy is run by the United States, and that you have both Marine Le Pen in France saying, we want to withdraw from NATO; we don't want confrontation with Russia. You have the left wing in England saying, we don't want concentration in Russia. And last week when I was in Germany you had the Social Democratic Party leaders saying that Russia should be invited back into the G8, that NATO was taking a warlike position and was hurting the European economy by breaking its ties with Russia and by forcing other sanctions against Russia. So you have a convergence between the left and the right, and the question is, who is going to determine the terms on which Europe is broken up and put back together? Will it simply be the right wing that's anti-immigrants? Or will it simply be the left saying we want to restructure the economy in a way that essentially avoids the austerity that is coming from Brussels, on the one hand, and from the British Conservative Party on the other. And again, you have Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch nationalists, saying, we want Holland to have its own central bank. We want to be in charge of our own money. And under Brussels, we cannot be in charge of our own money. That means we cannot run a budget deficit and spend money into the economy, and recover with a Keynesian-type policy. So the whole withdrawal from Europe means withdrawing from austerity. If you look at the voting pattern in London, in England, you had London to stay in. You had the university centers, Oxford and Cambridge, voting to stay in. You had the working class, the old industrial areas of the north and the south. You had the middle class and the industrial class saying, we're getting a really bad deal from Europe. We want to oppose austerity. And we don't want Brussels to give us not only the anti-labor, pro-bank policies, but also the trade policy that Brussels was trying to push onto Europe, the Obama trade agreement that essentially would take national economic policy out of the hands of government and put it into the hands of corporate bureaucracy, corporation courts. And the bureaucracy in Brussels, then, is largely pro-bank, pro-corporate, and anti-labor. WILPERT: That actually brings up the issue of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the TTIP. It was one of the things that the Cameron government was really pushing for, this relationship between the European Union and the United States. Now that Britain is presumably going to be leaving the European Union, don't you think that this might open the possibility of just a TTIP between Britain and the United States? In other words, that it will--it has been one of the arguments, actually, of those who were opposed to Britain leaving the EU, that it will tie Britain even closer to the United States than it was before, and by virtue of the fact that it's leaving Europe. HUDSON: I think just the opposite. I've gotten phone calls today from Britain, and I've been on radio with Britain. The whole feeling is that this makes the TTIP impossible, because you can't do a TTIP just with Britain. You have to do it with all of Europe. And this prevents Europe, and I think Britain, too, from making this kind of trade policy. The rejection of eurozone austerity is, essentially, a rejection of the neoliberal plan that the TTIP is supposed to be the capstone of. WILPERT: And what do you think this means, then, in general for Europe's future? One of the things that--one of the dangers that many perceive is precisely that Europe, as a European Union, is going to fall apart. Do you think that's the likely scenario here? Or--. HUDSON: I watched Marine Le Pen today in France, and you could see from her face that she was overjoyed. She thinks all of a sudden, almost every European interview where the people--there was such unleashing of a feeling of freedom, a feeling of yes, we can do it. When Ireland voted not to join the European Union people just ignored the popular vote. But now it can't be ignored anymore. And I think that the British vote is a catalyst for moves in Spain, Italy, the Five Star movement in Italy, the Podemos in Spain, to say, we are--we have an alternative to Europe. Europe is sort of like the Soviet Union in the '30s and '40s. There was an argument, is it reformable or not? There is a feeling, and I think it's correct, that the European Union, the eurozone, and the euro, is not reformable, as a result of the Lisbon treaties and the other treaties that have created the euro. Europe has to be taken apart in order to be put together not on a right-wing, neoliberal basis, but on a more social basis. Now, ironically, the parties who call themselves socialists are now moved to the ultra-right, to the neoliberal. The French socialists, the German social democrats. But you're having real radical parties arise in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and potentially in Greece, again, that are going to say, well, the key of any government, of any national government, has to be the ability to issue our own money, to run a deficit, spending into the economy to make the economy recover. We cannot recover under the Lisbon agreements, under the eurozone, where the central bank will only create money to give to banks, not money to spend into the economy, to actually finance new investment and new employment. And we cannot be part of a eurozone that insists that pensions have to be cut back in order to make the banks whole and save the one percent losing money. So for the first time you're having the real left wing in Europe talking about financial issues, not about political philosophy, or the fact that countries are not going to go to war again. Nobody ever believes that France, Germany, and other countries in Europe are going to go to military war again. There is a fear that the countries in Europe may go to war against Russia, pushed by NATO, pushed by adventurism of the U.S. stance towards Russia. And so all of a sudden the eurozone that was supposed to be a bulwark of military peace has become belligerent, and even more so if Hillary would win in the United States. And there''s a feeling we do want peace. That means we have to withdraw from the eurozone. And essentially, withdrawing from Brussels means withdrawing from NATO and withdrawing from the United States. So you could say that the vote to withdraw from Europe is, it's really a vote of the British middle class, the working class, to withdraw from the U.S. neoliberalism that has been running Europe for the last ten years. WILPERT: Okay. Unfortunately we''ve run out of time, but thanks so much, Michael, for your insight on this. I'm sure we'll come back to you again, as we always do. So thanks again for joining us. HUDSON: Good to be here. WILPERT: And thank you for watching the Real News Network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jun 26 20:38:58 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:38:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. Message-ID: Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titled Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. ________________________________ transcript [How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote]GREGORY WILPERT, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I'm Gregory Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. Britain's referendum in favor of leaving, or exiting, the European Union, the Brexit referendum, as the results are known, won with 52 percent of the vote on Thursday, June 23, stunning Europe's political establishment. One of the issues that has raised concern for many is that what does the Brexit mean for Britain's and Europe's economy and politics. This was one of the main topics leading up to the referendum, but a lot of disinformation [reigned] in the discussion. With us to discuss the economic and political context of the Brexit is Michael Hudson. He is a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Also, he is an economics adviser to several governments, including Greece, Iceland, Latvia, and China. He joins us right now from New York City. Thanks, Michael, for joining us. MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here again. WILPERT: So let's begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain's ability to control its own economy, what would you say--what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place? HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they're talking about are from the near East. And they're aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration. The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms--and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed. So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they're all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it's America's new Cold War against Russia that's been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that's spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things. So what you're seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration's pro-war, new Cold War policy. WILPERT: So are you saying that people voted for Brexit because they are really--that they were concerned about the influence of the U.S.? Or are you saying that it's because of the backlash, because of the immigration that happened, and the fact that the right wing took advantage of that [crosstalk]. HUDSON: It's a combination. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they're threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why are these immigrants coming here? They're coming here because of Europe's support of NATO, and NATO's war that's bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine. In England, many of the so-called Polish plumbers that came years ago have now gone back to Poland, because that country's recovered. But now the worry is that a whole new wave of Ukrainians--and basically the U.S. policy is one of destabilization--so even the right-wing, while they have talked about immigrants, they have also denounced the [inaud.] fact that the European policy is run by the United States, and that you have both Marine Le Pen in France saying, we want to withdraw from NATO; we don't want confrontation with Russia. You have the left wing in England saying, we don't want concentration in Russia. And last week when I was in Germany you had the Social Democratic Party leaders saying that Russia should be invited back into the G8, that NATO was taking a warlike position and was hurting the European economy by breaking its ties with Russia and by forcing other sanctions against Russia. So you have a convergence between the left and the right, and the question is, who is going to determine the terms on which Europe is broken up and put back together? Will it simply be the right wing that's anti-immigrants? Or will it simply be the left saying we want to restructure the economy in a way that essentially avoids the austerity that is coming from Brussels, on the one hand, and from the British Conservative Party on the other. And again, you have Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch nationalists, saying, we want Holland to have its own central bank. We want to be in charge of our own money. And under Brussels, we cannot be in charge of our own money. That means we cannot run a budget deficit and spend money into the economy, and recover with a Keynesian-type policy. So the whole withdrawal from Europe means withdrawing from austerity. If you look at the voting pattern in London, in England, you had London to stay in. You had the university centers, Oxford and Cambridge, voting to stay in. You had the working class, the old industrial areas of the north and the south. You had the middle class and the industrial class saying, we're getting a really bad deal from Europe. We want to oppose austerity. And we don't want Brussels to give us not only the anti-labor, pro-bank policies, but also the trade policy that Brussels was trying to push onto Europe, the Obama trade agreement that essentially would take national economic policy out of the hands of government and put it into the hands of corporate bureaucracy, corporation courts. And the bureaucracy in Brussels, then, is largely pro-bank, pro-corporate, and anti-labor. WILPERT: That actually brings up the issue of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the TTIP. It was one of the things that the Cameron government was really pushing for, this relationship between the European Union and the United States. Now that Britain is presumably going to be leaving the European Union, don't you think that this might open the possibility of just a TTIP between Britain and the United States? In other words, that it will--it has been one of the arguments, actually, of those who were opposed to Britain leaving the EU, that it will tie Britain even closer to the United States than it was before, and by virtue of the fact that it's leaving Europe. HUDSON: I think just the opposite. I've gotten phone calls today from Britain, and I've been on radio with Britain. The whole feeling is that this makes the TTIP impossible, because you can't do a TTIP just with Britain. You have to do it with all of Europe. And this prevents Europe, and I think Britain, too, from making this kind of trade policy. The rejection of eurozone austerity is, essentially, a rejection of the neoliberal plan that the TTIP is supposed to be the capstone of. WILPERT: And what do you think this means, then, in general for Europe's future? One of the things that--one of the dangers that many perceive is precisely that Europe, as a European Union, is going to fall apart. Do you think that's the likely scenario here? Or--. HUDSON: I watched Marine Le Pen today in France, and you could see from her face that she was overjoyed. She thinks all of a sudden, almost every European interview where the people--there was such unleashing of a feeling of freedom, a feeling of yes, we can do it. When Ireland voted not to join the European Union people just ignored the popular vote. But now it can't be ignored anymore. And I think that the British vote is a catalyst for moves in Spain, Italy, the Five Star movement in Italy, the Podemos in Spain, to say, we are--we have an alternative to Europe. Europe is sort of like the Soviet Union in the '30s and '40s. There was an argument, is it reformable or not? There is a feeling, and I think it's correct, that the European Union, the eurozone, and the euro, is not reformable, as a result of the Lisbon treaties and the other treaties that have created the euro. Europe has to be taken apart in order to be put together not on a right-wing, neoliberal basis, but on a more social basis. Now, ironically, the parties who call themselves socialists are now moved to the ultra-right, to the neoliberal. The French socialists, the German social democrats. But you're having real radical parties arise in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and potentially in Greece, again, that are going to say, well, the key of any government, of any national government, has to be the ability to issue our own money, to run a deficit, spending into the economy to make the economy recover. We cannot recover under the Lisbon agreements, under the eurozone, where the central bank will only create money to give to banks, not money to spend into the economy, to actually finance new investment and new employment. And we cannot be part of a eurozone that insists that pensions have to be cut back in order to make the banks whole and save the one percent losing money. So for the first time you're having the real left wing in Europe talking about financial issues, not about political philosophy, or the fact that countries are not going to go to war again. Nobody ever believes that France, Germany, and other countries in Europe are going to go to military war again. There is a fear that the countries in Europe may go to war against Russia, pushed by NATO, pushed by adventurism of the U.S. stance towards Russia. And so all of a sudden the eurozone that was supposed to be a bulwark of military peace has become belligerent, and even more so if Hillary would win in the United States. And there''s a feeling we do want peace. That means we have to withdraw from the eurozone. And essentially, withdrawing from Brussels means withdrawing from NATO and withdrawing from the United States. So you could say that the vote to withdraw from Europe is, it's really a vote of the British middle class, the working class, to withdraw from the U.S. neoliberalism that has been running Europe for the last ten years. WILPERT: Okay. Unfortunately we''ve run out of time, but thanks so much, Michael, for your insight on this. I'm sure we'll come back to you again, as we always do. So thanks again for joining us. HUDSON: Good to be here. WILPERT: And thank you for watching the Real News Network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mickalideh at gmail.com Sun Jun 26 21:32:05 2016 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:32:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I support this theme. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's > application today or tomorrow. > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on > the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > > How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs > poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like > Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history > (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil > Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - > there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to > say this is what we'll do. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jun 26 21:49:01 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:49:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No nuance here. This guy is no oracle, as much as we might like to believe much of what he so assuredly states. Just my impression. —mkb On Jun 26, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titledKilling the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. ________________________________ transcript [How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote]GREGORY WILPERT, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Gregory Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. Britain’s referendum in favor of leaving, or exiting, the European Union, the Brexit referendum, as the results are known, won with 52 percent of the vote on Thursday, June 23, stunning Europe’s political establishment. One of the issues that has raised concern for many is that what does the Brexit mean for Britain’s and Europe’s economy and politics. This was one of the main topics leading up to the referendum, but a lot of disinformation [reigned] in the discussion. With us to discuss the economic and political context of the Brexit is Michael Hudson. He is a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Also, he is an economics adviser to several governments, including Greece, Iceland, Latvia, and China. He joins us right now from New York City. Thanks, Michael, for joining us. MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here again. WILPERT: So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say--what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place? HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration. The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms--and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed. So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things. So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy. WILPERT: So are you saying that people voted for Brexit because they are really--that they were concerned about the influence of the U.S.? Or are you saying that it’s because of the backlash, because of the immigration that happened, and the fact that the right wing took advantage of that [crosstalk]. HUDSON: It’s a combination. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they’re threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why are these immigrants coming here? They’re coming here because of Europe’s support of NATO, and NATO’s war that’s bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine. In England, many of the so-called Polish plumbers that came years ago have now gone back to Poland, because that country’s recovered. But now the worry is that a whole new wave of Ukrainians--and basically the U.S. policy is one of destabilization--so even the right-wing, while they have talked about immigrants, they have also denounced the [inaud.] fact that the European policy is run by the United States, and that you have both Marine Le Pen in France saying, we want to withdraw from NATO; we don’t want confrontation with Russia. You have the left wing in England saying, we don’t want concentration in Russia. And last week when I was in Germany you had the Social Democratic Party leaders saying that Russia should be invited back into the G8, that NATO was taking a warlike position and was hurting the European economy by breaking its ties with Russia and by forcing other sanctions against Russia. So you have a convergence between the left and the right, and the question is, who is going to determine the terms on which Europe is broken up and put back together? Will it simply be the right wing that’s anti-immigrants? Or will it simply be the left saying we want to restructure the economy in a way that essentially avoids the austerity that is coming from Brussels, on the one hand, and from the British Conservative Party on the other. And again, you have Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch nationalists, saying, we want Holland to have its own central bank. We want to be in charge of our own money. And under Brussels, we cannot be in charge of our own money. That means we cannot run a budget deficit and spend money into the economy, and recover with a Keynesian-type policy. So the whole withdrawal from Europe means withdrawing from austerity. If you look at the voting pattern in London, in England, you had London to stay in. You had the university centers, Oxford and Cambridge, voting to stay in. You had the working class, the old industrial areas of the north and the south. You had the middle class and the industrial class saying, we’re getting a really bad deal from Europe. We want to oppose austerity. And we don’t want Brussels to give us not only the anti-labor, pro-bank policies, but also the trade policy that Brussels was trying to push onto Europe, the Obama trade agreement that essentially would take national economic policy out of the hands of government and put it into the hands of corporate bureaucracy, corporation courts. And the bureaucracy in Brussels, then, is largely pro-bank, pro-corporate, and anti-labor. WILPERT: That actually brings up the issue of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the TTIP. It was one of the things that the Cameron government was really pushing for, this relationship between the European Union and the United States. Now that Britain is presumably going to be leaving the European Union, don’t you think that this might open the possibility of just a TTIP between Britain and the United States? In other words, that it will--it has been one of the arguments, actually, of those who were opposed to Britain leaving the EU, that it will tie Britain even closer to the United States than it was before, and by virtue of the fact that it’s leaving Europe. HUDSON: I think just the opposite. I’ve gotten phone calls today from Britain, and I’ve been on radio with Britain. The whole feeling is that this makes the TTIP impossible, because you can’t do a TTIP just with Britain. You have to do it with all of Europe. And this prevents Europe, and I think Britain, too, from making this kind of trade policy. The rejection of eurozone austerity is, essentially, a rejection of the neoliberal plan that the TTIP is supposed to be the capstone of. WILPERT: And what do you think this means, then, in general for Europe’s future? One of the things that--one of the dangers that many perceive is precisely that Europe, as a European Union, is going to fall apart. Do you think that’s the likely scenario here? Or--. HUDSON: I watched Marine Le Pen today in France, and you could see from her face that she was overjoyed. She thinks all of a sudden, almost every European interview where the people--there was such unleashing of a feeling of freedom, a feeling of yes, we can do it. When Ireland voted not to join the European Union people just ignored the popular vote. But now it can’t be ignored anymore. And I think that the British vote is a catalyst for moves in Spain, Italy, the Five Star movement in Italy, the Podemos in Spain, to say, we are--we have an alternative to Europe. Europe is sort of like the Soviet Union in the ‘30s and ‘40s. There was an argument, is it reformable or not? There is a feeling, and I think it’s correct, that the European Union, the eurozone, and the euro, is not reformable, as a result of the Lisbon treaties and the other treaties that have created the euro. Europe has to be taken apart in order to be put together not on a right-wing, neoliberal basis, but on a more social basis. Now, ironically, the parties who call themselves socialists are now moved to the ultra-right, to the neoliberal. The French socialists, the German social democrats. But you’re having real radical parties arise in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and potentially in Greece, again, that are going to say, well, the key of any government, of any national government, has to be the ability to issue our own money, to run a deficit, spending into the economy to make the economy recover. We cannot recover under the Lisbon agreements, under the eurozone, where the central bank will only create money to give to banks, not money to spend into the economy, to actually finance new investment and new employment. And we cannot be part of a eurozone that insists that pensions have to be cut back in order to make the banks whole and save the one percent losing money. So for the first time you’re having the real left wing in Europe talking about financial issues, not about political philosophy, or the fact that countries are not going to go to war again. Nobody ever believes that France, Germany, and other countries in Europe are going to go to military war again. There is a fear that the countries in Europe may go to war against Russia, pushed by NATO, pushed by adventurism of the U.S. stance towards Russia. And so all of a sudden the eurozone that was supposed to be a bulwark of military peace has become belligerent, and even more so if Hillary would win in the United States. And there’'s a feeling we do want peace. That means we have to withdraw from the eurozone. And essentially, withdrawing from Brussels means withdrawing from NATO and withdrawing from the United States. So you could say that the vote to withdraw from Europe is, it’s really a vote of the British middle class, the working class, to withdraw from the U.S. neoliberalism that has been running Europe for the last ten years. WILPERT: Okay. Unfortunately we'’ve run out of time, but thanks so much, Michael, for your insight on this. I’m sure we’ll come back to you again, as we always do. So thanks again for joining us. HUDSON: Good to be here. WILPERT: And thank you for watching the Real News Network. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sun Jun 26 21:49:01 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:49:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No nuance here. This guy is no oracle, as much as we might like to believe much of what he so assuredly states. Just my impression. —mkb On Jun 26, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titledKilling the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. ________________________________ transcript [How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote]GREGORY WILPERT, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Gregory Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. Britain’s referendum in favor of leaving, or exiting, the European Union, the Brexit referendum, as the results are known, won with 52 percent of the vote on Thursday, June 23, stunning Europe’s political establishment. One of the issues that has raised concern for many is that what does the Brexit mean for Britain’s and Europe’s economy and politics. This was one of the main topics leading up to the referendum, but a lot of disinformation [reigned] in the discussion. With us to discuss the economic and political context of the Brexit is Michael Hudson. He is a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Also, he is an economics adviser to several governments, including Greece, Iceland, Latvia, and China. He joins us right now from New York City. Thanks, Michael, for joining us. MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here again. WILPERT: So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say--what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place? HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration. The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms--and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed. So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things. So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy. WILPERT: So are you saying that people voted for Brexit because they are really--that they were concerned about the influence of the U.S.? Or are you saying that it’s because of the backlash, because of the immigration that happened, and the fact that the right wing took advantage of that [crosstalk]. HUDSON: It’s a combination. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they’re threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why are these immigrants coming here? They’re coming here because of Europe’s support of NATO, and NATO’s war that’s bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine. In England, many of the so-called Polish plumbers that came years ago have now gone back to Poland, because that country’s recovered. But now the worry is that a whole new wave of Ukrainians--and basically the U.S. policy is one of destabilization--so even the right-wing, while they have talked about immigrants, they have also denounced the [inaud.] fact that the European policy is run by the United States, and that you have both Marine Le Pen in France saying, we want to withdraw from NATO; we don’t want confrontation with Russia. You have the left wing in England saying, we don’t want concentration in Russia. And last week when I was in Germany you had the Social Democratic Party leaders saying that Russia should be invited back into the G8, that NATO was taking a warlike position and was hurting the European economy by breaking its ties with Russia and by forcing other sanctions against Russia. So you have a convergence between the left and the right, and the question is, who is going to determine the terms on which Europe is broken up and put back together? Will it simply be the right wing that’s anti-immigrants? Or will it simply be the left saying we want to restructure the economy in a way that essentially avoids the austerity that is coming from Brussels, on the one hand, and from the British Conservative Party on the other. And again, you have Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch nationalists, saying, we want Holland to have its own central bank. We want to be in charge of our own money. And under Brussels, we cannot be in charge of our own money. That means we cannot run a budget deficit and spend money into the economy, and recover with a Keynesian-type policy. So the whole withdrawal from Europe means withdrawing from austerity. If you look at the voting pattern in London, in England, you had London to stay in. You had the university centers, Oxford and Cambridge, voting to stay in. You had the working class, the old industrial areas of the north and the south. You had the middle class and the industrial class saying, we’re getting a really bad deal from Europe. We want to oppose austerity. And we don’t want Brussels to give us not only the anti-labor, pro-bank policies, but also the trade policy that Brussels was trying to push onto Europe, the Obama trade agreement that essentially would take national economic policy out of the hands of government and put it into the hands of corporate bureaucracy, corporation courts. And the bureaucracy in Brussels, then, is largely pro-bank, pro-corporate, and anti-labor. WILPERT: That actually brings up the issue of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the TTIP. It was one of the things that the Cameron government was really pushing for, this relationship between the European Union and the United States. Now that Britain is presumably going to be leaving the European Union, don’t you think that this might open the possibility of just a TTIP between Britain and the United States? In other words, that it will--it has been one of the arguments, actually, of those who were opposed to Britain leaving the EU, that it will tie Britain even closer to the United States than it was before, and by virtue of the fact that it’s leaving Europe. HUDSON: I think just the opposite. I’ve gotten phone calls today from Britain, and I’ve been on radio with Britain. The whole feeling is that this makes the TTIP impossible, because you can’t do a TTIP just with Britain. You have to do it with all of Europe. And this prevents Europe, and I think Britain, too, from making this kind of trade policy. The rejection of eurozone austerity is, essentially, a rejection of the neoliberal plan that the TTIP is supposed to be the capstone of. WILPERT: And what do you think this means, then, in general for Europe’s future? One of the things that--one of the dangers that many perceive is precisely that Europe, as a European Union, is going to fall apart. Do you think that’s the likely scenario here? Or--. HUDSON: I watched Marine Le Pen today in France, and you could see from her face that she was overjoyed. She thinks all of a sudden, almost every European interview where the people--there was such unleashing of a feeling of freedom, a feeling of yes, we can do it. When Ireland voted not to join the European Union people just ignored the popular vote. But now it can’t be ignored anymore. And I think that the British vote is a catalyst for moves in Spain, Italy, the Five Star movement in Italy, the Podemos in Spain, to say, we are--we have an alternative to Europe. Europe is sort of like the Soviet Union in the ‘30s and ‘40s. There was an argument, is it reformable or not? There is a feeling, and I think it’s correct, that the European Union, the eurozone, and the euro, is not reformable, as a result of the Lisbon treaties and the other treaties that have created the euro. Europe has to be taken apart in order to be put together not on a right-wing, neoliberal basis, but on a more social basis. Now, ironically, the parties who call themselves socialists are now moved to the ultra-right, to the neoliberal. The French socialists, the German social democrats. But you’re having real radical parties arise in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and potentially in Greece, again, that are going to say, well, the key of any government, of any national government, has to be the ability to issue our own money, to run a deficit, spending into the economy to make the economy recover. We cannot recover under the Lisbon agreements, under the eurozone, where the central bank will only create money to give to banks, not money to spend into the economy, to actually finance new investment and new employment. And we cannot be part of a eurozone that insists that pensions have to be cut back in order to make the banks whole and save the one percent losing money. So for the first time you’re having the real left wing in Europe talking about financial issues, not about political philosophy, or the fact that countries are not going to go to war again. Nobody ever believes that France, Germany, and other countries in Europe are going to go to military war again. There is a fear that the countries in Europe may go to war against Russia, pushed by NATO, pushed by adventurism of the U.S. stance towards Russia. And so all of a sudden the eurozone that was supposed to be a bulwark of military peace has become belligerent, and even more so if Hillary would win in the United States. And there’'s a feeling we do want peace. That means we have to withdraw from the eurozone. And essentially, withdrawing from Brussels means withdrawing from NATO and withdrawing from the United States. So you could say that the vote to withdraw from Europe is, it’s really a vote of the British middle class, the working class, to withdraw from the U.S. neoliberalism that has been running Europe for the last ten years. WILPERT: Okay. Unfortunately we'’ve run out of time, but thanks so much, Michael, for your insight on this. I’m sure we’ll come back to you again, as we always do. So thanks again for joining us. HUDSON: Good to be here. WILPERT: And thank you for watching the Real News Network. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jun 26 22:00:06 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:00:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: True, but he keeps it simple for those of us who don't comprehend economics. I recognize many people probably are simply anti-immigrants, and that certainly helped get the vote accomplished, but we need to recognize that the wars, killing and destruction in the middle east, for which we are responsible, are the main problem and brexit may assist in weakening US and neoliberal influence. ________________________________ From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 4:49:01 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. No nuance here. This guy is no oracle, as much as we might like to believe much of what he so assuredly states. Just my impression. —mkb On Jun 26, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titledKilling the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. ________________________________ transcript [How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote]GREGORY WILPERT, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Gregory Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. Britain’s referendum in favor of leaving, or exiting, the European Union, the Brexit referendum, as the results are known, won with 52 percent of the vote on Thursday, June 23, stunning Europe’s political establishment. One of the issues that has raised concern for many is that what does the Brexit mean for Britain’s and Europe’s economy and politics. This was one of the main topics leading up to the referendum, but a lot of disinformation [reigned] in the discussion. With us to discuss the economic and political context of the Brexit is Michael Hudson. He is a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Also, he is an economics adviser to several governments, including Greece, Iceland, Latvia, and China. He joins us right now from New York City. Thanks, Michael, for joining us. MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here again. WILPERT: So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say--what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place? HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration. The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms--and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed. So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things. So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy. WILPERT: So are you saying that people voted for Brexit because they are really--that they were concerned about the influence of the U.S.? Or are you saying that it’s because of the backlash, because of the immigration that happened, and the fact that the right wing took advantage of that [crosstalk]. HUDSON: It’s a combination. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they’re threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why are these immigrants coming here? They’re coming here because of Europe’s support of NATO, and NATO’s war that’s bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine. In England, many of the so-called Polish plumbers that came years ago have now gone back to Poland, because that country’s recovered. But now the worry is that a whole new wave of Ukrainians--and basically the U.S. policy is one of destabilization--so even the right-wing, while they have talked about immigrants, they have also denounced the [inaud.] fact that the European policy is run by the United States, and that you have both Marine Le Pen in France saying, we want to withdraw from NATO; we don’t want confrontation with Russia. You have the left wing in England saying, we don’t want concentration in Russia. And last week when I was in Germany you had the Social Democratic Party leaders saying that Russia should be invited back into the G8, that NATO was taking a warlike position and was hurting the European economy by breaking its ties with Russia and by forcing other sanctions against Russia. So you have a convergence between the left and the right, and the question is, who is going to determine the terms on which Europe is broken up and put back together? Will it simply be the right wing that’s anti-immigrants? Or will it simply be the left saying we want to restructure the economy in a way that essentially avoids the austerity that is coming from Brussels, on the one hand, and from the British Conservative Party on the other. And again, you have Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch nationalists, saying, we want Holland to have its own central bank. We want to be in charge of our own money. And under Brussels, we cannot be in charge of our own money. That means we cannot run a budget deficit and spend money into the economy, and recover with a Keynesian-type policy. So the whole withdrawal from Europe means withdrawing from austerity. If you look at the voting pattern in London, in England, you had London to stay in. You had the university centers, Oxford and Cambridge, voting to stay in. You had the working class, the old industrial areas of the north and the south. You had the middle class and the industrial class saying, we’re getting a really bad deal from Europe. We want to oppose austerity. And we don’t want Brussels to give us not only the anti-labor, pro-bank policies, but also the trade policy that Brussels was trying to push onto Europe, the Obama trade agreement that essentially would take national economic policy out of the hands of government and put it into the hands of corporate bureaucracy, corporation courts. And the bureaucracy in Brussels, then, is largely pro-bank, pro-corporate, and anti-labor. WILPERT: That actually brings up the issue of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the TTIP. It was one of the things that the Cameron government was really pushing for, this relationship between the European Union and the United States. Now that Britain is presumably going to be leaving the European Union, don’t you think that this might open the possibility of just a TTIP between Britain and the United States? In other words, that it will--it has been one of the arguments, actually, of those who were opposed to Britain leaving the EU, that it will tie Britain even closer to the United States than it was before, and by virtue of the fact that it’s leaving Europe. HUDSON: I think just the opposite. I’ve gotten phone calls today from Britain, and I’ve been on radio with Britain. The whole feeling is that this makes the TTIP impossible, because you can’t do a TTIP just with Britain. You have to do it with all of Europe. And this prevents Europe, and I think Britain, too, from making this kind of trade policy. The rejection of eurozone austerity is, essentially, a rejection of the neoliberal plan that the TTIP is supposed to be the capstone of. WILPERT: And what do you think this means, then, in general for Europe’s future? One of the things that--one of the dangers that many perceive is precisely that Europe, as a European Union, is going to fall apart. Do you think that’s the likely scenario here? Or--. HUDSON: I watched Marine Le Pen today in France, and you could see from her face that she was overjoyed. She thinks all of a sudden, almost every European interview where the people--there was such unleashing of a feeling of freedom, a feeling of yes, we can do it. When Ireland voted not to join the European Union people just ignored the popular vote. But now it can’t be ignored anymore. And I think that the British vote is a catalyst for moves in Spain, Italy, the Five Star movement in Italy, the Podemos in Spain, to say, we are--we have an alternative to Europe. Europe is sort of like the Soviet Union in the ‘30s and ‘40s. There was an argument, is it reformable or not? There is a feeling, and I think it’s correct, that the European Union, the eurozone, and the euro, is not reformable, as a result of the Lisbon treaties and the other treaties that have created the euro. Europe has to be taken apart in order to be put together not on a right-wing, neoliberal basis, but on a more social basis. Now, ironically, the parties who call themselves socialists are now moved to the ultra-right, to the neoliberal. The French socialists, the German social democrats. But you’re having real radical parties arise in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and potentially in Greece, again, that are going to say, well, the key of any government, of any national government, has to be the ability to issue our own money, to run a deficit, spending into the economy to make the economy recover. We cannot recover under the Lisbon agreements, under the eurozone, where the central bank will only create money to give to banks, not money to spend into the economy, to actually finance new investment and new employment. And we cannot be part of a eurozone that insists that pensions have to be cut back in order to make the banks whole and save the one percent losing money. So for the first time you’re having the real left wing in Europe talking about financial issues, not about political philosophy, or the fact that countries are not going to go to war again. Nobody ever believes that France, Germany, and other countries in Europe are going to go to military war again. There is a fear that the countries in Europe may go to war against Russia, pushed by NATO, pushed by adventurism of the U.S. stance towards Russia. And so all of a sudden the eurozone that was supposed to be a bulwark of military peace has become belligerent, and even more so if Hillary would win in the United States. And there’'s a feeling we do want peace. That means we have to withdraw from the eurozone. And essentially, withdrawing from Brussels means withdrawing from NATO and withdrawing from the United States. So you could say that the vote to withdraw from Europe is, it’s really a vote of the British middle class, the working class, to withdraw from the U.S. neoliberalism that has been running Europe for the last ten years. WILPERT: Okay. Unfortunately we'’ve run out of time, but thanks so much, Michael, for your insight on this. I’m sure we’ll come back to you again, as we always do. So thanks again for joining us. HUDSON: Good to be here. WILPERT: And thank you for watching the Real News Network. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jun 26 22:00:06 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:00:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: True, but he keeps it simple for those of us who don't comprehend economics. I recognize many people probably are simply anti-immigrants, and that certainly helped get the vote accomplished, but we need to recognize that the wars, killing and destruction in the middle east, for which we are responsible, are the main problem and brexit may assist in weakening US and neoliberal influence. ________________________________ From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 4:49:01 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace-discuss List; Peace Discuss; peace at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] One of the best explanations of Brexit, that I've seen so far. No nuance here. This guy is no oracle, as much as we might like to believe much of what he so assuredly states. Just my impression. —mkb On Jun 26, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titledKilling the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. ________________________________ transcript [How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote]GREGORY WILPERT, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Gregory Wilpert, coming to you from Quito, Ecuador. Britain’s referendum in favor of leaving, or exiting, the European Union, the Brexit referendum, as the results are known, won with 52 percent of the vote on Thursday, June 23, stunning Europe’s political establishment. One of the issues that has raised concern for many is that what does the Brexit mean for Britain’s and Europe’s economy and politics. This was one of the main topics leading up to the referendum, but a lot of disinformation [reigned] in the discussion. With us to discuss the economic and political context of the Brexit is Michael Hudson. He is a research professor of economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. Also, he is an economics adviser to several governments, including Greece, Iceland, Latvia, and China. He joins us right now from New York City. Thanks, Michael, for joining us. MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here again. WILPERT: So let’s begin with the political context in which the Brexit vote took place. Aside from the right-wing arguments about immigrants, economic concerns, and about Britain’s ability to control its own economy, what would you say--what do you see as being the main kind of political background in which this vote took place? HUDSON: Well, almost all the Europeans know where the immigrants are coming from. And the ones that they’re talking about are from the near East. And they’re aware of the fact that most of the immigrants are coming as a result of the NATO policies promoted by Hillary and by the Obama administration. The problem began in Libya. Once Hillary pushed Obama to destroy Libya and wipe out the stable government there, she wiped out the arms--and Libya was a very heavily armed country. She turned over the arms to ISIS, to Al-Nusra, and Al-Qaeda. And Al-Qaeda used these arms under U.S. organization to attack Syria and Iraq. Now, the Syrian population, the Iraqi population, have no choice but to either emigrate or get killed. So when people talk about the immigration to Europe, the Europeans, the French, the Dutch, the English, they’re all aware of the fact that this is the fact that Brussels is really NATO, and NATO is really run by Washington, and that it’s America’s new Cold War against Russia that’s been spurring all of this demographic dislocation that’s spreading into England, spreading into Europe, and is destabilizing things. So what you’re seeing with the Brexit is the result of the Obama administration’s pro-war, new Cold War policy. WILPERT: So are you saying that people voted for Brexit because they are really--that they were concerned about the influence of the U.S.? Or are you saying that it’s because of the backlash, because of the immigration that happened, and the fact that the right wing took advantage of that [crosstalk]. HUDSON: It’s a combination. The right wing was, indeed, pushing the immigrant issue, saying wait a minute, they’re threatening our jobs. But the left wing was just as vocal, and the left wing was saying, why are these immigrants coming here? They’re coming here because of Europe’s support of NATO, and NATO’s war that’s bombing the near East, that is destabilizing the whole Near East, and causing a flight of refugees not only from Syria but also from Ukraine. In England, many of the so-called Polish plumbers that came years ago have now gone back to Poland, because that country’s recovered. But now the worry is that a whole new wave of Ukrainians--and basically the U.S. policy is one of destabilization--so even the right-wing, while they have talked about immigrants, they have also denounced the [inaud.] fact that the European policy is run by the United States, and that you have both Marine Le Pen in France saying, we want to withdraw from NATO; we don’t want confrontation with Russia. You have the left wing in England saying, we don’t want concentration in Russia. And last week when I was in Germany you had the Social Democratic Party leaders saying that Russia should be invited back into the G8, that NATO was taking a warlike position and was hurting the European economy by breaking its ties with Russia and by forcing other sanctions against Russia. So you have a convergence between the left and the right, and the question is, who is going to determine the terms on which Europe is broken up and put back together? Will it simply be the right wing that’s anti-immigrants? Or will it simply be the left saying we want to restructure the economy in a way that essentially avoids the austerity that is coming from Brussels, on the one hand, and from the British Conservative Party on the other. And again, you have Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch nationalists, saying, we want Holland to have its own central bank. We want to be in charge of our own money. And under Brussels, we cannot be in charge of our own money. That means we cannot run a budget deficit and spend money into the economy, and recover with a Keynesian-type policy. So the whole withdrawal from Europe means withdrawing from austerity. If you look at the voting pattern in London, in England, you had London to stay in. You had the university centers, Oxford and Cambridge, voting to stay in. You had the working class, the old industrial areas of the north and the south. You had the middle class and the industrial class saying, we’re getting a really bad deal from Europe. We want to oppose austerity. And we don’t want Brussels to give us not only the anti-labor, pro-bank policies, but also the trade policy that Brussels was trying to push onto Europe, the Obama trade agreement that essentially would take national economic policy out of the hands of government and put it into the hands of corporate bureaucracy, corporation courts. And the bureaucracy in Brussels, then, is largely pro-bank, pro-corporate, and anti-labor. WILPERT: That actually brings up the issue of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the TTIP. It was one of the things that the Cameron government was really pushing for, this relationship between the European Union and the United States. Now that Britain is presumably going to be leaving the European Union, don’t you think that this might open the possibility of just a TTIP between Britain and the United States? In other words, that it will--it has been one of the arguments, actually, of those who were opposed to Britain leaving the EU, that it will tie Britain even closer to the United States than it was before, and by virtue of the fact that it’s leaving Europe. HUDSON: I think just the opposite. I’ve gotten phone calls today from Britain, and I’ve been on radio with Britain. The whole feeling is that this makes the TTIP impossible, because you can’t do a TTIP just with Britain. You have to do it with all of Europe. And this prevents Europe, and I think Britain, too, from making this kind of trade policy. The rejection of eurozone austerity is, essentially, a rejection of the neoliberal plan that the TTIP is supposed to be the capstone of. WILPERT: And what do you think this means, then, in general for Europe’s future? One of the things that--one of the dangers that many perceive is precisely that Europe, as a European Union, is going to fall apart. Do you think that’s the likely scenario here? Or--. HUDSON: I watched Marine Le Pen today in France, and you could see from her face that she was overjoyed. She thinks all of a sudden, almost every European interview where the people--there was such unleashing of a feeling of freedom, a feeling of yes, we can do it. When Ireland voted not to join the European Union people just ignored the popular vote. But now it can’t be ignored anymore. And I think that the British vote is a catalyst for moves in Spain, Italy, the Five Star movement in Italy, the Podemos in Spain, to say, we are--we have an alternative to Europe. Europe is sort of like the Soviet Union in the ‘30s and ‘40s. There was an argument, is it reformable or not? There is a feeling, and I think it’s correct, that the European Union, the eurozone, and the euro, is not reformable, as a result of the Lisbon treaties and the other treaties that have created the euro. Europe has to be taken apart in order to be put together not on a right-wing, neoliberal basis, but on a more social basis. Now, ironically, the parties who call themselves socialists are now moved to the ultra-right, to the neoliberal. The French socialists, the German social democrats. But you’re having real radical parties arise in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and potentially in Greece, again, that are going to say, well, the key of any government, of any national government, has to be the ability to issue our own money, to run a deficit, spending into the economy to make the economy recover. We cannot recover under the Lisbon agreements, under the eurozone, where the central bank will only create money to give to banks, not money to spend into the economy, to actually finance new investment and new employment. And we cannot be part of a eurozone that insists that pensions have to be cut back in order to make the banks whole and save the one percent losing money. So for the first time you’re having the real left wing in Europe talking about financial issues, not about political philosophy, or the fact that countries are not going to go to war again. Nobody ever believes that France, Germany, and other countries in Europe are going to go to military war again. There is a fear that the countries in Europe may go to war against Russia, pushed by NATO, pushed by adventurism of the U.S. stance towards Russia. And so all of a sudden the eurozone that was supposed to be a bulwark of military peace has become belligerent, and even more so if Hillary would win in the United States. And there’'s a feeling we do want peace. That means we have to withdraw from the eurozone. And essentially, withdrawing from Brussels means withdrawing from NATO and withdrawing from the United States. So you could say that the vote to withdraw from Europe is, it’s really a vote of the British middle class, the working class, to withdraw from the U.S. neoliberalism that has been running Europe for the last ten years. WILPERT: Okay. Unfortunately we'’ve run out of time, but thanks so much, Michael, for your insight on this. I’m sure we’ll come back to you again, as we always do. So thanks again for joining us. HUDSON: Good to be here. WILPERT: And thank you for watching the Real News Network. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Mon Jun 27 02:42:31 2016 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 21:42:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In addition to a Eugene Debs poster, let's carry a Gene Vanderport poster. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I support this theme. > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's >> application today or tomorrow. >> >> Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on >> the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": >> >> How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? >> >> We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs >> poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like >> Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history >> (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil >> Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - >> there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. >> >> Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to >> say this is what we'll do. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 07:24:24 2016 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 02:24:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Seems like the Prairie Greens did something very similar to this back in the day, around 2001. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's >> application today or tomorrow. >> >> Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on >> the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": >> >> How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? >> >> We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs >> poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like >> Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history >> (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil >> Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - >> there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. >> >> Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to >> say this is what we'll do. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stuartnlevy at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 09:35:11 2016 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 04:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? Message-ID: <8isglk5r0ny7k33qrtat0whv.1467020111107@email.android.com> Exactly- if Germaine agrees- I think so too!  -------- Original message -------- From: Robert Naiman via Peace Date: 06/26/2016 21:42 (GMT-06:00) To: Harry Mickalide Cc: Peace Discuss ,Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In addition to a Eugene Debs poster, let's carry a Gene Vanderport poster.  Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss wrote: I support this theme. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace wrote: Thinking about July 4th Parade time again.   We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America":     How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI...  - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme?   Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 13:03:35 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:03:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? Message-ID: 20 hrs Why the British Said No to Europe By John Pilger The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media. This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralised by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the “remain” campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain. The last bastion of the historic reforms of 1945, the National Health Service, has been so subverted by Tory and Labour-supported privateers it is fighting for its life. A forewarning came when the Treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain’s ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut £30 billion from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale. Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top. The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centerpiece of modern “globalization”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicized civil servants. All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more. The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as“neoliberalism”. The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor. In Britain today, 63 per cent of poor children grow up in families where one member is working. For them, the trap has closed. More than 600,000 residents of Britain’s second city, Greater Manchester, are, reports a study, “experiencing the effects of extreme poverty” and 1.6 million are slipping into penury. Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC. During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about“leaving Europe”, as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland. On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. “Well,” he said to“Lord” Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, “why do these people want it so badly?” The “these people”are the majority of Britons. The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson “European” class, though few will say so these days. The Guardian once described Blair as “mystical” and has been true to his “project” of rapacious war. The day after the vote, the columnist Martin Kettle offered a Brechtian solution to the misuse of democracy by the masses.“Now surely we can agree referendums are bad for Britain”, said the headline over his full-page piece. The “we” was unexplained but understood - just as “these people” is understood. “The referendum has conferred less legitimacy on politics, not more,” wrote Kettle. “ … the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again.” The kind of ruthlessness Kettle longs is found in Greece, a country now airbrushed. There, they had a referendum and the result was ignored. Like the Labour Party in Britain, the leaders of the Syriza government in Athens are the products of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, groomed in the fakery and political treachery of post-modernism. The Greek people courageously used the referendum to demand their government sought “better terms” with a venal status in Brussels that was crushing the life out of their country. They were betrayed, as the British would have been betrayed. On Friday, the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was asked by the BBC if he would pay tribute to the departed Cameron, his comrade in the “remain” campaign. Corbyn fulsomely praised Cameron’s “dignity” and noted his backing for gay marriage and his apology to the Irish families of the dead of Bloody Sunday. He said nothing about Cameron’s divisiveness, his brutal austerity policies, his lies about “protecting” the Health Service. Neither did he remind people of the war mongering of the Cameron government: the dispatch of British special forces to Libya and British bomb aimers to Saudi Arabia and, above all, the beckoning of world war three. In the week of the referendum vote, no British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin’s speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941. The Soviet victory – at a cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces – won the Second World War. Putin likened the current frenzied build up of Nato troops and war material on Russia’s western borders to the Third Reich’s Operation Barbarossa. Nato’s exercises in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons. On the eve of the referendum, the quisling Secretary-General of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering “peace and security” if they voted to leave the EU. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/348454-why-british-no-europe/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 13:03:35 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:03:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? Message-ID: 20 hrs Why the British Said No to Europe By John Pilger The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media. This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralised by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the “remain” campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain. The last bastion of the historic reforms of 1945, the National Health Service, has been so subverted by Tory and Labour-supported privateers it is fighting for its life. A forewarning came when the Treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain’s ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut £30 billion from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale. Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top. The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centerpiece of modern “globalization”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicized civil servants. All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more. The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as“neoliberalism”. The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor. In Britain today, 63 per cent of poor children grow up in families where one member is working. For them, the trap has closed. More than 600,000 residents of Britain’s second city, Greater Manchester, are, reports a study, “experiencing the effects of extreme poverty” and 1.6 million are slipping into penury. Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC. During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about“leaving Europe”, as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland. On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. “Well,” he said to“Lord” Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, “why do these people want it so badly?” The “these people”are the majority of Britons. The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson “European” class, though few will say so these days. The Guardian once described Blair as “mystical” and has been true to his “project” of rapacious war. The day after the vote, the columnist Martin Kettle offered a Brechtian solution to the misuse of democracy by the masses.“Now surely we can agree referendums are bad for Britain”, said the headline over his full-page piece. The “we” was unexplained but understood - just as “these people” is understood. “The referendum has conferred less legitimacy on politics, not more,” wrote Kettle. “ … the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again.” The kind of ruthlessness Kettle longs is found in Greece, a country now airbrushed. There, they had a referendum and the result was ignored. Like the Labour Party in Britain, the leaders of the Syriza government in Athens are the products of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, groomed in the fakery and political treachery of post-modernism. The Greek people courageously used the referendum to demand their government sought “better terms” with a venal status in Brussels that was crushing the life out of their country. They were betrayed, as the British would have been betrayed. On Friday, the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was asked by the BBC if he would pay tribute to the departed Cameron, his comrade in the “remain” campaign. Corbyn fulsomely praised Cameron’s “dignity” and noted his backing for gay marriage and his apology to the Irish families of the dead of Bloody Sunday. He said nothing about Cameron’s divisiveness, his brutal austerity policies, his lies about “protecting” the Health Service. Neither did he remind people of the war mongering of the Cameron government: the dispatch of British special forces to Libya and British bomb aimers to Saudi Arabia and, above all, the beckoning of world war three. In the week of the referendum vote, no British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin’s speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941. The Soviet victory – at a cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces – won the Second World War. Putin likened the current frenzied build up of Nato troops and war material on Russia’s western borders to the Third Reich’s Operation Barbarossa. Nato’s exercises in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons. On the eve of the referendum, the quisling Secretary-General of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering “peace and security” if they voted to leave the EU. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe. https://www.rt.com/op-edge/348454-why-british-no-europe/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 13:14:40 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 13:14:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: <8isglk5r0ny7k33qrtat0whv.1467020111107@email.android.com> References: <8isglk5r0ny7k33qrtat0whv.1467020111107@email.android.com> Message-ID: I cast my vote in agreement to all. ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:35:11 AM To: Robert Naiman; Harry Mickalide Cc: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? Exactly- if Germaine agrees- I think so too! -------- Original message -------- From: Robert Naiman via Peace Date: 06/26/2016 21:42 (GMT-06:00) To: Harry Mickalide Cc: Peace Discuss ,Peace Subject: Re: [Peace] [Peace-discuss] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In addition to a Eugene Debs poster, let's carry a Gene Vanderport poster. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss > wrote: I support this theme. On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace > wrote: Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jun 27 13:53:23 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:53:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The difficulty with this theme is that it implies “protest” is the exception - and what’s being protested against (war) is is usual and expected - and therefore in some sense justified - “in possession,” as lawyers might say. We might “Celebrate America” by saying “Celebrate America’s Rejection of War,” since every US war since the beginning has been opposed by the US public. (See attachment.) As President John Adams wrote in 1813, "The middle third ..., the soundest part of the Nation [is] always averse to War.” —CGE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: july4parade.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 3510 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace wrote: > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > > How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jun 27 14:11:57 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:11:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98FB12D8-CD98-4AC5-B6EB-C556680C8FC8@newsfromneptune.com> Pilger is accurate as always. Here’s the best argument I saw fro Leave: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/left-case-brexit > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > 20 hrs > Why the British Said No to Europe > By John Pilger > The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media. > This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralised by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the “remain” campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain. The last bastion of the historic reforms of 1945, the National Health Service, has been so subverted by Tory and Labour-supported privateers it is fighting for its life. > A forewarning came when the Treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain’s ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut £30 billion from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale. > Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top. The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. > The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centerpiece of modern “globalization”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicized civil servants. > All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more. > The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. > What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as“neoliberalism”. > The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor. In Britain today, 63 per cent of poor children grow up in families where one member is working. For them, the trap has closed. More than 600,000 residents of Britain’s second city, Greater Manchester, are, reports a study, “experiencing the effects of extreme poverty” and 1.6 million are slipping into penury. > Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC. During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about“leaving Europe”, as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland. > On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. “Well,” he said to“Lord” Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, “why do these people want it so badly?” The “these people”are the majority of Britons. > The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson “European” class, though few will say so these days. The Guardian once described Blair as “mystical” and has been true to his “project” of rapacious war. > The day after the vote, the columnist Martin Kettle offered a Brechtian solution to the misuse of democracy by the masses.“Now surely we can agree referendums are bad for Britain”, said the headline over his full-page piece. The “we” was unexplained but understood - just as “these people” is understood. “The referendum has conferred less legitimacy on politics, not more,” wrote Kettle. “ … the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again.” > The kind of ruthlessness Kettle longs is found in Greece, a country now airbrushed. There, they had a referendum and the result was ignored. Like the Labour Party in Britain, the leaders of the Syriza government in Athens are the products of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, groomed in the fakery and political treachery of post-modernism. The Greek people courageously used the referendum to demand their government sought “better terms” with a venal status in Brussels that was crushing the life out of their country. They were betrayed, as the British would have been betrayed. > On Friday, the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was asked by the BBC if he would pay tribute to the departed Cameron, his comrade in the “remain” campaign. Corbyn fulsomely praised Cameron’s “dignity” and noted his backing for gay marriage and his apology to the Irish families of the dead of Bloody Sunday. He said nothing about Cameron’s divisiveness, his brutal austerity policies, his lies about “protecting” the Health Service. Neither did he remind people of the war mongering of the Cameron government: the dispatch of British special forces to Libya and British bomb aimers to Saudi Arabia and, above all, the beckoning of world war three. > In the week of the referendum vote, no British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin’s speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941. The Soviet victory – at a cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces – won the Second World War. > Putin likened the current frenzied build up of Nato troops and war material on Russia’s western borders to the Third Reich’s Operation Barbarossa. Nato’s exercises in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons. On the eve of the referendum, the quisling Secretary-General of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering “peace and security” if they voted to leave the EU. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe. > https://www.rt.com/op-edge/348454-why-british-no-europe/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Jun 27 14:11:57 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 09:11:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98FB12D8-CD98-4AC5-B6EB-C556680C8FC8@newsfromneptune.com> Pilger is accurate as always. Here’s the best argument I saw fro Leave: https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/left-case-brexit > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > 20 hrs > Why the British Said No to Europe > By John Pilger > The majority vote by Britons to leave the European Union was an act of raw democracy. Millions of ordinary people refused to be bullied, intimidated and dismissed with open contempt by their presumed betters in the major parties, the leaders of the business and banking oligarchy and the media. > This was, in great part, a vote by those angered and demoralised by the sheer arrogance of the apologists for the “remain” campaign and the dismemberment of a socially just civil life in Britain. The last bastion of the historic reforms of 1945, the National Health Service, has been so subverted by Tory and Labour-supported privateers it is fighting for its life. > A forewarning came when the Treasurer, George Osborne, the embodiment of both Britain’s ancient regime and the banking mafia in Europe, threatened to cut £30 billion from public services if people voted the wrong way; it was blackmail on a shocking scale. > Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top. The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – first Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel. > The pith helmets may have long gone, but the blood has never dried. A nineteenth century contempt for countries and peoples, depending on their degree of colonial usefulness, remains a centerpiece of modern “globalization”, with its perverse socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: its freedom for capital and denial of freedom to labour; its perfidious politicians and politicized civil servants. > All this has now come home to Europe, enriching the likes of Tony Blair and impoverishing and disempowering millions. On 23 June, the British said no more. > The most effective propagandists of the “European ideal” have not been the far right, but an insufferably patrician class for whom metropolitan London is the United Kingdom. Its leading members see themselves as liberal, enlightened, cultivated tribunes of the 21st century zeitgeist, even “cool”. > What they really are is a bourgeoisie with insatiable consumerist tastes and ancient instincts of their own superiority. In their house paper, the Guardian, they have gloated, day after day, at those who would even consider the EU profoundly undemocratic, a source of social injustice and a virulent extremism known as“neoliberalism”. > The aim of this extremism is to install a permanent, capitalist theocracy that ensures a two-thirds society, with the majority divided and indebted, managed by a corporate class, and a permanent working poor. In Britain today, 63 per cent of poor children grow up in families where one member is working. For them, the trap has closed. More than 600,000 residents of Britain’s second city, Greater Manchester, are, reports a study, “experiencing the effects of extreme poverty” and 1.6 million are slipping into penury. > Little of this social catastrophe is acknowledged in the bourgeois controlled media, notably the Oxbridge dominated BBC. During the referendum campaign, almost no insightful analysis was allowed to intrude upon the clichéd hysteria about“leaving Europe”, as if Britain was about to be towed in hostile currents somewhere north of Iceland. > On the morning after the vote, a BBC radio reporter welcomed politicians to his studio as old chums. “Well,” he said to“Lord” Peter Mandelson, the disgraced architect of Blairism, “why do these people want it so badly?” The “these people”are the majority of Britons. > The wealthy war criminal Tony Blair remains a hero of the Mandelson “European” class, though few will say so these days. The Guardian once described Blair as “mystical” and has been true to his “project” of rapacious war. > The day after the vote, the columnist Martin Kettle offered a Brechtian solution to the misuse of democracy by the masses.“Now surely we can agree referendums are bad for Britain”, said the headline over his full-page piece. The “we” was unexplained but understood - just as “these people” is understood. “The referendum has conferred less legitimacy on politics, not more,” wrote Kettle. “ … the verdict on referendums should be a ruthless one. Never again.” > The kind of ruthlessness Kettle longs is found in Greece, a country now airbrushed. There, they had a referendum and the result was ignored. Like the Labour Party in Britain, the leaders of the Syriza government in Athens are the products of an affluent, highly privileged, educated middle class, groomed in the fakery and political treachery of post-modernism. The Greek people courageously used the referendum to demand their government sought “better terms” with a venal status in Brussels that was crushing the life out of their country. They were betrayed, as the British would have been betrayed. > On Friday, the Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, was asked by the BBC if he would pay tribute to the departed Cameron, his comrade in the “remain” campaign. Corbyn fulsomely praised Cameron’s “dignity” and noted his backing for gay marriage and his apology to the Irish families of the dead of Bloody Sunday. He said nothing about Cameron’s divisiveness, his brutal austerity policies, his lies about “protecting” the Health Service. Neither did he remind people of the war mongering of the Cameron government: the dispatch of British special forces to Libya and British bomb aimers to Saudi Arabia and, above all, the beckoning of world war three. > In the week of the referendum vote, no British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin’s speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June, 1941. The Soviet victory – at a cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces – won the Second World War. > Putin likened the current frenzied build up of Nato troops and war material on Russia’s western borders to the Third Reich’s Operation Barbarossa. Nato’s exercises in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons. On the eve of the referendum, the quisling Secretary-General of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering “peace and security” if they voted to leave the EU. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn, Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for real peace and democracy in Europe. > https://www.rt.com/op-edge/348454-why-british-no-europe/ > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 16:01:58 2016 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:01:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good point about protest as exception. the problem with america's rejection of war is two-fold... 1. Rejection of war as exception, the same point you made could be said here. 2. We need other groups to join us. There aren't enough AWARE who can walk in the heat, that will be in town, that aren't working that day. 3.5 people can make an impact, but we are also part of a community that is aching to be heard, "fellow americans, democracy means protesting", otherwise we would still have slavery, women could not vote, veterans would have no benefits, workers would have no contracts, and the vietnam war would not have ended. // america doesn't reject war enough. -karen medina On Jun 27, 2016 8:54 AM, "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > The difficulty with this theme is that it implies “protest” is the > exception - and what’s being protested against (war) is is usual and > expected - and therefore in some sense justified - “in possession,” as > lawyers might say. > > We might “Celebrate America” by saying “Celebrate America’s Rejection of > War,” since every US war since the beginning has been opposed by the US > public. (See attachment.) > > As President John Adams wrote in 1813, "The middle third ..., the soundest > part of the Nation [is] always averse to War.” > > —CGE > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's > application today or tomorrow. > > > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on > the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > > > > How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs > poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like > Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history > (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil > Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - > there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like > to say this is what we'll do. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jun 27 16:14:59 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:14:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 3.5 people? (“When you call me .5, smile...”) Americans are averse to war. Killing people is the exception. I’ll carry a poster that says, =================== President Obama: "Turns out I’m really good at killing people.” IS THIS WHAT WE CELEBRATE? =================== > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Karen Medina wrote: > > Very good point about protest as exception. > > the problem with america's rejection of war is two-fold... > 1. Rejection of war as exception, the same point you made could be said here. > 2. We need other groups to join us. There aren't enough AWARE who can walk in the heat, that will be in town, that aren't working that day. 3.5 people can make an impact, but we are also part of a community that is aching to be heard, "fellow americans, democracy means protesting", otherwise we would still have slavery, women could not vote, veterans would have no benefits, workers would have no contracts, and the vietnam war would not have ended. // america doesn't reject war enough. > > -karen medina > > On Jun 27, 2016 8:54 AM, "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > wrote: > The difficulty with this theme is that it implies “protest” is the exception - and what’s being protested against (war) is is usual and expected - and therefore in some sense justified - “in possession,” as lawyers might say. > > We might “Celebrate America” by saying “Celebrate America’s Rejection of War,” since every US war since the beginning has been opposed by the US public. (See attachment.) > > As President John Adams wrote in 1813, "The middle third ..., the soundest part of the Nation [is] always averse to War.” > > —CGE > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace > wrote: > > > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. > > > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > > > > How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jun 27 16:20:11 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:20:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B89D821-7ABC-4069-9919-0C69E71CDD82@newsfromneptune.com> CELEBRATE AMERICA President Obama: "Turns out I’m really good at killing people.” IS THIS WHAT WE CELEBRATE? From mickalideh at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 16:22:03 2016 From: mickalideh at gmail.com (Harry Mickalide) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:22:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: <4B89D821-7ABC-4069-9919-0C69E71CDD82@newsfromneptune.com> References: <4B89D821-7ABC-4069-9919-0C69E71CDD82@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: I'm going to be carrying a "S.T.E.M. Boycotts the War Machine" poster regardless. On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:20 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > CELEBRATE AMERICA > > President Obama: "Turns out > I’m really good at killing people.” > > IS THIS WHAT WE CELEBRATE? > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 16:26:00 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:26:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: <4B89D821-7ABC-4069-9919-0C69E71CDD82@newsfromneptune.com>, Message-ID: Harry, that sounds perfect to me. Keep it simple and to the point.[😊] ________________________________ From: Peace-discuss on behalf of Harry Mickalide via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:22:03 AM To: C. G. Estabrook Cc: Peace Discuss; Peace Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? I'm going to be carrying a "S.T.E.M. Boycotts the War Machine" poster regardless. On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:20 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace > wrote: CELEBRATE AMERICA President Obama: "Turns out I’m really good at killing people.” IS THIS WHAT WE CELEBRATE? _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OutlookEmoji-😊.png Type: image/png Size: 488 bytes Desc: OutlookEmoji-😊.png URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Mon Jun 27 16:33:49 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:33:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1626315135.2374665.1467045229155.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> The good news is that the forecast calls for high 70s next Monday morning.  The bad news is that many CU progressives who oppose war are firmly aligned with the Ammons Democrats. On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:02 AM, Karen Medina via Peace wrote: Very good point about protest as exception.the problem with america's rejection of war is two-fold... 1. Rejection of war as exception, the same  point you made could be said here. 2. We need other groups to join us. There aren't enough AWARE who can walk in the heat, that will be in town, that aren't working that day. 3.5 people can make an impact, but we are also part of a community that is aching to be heard, "fellow americans, democracy means protesting", otherwise we would still have slavery, women could not vote, veterans would have no benefits, workers would have no contracts, and the vietnam  war would not have ended. // america doesn't reject war enough.-karen medinaOn Jun 27, 2016 8:54 AM, "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" wrote: The difficulty with this theme is that it implies “protest” is the exception - and what’s being protested against (war) is is usual and expected - and therefore in some sense justified - “in possession,” as lawyers might say. We might “Celebrate America” by saying “Celebrate America’s Rejection of War,” since every US war since the beginning has been opposed by the US public. (See attachment.) As President John Adams wrote in 1813, "The middle third ..., the soundest part of the Nation [is] always averse to War.” —CGE > On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace wrote: > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again.   We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > >     How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI...  - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme?   Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon Jun 27 16:52:42 2016 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:52:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: <1626315135.2374665.1467045229155.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1626315135.2374665.1467045229155.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8B9D2953-ABAC-4884-984E-1136A3AC7781@illinois.edu> And this while the sitting Democrat president (and the wanna-be Democrat president) are "the greatest purveyors of violence in the world today”! Surely our job is to point out these lies and contradictions. ========== CELEBRATE ‘AMERICA'? Pres. Obama: “Turns out I’m really good at killing people.” ============= > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:33 AM, David Green wrote: > > The good news is that the forecast calls for high 70s next Monday morning. The bad news is that many CU progressives who oppose war are firmly aligned with the Ammons Democrats. > > > On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:02 AM, Karen Medina via Peace wrote: > > > Very good point about protest as exception. > the problem with america's rejection of war is two-fold... > 1. Rejection of war as exception, the same point you made could be said here. > 2. We need other groups to join us. There aren't enough AWARE who can walk in the heat, that will be in town, that aren't working that day. 3.5 people can make an impact, but we are also part of a community that is aching to be heard, "fellow americans, democracy means protesting", otherwise we would still have slavery, women could not vote, veterans would have no benefits, workers would have no contracts, and the vietnam war would not have ended. // america doesn't reject war enough. > -karen medina > On Jun 27, 2016 8:54 AM, "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" wrote: > The difficulty with this theme is that it implies “protest” is the exception - and what’s being protested against (war) is is usual and expected - and therefore in some sense justified - “in possession,” as lawyers might say. > > We might “Celebrate America” by saying “Celebrate America’s Rejection of War,” since every US war since the beginning has been opposed by the US public. (See attachment.) > > As President John Adams wrote in 1813, "The middle third ..., the soundest part of the Nation [is] always averse to War.” > > —CGE > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace wrote: > > > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. > > > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > > > > How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jun 27 17:08:44 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:08:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: <1626315135.2374665.1467045229155.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1626315135.2374665.1467045229155.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9A32761B-94C0-4103-BAB3-2898E34906A7@newsfromneptune.com> CELEBRATE AMERICA’S AVERSION TO WAR “The soundest part of the Nation is always averse to War.” --Pres. John Adams, 1813 US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People In 37 Nations Since WWII Obama's Drone Assassinations Kill Thousands: US citizens & hundreds of children... 'The Most Extreme Terrorist Campaign of Modern Times' > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:33 AM, David Green wrote: > > The good news is that the forecast calls for high 70s next Monday morning. The bad news is that many CU progressives who oppose war are firmly aligned with the Ammons Democrats. > > > On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:02 AM, Karen Medina via Peace wrote: > > > Very good point about protest as exception. > the problem with america's rejection of war is two-fold... > 1. Rejection of war as exception, the same point you made could be said here. > 2. We need other groups to join us. There aren't enough AWARE who can walk in the heat, that will be in town, that aren't working that day. 3.5 people can make an impact, but we are also part of a community that is aching to be heard, "fellow americans, democracy means protesting", otherwise we would still have slavery, women could not vote, veterans would have no benefits, workers would have no contracts, and the vietnam war would not have ended. // america doesn't reject war enough. > -karen medina > On Jun 27, 2016 8:54 AM, "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" > wrote: > The difficulty with this theme is that it implies “protest” is the exception - and what’s being protested against (war) is is usual and expected - and therefore in some sense justified - “in possession,” as lawyers might say. > > We might “Celebrate America” by saying “Celebrate America’s Rejection of War,” since every US war since the beginning has been opposed by the US public. (See attachment.) > > As President John Adams wrote in 1813, "The middle third ..., the soundest part of the Nation [is] always averse to War.” > > —CGE > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace > wrote: > > > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's application today or tomorrow. > > > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > > > > How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like to say this is what we'll do. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Jun 27 20:53:40 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 20:53:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Have a Chilcot Fourth of July References: Message-ID: FYI Begin forwarded message: From: David Swanson > Subject: [ufpj-activist] Have a Chilcot Fourth of July Date: June 27, 2016 at 2:58:40 PM CDT To: David Swanson > Have a Chilcot Fourth of July By David Swanson http://davidswanson.org/node/5195 [http://www.davidswanson.org/sites/davidswanson.org/files/UScrimes2WEB.jpg] This Fourth of July, U.S. war makers will be drinking fermented grain, grilling dead flesh, traumatizing veterans with colorful explosions, and thanking their lucky stars and campaign contributors that they don't live in rotten old England. And I don't mean because of King George III. I'm talking about the Chilcot Inquiry. According to a British newspaper: "The long-awaited Chilcot report into the Iraq war is reportedly set to savage Tony Blair and other former government officials in an 'absolutely brutal' verdict on the failings of the occupation." Let's be clear, the "brutal" "savaging" is metaphorical, not of the sort actually done to Iraq. By the most scientifically respected measures available, the war killed 1.4 million Iraqis, saw 4.2 million injured, and 4.5 million people become refugees. The 1.4 million dead was 5% of the population. The invasion included 29,200 air strikes, followed by 3,900 over the next eight years. The U.S. military targeted civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances. It used cluster bombs, white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new kind of napalm in urban areas. Birth defects, cancer rates, and infant mortality have soared. Water supplies, sewage treatment plants, hospitals, bridges, and electricity supplies were devastated, and not repaired. For years, the occupying forces encouraged ethnic and sectarian division and violence, resulting in a segregated country and the repression of rights that Iraqis had enjoyed even under Saddam Hussein's brutal police state. Terrorist groups, including one that took the name ISIS, arose and flourished. This enormous crime was not a well-intended project that experienced a few "failings of the occupation." It was not something that could have been done properly, or legally, or morally. The only decent thing that could have been done with this war, as with any war, was not to start it. There was no need for yet another investigation. The crime has been out in the open from the start. All the obvious lies about weapons and ties to terrorists could have been true and still wouldn't have justified or legalized the war. What's needed is accountability, which is why Tony Blair may now find himself impeached. Holding UK accomplices to the crime accountable is not a step toward getting them to squeal on their U.S. bosses, because the secrets are all in the open. But perhaps it can set an example. Perhaps even a UK-free European Union will someday take steps to hold U.S. criminals to account. It's too late, of course, to dissuade President Obama from expanding on Bush's abuses by holding Bush accountable. But there is the problem of the next president (with both major parties nominating people who supported the 2003 invasion), and the problem of a subservient Congress. There is also the screaming need, ever more urgent, for massive reparations to the people of Iraq. That step, required by justice and humanity, would of course cost less financially than continuing the never-ending wars in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. It would also make the United States safer. These articles of impeachment were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Dennis Kucinich on June 9, 2008, as H. Res. 1258 Article I Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq. Article II Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression. Article III Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War. Article IV Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States. Article V Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression. Article VI Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114. Article VII Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War. Article VIII Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter. Article IX Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor. Article X Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes. Article XI Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq. Article XII Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources. Article XIIII Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries. Article XIV Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency. Article XV Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq. Article XVI Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors. Article XVII Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives. Article XVIII Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy. Article XIX Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to "Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture. Article XX Imprisoning Children. Article XXI Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government. Article XXII Creating Secret Laws. Article XXIII Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. Article XXIV Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment. Article XXV Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens. Article XXVI Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements. Article XXVII Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply. Article XXVIII Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice. Article XXIX Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Article XXX Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare. Article XXXI Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency. Article XXXII Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change. Article XXXIII Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911. Article XXXIV Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001. Article XXXV Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders. -- 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/brussel%40illinois.edu You are subscribed as: brussel at illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Mon Jun 27 21:22:24 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 16:22:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: <8isglk5r0ny7k33qrtat0whv.1467020111107@email.android.com> References: <8isglk5r0ny7k33qrtat0whv.1467020111107@email.android.com> Message-ID: <7E3F248D-3FA4-4991-9E14-44582BE2D378@newsfromneptune.com> [Poster suggestions for July 4] Celebrate America END THE DRONE ASSASSINATIONS Celebrate America BRING ALL U.S. TROOPS HOME Celebrate America CLOSE 1,000 U.S. OVERSEAS BASES Celebrate America STOP PROVOKING RUSSIA & CHINA Celebrate America STOP SUPPORTING ISRAELI APARTHEID Celebrate America END THE SYRIAN & IRAQI CIVIL WARS ### From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Jun 27 21:33:10 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <096A34F4-1F1A-4438-BD3C-0C7D83D33E6E@illinois.edu> A sublime polemic!! —mkb On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: 20 hrs Why the British Said No to Europe By John Pilger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Mon Jun 27 21:33:10 2016 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:33:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <096A34F4-1F1A-4438-BD3C-0C7D83D33E6E@illinois.edu> A sublime polemic!! —mkb On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: 20 hrs Why the British Said No to Europe By John Pilger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 21:54:49 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:54:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? In-Reply-To: <096A34F4-1F1A-4438-BD3C-0C7D83D33E6E@illinois.edu> References: , <096A34F4-1F1A-4438-BD3C-0C7D83D33E6E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Ok Mort, read Carl's perhaps you'll like that one better. ________________________________ From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:33:10 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? A sublime polemic!! —mkb On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: 20 hrs Why the British Said No to Europe By John Pilger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon Jun 27 21:54:49 2016 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:54:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? In-Reply-To: <096A34F4-1F1A-4438-BD3C-0C7D83D33E6E@illinois.edu> References: , <096A34F4-1F1A-4438-BD3C-0C7D83D33E6E@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Ok Mort, read Carl's perhaps you'll like that one better. ________________________________ From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 4:33:10 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: Peace Discuss; peace at lists.chambana.net; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] A better Brexit analysis? A sublime polemic!! —mkb On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: 20 hrs Why the British Said No to Europe By John Pilger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmedina67 at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 03:57:59 2016 From: kmedina67 at gmail.com (Karen Medina) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 22:57:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: <9A32761B-94C0-4103-BAB3-2898E34906A7@newsfromneptune.com> References: <1626315135.2374665.1467045229155.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <9A32761B-94C0-4103-BAB3-2898E34906A7@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Perfect. Now we need a sign making party. Would saturday night work? Where? On Jun 27, 2016 12:08 PM, "C. G. Estabrook" wrote: > CELEBRATE AMERICA’S > AVERSION TO WAR > “The soundest part of the Nation > is always averse to War.” > --Pres. John Adams, 1813 > > US Has Killed > More Than 20 > Million People > In 37 Nations > Since WWII > > Obama's Drone Assassinations > Kill Thousands: US citizens > & hundreds of children... > 'The Most Extreme Terrorist > Campaign of Modern Times' > > > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 11:33 AM, David Green wrote: > > The good news is that the forecast calls for high 70s next Monday > morning. The bad news is that many CU progressives who oppose war are > firmly aligned with the Ammons Democrats. > > > On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:02 AM, Karen Medina via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Very good point about protest as exception. > the problem with america's rejection of war is two-fold... > 1. Rejection of war as exception, the same point you made could be said > here. > 2. We need other groups to join us. There aren't enough AWARE who can walk > in the heat, that will be in town, that aren't working that day. 3.5 people > can make an impact, but we are also part of a community that is aching to > be heard, "fellow americans, democracy means protesting", otherwise we > would still have slavery, women could not vote, veterans would have no > benefits, workers would have no contracts, and the vietnam war would not > have ended. // america doesn't reject war enough. > -karen medina > On Jun 27, 2016 8:54 AM, "Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss" < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > The difficulty with this theme is that it implies “protest” is the > exception - and what’s being protested against (war) is is usual and > expected - and therefore in some sense justified - “in possession,” as > lawyers might say. > > We might “Celebrate America” by saying “Celebrate America’s Rejection of > War,” since every US war since the beginning has been opposed by the US > public. (See attachment.) > > As President John Adams wrote in 1813, "The middle third ..., the soundest > part of the Nation [is] always averse to War.” > > —CGE > > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:47 PM, Stuart Levy via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > Thinking about July 4th Parade time again. We'll be sending in AWARE's > application today or tomorrow. > > > > Karen Medina had an idea which I think is just brilliant, taking off on > the generic parade theme of "Celebrating America": > > > > How about Celebrating America's History of Protest? > > > > We can go for anti-war anti-imperial protests (need a Eugene V Debs > poster!), anti-slavery protests (some of our old signs might fit, like > Elijah Lovejoy of Alton, IL), for protests throughout labor history > (collective bargaining, a 40-hour week, minimum wage...)!, for the Civil > Rights movement protests, for the great veterans' protest after WWI... - > there are lots of directions and we can choose whatever we most like. > > > > Anyone mind adopting this (broad) theme? Barring objections I'd like > to say this is what we'll do. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace mailing list > > Peace at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Jun 28 04:05:28 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 23:05:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] July 4th - how about Celebrating America's History of Protest? In-Reply-To: References: <1626315135.2374665.1467045229155.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <9A32761B-94C0-4103-BAB3-2898E34906A7@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: My house (where Piketty reading group met) is available. > On Jun 27, 2016, at 10:57 PM, Karen Medina via Peace wrote: > > Perfect. > Now we need a sign making party. > Would saturday night work? Where? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jun 28 21:12:34 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:12:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for July 2 demo 2-4pm Church & Neil (draft) Message-ID: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> Comments welcomed. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer-20160702.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 4452 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jun 28 21:12:34 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:12:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for July 2 demo 2-4pm Church & Neil (draft) Message-ID: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> Comments welcomed. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer-20160702.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 4452 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jun 28 21:18:54 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:18:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for July 2 demo 2-4pm Church & Neil (draft - unzipped) In-Reply-To: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <7C8364F8-E177-48E5-AAB9-B41BCAA719AE@newsfromneptune.com> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer-20160702.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 4469 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Comments welcomed. —CGE From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jun 28 21:18:54 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:18:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for July 2 demo 2-4pm Church & Neil (draft - unzipped) In-Reply-To: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <7C8364F8-E177-48E5-AAB9-B41BCAA719AE@newsfromneptune.com> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer-20160702.rtfd.zip Type: application/zip Size: 4469 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Comments welcomed. —CGE From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jun 28 21:39:34 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:39:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for July 2 demo 2-4pm Church & Neil (draft - text) In-Reply-To: <7C8364F8-E177-48E5-AAB9-B41BCAA719AE@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> <7C8364F8-E177-48E5-AAB9-B41BCAA719AE@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: [RECTO] A.W.A.R.E. The Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana The U.S. government is waging illegal wars around the world and secretly twisting the international economy via ‘trade pacts’ (TPP, TTIP) for the benefit of less than 1% of the U.S. population. Join our demonstration the first Saturday of every month, at the intersection of Church and Neil in Champaign, 2-4pm Meet with us Saturdays at the Urbana Farmers’ Market (Lincoln Square) for books, bumper stickers, literature, and conversation Watch our weekly Urbana Public Television (channel 6) program “AWARE on the Air” (also on YouTube), and/or join us at noon Tuesdays in the Urbana City Council Chambers for the live unrehearsed recordings We meet Sundays at 5pm at Cafeteria & Company, 208 W. Main, Urbana; new members welcome: for information write us at > *** President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending U.S. ‘special forces’ into more than 3/4 of the countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. Contact the president (202-456-1111) and our representatives in Congress (202-224-3121): tell them to end the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least half, bring the troops home, and close the US military’s 1,000 foreign bases; stop US support for - and arms sales to - human rights abusers like Israel, and lead on global nuclear disarmament. President Barack Obama - Senator Dick Durbin - Senator Mark Kirk - Representative Rodney Davis - [VERSO] AWARE will have people marching with signs in the Champaign County Freedom Celebration on July 4 . The theme is “Celebrate America!” AWARE will CELEBRATE AMERICA'S HISTORY OF PROTEST. Although the U.S. government is (as Martin Luther King said) “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” Americans have protested all of the wars that U.S. governments have gotten into, from the beginning. President John Adams wrote in 1813, “The middle third [is] the soundest part of the Nation and always averse to War.” AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1775-83: American leaders encourage separation from Britain not for ‘liberty’ but to protect the slave economy from British threats to abolish it. They establish a Constitution not for democracy but to "protect the minority of the opulent [the rich] against the majority" (James Madison). AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1860-65: Lincoln and the Republicans attack the South not to free the slaves but to bring the whole country’s economy under Northern control. ("A house divided against itself cannot stand.") WORLD WAR I 1917-18: President Wilson is re-elected in 1916 on the slogan, “He kept us out of war!” - while he is scheming with New York banks to get the U.S. into the First World War. (His Creel Commission produces propaganda for war from leading intellectuals.) WORLD WAR II 1941-45: President Roosevelt uses Pearl Harbor (probably known in advance) to get an anti-war public to continue the fight for U.S. control of the Pacific, while Russia defeats Germany in Europe. KOREA 1950-53: President Truman uses atomic bombs to show U.S. military superiority to the post-WWII world, then uses Russia and China to “scare hell out of the American people” to continue war economy. VIETNAM 1962-75: President Kennedy carpet-bombs and sends troops to deter “the threat of a good example” - a post-colonial society developing outside U.S. world economic control (the ‘domino theory’). TERROR WARS I: CENTRAL AMERICA 1981-96 President Reagan plans to do in Central America what Kennedy did in Vietnam but is prevented by post-Vietnam anti-war sentiment; so he sponsors proxy wars throughout the region. TERROR WARS II: MIDEAST 1991-ongoing President Bush I attacks Iraq in 1991 to “kick the Vietnam syndrome” [= the public’s aversion to war post-Vietnam] and begin a generation of U.S. attacks on the Mideast to control its energy resources. Greatest antiwar demonstrations in U.S. and world history take place before President Bush II’s lying invasion of Iraq. President Obama continues and expands the wars after lying that he opposed them, to get elected. “...what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge.” [The Tempest 2.1] ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Tue Jun 28 21:39:34 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:39:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for July 2 demo 2-4pm Church & Neil (draft - text) In-Reply-To: <7C8364F8-E177-48E5-AAB9-B41BCAA719AE@newsfromneptune.com> References: <8B99CF0F-1AB3-4F59-BB91-1F5DCE2CF91C@newsfromneptune.com> <7C8364F8-E177-48E5-AAB9-B41BCAA719AE@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: [RECTO] A.W.A.R.E. The Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana The U.S. government is waging illegal wars around the world and secretly twisting the international economy via ‘trade pacts’ (TPP, TTIP) for the benefit of less than 1% of the U.S. population. Join our demonstration the first Saturday of every month, at the intersection of Church and Neil in Champaign, 2-4pm Meet with us Saturdays at the Urbana Farmers’ Market (Lincoln Square) for books, bumper stickers, literature, and conversation Watch our weekly Urbana Public Television (channel 6) program “AWARE on the Air” (also on YouTube), and/or join us at noon Tuesdays in the Urbana City Council Chambers for the live unrehearsed recordings We meet Sundays at 5pm at Cafeteria & Company, 208 W. Main, Urbana; new members welcome: for information write us at > *** President Obama is making war in eight countries; he is sending U.S. ‘special forces’ into more than 3/4 of the countries around the world; he has assassinated thousands by drone - the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times; and he is provoking war with Russia and China. Contact the president (202-456-1111) and our representatives in Congress (202-224-3121): tell them to end the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least half, bring the troops home, and close the US military’s 1,000 foreign bases; stop US support for - and arms sales to - human rights abusers like Israel, and lead on global nuclear disarmament. President Barack Obama - Senator Dick Durbin - Senator Mark Kirk - Representative Rodney Davis - [VERSO] AWARE will have people marching with signs in the Champaign County Freedom Celebration on July 4 . The theme is “Celebrate America!” AWARE will CELEBRATE AMERICA'S HISTORY OF PROTEST. Although the U.S. government is (as Martin Luther King said) “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today,” Americans have protested all of the wars that U.S. governments have gotten into, from the beginning. President John Adams wrote in 1813, “The middle third [is] the soundest part of the Nation and always averse to War.” AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE 1775-83: American leaders encourage separation from Britain not for ‘liberty’ but to protect the slave economy from British threats to abolish it. They establish a Constitution not for democracy but to "protect the minority of the opulent [the rich] against the majority" (James Madison). AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 1860-65: Lincoln and the Republicans attack the South not to free the slaves but to bring the whole country’s economy under Northern control. ("A house divided against itself cannot stand.") WORLD WAR I 1917-18: President Wilson is re-elected in 1916 on the slogan, “He kept us out of war!” - while he is scheming with New York banks to get the U.S. into the First World War. (His Creel Commission produces propaganda for war from leading intellectuals.) WORLD WAR II 1941-45: President Roosevelt uses Pearl Harbor (probably known in advance) to get an anti-war public to continue the fight for U.S. control of the Pacific, while Russia defeats Germany in Europe. KOREA 1950-53: President Truman uses atomic bombs to show U.S. military superiority to the post-WWII world, then uses Russia and China to “scare hell out of the American people” to continue war economy. VIETNAM 1962-75: President Kennedy carpet-bombs and sends troops to deter “the threat of a good example” - a post-colonial society developing outside U.S. world economic control (the ‘domino theory’). TERROR WARS I: CENTRAL AMERICA 1981-96 President Reagan plans to do in Central America what Kennedy did in Vietnam but is prevented by post-Vietnam anti-war sentiment; so he sponsors proxy wars throughout the region. TERROR WARS II: MIDEAST 1991-ongoing President Bush I attacks Iraq in 1991 to “kick the Vietnam syndrome” [= the public’s aversion to war post-Vietnam] and begin a generation of U.S. attacks on the Mideast to control its energy resources. Greatest antiwar demonstrations in U.S. and world history take place before President Bush II’s lying invasion of Iraq. President Obama continues and expands the wars after lying that he opposed them, to get elected. “...what's past is prologue, what to come / In yours and my discharge.” [The Tempest 2.1] ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mkb3 at icloud.com Wed Jun 29 00:53:30 2016 From: mkb3 at icloud.com (Morton K. Brussel) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 19:53:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Article by Gareth Porter Message-ID: <7276D3E5-D29B-4E9A-894D-AFA67612EBA1@icloud.com> FYI— http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36603-why-the-sanders-revolution-must-take-on-the-permanent-war-state Few talk so well about this issue, “the Permanent War State". —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jun 29 01:47:45 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 20:47:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, June 28 Message-ID: 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: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed Jun 29 01:53:18 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 01:53:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, June 28 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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: From carl at newsfromneptune.com Wed Jun 29 02:39:19 2016 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 21:39:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air for June 28 (#369) In-Reply-To: <33E96E7D-348A-4440-9986-269D6C990A8C@newsfromneptune.com> References: <33E96E7D-348A-4440-9986-269D6C990A8C@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: <32ACB17D-37F1-4628-8414-DF295C3BB542@newsfromneptune.com> 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 #369 was recorded at noon on Tuesday 28 June in the studios of Urbana Public Television for cablecast Tuesday at 10pm & on demand on YouTube. The panel included Karen Aram, Francis Boyle, David Green, Harry Mickalide, and Ron Szoke. https://www.facebook.com/groups/305897426305/ ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davegreen84 at yahoo.com Wed Jun 29 16:10:07 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 16:10:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Article by Gareth Porter In-Reply-To: <7276D3E5-D29B-4E9A-894D-AFA67612EBA1@icloud.com> References: <7276D3E5-D29B-4E9A-894D-AFA67612EBA1@icloud.com> Message-ID: <932196418.3658579.1467216607102.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> This is of course a good article by a reliable observer over the past 50 years. But I would also suggest that it is somewhat important to see the "national interest" as determined by the "executive committee of the bourgeoisie," as being more than the sum of the parts of the particular pecuniary interests involved, whether weapons manufacturers, corporate providers of mercenary services, etc. That "national interest" has do with both ruling the world by force, and with scaring Americans into silence and compliance. It is about maintaining a system that allows for the accumulation of wealth in a few hands, whichever hands they may be, agriculture, high tech, etc. Bankers--who understand and maintain the infrastructure of global capitalism--are more fundamental to the perpetuation of this system than arms manufacturers, etc. DG On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 7:53 PM, Morton K. Brussel via Peace-discuss wrote: FYI— http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/36603-why-the-sanders-revolution-must-take-on-the-permanent-war-state Few talk so well about this issue, “the Permanent War State". —mkb _______________________________________________ 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 Jun 30 00:39:30 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 00:39:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, June 28 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 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: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1625 bytes Desc: image003.jpg URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu Jun 30 01:47:10 2016 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 01:47:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, June 28 References: Message-ID: 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 davegreen84 at yahoo.com Thu Jun 30 14:00:07 2016 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: A Critical Perspective References: <2141317894.4271054.1467295207117.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2141317894.4271054.1467295207117.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective | | | | | | | | | | | Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective The problem of sexual assault and rape culture on college campuses is a serious one, and an even greater one bey... | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: